House of Representatives
2 June 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 3093

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson, Mr Stewart, Mr Lynch, Mr Gorton, Mr Adermann, Mr Bourchier, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mrs Child, Mr Cope, Mr Corbett, Mr Cross, Mr Drury, Mr Duthie, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Fisher, Mr Garrick, Mr Graham, Mr Hodges, Mr Hunt, Mr James, Mr Jarman, Mr Jenkins, Mr Keogh, Mr King, Mr Lamb, Mr McVeigh, Mr Macphee, Mr Mathews, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Oldmeadow, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Wentworth and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Chipp.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  2. By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  4. Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.

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

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

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

That the proposed entry by the Australian Government into the competitive field of Insurance is contrary to the best interests of the tax payer in Australia.

Your petitioners humbly request that the Government therefore desist in such legislation.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and unproved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drury, Dr Gun, Mr Jarman, Mr MacKellar, Mr Macphee, Mr Ruddock and Mr Thorburn.

Petitions received.

Wool Reserve Price

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

That the state of the wool industry is such that a stable reserve price scheme is paramount to the survival of the industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the reserve price be maintained at, at least 250 cents.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Corbett, Mr Hewson, Mr King, Mr Lusher and Mr McVeigh.

Petitions received.

Nuclear Power

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia by this our humble petition respectively showeth:

Whereas the use of nuclear fission for power generation presents unacceptable hazards to life, and

Whereas plentiful supplies of energy are essential if there is not to be severe social and industrial dislocation in the coming period of intense population pressure on rapidly disappearing and quite irreplaceable geological resources, your petitioners humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to initiate international action against the use of nuclear power and for a crash program of research and development into safe and replaceable sources of energy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry and Mr Thorburn.

Petitions received.

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540 000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses,

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

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

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

Petitions received.

PalestineLiberation Organization

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

  1. 1 ) That we are gravely concerned at

    1. the support which has been given to the Palestine Liberation Organization by the Government of Australia in granting visas to members of that organization, a professed terrorist group, which has as an integral part of its charter the destruction of the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is fully recognised and respected by Australia; and
    2. b) the social divisiveness and violence which the visits of such representatives of that terrorist organization have already brought and will further bring to Australia, and
  2. That we believe

    1. the presence in Australia of 2 members of the General Union of Palestinian Students is unacceptable to and destructive of Australian democracy and heritage, and
    2. a democratic country like Australia, in keeping with the traditional support extended by the people of

Australia to the people of the State of Israel and the parts played by the late Dr Evatt and Sir Robert Menzies in the establishment and survival of Israel, will not permit a betrayal of that traditional friendship.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will ensure that all available legal apparatus is used to restrain or prevent members of the General Union of Palestinian Students visiting Australia and persons sponsoring their visit from taking actions which are offensive to law and order and inimical to our Australian tradition of peace and democracy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. . byMrMacphee.

Petition received.

Medibank

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 3095

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3095

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to put an end to speculation that he is about to replace Dr Cairns as Treasurer. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Dr Cairns, if he is replaced as Treasurer, will not be named as Minister for Defence? Will he also tell us what is likely to happen to the present Minister for Defence?

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

– I suppose that I must enter into the spirit of this unaccustomed jollification by the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say is that all his questions catch me with my pants down.

page 3096

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTIES: CAMPAIGN FUNDS

Mr RIORDAN:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Services and Property seen reports of evidence given before a sub-committee of the United States Senate that certain oil companies were engaged in the payment of bribes and the making of contributions to political parties in various parts of the world? Is the Minister aware of any section of the Electoral Act that prevents the raising of campaign funds abroad by individuals or political parties?

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

– I have not actually seen that report, but I do know that campaign funds are collected from many sources. It is a well known fact that the National Country Party is financed practically completely by the oil companies of Australia.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– And the insurance companies.

Mr DALY:

– And the insurance companies of course. There is one oil company which I might say has written to me; that is Esso Australia Ltd which wrote to me on 22 May 1975. The letter says:

I notice in the Hansard record for May 14, 1973, that you are reported as staring that ‘One is well aware that the Country Party is in the grip of the oil companies and that its campaign machinery is extremely well oiled’.

We would like you to know that Esso Australia Ltd, strictly observe a policy which precludes contributions to political parties or organisations, and that whilst we obviously do not seek to speak for any other company, Esso is in no way involved with the Country Party. We feel it desirable that this policy should be brought to your attention.

I would assume that, probably, the Liberal Party is supported. Nevertheless this company has exempted itself.

Another interesting document dealing with funds has come to my attention. I have here a letter circulated by the Chief Opposition Whip to all Liberal members of the House of Representatives. I received it because I am so broadminded, I suppose. The letter says:

The Federal Secretariat has advised me that Liberal Party supporters in London have formed a group in order to help the Liberal Party at election time and in any other way possible.

They would be delighted to have you call on them - and so it goes on. The words ‘in any other way possible’ are very sinister. No doubt they mean that this group has been formed to raise campaign funds from multi-nationals and oil companies in Great Britain. I have the document here. It is headed ‘Liberal Party London Group’, and commences:

John Atwill, NSW President, at Barclay Hotel, London from today would welcome your contact..

It is dated 17 April. Is it not sinister to think that the Liberal Party is raising funds abroad, as the honourable member for Phillip said? If Liberal Party supporters are not raising funds, what is the purpose of the meeting? Is it a meeting place where they can talk of the good old days when they were in Government, or is it for raising funds? Are they going to form an Opposition in exile with their multiplicity of ex-leaders, exPrime Ministers and ex-members of the former Government?

page 3096

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Attorney-General been correctly reported in the Sydney Press to the effect that he strongly supports lower tariffs? Is it true that lower tariffs introduced in 1973 by the Government have created over 120 000 unemployed in the textile and clothing industries alone? Is this more than one-third of Australia’s registered unemployed? Has this policy been a disaster for the textile industries, seriously affecting both employers and employees? How does the Minister reconcile his statements that lower tariffs are in Australia’s interests, when this great industry with other local manufacturing industries is in a state of economic chaos?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I was correctly reported; but I would deny that the changes in the tariff in 1973 produced the result described by the honourable gentleman. Other circumstances may have produced a result that the honourable gentleman exaggerates, but they were not the changes in the tariff. There can be little doubt that Australians pay a very high price for the high level of tariffs with which we protect our industry. It was estimated some years ago by what was then the Tariff Board that if all the protection available was used the cost overall to the consumer- to the customer and to the average Australian who buys his goods- in unnecessarily high prices could be as high as $3,000m a year.

There are other aspects of the problem, of course, in terms of the misallocation of resources, general efficiency and lack of efficiency in Australian industry. The real difficulty is that when governments try to improve the allocation of resources to make for more efficiency in the interests of Australians generally, this must be done at a rate of change that is manageable. In the international scene at the moment, because of the international situation in economic matters, that rate of change is a most difficult one to achieve.

page 3097

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Mr Nixon:

– Where did the honourable member come from?

Mr SHERRY:

– From London at half-past 11 last night. It was delicious; I did not see the honourable member for Gippsland for a week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member does not answer interjections.

Mr SHERRY:

– Can the Minister inform the House what progress is being made under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in the provision of welfare housing?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The returns which are coming in from the various States indicate that the number of housing commencements to be undertaken in the current financial year will represent the highest level in any year since any Australian Government assisted States with the public or welfare housing program. It is estimated that the number of houses to be commenced this year will be in the vicinity of 1 3 600. This is 5000 higher than the number commenced in the previous year. I am sure all honourable members will draw gratification from this fact because a large number of people are still waiting for housing assistance. The increase in percentage terms over the previous year is 65 per cent. This achievement reflects the fact that the previous Liberal Government provided $163m for the public housing program. In the current financial year we will provide not less than $375m. The increase will help to reduce the waiting list which, over the years, has assumed very high proportions.

page 3097

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer the following question: During his recent visit to the Middle East did the honourable gentleman meet an intermediary in Jeddah who has been seeking to raise a $2,000m loan for the Government? Did he also endeavour to negotiate a loan from the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority? Has that authority offered any funds to the Government? If so, what has been the Government’s response.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I saw no person when I was in Jeddah about any prospective $2,000m loan. I had discussions with the Governor of the Saudi

Arabian Monetary Authority about the prospects of direct loans to the Australian Government, having been authorised by an Act of this Parliament to seek funds overseas for the Australian Industry Development Corporation to the extent of $250m and having the Executive Council authority for that purpose. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority is favourably disposed towards lending to Australia on a long-term basis and was prepared to offer $250m as a first instalment. The composition and the terms and rates of the loan are still under discussion. Until these matters of composition and rates are finalised it cannot be taken any further.

page 3097

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Mr CLAYTON:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

-Can the Special Minister of State explain to the House the purpose of the Prices Justification Tribunal and the role it plays in the economy of this country?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
ALP

-That is a very important question because the Prices Justification Tribunal has been the subject of deliberate denigration by the Opposition.

Mr Chipp:

– You are making a fool of yourself.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The only fools are those who criticise the Prices Justification Tribunal. Let me give honourable members some examples. In February last Nylex Corporation Limited criticised the Prices Justification Tribunal but the company made no application before the Tribunal. In the same month Repco Ltd criticised the Tribunal but made no application before it. Last Friday the Berger Paints company criticised the Tribunal. I understand that in August it made an application which it had to withdraw because its notice was in error. It made a second application, and again something was wrong with the notice. Because of those matters it blamed the Tribunal for what it deemed to be its loss of profits. There has been a campaign by a number of major companies- many of which have had no application before the Tribunalcompletely denigrating the Tribunal. The Opposition says that it would do away with the Tribunal. We might ask: ‘What would the Opposition place in its stead?’ We should look at the Opposition’s policy on price control in this country. It says: ‘We leave it to the States’. We should look at the consumer price index and how rentals affect it. One of the biggest factors in the consumer price index has been the rental increase. That is solely within the ambit of the States, and they have done nothing about it.

Let us look at the number of matters that have been before the Tribunal. I think that up to

December last there were 7600 applications, of which 6600 were dealt with automatically. Approximately another 1000 applicants had then prices adjusted by agreement About 44 applications were dealt with by the Tribunal. In every case the applicant accepted the Tribunal’s findings. In one case, that of the Caltex Oil company application, the Victorian Government intervened on behalf of the consumers in that State and suggested that the Tribunal not grant the increase sought by that company. So the Tribunal is playing an effective role. It is the one forum in which people can give evidence and cross-examine an applicant as to whether it is entitled to the price. If this Tribunal did not exist, what other yardstick would there be as to the prices which could be charged? The Opposition wants unbridled attack by companies as to what they may charge. There has to be some reasonableness. If wages are pegged, prices must be justified. The Tribunal has had its jurisdiction increased to encompass those companies which have a turnover of less than $20m a year. It has a much more effective jurisdiction now. It is doing very effective work. I hope that those company directors who criticise the Tribunal will give some evidence to justify their criticism.

page 3098

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Housing and Construction been drawn to the abnormally low level of building approvals reported by the Bureau .of Statistics for the last 12 months? Does it indicate that the $150m which was channelled through the banks last year to assist the building industry is being used substantially to purchase established homes or for remortgaging purposes and has been of little use to the industry?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The approval rate that is in evidence now can be regarded only as extremely encouraging. I know that the honourable gentleman’s attitude generally is to the effect that one should not take too much cognisance of approvals and that the only figure which really counts is commencements. I trust that he will pardon me for continuing to display optimism in the face of the fact that loan approvals are rising arid running at a very impressive level. He may know that the approval rate for April was 11761 and that it was the highest rate since July 1 974. It represented a 12 per cent rise over the approval rate in March 1975. He asks whether too much of the loans being approved is going towards used housing, or something to that effect. I think there is evidence to show that that has been the case. That is to be expected in circumstances in which the new housing market is affected by rising interest rates, rising land costs and the like. The indications now are that the used housing stock is being cleared out. The approvals from now on are more likely to be oriented to the utilisation of new houses, thus providing a very stimulating effect to the housing industry. It seems to me that the predictions which I have been making for quite some time, to the effect that in the second half of 1975 there will be an effective stimulus for the housing industry, are likely to be fulfilled.

page 3098

QUESTION

MINING ON FRASER ISLAND

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to last Wednesday’s decision of the High Court of Australia upholding an appeal relating to mining on Fraser Island? Does this decision have any significance for environmental protection?

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

-I assume that the honourable gentleman refers to a decision reported as Sinclair against the Mining Warden of Maryborough and Queensland Titanium Mines Pty Ltd. The decision was handed down by the High Court, I think, last Wednesday. No written judgment is yet available but oral reasons were given. Briefly, the facts are that Mr Sinclair, on behalf of the Fraser Island Defence Organisation, appeared before the Mining Warden and was heard on environmental matters. The Mining Warden took a rather narrow view of his function under the Queensland legislation and actually did not conduct a full hearing. Indeed, it seems that he took the view that the evidence put by Mr Sinclair on behalf of the environmental movement represented only a sectional interest and was not to be equated or consistent with the public interest at large.

The objector then went to the Queensland Supreme Court, for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that the Mining Warden conduct a proper inquiry, and failed there. He then took the case to the High Court, which unanimously held that the original inquiry by the Mining Warden had not been properly conducted. A mandamus was issued and if I have a correct report of what the High Court judges said unanimously, it was held that the environmental interest is much wider and much more important than the Mining Warden considered appropriate for it. I think the best I can do is to quote Mr Justice Gibbs, who said:

It was clear that the Mining Warden considered that because Sinclair represented only a small section of people the interest of the general public would not be affected by the granting of the leases.

Environmentalists can take considerable satisfaction from the decision of the High Court. I have conveyed the decision to the Minister for Minerals and Energy and also to the Minister for the Environment for their consideration. I should also inform the House, in conclusion, that legal assistance through the Australian Legal Aid Office was given to the objector and the environmental movement right from the beginning; in the hearing before the Mining Warden, in the hearing for the writ of mandamus in the Queensland Supreme Court and right up to the High Court. So it is a very good measure of the success of the Government’s legal aid scheme through the Australian Legal Aid Office that this very satisfactory result was achieved.

page 3099

QUESTION

ILLEGAL EXPORT OF BIRDS

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Customs. Is the Minister aware of the illegal export of Australian birds? Is he in a position to inform the House as to what action has been or is being taken to prevent such trading? If not, will he carry out a thorough investigation with a view to trying to eradicate it?

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– I am aware of the illegal trafficking and the export of Australian birds in the manner described by the honourable gentleman. The Department of Police and Customs conducts a very close and continuous examination of the situation trying to detect, as well as it can, breaches of the law. From time to time it has well publicised success and actions are brought in the courts which often result in convictions with very heavy penalties because the law takes a very serious view of that kind of offence. The matter is continually under review. I think that is as much as I can say in answer to the honourable gentleman’s question at this stage. This offence is very difficult to detect. The exporters go to great lengths, showing great ingenuity to drug the birds and to hide them in false cases to get them out of Australia because great sums of money can be obtained for the birds overseas. It is a very difficult job to detect the offences but the officers of the Department of Police and Customs are continually on the watch for this offence and they do have considerable success in the rate of detection.

page 3099

QUESTION

FAMILY PLANNING

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

– There are 3 family planning educators who will operate from Royal Flying Doctor bases on a trial basis for 3 months. I understand that 2 educators were to take up duty at Mount Isa and Broken Hill on the 27th of last month and a third is to commence at the Kalgoorlie centre towards the middle of this month. These educators will travel with doctors and nurses to remote areas to give talks and provide educational material, back-up advice and counselling on contraception, fertility and sexual problems. They will advise anybody seeking help. They have been specially briefed on the difficulties they may encounter in counselling Aborigines. If the scheme is found to be successful after 3 months it will be a precedent on which I hope we will be able to build and we will have as a result the placement of similar health education professionals in remote regions. There are other actions which the Government is taking on health in rural areas and within a month or two I hope to get a report on rural health problems generally. However, the Government has not waited for the report in order to do things for rural areas. In particular, of the 500 community health projects it has funded 170 are in rural areas.

page 3099

QUESTION

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State and refers to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Bearing in mind the rapid breakdown in relations between John Clunies-Ross and the Minister’s Department, is it correct that a radio station is to be established on West Island with the alleged aim of assisting community relations on Home Island. If so, is a man named Dubney, a Christmas Islander, to operate this propaganda organ? Did Mr Dubney travel from Christmas Island with the Administrator of that Territory, former Labor politician Harry Webb, to Canberra last week? Is the aim to divide the Cocos Malays from the influence of Mr Clunies-Ross and is all this an indication that the equitable arrangements reached between the Minister for External Territories in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and Mr Clunies-Ross have been neglected and the problems exacerbated by the present Government?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
ALP

-I know that the honourable member for Kooyong visited the Islands and that there was and still is, I understand, good rapport between him and Mr John Clunies-Ross. In company with the honourable member for Kooyong I saw Mr John CluniesRoss here last October and, apparently due to the efforts of the honourable member, I thought that my rapport with Mr Clunies-Ross at that time was going pretty well also. However, since Mr Clunies-Ross went back to the Islands he has slipped back into the old stream whereby people cannot be paid in money but have to be paid in tokens. They are not allowed to leave the Islands, and children are denied secondary education and are refused permission to leave the Islands to get secondary education. It is difficult to communicate with the people if we cannot find somebody who can speak both English and Malay and on that basis the Government got Mr Dubney to come back to the Islands to act as an interpreter. At one stage he was what might be deemed a servant of Mr Clunies-Ross and apparently Mr Clunies-Ross must be worried by Mr Dubney ‘s return.

Australia has an obligation to the world in the administration of these Islands and it has been the subject of investigation and report to the United Nations which wants to know what we are doing to assist the progress of the 670 people who are there. It is not sufficient to say to the United Nations that people there are paid in stones. It is not sufficient to say that they cannot leave the Islands. It is not sufficient to say that a child cannot get a secondary education. I think that Mr Clunies-Ross is an honourable man but he does not understand the normal commercial practices or the opportunities of life that exist in Australia. The Government has tried to convey this to him by saying that we would like his cooperation, and I must say in fairness to him that he has offered it but it has always been delayed on the basis that the Imarat, or some equivalent there, will not allow it to happen. . Mr Dubney would be able to indicate the advantages of children getting a better education, the advantages of training the adults on the island and the advantages of the islanders being paid in Australian money. We must bear in mind that we pay a lot of money to that island and I do not know who banks it. Until recently the money was not going into the accounts of the islanders. I might say that the difficulty I seem to have with Mr Clunies-Ross relates to the fact that I decided that the islanders ought to get their own bank accounts. In recent months at least one-half of the money has been paid to the islanders’ bank accounts. They at least own their own money, and I think that is a welcome change.

Mr Fisher:

– Who banks the stones?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The stones are still paid to Mr Clunies-Ross and I have no objection to that. But there have been a few disasters. The local trawler went on to a reef and that has been a wipe out. Somebody misappropriated $50,000 from a bank account. Despite all these matters, generally we are making good progress. I know that the honourable member for Kooyong, when he was a Minister, went to the island and got a report, but nobody can find the report because it got lost.

Mr Peacock:

– Your Department lost it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It got lost. I would welcome that report, but we cannot get it. I think that in the next 6 months we will see quite an improvement. I know that Mr Clunies-Ross is an honourable man. I know that he wants to assist. I will be going over to the islands, I hope, in the near future to try to assist Mr Clunies-Ross with the problems that exist.

page 3100

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Transport aware of the recent introduction of new rail timetables in Victoria? Is he aware of mounting dissatisfaction amongst commuters over constant breakdowns in the new time-tables, especially on lines serving Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs? Can he say what the Australian Government is doing under the urban transport upgrading program to help the Victorian railways over its troubles?

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

-I am aware of the change in time-tables in the Melbourne urban transport system. I am also aware of similar changes that have taken place in New South Wales. As a result of these changes, there has been great confusion and many problems have arisen. We realise this. The Australian Government realises that there is a great need to assist the States. For the first time in the history of this country an Australian government has been prepared to pour very substantial sums of money into all the State urban transport systems with the idea of building them up. All told, we have a commitment for works programs totalling $207m which have already been approved. The Australian Government will be making a contribution of $ 138m. These programs started last year and we have made another allocation for the 1974-75 financial year. I hope that these programs will continue to be improved by the introduction of new carriages. As the honourable member is aware, we have been working on the development of a standard passenger train. We want to get the best technology that is available to us from throughout the world and apply it to Australian rolling stock.

The same comment can be made about buses. We have the ludicrous situation in which hardly 2 States in Australia have identical buses. The manufacturers of buses have complained to me that it is costing a lot more money to manufacture buses because they have to meet the requirements of the different States. We have been working on this matter and we are starting to get results from what we are doing to assist the States. Unfortunately, the States have got into this mix with their time-tabling. Yesterday in New South Wales there was a substantial increase of some 20 per cent in urban passenger train fares. All this will do will be to drive more people away from these services and put them back into their cars, which will then set up a demand for expressways and freeways and result in the tearing down of houses and the pinching of parks and the like. The honourable member asked what has been done in Victoria. In that State already programs to the value of $60.98m have been approved, of which the Australian Government’s contribution will be $40.66m.

page 3101

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether at his request the Treasurer recently wrote to all Ministers asking them to work out ways of reducing their spending programs by 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent, if that proved necessary. Does this indicate that the Government has not committed itself to reducing the rate of increase in spending. Will he make such a firm commitment as a demonstration to the whole community that the Government is determined to give a strong lead in the fight against inflation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would be very happy to take into consideration any suggestions that the right honourable gentleman makes for savings in public expenditure. My observation of him over many years is that everything he says publicly on these subjects involves an increased expenditure by the Federal Government.

page 3101

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SCHEME

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration aware of a report that under his administration of the national employment and training scheme 22 persons have been specially trained for unskilled positions? Will he inform the House whether this is a fact?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did see an article by Clancy in the ‘ National Times ‘ saying that the Priorities Review Staff was surprised to find that 22 people had been chosen under the National

Employment and Training scheme for training for unskilled occupations. I had this checked and I found that the figure was wrong and that the definition was not understood. There were 41 people chosen for training under the category of unskilled workers, which is a very broad banding category for a description of the labour market used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figure was 41, not 22; and in the previous quarter is was 8 out of approximately 50 000 people who had been interviewed. The writer of the article did not seem to understand that the term ‘unskilled worker’ is a very broad banding definition and that it includes people such as asphalters, mine labourers, excavators, trench workers, acid makers and arsenic sulphide makers. Although it is true to say that they are properly included within the category of socalled unskilled workers because they are not tradesmen, nonetheless it would be very foolish to say that they require no training. If the writer of the article were given a job as an arsenic sulphide worker, as an acid maker or as a mine labourer and had not been given any training, he would not be writing any more articles.

Mr Chipp:

– How long is the course of an asphalt maker?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Not very long. I thank the honourable member for the interjection.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will not answer interjections.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Right, but I will answer something that came into my mind just a second ago. I should add that most of the courses for these dangerous kinds of work are only very short courses.

Mr Whitlam:

– As dangerous as that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes. The job training sometimes lasts as little as three or four weeks. Nonetheless the workers need to be trained because of the danger factor. For example, asphalting is a very dangerous occupation that one must understand before one can do the job efficiently. I do not mind Clancy writing these articles. It keeps my officers on their toes. It keeps me on my toes. Although he is wrong this time, he may eventually get on the right course. If he does he will do a public service because he will unearth something that is wrong that should not be wrong.

page 3101

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Special Minister of State whether he is aware that the

Prime Minister preceded the long list of distinguished companies that the Minister mentioned as criticising the Prices Justification Tribunal when the Prime Minister advised the House on 12 November last year in these terms:

I am therefore writing to the Prices Justification Tribunal to indicate the Government’s view that, in the present economic circumstances, it should now give particular attention to the problems of sustaining and stimulating an adequate level of private investment and of maintaining rates of return on capital which will induce the new investment required to maintain economic growth and employment.

Is that not precisely the point of view that was being put by the companies concerned and were they not therefore preceded in that view by the Prime Minister? Should that not give some credibility to the points of view that he was seeking to put earlier?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
ALP

-The honourable member for Isaacs asked about the effectiveness of the Tribunal. It is an effective Tribunal. The Opposition has gone on record right from the outset- even in the times of the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor- as saying that it proposed to get rid of the Tribunal. The query I put to the Leader of the Opposition is: What is the alternative? The Prime Minister did write to the Tribunal last November saying that it might look at the question of the incentive from profit and what might be termed the replacement of plant and stock. The Tribunal has done just that. But it is a bit wide of the mark for Repco Ltd and the Nylex Corporation Ltd to make complaints back in February, which was, of course, prior to the Leader of the Opposition attaining his present office, and say mat the Tribunal was at fault when they themselves had made no application. At the weekend Berger Paints Pty Ltd made a complaint about a delay. I understand that a proper look at the situation in that case would show that the delay was the fault of the company itself. Furthermore, Berger has made no acknowledgement of the fact that it received a further 8 cents increase in its prices last March. So company directors should not be blaming the Prices Justification Tribunal for all of their problems. A lot of their problems are due to their own inefficiency.

I understand that 42 public inquiries had been held by the Tribunal up to the end of 1974 and that to date not one company has gone against the Tribunal’s findings. I think that that is a fair indication of the situation because, as the Leader c*” the Opposition knows, a company can reject the findings if it wants to do so. Let me put on record that the Tribunal has been able to deal effectively with all of those applications. Another 1000 applicants have negotiated price increases and reached agreement without complaint. We must have a good look at why it is that so-called private enterprise is so worried about having its prices looked at. It is the justification of the situation that is important. We cannot afford to have consumers being exploited all the time. That seems to be the Opposition’s objection. The Opposition does not concern itself with the exploitation. But the country cannot be run with a policy that fixes wages but does not worry about prices.

page 3102

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. Did he note advertisements over the weekend by the New South Wales Government that indicated that it was seeking a better hospital arrangement under the Medibank scheme? Is it likely that a variation of the arrangement negotiated with the Queensland, South Australian and Tasmanian governments will be conceded at the sudden instigation of Mr Lewis? Have the proposals of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia been of such complexity as to delay the negotiations with the Australian Government longer than has been the case with the other States?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes, I have noticed such advertisements in the newspaper. It is unlikely that there will be any significant variation of the arrangements that have been negotiated with the States of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, least of all because Mr Lewis, the Premier of New South Wales, has suddenly decided that he wants to stampede his way through the front door of Medibank from 1 July. In a way he has a ton of cheek. He was a very late starter but he wants to be one of the earliest finishers. I understand that the cost of those advertisements exceeds $20,000. There has been $20,000 worth of camouflage to try to hide the fact that there has been incompetence on the part of the New South Wales Government in the negotiations associated with the introduction of the hospital plan of Medibank.

The facts are that the States of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania have been in fairly extensive and continuous negotiations with the Australian Government on the hospital plan of Medibank for more than 12 months. In fact, the negotiations have been going on for nearly 2 years, but they have been quite intensive over the past 12 months. The other States- New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia- preferred to play politics, to snipe and try to collect cheap political points. As a result they did not bother to enter into serious negotiations until 14

April, which was about 6 weeks ago, and decided then to do so only because of the change of leadership in the Opposition and the responsible statement of the Leader of the Opposition that Medibank would not be an issue on which he would seek to force an election. So the newspaper advertisement is misleading. The Australian Government does not intend to seek control of the States’ hospitals. I would have thought that the Queensland Government would have been one of the States least attracted to any such suggestion. It is one State which is very close to signing the agreements. In fact, Dr Edwards and I have completed the final discussions on and consideration of the agreements. He is now taking the matter to his State Cabinet.

The Premier of New South Wales refers to the increased utilisation which will arise if free beds are provided in public wards, presuming of course that people are going to rush in in horrendous numbers to have limbs removed and organs extracted. The fact is that people go into hospitals on medical reference, after careful assessment of their condition by medical practitioners. In the case of public wards, they are admitted only after a very careful and very strict assessment by the hospital medical practitioners. Rather than pointing to what are alleged to be increasing delays in obtaining public ward beds in the United Kingdom, Mr Lewis should be looking to the case in Queensland where, as a result of a State Labor Government’s initiative more than 30 years ago, we have had continuously available to all who wish to use them free public wards, free of means tests. The range of choice is much wider in that State than is available in New South Wales and the sorts of delays to which Mr Lewis refers do not occur. It may be by implication, of course, that Mr Lewis thinks he is less competent than Mr Bjelke-Petersen in administering public health services.

Mr Lewis’s advertisement also refers to discrimination against psychiatric patients. That, of course, is nonsense. From 1 July the only State in Australia which will be charging any psychiatric hospital patients will be New South Wales. Therefore, to the extent that there is discrimination, it rests solely with the New South Wales Government. I point out that the Australian Government, through its general financial support to New South Wales, already meets more than 50 per cent of the operating costs of psychiatric hospitals. That is a principle which was firmly enunciated by previous Federal LiberalCountry Party governments in opposition to pressure from State governments demanding more money for psychiatric hospitals on some sort of formula basis. It is a principle to which I also adhere. If, for instance, we were to share with the States on a 50/50 basis the costs incurred by psychiatric hospitals, we would merely be releasing that amount of money which we presently could contribute to the operating costs of public hospitals through general finance allocations so that the States could use it in other areas. There would be no improvement in psychiatric hospitals conducted by the States and there would be no increased expenditure.

The only thing with which I agree in Mr Lewis’s advertisement is his firm proposition that people should not take out medical insurance after 1 July. That is a principle which I have enunciated. I am glad that he agrees with it. Perhaps the Opposition will now take it up in the interests of the public. All I can say is that the $20,000 expended on the weekend on these advertisements represents the most expensive facesaving exercise undertaken by the New South Wales Government. From comments I have heard from some of Mr Lewis’s colleagues, I rather suspect that it is more than they think his face is worth.

page 3103

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965-1973, 1 present the ninth annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tobacco Board for the year ended 31 December 1974, together with the report of the Auditor-General thereon.

page 3103

BUILDING AND STEVEDORING INDUSTRIES

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of an inquiry into employment in the building industry by Her Honour Justice Elizabeth Evatt and a report on some aspects of the stevedoring industry in Australia by Mr Norman K. Foster. Due to the limited numbers available at this time reference copies of these 2 documents have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies will be distributed to all honourable members when they become available, which is expected to be later this week.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, in view of the nature of the documents, I ask the Leader of the House whether he will move that the 2 papers be noted.

Mr Daly:

– I will do so as long as the debate is adjourned now.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, it will be adjourned now.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 3104

MEANS TEST ON STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present 2 reports prepared by Mr N. J. Thomson on means tests applying under schemes of student assistance entitled “The Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- Means Test ‘ and ‘Schemes of Assistance to School StudentsMeans Test’.

page 3104

BILLINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the progress report on the bilingual education program in schools in the Northern Territory dated December 1 973.

page 3104

CUSTOMS BY-LAW POLICY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of the honourable members I present a discussion paper entitled ‘Review of Customs By-Law Policy’ dated May 1975.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, because of the nature of that discussion paper I ask whether a motion can be moved that that paper be noted and the debate adjourned.

Motion ( by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 3104

NORFOLK ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1974. I think the Island’s economy is worthy of a lot of study.

Mr Peacock:

– Therefore we might be able to debate it now. Will the Minister give me leave to make a statement?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr BRYANT:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

page 3104

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the minutes of the 16th meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Melbourne on 30 August 1974. Owing to the limited numbers available, reference copies of this document have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 3104

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes. In Hansard of 29 May at pages 3084 and 3085 the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) is recorded as having said during the course of making a personal explanation:

In the debate yesterday on the Superannuation Bill the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) stated that he saw me in the House and he then said: ‘What hypocrisy it is on the part of people like him the honourable member for Riverina- who strongly support the huge benefits which are paid under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme to officers of the Services who are trained at our expense, resign at the age of 40 to 50 with amounts of about $40,000 and then get on their high horse to complain about public servants. ‘

First of all, the statement that officers of the Services ‘who are trained at our expense, resign at the age of 40 to 50 with amounts of about $40,000 ‘is completely and utterly wrong.

I draw to the attention of the House an answer to a question given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) on 27 November 1974. He was referring to an Air Vice Marshal who was about 52 years of age. I have not been able to determine his age accurately. The Minister said, inter alia: . . . under the legislation as it now exists, an Air Vice Marshal with 34 years service would receive a pension of about $ 1 4,000 a year. But because there is automatic commutation, which again was provided under the DFRB legislation, an Air Vice Marshal in this position would be able to commute his pension, receive a lump sum payment of $56,000 and a reduced pension of $ 1 1 ,000 a year.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable gentleman has shown where he has been misrepresented.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– This shows quite clearly that the statement I made during the debate on the Superannuation Bill is perfectly true.

Mr Sullivan:

-You said ‘40 to 50’.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-That person was 52 years of age and he got $56,000. Officers under 50 would get $40,000.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that there be no cross-debate on this matter in the chamber.

page 3105

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without requests-

Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1975.

Without amendment-

Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1975.

Pig Industry Research Bill 1975.

Homes Savings Grant Bill 1975.

page 3105

SUPPLY OF ENERGY RESOURCES TO JAPAN

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The harmful effects of the policies pursued by the Government in relation to the supply of energy resources to Japan.

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 theirplaces)

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

– The Opposition wishes to raise as a matter of public importance its concern about the policies pursued- and the lack of policies- by this Government in relation to the supply of energy resources to Japan. No other country was so adversely affected by the Arab oil embargo as Japan. No other country is so completely dependent on outside sources for its energy needs as Japan. No other country has such industrial might which is vulnerable to foreign sources of energy. It was Japan’s desire to achieve assured supplies of fuel and other vital resources which was the prime reason that drove Japan into the war in 1941. Today we see countries around the world on which Japan depends for its energy supplies all attempting, in one way or another, to squeeze and exploit Japan’s dependence on outside energy supplies to their own advantage. While attempts by other countries to squeeze or exploit . Japan may not hold any immediate dangers to their economies and the short term export prospects of those countries, this is not the case where Australia is concerned. The effects on Australia which would result from any undermining of Japan’s economic stability would be severe. Australia and Japan are mutually dependent in terms of trade: 9 per cent of Japan’s total imports originate in Australia and 30 per cent of Australian exports go to Japan while 20 per cent of our imports come from Japan. While Australia, as a supplier of raw materials and as a market for Japan’s manufactured goods, obviously is important to Japan, Japan is of vital importance to Australia. As Dr T. B. Millar commented at a symposium on Australian- Japanese relations held in Canberra in 1 973:

Japan is far more important to Australia than we are to it.

On the other hand, a leading Japanese economist has stated:

The proportion of raw materials and resources supplied to her by Australia is so high that without it Japan’s economy would not be viable.

Both countries have more than just a common interest arising out of mutual trading relationships. The economies of Australia and Japan are so interrelated that any adverse movement in the Japanese economy will be reflected in Australia. It is in our interests, therefore, to ensure that as a major supplier of materials and resources to Japan we develop and maintain long term export arrangements with the Japanese.

The policies pursued by this Government as regards the export of certain vital resources to Japan threaten to affect the continued stability of Japanese industry and the Japanese economy. The so-called resources diplomacy expounded by this Government, and in particular by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), will be counter-productive in its results as its effects on Japan’s industrial strength and economic situation could well rebound on Australian exports. No doubt this was the reason for the Renouf outburst last year. The Minister for Minerals and Energy has pursued a policy aimed at obtaining higher returns for Australian exports to Japan. Whilst this policy has obvious short term advantages, when pursued to its ultimate extent it is not only commercially questionable but is also headed for ruinous economic circumstances. The Minister’s success in increasing iron ore prices just a bit more than those negotiated in 1973 now threatens to develop into a policy of squeezing the Japanese for all they are worth.

Australia has become a world pacesetter in coal pricing. If the Minister’s latest proposals for coal pricing prevail the price of coal will have increased by far more than the rise in the price of oil as a result of the embargo by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The Minister is playing a dangerous game because he is forcing the Japanese to look to alternative, cheaper sources of supply and is straining our relationships. It is also clear that the Minister is delaying in replying to the Japanese in the current negotiations for a new export price for Australian coal. The Minister intends to exploit the earning capacity of the coal mining industry by imposing a tax on Australian coal exporters. It seems that the Minister intends to fix a price with the Japanese in line with the tax which he will impose on coal miners. This is yet another example of the Minister’s arbitrary and heavy handed approach to the Japanese. It is the Japanese who will have to share the tax increase if it is associated with higher pricing arrangements.

The second main policy of the Minister for . Minerals and Energy is to bring about full Australian ownership of Australia’s natural resources. Indeed, he goes beyond this to a policy of full public ownership of energy resources. Such a policy, while superficially appealing, is not only naive in its assumptions but is also dangerous in its implications. Take the issue of uranium. Here Japan has a need which is vital to her future industrial and economic development. Plans are under way to construct 35 nuclear power plants in Japan by 1985. Japan is desperate to obtain long term supplies of uranium. The Government attempted to placate the former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Tanaka, when he was here last November by coming up with a plait to develop the Ranger uranium deposit in the Northern Territory. However, it is obvious that no development has taken place at Ranger because of the intransigence of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister has conducted a campaign against the Ranger partners with the objective, I believe, of sending both companies into bankruptcy so that he can obtain control over the uranium resources at Ranger. A similar campaign has been waged against Queensland Mines Ltd.

The Minister states that contracts between Australian companies and Japanese power companies for the supply of uranium will be met initially out of the Atomic Energy Commission’s stockpile. This will cover all the contracts for 1977, but what about 1978 onwards? Does the Minister expect us to believe that mines can be opened and mills constructed in time to permit production to commence in 1978? The Minister knows that the companies must reach agreement with their Japanese purchasers within the next few months on production and supply schedules. He knows that it is impossible for them to make any firm agreement with the Japanese and hence to meet their contracts. By cutting off this source of uranium to Japan the Minister for Minerals and Energy is threatening to bring considerable hardship and dislocation to Japan’s energy plans for the rest of this century. His latest grandiose talk of developing uranium enrichment alone must be seen by the Japanese as shunning them. The adverse effects on Japan’s economy which such action would cause have serious implications for Australia. Japan is our largest customer. We have a vested interest in her continued development and prosperity. By his actions, the Minister for Minerals and Energy is striking at the heart of Japan’s continued industrial prosperity and must drive Japan to other countries for her supplies. The policy of Australian ownership of energy resources also has meant that Japan’s future requirements of natural gas have not been met from Australia. At present Australia exports one million tonnes a year of LPG from Bass Strait to Japan- an earlier arrangement with which the Minister has just had to live.

However, the interest which the Japanese have shown in the Cooper Basin and the north west shelf gas reserves has met complete rebuff from the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Again, by frustrating the development of these resources, the Minister has added significantly to the difficulties which Japan has experienced in filling its energy requirements. If the Minister had not been so belligerent 18 months ago in saying that we did not need any Japanese involvement m the north west we could well have had our natural gas and allied industries well under way by now. Now they shy away not knowing what our policies are and not wanting to be humiliated by any rejection or rebuff. The uncertainty and stress which have entered into Australian-Japanese trade relations since 1972 as a result of the policy of this Government have been reflected in the difficulties over the conclusion of the Nara Treaty. The main stumbling block to agreement is the Australian Government’s insistence that all commercial arrangements entered into be subject to its approval. The Japanese fear this would commit them to a situation where they could be subjected to extortionary demands. It is obvious that their experience in the last 2 years at the hands of the Minister for Minerals and Energy is the basis of this fear.

The Opposition is in favour of the development of closer and stronger relationships between Australia and Japan. Some may think that dangers are involved in Australia’s becoming too dependent on Japanese markets for its exports.

The Opposition does not believe that this is so. Indeed, apart from the obvious question- where else does such a highly developed and industrialised market exist for Australia to export her natural resources- there are many advantages to be gained by Australia as a result of a closer relationship with Japan. The Opposition believes that Australia would obtain large benefits from the extension of our present trading relationship to cover other areas such as investment, technology and knowhow. Apart from being a major market, Japan is also a major source of capital. It is also a very attractive area of investment for Australia.

The future development of Australia’s natural resources will depend on large amounts of over-‘ seas capital, and the Opposition believes the trading relationship which exists between Australia and Japan should be developed further into an economic relationship which is broadly based. It should include not only trade but also capital and economic co-ordination. There is also a further reason for greater co-operation between Australia and Japan. Japan is one of the main strengths of the Western economy. It stands as a bulwark against the advance of communism not only in this area of the world, but also throughout the Western world. I believe that it is the aim of the communist powers to undermine the economic strength of Japan, because of the effects this would have on the whole of the Western world. By undermining the Japanese economy, the whole Western economy would be placed in jeopardy. I believe that this is the prime object of international socialism.

The policies and actions of this Government make one wonder whether Australia has become part of this movement to undermine Japan. This Government has consistently and unscrupulously used every opportunity to squeeze the Japanese, to hinder their access to development projects in Australia and to impede their access to Australian uranium- the basic ingredient of their energy needs for the future. These actions must give rise to doubts as to the fitness of this Government, especially of certain Ministers, regarding Japan. Their actions provide every reason to believe that Australia has joined with international socialist and communist powers in their policy to undermine Japan and the West. The confusion, uncertainty and procrastination by the Government in not being able to give the Japanese firm and positive policies in relation to minerals and energy must do immeasurable harm to our relations with Japan. The Opposition has positive policies and will see that they are honoured, and the great trade bridge and the trust and confidence built by the 1957 Japan-Australia trade treaty will continue and will be strengthened. The Opposition acknowledges Japan’s pressing energy needs and will do its best to support her.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the remarks of the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) scarcely can be taken seriously.

Mr Lynch:

– You are a joke. You ought to talk. Funny money!

Mr CONNOR:

– It is a peculiar characteristic 3 of the Opposition in this House that its speakers can be heard in complete silence and without interruption, but immediately a Government spokesman gets up Opposition members do not want to hear anything but want to hurl their inane interjections. In my contacts with the Japanese I have stressed one matter above all else, that is, the interdependence of Australia and Japan. The remarks of the Leader of the Country Party have done a notable disservice to Australia and to Australia’s trading relations with Japan. If there is one thing that counts it is integrity, and Australia is a country- I stress this- that keeps its contracts and honours them to the letter. It is a country which knows exactly its relationship with Japan. Japan and Australia are the only 2 advanced countries in the western Pacific which have mutual trading interests in the Indian Ocean. We are the only 2 countries to which the people of South-East Asia can look for their future development and welfare without the oppression of the rich nations of the world.

It amazes me that a gentleman who is the leader of a Party which sprang from BAWRAthe British Australian Wool Realisation Association Ltd- from price organisation, from the organised marketing of primary products, should now come along with some dirge, with some jeremiad, suggesting that somehow Australia is screwing the Japanese. I have sought at all times . no more than to secure world parity prices. I have assured the Japanese that Australia values its trading relations with them. I have assured them that, above all, Australia will honour its contracts to the letter, that it will not take advantage of Japan’s dependence on Australia- and Japan does depend on Australia. I have assured the Japanese also that we will see that our contracts are honoured by the individual producers of energy, and so they ought to be and so they will be.

Above all, the Japanese respect people who are competent, people who are sophisticated, and for the first time in Australia’s commercial history the Government of Australia, because of its vetting of the export contracts, is fully informed. It is informed not only of export prices in respect of Australia’s minerals and energy but is informed also in respect of world prices. I was in business for years before I came into Parliament and it has always been my belief that you do business with people not today and not tomorrow but over a period of years and that you never leave a customer dissatisfied but leave him so that you can go back and do business with him again. It is a disgrace, it is scurrilous, and it is contrary to the best interests of Australia that a speech such as the one delivered by the Leader of the National Country Party should have been made. The right honourable gentleman rubbishes the concept of full Australian ownership. Let me instance the case of the projected sale of Peabody interests in respect of Queensland coal. I suggested that in that case an Australian consortium or Australian group of companies might be able to negotiate to again buy back for Australia what- is Australia’s birthright. In respect of the honourable member’s suggestion that there was to be a huge tax on coal, I state that we are asking for a tax of 25c a ton.

Mr Anthony:

– That is the first time you have mentioned it.

Mr CONNOR:

-No, but the right honourable member would be silly enough to rush in and lead with his chin. We are asking for 25c a ton for the purpose of identifying and quantifying the coal resources of Australia and also for the purpose of initial and substantial research in respect of coal hydrogenation. We are doing this so that we can honour arrangements which were entered into with Mr Tanaka in his recent visit to Australia. As soon as the session of Parliament concludes, I will be going to Japan to pay the return visit to that country pursuant to the understanding that we have for a joint feasibility study in respect of uranium enrichment and coal hydrogenation. In respect of uranium enrichment, it will be a troika. Australia will supply the raw materials. Japan can supply capital and we will get the technology we need from our own research and from what is available in Europe. So much -

Mr Anthony:

– That is news.

Mr CONNOR:

-It is not news at all. I have said that in the House and said it .many times. It has been stated publicly. Let me deal with the suggestion that the Japanese are being screwed in respect of coal. At the present time we are negotiating on a basis which provides that the

Japanese will be paying less for coal than they have been paying for purchases of coal from the east coast of the United States of America. If there is one thing that the Japanese need, it is reassurance. Australia supplies Japan with 45 per cent of its coal requirements. We supply approximately the same percentage of its iron ore requirements. In an uncertain and politically unstable world the Japanese know they can deal with one country that is politically and economically stable. That is Australia. There are no political strings attached to contracts that we enter into with the Japanese. Let this be also clearly understood. The Nippon Steel Corporation is a monopsony. It is an efficient one. It buys for 1 5 or ‘16 steel nulls. Against that we exercise what I have correctly termed as a benign supervision over the contractual arrangements between the various coal and iron ore producers. With that monopsony the relationship has been a good one. The Japanese respect strength. They respect confidence and commercial capability. For that very reason they had a real contempt for the former Government in relation to which there was a policy of catch as catch can. For example, would the National Country Party suggest that we did the wrong thing in fixing a floor price for wool? Of course it would not. Yet members of the same Party come into this House and, in a puerile attempt to extract political advantage, advance an argument that somehow we are unkind to the Japanese.

I know what the future holds. Two-thirds of the world ‘s people live around the shores of the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. It will be by partnership between Australia and Japan that we will emerge as the two strongest industrial and commercial powers. Australia will be part of this with the advent of additional people coming from Europe.

I may as well be very frank about the situation in respect of uranium. A contract was entered into. It was drawn up at the Lodge. It was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), the former Attorney-General and myself. Representatives from Peko Wallsend Ltd and E. Z. Industries Ltd were present. The arrangement included the contribution of 21lh per cent of the cost of the milling plant by these people. Now, they do not want to do it. They want an interest free loan. As should well be known, the 2 companies have their problems. In fact, they want to screw the Government. In addition to that, it was clearly understood that the Government, because of the nature of uranium- after all, it is a weapons source as much as being a source of energy- wanted to have some say in the sale of uranium. The companies wanted to sell the uranium as it was produced. That is contrary to the terms of the arrangement More than thatand here again the Leader of the National Country Party might take to task the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)- there is to be an environmental impact study in respect of the Northern Territory. But in the meantime as I have already said, we have a stockpile of uranium inherited from the Menzies Administration which had produced it for weapons purposes. That, together with the initial output from the Mary Kathleen plant which is about to commence production after being reconditioned, will be available. Our contracts for the delivery of uranium to Japan are phased over a considerable period of years. I assure this House and Japan that we will be able to meet our commitments because if there are any delays we will loan part of that stockpile to the companies concerned so they can meet their contracts.

In respect of steaming coal, we are also in close co-operation with Japan and we get their projections of their future requirements. Japan, if it continues to expand at its present pace, will be in a desperate position because of an increase in crude oil prices. It is utterly and completely wrong and a deliberate attempt to mislead the House to suggest that the increase in coking coal prices is proportionately greater than the increase in oil prices. It is not. It is utterly wrong, and the Leader of the National Country Party well knows it, although he tries to get away with it.

We are in a position to meet more of Japan’s requirements for coking coal. The United States of America which has been Japan’s second major source of coal supply now finds that it needs more and more coal for its internal consumption. More than ever Japan has to rely on Australia for this source of energy. Japan has had a fair go from Australia. It will continue to get a fair go. But for the first time, Australia has a Government and an administration which is capable of matching the Japanese, meeting them on their own ground and negotiating a commercial contract on proper terms.

The Leader of the National Country Party made reference also to liquefied petroleum gas. In fact we have increased the export of LPG to Japan from one million tons a year to 1.25 million tons a year. We are making a very valuable contribution to their requirements in this field. But a time will come- and it could come very soon- when we will need the LPG for ourselves. In the meantime I have assured the

Japanese that they will have No. 1 priority in respect of their energy requirements. I am speaking here of priorities in terms of trading partners. Our second priority will be West Germany and the third, Italy. These countries are Australia’s 3 best partners. They will have these supplies and they will get them. Australia is a sound and a reputable country and we are a sound and reputable Government. Labor honours its promises as does Australia.

With regard to coal hydrogenation- and this is of the utmost importance to Japan- Australia has certain coal types which can be well used and it will be a matter of very, very careful calculation as to the extent to which they can be used. Here again I deprecate the attempt by the Leader of the National Country Party to mislead the House. We need to know exactly what our high volatile coals are.

Mr Hewson:

– And brown coal too.

Mr CONNOR:

-And brown coal as well. But high volatile coal provides the most easy path to coal liquefaction and hydrogenation. To get some idea of the magnitude of what will be required, a daily production of 100 000 barrels of crude oil would require an annual commitment of 16 million tons of coal. About 105 million tons of coal would be required to satisfy Australia’s present consumption of oil of a little over 620 000 barrels a day. In addition to that we produce 65 million tons for other purposes, which brings us to a total production of about 170 million tons a year. The Japanese have forecast that they will scale up to about 30 million tons of steaming coal for electricity generation in their own country by 1980. That will bring the total requirement to more than 200 million tons a year. It is for that reason alone and not to turn the screw on the Japanese that I am asking the Government to agree to the introduction of the excise.

I repeat my initial comments: Remarks of this kind in a debate of this nature are disgraceful. It is utterly and completely disgraceful to raise this as a matter of public importance. It reflects no credit on the National Country Party of Australia. It shows what a spurious, contemptible crowd they are when they speak in such scurrilous terms with such falacious arguments in an attempt to mislead the people of Australia. . .

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-Far from this issue which is raised as a matter of public importance being unimportant, it is a matter of supreme importance not only to Japan but also to the Parliament and the people of Australia. For the first time for many a day we have begun to hear the thoughts of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) on the future of trade relationships with Japan. It makes it abundantly clear that what the Opposition needs to do is to raise issues in this House as matters of public importance so that the Japanese may find out what is the real attitude of the honourable gentleman and the Australian people may know what he is doing. We have had few statements from this Minister in the past, but many Dorothy Dix questions have been addressed to him. This is a technique which ought to be deplored because it denies to the Opposition an opportunity to debate the policies of the Government in this vital field.

We have learnt one thing from what the honourable gentleman has said and that is that we have, at least, a prophet in our own time. To quote his own words, he knows what the future holds. I recall that early in 1973 the honourable gentleman informed the House that there were 3 things of which he was certain: Life, death, and that the value of the United States dollar would go down.

Mr Connor:

– So it has. . Mr VINER- The value of the United States dollar went down, but it has certainly gone up again. The Minister knows that well. The value of the American dollar has not gone down and continued to go down. In the Press in recent times we have seen the announcement of the imminent retirement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard). I think the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) might well follow this up by seeking the retirement of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister has certainly achieved nothing during his ministry. I could think of a much better task for him to perform. Perhaps he might be sent to Peru while Mr Barnard is sent to Copenhagen. I am sure that the present Minister for Minerals and Energy will be able to write some fish-meal contracts for Australia. He has done nothing but antagonise industry and, by doing so, has destroyed the foundation for Australia’s future economic prosperity. He has done nothing but antagonise Australia’s great trading partners. His attitude has led to instability in international trade. That has been achieved by a naive concept of economic overlordship of Australian mineral resources. It is reflected in the Government’s attitude towards resource diplomacy. In real terms all that means in today’s world is resource blackmail, and this Government cannot do that with the finesse of member countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Nevertheless, the way in which the Government has pursued its policies has had a deadly effect on our great trading partners and, in particular, on Japan.

We have seen the effect of what the Government has done with its interference in the trade in iron ore and in coal, in denying to the Japanese the opportunity to import Australian natural gas and in its interference with the making of contracts for the sale of uranium. The Minister is very fond of declaiming to the people of Australia that he and the Labor Government will honour its contracts. What we want from the Government is not so much the honouring of contracts but contracts which can be honoured. This is what has not come from the Minister. When the Prime Minister and the Minister speak of obtaining fair prices for Australian resources, what they really mean is that they will use the export control powers of the Government to obtain the prices for our resources that the Government thinks ought to be obtained. That is economic blackmail. It takes no account of world patterns of trade, but seeks to apply a blanket rule to all international dealings. In the hands of the Minister this kind of economic blackmail is a blunt instrument which can only damage the sensibilities of our relationships with our great trading partners such as Japan. When the Minister speaks of imposing an excise on the export price of coal, as he is now doing, in essence that is no more than what the OPEC countries are doing in imposing a posted price for the export of crude oil, and that must have the effect of increasing the price of coal to Japan. In effect, it is a tax on the Japanese industrial consumers of our coal and we know that that is nothing more than international economic blackmail. I am glad to say that that is not the policy of the Opposition and it will not be our policy when we are in goverment.

I should like to remind the House of something the Minister said about Japan in a debate in this House on 23 September 1970. He said then, as he has said recently:

An old saying is that one never keeps a cow when one can get milk by other means. Having tried aggression and failed, Japan now tries the alternative of economic penetration.

That means economic aggression, and that is this Minister’s attitude on Japan- that it will indulge in economic aggression. The Minister went on to say: … the relationship between us which at the present time is a mutually profitable one can be, in the long term, a dangerous one in which Japan could develop into a big brother and adopt the big brother complex and lean rather heavily on us.

He continued later:

But in the long term, aggression is a distinct possibility and in terms of physical aggression Japan is possibly the only enemy in sight.

Mr Kelly:

-Who said that?

Mr VINER:

-The Minister for Minerals and Energy. It must be alarming to the people of Australia, as well as to the Government of Japan, to know that the Minister in charge of minerals in Australia upon which Japan is so dependent looks on Japan as an actual economic aggressor and a potential physical aggressor. So far as I can see in trying to understand this prophet in our time, that kind of attitude is derived either from a pathological fear of Japan or from a distorted view of history. Neither attitude has any foundation in fact in any assessment of future relationships between Australia and Japan. So when we look at the actions of this Minister in relation to the pricing of iron ore exports, of coal exports, in the denial of vital energy sources such as natural gas and in inhibiting the export of uranium to Japan, we wonder whether in the pursuit of the attitude expressed by him in 1 970 he is seeking to inhibit seriously Japan’s ability to trade with the world. The Opposition’s shadow minister for trade and resources has referred to the difficulties which uranium explorers have had in reaching agreement with the Government and in fulfilling their uranium contracts with Japan. We wonder also what has happened to the statement of joint co-operation on investigating technology and uranium enrichment. We know that the establishment of nuclear power stations in Japan is vital to Japan’s energy sources in the 1980s and beyond. We know that Japan is looking to Australia as a source of uranium. We know it would like to look to Australia as a source of enriched uranium, but we hear nothing from this Minister as to the progress of this exercise in cooperation between the 2 countries. Rather, the Minister now speaks proudly of Australia’s achievement in uranium enrichment technology. It must make honourable members wonder, it must make the -industry wonder and it must make Japan wonder what will be the future of co-operation between the 2 countries in the investigation of enrichment technology.

The Minister speaks also of co-operation between Japan and Australia in coal hydrogenation. But then, in the next breath, he speaks of Australia going it alone and achieving a great national potential. Where is the element of cooperation he so often speaks about? He says one thing today, another thing tomorrow. This is the pattern right throughout this Minister’s ministry and throughout the relationships between Australia and Japan in this vital area of energy resources.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I think the 2 speeches we have just heard from members of the Opposition are very pathetic. On numerous occasions the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) has come into this chamber and spoken about the Government’s handling of minerals and energy in Australia. But of course, as he has gone back to the people who sent him here- the Australian Mining Industry Council and the other minersthey have told him: ‘Go quietly; Connor is doing very well, thank you very much, and we do not need your assistance any more’. So, to make himself relevant, today he picks up a completely new tack- a tack which the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) described as scurrilous, and I think that is the only way it could be described.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) talked about our antagonising our trading partners; he talked about international economic blackmail. Now, getting price increases for Australian commodities is international economic blackmail yet a year ago the Opposition criticised the Government for not getting price increases. Do we ever hear the members of the Opposition or the Leader of the National Country Party saying that Japan is paying too much for wool? No. The Leader of the National Country Party was out in front of Parliament House the other day acting to a group of Country Party supporters, trying to encourage the Government to stand by the 250c floor price for wool. Where is the logic in his argument? Why does he not say that the Government should not stand up for wool? He says that we are not to ask for increases in the price of iron ore, coal and other such commodities, yet we are to ask for increases in the price of wheat, wool, butter and beef. He says that our boards- the Australian Wheat Board and the wool board- should go to our trading partners for higher prices. It is a completely lopsided and scurrilous approach.

I do not know where the Leader of the Country Party thinks his interests are served; whether he thinks the Japanese Government will be indebted to him or that the Japanese Ambassador to Australia will write a nice letter back to Tokyo about him. They think he is a fool; they always thought he was a fool. They thought the former Government were fools because they could not extract decent prices from Japan for our commodities. Everyone in the world knows that Nippon Steel buys on behalf of the Government of Japan. That company went to South America and came to Australia with one united voice, to buy. What were we doing? We were sending our coal and iron ore producers to Japan where they were competing, one against the other- Queensland producers of coal against New South Wales producers and the various consortiums in Western Australia competing against each other. This Minister for Minerals and Energy has given the Australian mining industry a chance to survive. Coal prices have increased by 250 per cent since we took office, but they are at the world parity. Could anyone argue seriously that if the price of oil is to move up, substitute energy commodities will not move up to about the same price per British thermal unit, or whichever term is used to describe the energy content of any particular commodity. Of course not. Uranium prices will move up until they are somewhat equivalent to oil prices and the same applies to coal prices.

But we have never said that we will deny these commodities to Japan. The whole thrust of our policy under this Government has been one of continuing co-operation with Japan and of guarantees of raw materials at the world parity price. Japan respects this. It knows we will not be conned or fooled any longer. For the Leader of the National Country Party to come into this House as a Leader of a Party and to say that this is international economic blackmail is like bis saying to the iron ore producers and the coal producers: ‘I am arguing in Parliament these days for a reduction in the price of your exports’. Let him see how far he would get with that remark. Let him get up and say: ‘I am putting it around these days that your are charging Japan and other countries too much’. I do not think that that would get very much of a reception. Let him say that to Sir Charles Court or to Hancock or to Carnegie from Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd or to the Utah coal mining company. Let him see what they would say when he says that about their prices. I know what they would say: They would say he is a clown, and he is.

Honourable members opposite talked about stifling Japan’s trading capacity. In the time we have taken office, Japan’s exports of steel have moved up from $5.5 billion to $ 1 1 .5 billion. How does Japan get that sort of growth unless it is able to trade in the world? Japan is able to trade in the world. There is no doubt that Japan was knocked around by the increases in oil prices. We do not deny that. But Japan will adjust to it. Its prices will move up. The Japanese will live with it. We are prepared to do what we can with regard to uranium. We have honoured the contracts entered into by the former Government to supply uranium to Japan at the time that the Japanese want it. We are prepared to deplete our own stockpiles to do so. We have set up the

Ranger projects to replenish our own stockpiles and to fulfil ongoing contracts.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) talked about uranium enrichment. There is an agreement between the Japanese and ourselves to look at feasibility studies in coal hydrogenation, that is to get petroleum products from coal, and also uranium enrichment. But with regard to uranium enrichment, it is true to say that the Japanese have been wary; they have held out. The point is that we have the technology now and we have found a lot of uranium ourselves. It is a gambling position. We are prepared to gamble with them- to wait. But we have the technology; we have the raw material. Why should we not press a harder bargain? That is what it is all about. We are prepared to give them enriched fuel but that does not mean to say that we should be laid down and raped by them because they are our trading partners. We are prepared to give them fair treatment and they have received fair treatment from us.

One of the things that have been done by the Minister for Minerals and Energy since he has been in office has been to put our relationship with Japan on a decent and equitable basis. Japan understands that in the future Australia will trade with it and guarantee raw materials. But at-the same time Japan realises that it has to pay a fair world price. Why should the returns of the Australian people be depreciated in deference to a scurrilous sort of concept raised by the Leader of the National Country Party- that it is international blackmail? That is just a lot of rubbish, and he knows it. Let him get up and say to the coalminers and the iron ore miners in Western Australia that he is arguing for lower coal prices. A year ago he was in the pocket of ESSOBHP trying to get the crude oil price agreement raised at the expense of the Australian motorist from $2.09 a barrel to around $8 a barrel. That is now a lame duck issue. He is now taking another tack and saying that we are too tough on Japan, and that we all ought to be saying: ‘Oh, the Japanese cannot afford it. What a terrible thing we are doing to them’. We are being fair with them, and they know it. They know that the ride that they had when honourable members opposite were in office is over.

They get 45 per cent of their total coal supplies from Australia; they will probably get more in the future. We are now starting to supply them with steaming coal. We are doing that as a supplement to their supply of oil. Nevertheless, Japan’s problems with pollution and the environment are of prime consideration to us. If they were to supply all their energy needs with oil, they would literally need a string of oil tankers end on end from the Middle East to Japan. The environmental problems of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere and of all the other pollutants which come from burning hydrocarbons is such that in a small area such as Japan, this will be an inhibiting factor. Therefore Japan is interested in moving into nuclear power and enriched fuel. We are prepared to give the Japanese any amount of fuel that they need, enriched if we can do so. The only thing is that we would like to do the enriching. Instead of sending just yellow cake at bargain basement prices we want to get the profit that comes from enrichment. We do not want the stuff to be sent to the United States or the Soviet Union or any place else where Japan may choose to have it enriched. A good offer is before Japan. It can come in with Australia on enrichment if it wishes. If it wants to wait until we develop the technology and secure the capital, as we have the raw material, it will wait too long. The Japanese should get off their tails and move into this undertaking. They should do something about it rather than hang out and wait until possibly we are suckered in to some of the arguments raised by the Leader of the National Country Party.

What really rocks me is what the Leader of the National Country Party thought was the advantage of the line that he took today in this Parliament. What possible advantage will result for the Japanese, the Australian people or the producers of these commodities from the argument that the prices are too high? Clearly the prices are not. They are at world parity and, in some cases, a little bit less. There has been co-operation in terms of quantity. More is being exported to Japan. We are decent trading partners. We have taken a great deal of manufactured exports from the Japanese. With respect to motor vehicles, we almost allowed our own motor car industry to be dislocated out of deference to imports from Japan to try to correct the trade imbalance that existed. The speech by the Leader of the National Country Party was a scurrilous attempt to make his policies relevant at a time when they have been discredited by the Minister for Minerals and Energy who has proved over and over again that he has the respect of the Japanese Government.

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

page 3113

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May on motion by Mr Enderby

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The House is debating again the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1975 [No. 2]. The Bill seeks again to obtain the authorisation of Parliament to put to the people of Australia a referendum which would if carried result in elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate being held simultaneously. It is a proposal which was rejected by the Australian people at the elections in May of last year, only a little more than one year ago. I believe that the person behind the Government’s policy in this respect is the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He is the one rather than the rest of the Government who is pushing to see that this proposal is put again to the people. Nevertheless, it is Government policy that this legislation be introduced again, debated, and treated as a matter of high priority among the competing priorities of legislation in this House.

I make some point of the competing priorities of legislation in this House. In practice there are only so many days that the House can meet and there are only so many Bills that can be dealt with. We are being told continually by the Government that there is a crush of legislation, that the House cannot deal with this, that, or the other, or that some proposal must be delayed because of the time restraint. Here we have a measure being forced through the House again. Time is being taken up on a proposal which has been recently decided against the Government’s policy. The truth of the matter is- anyone who has watched the Prime Minister closely will have observed this- that when he gets a bee in his bonnet he just goes straight ahead and rams his proposal through. Apparently he has bulldozed members of his Party into agreeing to put this Bill forward again, with other Bills, knowing that the legislation will be rejected in the Senate again on the ground that it was defeated by the people only a year ago. Yet the Prime Minister persists. I take the opportunity to point out that this is yet another indication of the aim of the Prime Minister to get his way, come what may, and in spite of what may be the clear indication of the vote of the Australian people and indeed of the sentiment of this Parliament.

The Opposition will oppose this Bill. There is nothing new in it. This legislation was put before the House as recently as last February. It was defeated at that time in the Senate. It is one of 4 Bills that were put through the Parliament with the agreement of the Opposition to provide for referenda on 4 broad subjects. I will say more about that aspect in a moment. Those Bills were the subject of referenda put to the people at the double dissolution election of 18 May 1974. All of those referenda were defeated. The real significance of this Bill which has been brought forward today needs to be pointed out. It is that the Bill will now become one of a number of Bills- I think the present count is eleven- which could be used as grounds for a double dissolution if the Government were to recommend to the Governor-General that a double dissolution be held. I do not think that the Government at the moment is game to do that. There is what has been called a storehouse of Bills. If there were a double dissolution and if the Labor Party had a majority of the combined membership of the Senate and House of Representatives, it could obtain at a Joint Sitting, as provided by the Constitution, a majority to have those Bills on which the double dissolution was granted put through and passed. That is what the Government did with 6 Bills in July last year as a result of the double dissolution election which took place in May.

So the significance of this Bill is that, when rejected by the Senate, it will join other Bills in this storehouse of Bills. This will be one of the Bills which the Government will seek to have passed. Having had it passed the Government, of course, will not be in any superior position to the position it held in April 1974 when the Bill was passed by the Senate. I think the Government has anticipated accurately that Opposition senators will not permit this Bill to be passed now because the matter has so recently been decided by the people and they do not wish the proposition to be passed, with good reason which I shall come to in a moment. The fact is that this proposal suits the Government as the largest Party in the country at the moment, because the proposal will act against the interests of small parties and individual candidates if a Senate election coincides with the House of Representatives election. This would make it almost impossible for those individuals or small party candidates to have their voices heard in the crush and electoral conflict which go on at the time of a general election. The question which was put to the people and which they rejected was: ‘Do you think that the elections for the Senate and the House of

Representatives ought to be held on the same day?’ That was the kernel of the question.

Mr Duthie:

– They were, for donkey’s years.

Mr GARLAND:

– As the honourable gentleman interjects, elections were held together for a long time but they were not automatically linked as is proposed in this Bill. Surely that distinction must be clear to the honourable member for Wilmot and to every other honourable member in the Parliament. The question I put a moment ago was the kernel of the matter. Unfortunately, as with the other referenda questions, this question was by no means clear when it appeared on the ballot papers presented to the people. It needs to be pointed out that the wording of all 4 questions put to the people contained more than 4 propositions. On analysis there were about double that number. The questions were very unclear and slanted in favour of the Government which was trying to get a majority of yes votes. The ballot paper was very complicated, but I am glad to say that the people of Australia saw through the Government’s intentions and resoundingly voted them out. I wish to indicate what I mean by that statement because when one reads the comments made by the Prime Minister in support of this legislation in his speech in February of this year one will see the lengths to which he will go to misrepresent the position. Speaking of the referendum put in May 1 974, he said:

The proposal failed only narrowly to obtain an overall majority of the votes. Over 3V4 million voters endorsed the proposed law and slightly fewer than 3% voted no. The proposed law received a majority of yes votes in the most populous State New South Wales, and was only narrowly lost in Victoria and South Australia. The proposal is clearly one that has great appeal to the electorate. My Government is of the view that it is of such importance and merit that it should again be put to the people.

Let us analyse that statement and the election results. The fact is that the Constitution requires a majority. It was not a close majority; it was quite a clear majority against the proposal. The Constitution provides also that it must be carried by a majority of States. The Prime Minister did not mention that fact. As a great lawyer, perhaps he overlooked the fact that the Constitution, makes that provision. How many States carried a majority for this proposition? One out of six. That is how close it was.

I do not mind the Prime Minister being somewhat proud that he is a member from New South Wales- the most populous State, as he described it on this occasion and as he has described it on many occasions with some relish- but may I, as a representative of one of the other States, draw to his attention that when this Federation was formed a condition on which the other States came into it and on which it was founded was that they would have an equal say in the Senate. I have a great deal of regard for New South Wales and many of its people. I look upon it perhaps as a second home in some ways, but I am sure that the great majority of the people in New South Wales would agree with me that it is not only their more populous numbers which are to be considered in these matters which affect the whole country but the minorities have some rights under our Constitution since it was based on the principle that smaller States and indeed other States would have a say. So when 5 States think one way and one State, albeit the most populous, thinks the other way, surely the decision is clear. Surely when a difference of 250 000 people is involved, even when one is counting heads, that is not a close result.

The truth is that the Prime Minister wants this . referendum and the other referenda carried to help his electoral prospects. That is what this matter is all about. We can see in this proposal and in the boundaries which have been presented to this House, the so-called reform that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) wants to achieve under the Electoral Act, a whole pattern of effort to improve greatly the chances of the Australian Labor Pary at elections. I put to the House and to the people of Australia that a system which has resulted in both sides of our political spectrum being elected cannot be so very unfair. This system enabled Labor to win in 1972 and 1974, and the Liberal and Country parties to win prior to that. It must be pretty flexible and rather balanced to permit those changes. I believe that this Bill is part of a pattern to achieve advantage. When one speaks privately to many Labor Party members of this House, no secrecy is made of that objective. On the contrary, there seems to be a good deal of pride in the aim.

This Bill and the proposition of making these elections simultaneous have, I suppose, superficially some attractiveness and some plausibility. But on more careful examination surely that argument is pretty hollow. The relationship between the House and the Senate is perhaps fairly sophisticated and not widely understood outside the Parliament. It is a relationship of considerable independence. Of course the Senate is a chamber in which the number of representatives from each State is equal- each State has 10 Senators. The House is a chamber at present of 127 members who are elected from the States in proportion to the population within those States. The Senate is not controlled by the House and the House is not controlled by the Senate. All Bills must pass through both chambers before they can become law.

As I said, in the 1890s some of the selfgoverning States, when considering federation, were not prepared to come into the Federation unless their position was safeguarded. That is the view of many people in some of the States today. In my own State of Western Australia it is very much the general opinion. We should not think, as obviously the Prime Minister does, that all those views are outdated, that nobody minds all power being centralised in Canberra and decisions being made in accordance with his wishes. On the contrary there is a good deal of doubt about it. I find, wherever I go, an increasing recognition of the value of the Senate as a house of review, as a chamber which makes some effort to analyse proposed legislation, which considers whether it would be a good law and which acts as a bit of a brake. Even when the Government of the day has had a majority in that chamber it has been notable that many amendments have been made to Bills before they became law. So it does in that sense act as a reconsideration mechanism and as a house of review.

Under the constitution the Senate normally has an election for half of its members every three years. But the House of Representatives, which is the populous House, is constituted on the principle that its members represent certain numbers of people. It is a deep constitutional principle that governments stand or fall on their support or otherwise in this House and not by what goes on in the Senate. Of course there is a considerable difference in the activities of the 2 chambers which have a very different role to play within our Constitution. We borrowed this principle from the proceedings and Constitution of the House of Commons at Westminster. All the proceedings of this House are based on the procedure and constitutionality of what was developed in England over centuries of trial and error.

When a government loses confidence in this place it usually leads to an election. The only time it would not lead to an election would be when the party of the majority was able to find another leader that it would stand behind so that there would be no need for it to go to the people for an election to determine which party or parties should have the majority and indeed which leader should get a vote of confidence. That vote of confidence is a confidence to form a government and to carry on a government; it is not a vote of confidence in every item in the party platform, as our present Prime Minister never fails to claim.

Elections for this chamber can, and in fact do, take place at more frequent intervals than 3 years. We had a parliament which lasted from 2 December 1972- my dates may not be entirely accurate but they will do for the sake of argument- until 18 May 1974. That was a short period. Under this proposal the term of the Senate, or half of its members, would be of the same duration. I am leaving out of the question consideration of the separate matters that arise with a double dissolution. That is a rather basic change to be suggesting. So, closer analysis of this proposition shows that we would be making a very big change to the Constitution of this country and I am not sure, even after the debate on this Bill, that all its ramifications have been fully thought out.

We have to bear in mind too that the Prime Minister and the present Government Party have for many years put the view that the Senate ought to be abolished. It is or was Australian Labor Party policy- I think it still is- that the Senate should be abolished, that there is no need for it, and one quite often hears members of the Labor Party putting that argument in this place. That, of course, runs completely counter to the basis of our federation and to the structure that I have briefly outlined in my remarks. However, it does point up the belief of the Government that it knows far better than anybody else. The Prime Minister is on record as having said that he favours only a 2-party system- in other words, he would do away with any small party- and a uni-cameral system, which means that he would do away with the Senate. He is clearly opposed to the activities of the States and wishes to have them either abolished or left as empty shells. He has talked about the anachronisms of boundaries set in the 1 890s. There are some who believe that he would like to see himself as the first president of this country. Certainly at times he has done things which indicate that he would like our monarchy dispensed with, though I notice that in recent times he is drawing away from that view. At times he has favoured a first past the post balloting system. At present he favours an optional preferential system which many people believe is much the same thing anyway.

So we have an attack on many constitutional institutions in this country by the Prime Minister and his Government and this Bill is part of that attack. It is a course of conduct which seems to be aimed at enabling the Prime Minister to have very great power and at minimising very much any opposition that might appear to his wishes. That seems to be based on the principle that he knows best, but one could validly argue that in view of some of his policies of recent times it is easy to see that he does not always know best. However, it is more fundamental than recent policies and administration. Surely the essence of democracy is divided power- a division of power around the country. Allowing no government or minister to have full and unfettered power is what democracy is all about.

We in the Liberal and National Country Parties believe in the preservation of these institutions such as, to take one example, the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives. We believe that elections being held by the Senate at fixed intervals and by the House of Representatives at intervals determined in the first place by the Electoral Act, which sets a maximum of 3 years, and in the second place by events in this House- namely, until the Government can no longer retain the confidence of the House- are basic principles which ought to be preserved. As the people already have voted against the proposition contained in this Bill, we see no reason why we should accept it now. We reject the Bill and will vote against it and the Senate will not pass it because the Opposition Parties there have sufficient numbers to see that it is not passed. This is a proposition that would do considerable violence to the place of the Senate in the Constitution.

There is certainly a growing need- not a diminishing need- for the Senate in its present role as an examiner and a House of review. I think Australia has had good service from the activities of the Senate in recent years and, to be fair, that has come about partly because of the activity of Labor members in the Senate. The Opposition’s view is that we should oppose this BUI. The Government, if it wishes, can add the BUI to its storehouse of Bills awaiting a double dissolution. I suggest to the Government that it may not be a complete joy to be gathering together more and more Bills to be put to the people at the next election. It may be a very attractive proposition to the Prime Minister to say: ‘We have 15, 20, 30 or 40 Bills in a storehouse and if you elect us we Will make sure we get them all through’. But I put it to the Government that that proposition has a 2-edge blade. If the Government puts such a large number of Bills to the people there is bound to be a big section of the people who will say: ‘We are not so sure we want that particular BUI passed’. The Government might find that at election time it gets more opposition than might at present be perceived.

I conclude by saying that there is no general demand by the Australian people for making this change to the Constitution. I do not know in what circles the Prime Minister moves where he hears a demand for this change, but those circles are not very widespread. The history of referenda in Australia is that most people believe that by and large the machinery has been working pretty well. I see no chance of this referendum being passed- if the proposal gets that far. The Opposition believes that the proposal is a waste of time and it will be rejecting it.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I think at the outset I should put the House straight about one very important point that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) made on a number of occasions in his speech. A Constitution (Alternation) Bill cannot- I repeat cannot- be the subject of action taken under section 57 of the Constitution which, of course, refers to the proceedings for a double dissolution. If the Senate does not pass this Bill on 2 occasions, the consequence is that the Bill can then be put to the people. All that is required is for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to ask the Governor-General to agree to have a referendum on the subject of the Constitution (Alteration) Bill put to the people. If the people agree to the change being made, that becomes an alteration to the Constitution. Because this point was made on a number of occasions by the honourable member for Curtin, I repeat that a Bill of this type cannot be the subject of a double dissolution. The procedure for the treatment of such a Bill is quite separate.

The honourable member for Curtin seemed to be arguing in favour of having separate elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. I point out to him and to the House that the cost of holding separate elections for either the House of Representatives or the Senate is now rapidly approaching $2m. Considering the benefits and the disadvantages of holding separate elections, it seems to me that most people would favour having simultaneous elections. It is all right for the honourable member for Curtin to tell us that the question has been put to the people previously and that the people have made a decision on it. In my opinion, the argument that was put to the people previously by the Opposition was very misleading. Member after member of the Opposition stood in this House and said that the whole problem could be resolved if there was a double dissolution. I ask the Opposition to look at the debates which occurred early in November last year when this matter was last discussed. It will see what its spokesman said on that occasion. The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and other members of the Opposition said in this House that this problem could be resolved by the Government going to the people in a double dissolution. Of course, this has not occurred.

The election for one-half of the Senate must occur between 1 July this year and 30 June next year. That must happen unless there is a double dissolution. It is easy to see that this is not in conjunction with the House of Representatives election because this House is due to go to the people at any time around May 1977. I remind the members of the Opposition that next year is 1976. So separate elections, by the attitude that the members of the Opposition adopted on the last occasion a similar Bill came before this House, will inevitably cost the people of Australia $2m. This may not seem a great deal of money to members of this Parliament who are used to dealing in thousands of millions of dollars but $2m, I think anyone would agree, is worth saving in anybody ‘s language.

The advantages of having separate elections for which the Opposition now appears to be arguing just cannot be substantiated. The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, which brought down its report in 1959 and which was composed of members of all parties, argued very strongly in favour of having simultaneous elections. I would like to quote very briefly from its report. The relevant part of the report can be seen in full at page 3332 and subsequent pages in Hansard dated 14 November 1973. The Committee said:

There are, to the Committee’s way of thinking, reasons why one-half the number of senators should retire at every general election of members of the House of Representatives which are sufficiently cogent to justify a constitutional amendment.

That was the decision of that Committee. The Committee later said:

The Committee believes that the weight of public opinion is opposed to the holding of separate elections for the 2 Houses of the Federal Parliament. The Australian people already have to vote frequently because they are also called upon to elect members to the Parliaments of their States, in some States, for 2 Houses at different times.

I speak to a lot of people who are very concerned about the number of elections which are held. When there are local government elections, byelections for local government quite frequently, elections for the State Houses and elections for the Federal Parliament, people seem to be going to the polls all the time. It is a senseless and very costly procedure to ask them to vote twice for the Federal Parliament. The Committee also said:

Separate elections also tend to emphasise the component parts of the Parliament at the expense of the Parliament itself.

That is something with which I agree very much indeed. Of course, minorities do have rights. The honourable member for Curtin said that the present procedure allowed minorities to exercise a function in this Parliament. Because the Senate is elected by proportional representation those minorities already have a chance to exercise thenproper function in this Parliament.

It is a great surprise to me to see the members of the Opposition arguing for a situation which I believe is tending to denigrate the whole democratic system. People both on the extreme right and on the extreme left in Australian politics would seem to be trying to drag down the democratic process and to make it as inefficient as possible for their own similar but at the same time disparate purposes. They are working from different ends but they are working to the same cause. I think that ought to be of concern to every member of this Parliament regardless of his political party allegiance. It is hard to understand why the Opposition does not want to let the people decide. It is hard to understand why on previous occasions and again on this occasion it has put up a smokescreen of arguments about all sorts of things which have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill.

The Opposition has been talking about the abolition of the Senate. That is completely irrelevant to the present debate. Members of the Opposition are talking as they did in the previous debates. I remember the honourable member for Moreton talked about the idea of having a unicameral system, that is one House of Parliament. I agree with that, but that does not mean it has anything to do with this Bill. The Opposition is constantly putting up a smokescreen of arguments which have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The honourable member for Curtin then talked about first past the post voting. How on earth can that have anything to do with what we are talking about, which is simultaneous elections for the Houses of this Parliament? I believe that the referendum failed to be carried because the people were fed that sort of argument. They were told that in any case there was no need to vote for it because a double dissolution would solve the problem. That is quite incorrect. The Opposition has been misleading the people by putting forward those arguments. I believe that the people ought to have another chance to say what they think about this matter. Perhaps we could then get into a situation in which this Parliament would run much better than it is at the moment. The holding of simultaneous elections would not affect the Senate’s power in any way. I ask honourable members opposite to have a look at the report of the Constitutional Review Committee. I believe that the arguments put in it are ones with which this Parliament and all the parties in it ought to agree. The honourable member for Curtin ought to brush up on his law when it comes to constitutional questions, because section 57 of the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about or to do with the matters that he brought before the House.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-We have heard the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who led for the Opposition in this debate, say that this Bill is connected with the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and a few other people to ensure that whenever there is an election for the House of Representatives there will be simultaneously an election for part or the whole of the Senate. We have looked at this proposal on many occasions and the people of this country have knocked it back at a referendum. I cannot understand the political common sense of the Prime Minister in again bringing forward such a proposal; because without doubt he will be disappointed a second time. The people just will not vote for constitutional changes that will have the effect of reducing the power of the Senate which will be to the Senate’s disadvantage and to the disadvantage of this country insofar as its administration and law are concerned.

As I looked at this proposal I had to ask myself, first of all, what explanation has the Prime Minister given when he has come to this House on 3 occasions and tried to persuade us and the people of the country to vote for this kind of constitutional change. It is with regret that I have to say that he has told us the minimum possible. In fact, he seems to be under the impression that it is best to leave us in the dark. In other words, he probably thinks that when ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to tell this House of the Parliament or the people anything. He hopes that in our lack of knowledge, in our ignorance, we might believe in him.

Very few people will believe in the Prime Minister after his escapades relating to the cables that were sent to our embassies or officials in North and South Vietnam, which were shown to be totally different in substance and tone from the impression he tried to convey to the Australian people and to us.

The next point that I want to make clear is this: I do not believe in giving increased power to any government that has already indicated beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot effectively manage or adminster the government of this country. Most of the Government’s actions from the time it came to power shortly after 2 December 1972 have had unfortunate repercussions upon the people of this country and are working against their interests. Anyone who looks at any of the Government’s activitieswhether they be in the field of employment, the control of inflation, defence, the effective management of our economy, open government, our international relations or a dozen and one other bills or administrative actions- is forced to come to the conclusion that the Government does not know how to administer the country; that it does not know the kind of laws that the people of this country want and need; and that it does not know of the aspiration of the people of this country and their desire to be left alone. For that reason, if for no other, I would not give the Government any more power. In fact, it would be my intention to restrict its power by kicking it out as soon as I possibly could.

The Prime Minister himself has in truth implied that it is not necessary to have simultaneous elections because only on 3 occasions have there been separate elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. He had to go back 20 years before we started a process in 1 953 and 1954 in order to find another example of simultaneous elections not having occurred. Those are the only occasions on which there have not been sychronous elections. I do not think the time has now arisen when we ought to have simultaneous elections. I must say that Sir Robert Menzies, one of the great politicians of our age or, for that matter, since the days of Federation, even with all his wisdom, skill and powers of persuasion did not try to bring together the elections for the Senate and the House after 1954. When we have the precedents of a man with the ability, the intellect and the political persuasion that he had, why should Whitlam, who is still learning, still trying to ape the great man and still trying to make an impression, try again and show how faulty his judgment is likely to be?

As you well know, Mr Speaker, there is one other point I should make. It is not necessary to hold simultaneous elections. The Prime Minister has 3 options open to him at the moment. He must hold a Senate election before 30 June next year; it will have to be held well before that date if the people elected are to be ready to take their place in the Senate on 1 July. If he chooses, he can take out when he holds an election, the whole of the House and part of the Senate at the same time, but he will not do that because he knows very well that he is likely to lose government, and I think he likes the joys of office, being duchessed, and being able to enjoy the fleshpots if one happens to be an active Prime Minister and likes the entitlement of going overseas. I wish that I had been able to enjoy some of those pleasures. But I was never able to do so during the time that I was Prime Minister.

He can dissolve the House alone. The other alternative he has available to him, if he wants to take it, is to have a double dissolution. He has got all the options open. He can achieve his objectives, if he wants to, simply and easily. We must probe a little deeper into his thinking and ask why he wants to go on in this way.

I think the first reason is that he believes that if the people are confused at the time an election for the House is held, he is more likely to get his way than he would be if they were properly informed. He now knows that he is on a losing streak. He is betting badly, his horses are running badly, he is running very badly and so are the Labor members of Parliament. So, if he can, he has got to create confusion, because the more the facts are known, the more the tide will swing against him, the fewer votes he will get, the quicker he will go out of office and the longer he will stay out. I should say that not Mr Whitlam but his successor will stay out of office because he would not be able to hold tight after defeat.

His philosophy was introduced by his own Press officer. It was referred to by Oakes and Solomon in their book ‘The Making of a Prime Minister’, published shortly after the 1972 election and in which they coined the philosophical approach that an all day sucker a day will keep the mug electors at bay. That is the Whitlam philosophy.

Another way is to distract attention from the vital issues with which we are faced today and it is another means by which he hopes he can sustain himself in power for a greater length of time.

What he is doing is introducing a constitutional trick. It is a trick to employ constitutional practices and procedures and an attempted alteration to the Constitution in order to persuade the people that he is a technical expert on the Constitution and is worthy of governing this country. I do not believe that he has shown the capability. If he had shown himself to be capable he would have had the guts and the courage to pull on an election of the House of Representatives and, at first chance, an election of the Senate before 1 July next year.

We will see whether this man is worthy of the reputation for political courage that he earned when he was in opposition but which he has never shown since he has been in government. We will see whether he does it. I know that he has the capacity for crashing through when he does not quite understand party or public opinion but I do not believe that his commonsense will permit him to continue these crash tactics any longer.

I turn to the Constitution itself. I must confess that I am a devout admirer of those who drafted the Constitution- the fathers of our Constitutionand gave us a legal framework that has been a confirmed source of protection in times of trouble and need.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know, as I know and as every other honourable member knows, that we profess to live in a liberal democracy. The essential constituents, ingredients and characteristics of a liberal democracy are certainty, continuity, a sense of responsibility not in the singular interests of a political party, not in the interests of the Parliament itself, but in the long term national interests of the Australian people.

I do not think the Labor Government today represents the long term interests of the Australian people, and I deny that it is operating and acting administratively or legally in their long term interests.

The relevant section of our Constitution that deals with the Senate is section 7. It states:

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate. ,

It goes on to state in the fourth paragraph:

The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor to the Governor-General.

What does the Prime Minister intend by trying to amend those 2 paragraphs of section 7 of the Constitution?

The first part of that section says that the Senate is to be composed of senators for each State. That expresses a constitutional concept in the clearest of language and means that the Senate is a State’s House and is intended to represent the States’ views, Changing this section necessarily means that the Prime Minister wants to whittle away the power of the Senate to reflect the views of the States. In its place he wants a trend more and more towards centralisation, more and more towards an autocratic system of government, and more and more towards the destruction of a liberal democracy, which is the very heart and soul of the Australian political system today.

The Prime Minister also wishes to turn away from what I regard as two of the essential features of democracy. The first one is the separation of the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. Bit by bit it is the Executive of the Government, rather than the Parliament, that is attempting to dominate this country. Fortunately, on several occasions the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party has overruled the Prime Minister, giving him a good solid prod in the part where it hurts most and depriving him of the opportunity to display his vocal powers in Caucus. The most recent example was in regard to the wool stabilisation proposals.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! I remind the right honourable gentleman that this is a very fairly narrow Bill. He seems to be traversing a fair amount of ground going away from the Bill.

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Sir, we have a slight difference of opinion about that, but I accept your ruling.

Senators are at present chosen for a term of 6 years. What does the Prime Minister want to do? Why does he want to alter the Constitution so that senators must submit themselves for an election whenever there is a House of Representatives election? I know that superficially there are some attractions in such an approach. But on deep analysis and with a knowledge of parliamentary life in this country gained over a long period and with a knowledge of what my predecessors in the office of Prime Minister have said, I have to say that we should not change that provision, because it can be contrary to be best interests of the people. These proposed changes would remove an essential safeguard.

There are two other points I want to deal with in relation to the question of parliamentary responsibility. Not only is the Senate a States’ House, it is also a House of review. And according to those who wrote ‘The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’, Quick and Garran, there is a necessity to ensure that the Parliament itself, whether in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, reflects the mature and long term views of the Australian people. Let us look first of all at the Senate as a House of review. Nobody who thinks or cares about the Australian people can doubt that the Senate, particularly since 1972, has acted with the highest sense or responsibility when dealing with the many measures that have come before it. The amendments it has made to so many draft laws have meant that the draft laws have come back here to the House of Representatives as better law and better representing Australian national views than they did when they were sent up from this House.

Mr Duthie:

– They have come back -

Mr McMAHON:

– Do be a good boy. You will not be here long. The Government parties have lost Lance Barnard and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) will be with him soon.

Mr Duthie:

– I will be here longer than you.

Mr McMAHON:

– All right, but please do not interject.

I refer to such matters as the Racial Discrimination Bill, the attempts to gerrymander the electorate in order to sustain an authoritarian system of democracy; and various Constitution Bills that were knocked back by the Senate and the people. I now want to refer to ‘The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’ by Quick and Garran in relation to mature judgment of the people and the obligation to sustain the long term interests of the Australian electorate.

At page 988 we find this statement:

A Constitution is a charter of government; it is a deed of trust, containing covenants between the sovereign community -

I emphasise those words because sovereignty truly resides with the people, or should- and its individual units. Those covenants should not be lightly or inconsiderately altered. At the same time a Constitution which did not contain provision for its amendment with the development, growth, and expansion of the community which it is intended to govern, would be a most inadequate and imperfect deed of partnership. It would be doomed to collapse ignominiously, and without hope of reconstruction.

The authors go on to say that those 2 ingredients must be combined and that the Constitution should be a living organism changing as necessary to meet environmental changes. Above all there is a necessity to ensure that when considering changes you must always ask yourself the basic question: Is the change in the interests of the Australian people or not? 1 have no doubt that on a mature view this proposed change we are considering would be contrary to the interests of the Australian people. I ask one other question: Why did the fathers of the Constitution provided that there should be a 6-year term for the members of the Senate? It was to ensure that the Prime Minister or the Government of the day could not intimidate or blackmail members of the Senate by threat of a double dissolution or by any other means when exercising their constitutional powers, to ensure that the Senate is a States’ House reflecting the views of the States and a House of review having all the qualities and power that a House of review needs to express the mature view and the long term attitude of the Australian people to constitutional change and the business of government.

I finish on this note: I would not give the Government any more power and neither would the greatest politicians of our time extend power in the way envisaged in this Bill. I want to ensure that the Senate can act independently and in the best interests of the Australian people. For those reasons I will do what I can to sustain the Senate’s prestige and power and to prevail upon the Australian people to support our action against this Bill. And to repeal an Act of Parliament should it be passed, when they have, the chance to vote on it at a referendum. I will do all I can to prevail upon the people to continue to do what they have done so frequently, that is, not to change the Constitution in a way that will react against their interests. The people are much too wise to do that. It is high time the Prime Minister understood that the people of this country have the wisdom and the will to knock back legislation they do not like.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I would like to compliment the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) on his very excellent analysis of the consequences of this Bill being passed by this House today and to endorse what he said. The Government just cannot take the law into its own hands. It just cannot thumb its nose at the Australian electors and expect the people of Australia to sit back passively. The honourable members who are trying to interject obviously do not believe in democracy and that the people in the electorate who cast any sort of a vote count for much. No doubt the people in their electorates are told by them when they go back into their arena that the Government really is concerned about their point of view. Yet this Bill, probably more than any other piece of legislation that this Government has introduced, is in the category of having been submitted to the Australian electorate and, having been scrutinised by the Australian electorate in the manner in which it felt the legislation deserved, and having been resoundly defeated. It is important that the people of Australia recognise that what is happening is that the Government is just thumbing its nose at a decision given by them as recently as 18 May 1974.

In only one State was the number of votes in favour of the proposed law greater than those against it. That was in New South Wales. There the vote in favour was less than the informal vote- about 30 000 votes as against 40 000 informal votes. In every other State there was a majority against this law being passed. The overall majority against it was about 400 000. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), showing the arbitrary manner in which he treats the decisions not only of the Parliament but also of the Australian electorate, now again introduces the Bill and says: ‘It is identical with that introduced by me on 11 February 1975 and I shall not again put forward the reasons which led the Government to re-submit this legislation.’ In other words, having had a significant vote cast against him and having failed in his first attempt to persuade either this Parliament or the people of Australia that he was right on that occasion, he now decides that he will treat the people and the Parliament with complete contempt and re-submit the measure for another referendum.

He says that he does not accept the argument which the Opposition advanced and which the Australian community accepted, that this legislation disturbs the balance of the relationship between the 2 Houses of the Parliament. The Prime Minister says that it will in no way damage the independence of the Senate nor will it alter the Senate’s present role. It is not for him to say. Four hundred thousand Australian electors more than those who supported the Bill said that his argument was wrong. What right has he now to come forward and say in a 2-page second reading speech: ‘I am not prepared to go through the arguments again. I have given them once. Too bad for you. I am going to submit it again to referendum. ‘ What arrant hypocrisy !

One needs to look at what the motivation of the Government might be and this is the matter on which I principally want to speak this afternoon. It seems to me that things are bad in the Australian Labor Party. We have seen crisis upon crisis over the last few weeks. First we saw a very uncertain relationship between the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) and the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). Then it turned out that not only did the Treasurer not know anything about what the Minister for Minerals and Energy was doing but also the Prime Minister did not know. When asked questions in this House about the background to a certain borrowing escapade by the Minister for Minerals and Energy the Prime Minister demonstrated that he knew absolutely nothing about it. That shows that the Prime Minister either was not interested or had insufficient concern about that type of borrowing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin). Order! I would -

Mr SINCLAIR:

– This is only a passing reference, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will accept your dictates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-They are not my dictates. The Standing Orders are fairly clear that the debate must be concerned with the Bill before the House. The honourable member is slipping away from the Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I accept that. It is important that we look at this Bill because we need to see why the Government is introducing it. It is true that whilst the Government has demonstrated its lack of competence in borrowing moneys one week, a Bill for the accelerated introduction of another referendum might seem at first glimpse to have little in common with that. I am seeking to show that the Government is moving from crisis to crisis. This would seem to be a way by which it is trying to avoid the consequences of normal democratic elections and by having a Senate which is able to sit in judgment upon it. That is what this Bill is all about. It is about the maintenance of the parliamentary system. It is about the rights of the Senate to adjudicate on laws which it decides are unjust. I wanted to raise that matter and I want, very briefly, to talk about some other events. First we had the borrowing escapade, then we had the wool debacle and now we have the whole of the uncertainty of who ‘s who in the leadership of the Labor Party.

Today we are debating another referendum Bill. The crises within the Government seem to be pushing it into a position where electoral change is the only basis on which it can hope to retain office. I am sure the fruits of office are such that the Government will seek, by whatever means are possible, to retain them. The Government says: ‘We have a mandate on this, that and the other type of legislation that we have introduced’. Government supporters forget that not only was the House of Representatives elected on 18 May but so also was the Senate. Obviously they have not only forgotten that the Senate was elected on that date but also they have forgotten that an identical referendum to that which we are now discussing in connection with this Bill was also submitted to the Australian electorate on 18 May 1974 and was resoundingly defeated.

I do not want to go over the detailed arguments. However, I think it is necessary that I do say that under the Australian Constitution there is already an opportunity for the government of the day to have simultaneous elections. Not only is this a measure to reduce the power of the Senate, it is also a measure designed to ensure that the Australian Constitution will be arbitrarily changed so that there will not be available to the Government the option which is now available to it. The Government can have simultaneous elections. The Prime Minister can call the Senate and the House of Representatives out at any time he wishes- and well the members of this chamber know it. In other words there is no point in introducing this Bill, unless there is some hidden reason. The Government can have simultaneous elections. The Government is in a position, thanks to the constitutional powers that are accorded it by sections 12, 13 and 32, to ensure that House of Representatives and Senate elections are held at an identical time. The Government does not seem to be interested in the present provisions of the Constitution. Why? Presumably because Government supporters are quite certain that if they submit their case to the Australian people in the normal course of events the Australian people will not be prepared to accept that case. That, of itself, is sufficient reason for this measure to be thrown out.

The National Country Party of Australia is concerned that there should be an opportunity for the Australian community to vote, where necessary and where desirable, on referenda of national interest. It is not only totally opposed to such an accelerated resubmission of a proposal so recently rejected by the people but also it is opposed to this Bill because it obviously is intended to lessen the power of the Senate, the one chamber of this Parliament which at the moment is protecting the interests of the Australian community, if the decisions of recent weeks are to be taken as any indication. We are also opposed to this Bill because no doubt it is another one of the processes of trying to ensure that the Australian community gives its permanent support to the Labor cause. In other words, honourable members opposite try to get simultaneous elections to reduce the power of the Senate not because they really see the matter as urgent and not because the Constitution is inadequate but because they are intentionally trying to give to the Labor Government a security of tenure which its actions should deny it and which I am quite confident the Australian people equally will deny it the next time it goes to the polls. The National Country Party of Australia regards this Bill as unnecessary and repugnant and as a Bill which would significantly reduce the power of the Senate in relation to the House of Representatives. It is therefore totally opposed to its passage.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 65

NOES: 55

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There being 65 ayes and 55 noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as is required by the Constitution.

Sitting suspended from 1.3 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3124

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Bill 1975.

Loans (Australian Shipping Commission) Bill 1975.

page 3124

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May on motion by MrUren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-This legislation is straightforward, and the Opposition at this stage indicates its support for it. The Bill is designed to do 2 things: Firstly, it proposes to include as an item of funding a category of flood mitigation. The Schedule to the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, which this Bill seeks to amend, authorises expenditure on 5 types of program. The first category is urban expansion and redevelopment, which may include sewerage and water supply. The second is area improvement, being urban and regional improvement and rehabilitation. The third is sewerage. The fourth is water supply. The fifth is restoration, preservation and improvement of landscapes and buildings of special significance. This Bill proposes to add a sixth item, namely flood mitigation, and to provide in the current year a sum of $450,000 for that purpose. It is to be noted that in the future the amounts of expenditure to be allocated to each of those heads will be dealt with as a budgetary item rather than by means of a financial assistance Bill.

We are told by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) that the purpose of including the head of flood mitigation is to enable expenditure on flood mitigation works in Brisbane. It should be pointed out, though, that the amount of money involved on this occasion will enable only a relatively small amount of work to be carried out in mitigating the sort of circumstances that caused the disastrous floods that occurred in Brisbane early last year. The way in which the Minister presented his second reading speech created the impression that this contribution would do a great deal in respect of flood mitigation work in Brisbane. The Opposition points out that all it will do is make some very small beginnings. It will enable some work to be done on the Enoggera Creek Dam- to raise the height of the weir there by some 20 feet -and also will enable some further flood mitigation work to be carried out in that area.

The Minister has indicated that further sums of money will be made available in future years. The great need in the Brisbane area, of course, will be for an examination to be made of the priority that should be given to the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam. One of the difficulties that will be faced in making that decision will be the problem of allocating priorities. This dam will be needed for 2 purposes: Firstly, to provide domestic water supply for the city of Brisbane and, secondly, to act as a means of mitigating the flood danger that Brisbane may face in the future. When one builds a dam for flood mitigation purposes, of course, one builds it on the basis that it will be kept partially empty so that it can cope with the sort of flood that Brisbane experienced last year. But this is always a problem because the responsibility of keeping a dam partially empty competes with the demands of those who want to see a more adequate domestic water supply for a city such as Brisbane. Therefore, at this stage I want to draw attention to the difficulties in allocation of priority and urge that this matter be carefully examined in relation to Brisbane and other areas where it is necessary that flood mitigation work be carried out.

It might be said that the most effective measure for flood mitigation is not to build in areas where there is any real danger of flooding. Of course, one must recognise that in cities and towns that have already been built in places where a danger exists of flooding, flood mitigation work must be carried out. It is to be hoped that in the planning and designing of new cities and the expansion of our existing cities, proper account will be taken of the risks of flooding in certain areas. It is to be hoped that development will take other directions so that the resources that are today in some areas- taking the longterm view- in effect necessarily being misallocated can do more to provide better urban areas for people than is now achieved by having to reduce the danger that established areas face as a consequence of some earlier mistaken decisions as to their location.

A provision in the Bill will enable the Minister and the Department to allocate funds in respect of other cities. One might well ask: How much is now contemplated as being needed for flood mitigation purposes in the development of Albury-Wodonga? I would hope that the point I have just been making will be given some attention and that a careful examination will be made of the proposed development works to ensure that they are not in areas that have any serious risk of flooding. To build new urban areas on locations which could be subject to flooding is only to demand expenditure in the future to reduce that risk. Albury-Wodonga is not a place, as the Minister would well know, that is free from flooding. Only late last year the Hume Highway in Albury was cut. In the city of Wagga, not far away, substantial areas of its urban districts were seriously flooded. No doubt the provision in the Bill enabling the allocation of funds for this purpose will now enable the Minister and the Department to look at other cities which have at present developed areas that are subject to flooding.

A further difficulty that arises in looking at the question of the allocation of resources for flood mitigation purposes is where to draw the line. When is a flood a natural disaster and when does it involve something which should be regarded as normal expenditure by way of provision in the establishment of that urban area? I am sure that this will cause some difficulties in definition in the future as the extent to which the flood mitigation work to be carried out under financial provisions of this legislation is examined.

The other objective that this Bill seeks to achieve is to vary the terms under which moneys can be made available to the States by way of loans. Under the present legislation loans for sewerage purposes can be on terms not in excess of 40 years for repayment, and for other works on terms not in excess of 30 years for repayment. This Bill seeks to remove that limitation and to enable loans to be made for such period as is negotiated from time to time. It is noted by the Opposition that the Act now requires the Minister to table any agreements he enters into. At the present time, the Parliament and the country know that the Minister cannot enter into agreements whereby the term of the loan is for a period in excess of those periods which I have mentioned. It is to be hoped that if the Minister plans to change the policy as to the terms of loans he will do so in a way which will enable the Parliament to comment on and understand the implications of such a change in policy. It is true that the Minister can table the agreement but, of course, that is after the event. Comment can be made on future agreements but not concerning the agreement that is currently being tabled.

We recognise, however, the need to change the law to provide the Minister with greater flexibility. The need arose in a special way. The House is well aware of the developments that are taking place in Albury-Wodonga. When the first Act of Parliament was passed in respect of funding development in the Albury-Wodonga area provision was contained in that legislation that also limited the period over which the capital funds could be repaid but when the AlburyWodonga agreement was entered into there was a provision in that agreement signed by the governments of Victoria and New South Wales and the Australian Government whereby in the event that the funds of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation were insufficient to enable it to repay the capital sums when they became due the amount then due could be tacked on at the end of the loan period. Legal doubts were expressed as to whether such a roll-over provision was in infringement of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act which this Bill now seeks to amend, the suggestion being that the effect of the agreement entered into with the States enabled the loan to be repayable over a period of more than 40 years in respect of sewerage works and in other cases over a period of more than 30 years. So this Bill seeks to remove that limitation in respect of the future.

The Bill also contains a special provision relating to the Albury-Wodonga assistance legislation for advances made in respect of the current financial year so as to exempt them specifically from doubts that may have arisen about the legislation as it reads at present, so that those advances can be rolled over in the event of the receipts of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation being insufficient to meet liabilities as they arise. I note that the Minister is not suggesting that the original AlburyWodonga Development (Financial Assistance) Act be amended. I understand that the reason for this is that the amounts of money involved are relatively so small that neither of the States, New South Wales and Victoria, is concerned about its ability to repay. I am also informed that in a number of the agreements entered into in respect of loans made out of the $25 8m that was made available under the Urban and Regional

Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, where there is a provision for the tacking on of an amount payable at the end of the loan period when payment cannot be made on the due date, there is a special provision which it is hoped will overcome the legal doubts that have arisen. As to the future, of course, the proposal in the Bill now before the House should remedy any defects and remove any doubts, thereby enabling the Minister to enter into an agreement of the sort entered into in respect of Albury-Wodonga.

I shall conclude with regard to this point by emphasising again the request I made earlier that, in the event of there being a substantial change in lending policies so far as the terms of loans are concerned, the Minister will make an announcement and indicate to the House and to the nation the nature of that change.

It has become an accepted practice that a sewerage loan be of a 40-year term and that other loans be of a 30-year term, having in mind that many of the assets which are developed as a consequence of the loan moneys have a limited life. It would be of very grave significance if there were to be a major change in the terms under which loan moneys were made available because if, in respect of an asset that has a life of 25 to 30 years, the loan term were extended to, say, 60 years, future generations would be paying for an asset which had seen its useful life. I note from the expressions of the Minister that he is aware of the point that I am making and I look forward to hearing his comments later in the debate and hope to receive from him an assurance that any major policy change in this regard will be drawn to the attention of the House.

Although this Bill deals only with the 2 specific points which I have described, it is an amendment of a piece of legislation that approved the expenditure in the current financial year of $258m and I do want, in conclusion, to touch very briefly on the implications of that. As the Minister would recall, last week I asked him a question arising out of the paper that he tabled with the Budget papers at the beginning of this financial year. In that report the following statement appeared:

The total outlay on the programs of the Urban and Regional Development Ministry is expected to increase by $266.7m, or 160 per cent, to $433.7m in 1974-75, following the increase of $87.7m in 1973-74. This rapid build-up in expenditure can be expected to ease in subsequent years as the new programs begun in 1973 become established. The best available estimates of the implications of present plans, not allowing for price changes, are that increases in 1975-76 and 1976-77 may be of the order of $206m (47 per cent) and $94m ( 1 5 per cent), respectively.

I do not propose today to touch upon the great implications that such a real increase in the expenditure of one department would have when taken in the total Budget context. What I want to raise is the problem that confronts State governments, local governments and semigovernmental authorities at the present time. That problem arises because of the fact that last year they too had this statement which I have just quoted drawn to their attention. Many of the programs undertaken by State governments, local governments and semi-governmental authorities with funds provided under this legislation are programs that take time to develop, and if there is to be a serious change in the resources available and those available to any particular program, it is important that those involved with the planning of those programs receive as early notification as possible.

One is constantly amazed at the inefficiencies that develop because of the annual budgeting of programs that are necessarily for periods longer than 12 months and the bunching of expenditure that occurs immediately before the conclusion of the financial year because of the necessity to spend it before 30 June, and then the starvation in terms of available funds in the first few months of the oncoming financial year. This distorts the allocation of resources and results in urban development costing more in real resources to achieve the same result than would be the case if the programs could be developed at a steadier pace and with a consistency over a period longer than 12 months.

Mr Uren:

– They all have supply.

Mr WILSON:

-It is true, as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development says, that they all have supply, but if there is to be a significant change in the availability of funds in the forthcoming year, it is important that that change and the programs to be altered should be indicated as soon as possible, because the planning necessarily would have taken place upon the basis of the indications given last year. If now as the Minister pointed out in his answer to my question, he is faced with the problem of convincing his Cabinet of the priority to be placed on the programs that he is advancing and if he is unsuccessful in achieving the level of resource allocation that was publicly indicated in the Budget Papers last year, the sooner he can let the authorities who are carrying out urban development know of the change in the allocation of resources, the more efficient will be the development of their programs. There will not be this sudden stop-start aspect of their programs which is expensive and inefficient in its operation.

In conclusion, I should like to say that we in the Opposition recognise the great importance of improving the standard of our urban areas and ensuring that those new and developing urban areas are developed to a standard that is acceptable. We place great importance on local government, semi-government authorities and the States having the resources available to them to enable them to achieve a standard of urban development that will meet the aspirations of the Australian people. But we want to make sure also that the funds that are made available preserve for local government and for State governments, not only the responsibility to administer, but the responsibility to make decisions with respect to those matters that properly fall within the area and scope of their responsibilities. Insofar as this piece of legislation will give some greater flexibility in making funds available to the States for urban development, we support this legislation and we support the inclusion of the provision of funds for flood mitigation purposes as well.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-The Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, as correctly pointed out, sets out to amend the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974. It does so in 2 significant respects. Firstly, it sets out to adjust the terms of the loans under the financial agreements with the States. The House will recall that under sections 3, 4 and 9 in the Schedule, the Act provided $258,398,000 in loans. This included $124,750,000 for urban expansion and redevelopment; $13,500,000 for area improvement, being urban and regional improvement and rehabilitation; $110m for sewerage; $4,400,000 for water supply and a further $5,748,000 for restoration, preservation and improvement of landscapes and buildings of special significance.

I particularly wish to refer to growth centres as that is the major aspect of the umbrella legislation. Our program for growth centres aims to encourage the rapid development of a small number of regional growth centres as desirable alternatives to existing cities. This involves the operation of a development corporation with the following functions: To acquire and develop land; to provide service headworks; and to carry out both strategic and detailed planning for green field urban developments. Development corporations are also responsible for attracting population and industry to the centres that they manage. The role of a development corporation involves much more construction work than land commissions. A development corporation should also generate demand by making the particular growth centre an attractive alternative to other urban areas. As the House knows, our major growth centre program is Albury-Wodonga. As correctly pointed out by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) it will take time for the centres to develop and it will be difficult for the corporations to estimate accurately the rents, charges and other income that they wish to generate. It will be difficult for such corporations to set such rents and charges at a level which will give them income to service the loan from the Australian Government.

The Australian Government, through the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), built into the 1974 Act a form of loss guarantee which would cover this situation. But during the discussions on the terms and conditions of finance for our programs of development of the urban fringe and in growth centres, the States sought assurance from the Government that terms and conditions of finance could be reviewed after an initial period. We agreed to this. The long term nature of those programs is such that flexibility will be required in the initial stages. To achieve this flexibility and to satisfy the States, we included in clause 5 (3) of the Bill a provision to review the operation of these agreements. But the States believe and, I understand, even received legal advice- or that was the information given by the honourable member for Sturt- that the intent of section 5, subsection (3), of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act was overruled by section 7 of that Act. Section 7 of the Act provides:

  1. 1) Subject to this Act, where financial assistance under this Act is provided to a State by way of loan, the State shall- . (a) repay the loan in such a manner, and within such period, not exceeding-

    1. in the case of a loan in respect of expenditure in accordance with a program relating to the matter specified in item 3 in the Schedule- 40 years after the date on which the loan was made; or
    2. in any other case-30 years after the date on which the loan was made,

I think a few comments about this provision are in order. Although we do not agree that these sections are inconsistent, or contradictory- the legal draftsmen certainly did not think so- we have agreed to resolve the situation by replacing paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act with these words:

  1. repay the loan in such manner, and within such period, as are specified in the agreement in accordance with which the financial assistance is provided.

That brings the provision into line with the new agreement under the umbrella Act.

I think a few comments about the co-operative approach in which this amendment was agreed upon also are in order. It is a further example of the underlying co-operative effort between the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and his State counterparts in the various State governments. The original Act for the first time set the seal on the concept and function of cooperative federalism in Australia. It allows the Australian and State governments to get together in co-operative measures to improve the quality of life in Australia. For far too long laissez faire or ad hoc attitudes have dominated the thinking of Australian governments in the area of urban and regional development. These defects have distorted the distribution of the good things of life which should be available to all of our people. The great merit of the Act, which this Bill seeks to amend, is that for the first time the resources of Australia were marshalled to provide national strategies and national programs. Indeed, it was the first attempt by an Australian government to recognise the national character of the problems of the cities. But, moreover, in particular it allowed the Australian Government to join State and local authorities in planning and implementing programs with a broad national perspective.

In other areas, the States have been a little tardy in signing agreements with the Australian Government to set up the machinery to put these programs into operation. For instance, the Aus.tralian Government proposed that each State establish a land commission or some other body with powers to acquire and develop land. These bodies would operate within the existing administrative framework of the different States. Their activities would be mainly the acquisition and release of large areas of land which would be ready to be put to urban use. The Victorian Government as late as May last year agreed to establish an urban land council. It was expected that $16m would be made available to Victoria this financial year. I understand that $3. 5m of that amount would be used to purchase open space on the Mornington Peninsula in order to preserve an area which is of conservational and recreational significance to the whole of Melbourne. The balance of the funds would be sufficient to purchase some 850 hectares of land for urban residential development in Melbourne in preferred growth areas.

Exactly 12 months have passed since that initial agreement was reached between the Minister and the more progressive elements of the Victorian Government. I believe the delays have been caused by internal arguments in the Victorian Cabinet between the more conservative elements, which we see repeated in the Opposition here, and the more progressive elements which join the Minister and the Government in wishing to develop a quality of life at a price in which the average earner can participate and which will enable him to purchase for himself. The latest announcement is that the Victorian Government has again agreed and is prepared to sign the agreement. I hope that comes about before the end of the financial year. It is a very good thing to hear this news because it means that thousands of land seekers wishing to purchase their homes will be able to obtain land at a far cheaper cost to themselves and at a saving of thousands of dollars in each case.

But final acceptance which, as I said earlier, is essential before the end of this month is symptomatic of the conservative States in many aspects. Co-operative federalism apparently depends on a one way flow of funds from the national Government to the State governments. Examples which are quick to come to mind are sewerage, land commissions, area improvement programs and so on. In this case it is not hard to understand why the State governments have readily agreed, not only because of the persuasiveness and co-operative nature of the Minister but also because of the flow of funds to the various State governments. Another example is Medibank. After a political barrage and dispute lating several years and combined with several non-Government organisations- admittedly parties to the scheme- the State governments have accepted Medibank. They have accepted the medical side because it is law and the hospital side because it means an increased flow of funds. If there is no money involved or if it means a loss of State generated revenue in favour of national benefit the spirit of cooperation disappears. I think this is nowhere more prominent than in the issue of conservation and preservation of the environment.

A case in point is Fraser Island. Any mineral or environment policies in Australia are essentially based upon co-operation between a national government with powers over export licences and State governments which have the power to issue mining licences. The State governments have as their sole prerogative and responsibility land use in Australia. In the case of Fraser Island the mining leases or licences were issed by the Queensland Government. Of course upon this was built the expectation that

Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals, the company involved, would be able to go ahead. The Australian Government and the Minister for Minerals and Energy, who is responsible for issuing the export licence, are forced to fulfil that expectation and obligation. I give this example because it shows that our environment policy is sound and consistent but it falls down if we cannot gain State co-operation.

In all their calls for a cut in government spending the conservative States and the Opposition avoid declaring where their cuts would be made. Why does the Opposition not state that it would like to see a cut in government expenditure in the area of urban and regional development? I think the answer is fairly clear. First of all, the Opposition is frightened. It knows that if it is to win government, if it is to take over the benches from the current Government, it will need to secure votes in the outer suburbs of Sudney and Melbourne. So they are afraid to declare cuts in government expenditure which would increase the quality of life. They are afraid to announce cuts of a direct flow of funds to their State counterpartsthe conservative State governments. More kindly- I think the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Stun falls into this category- I believe that some members of the Opposition recognise that the quality of life does not depend upon the income of the individual. He cannot buy his way out of bad planning, out of a smog-filled environment or out of a traffic jammed city. The quality of life depends more upon where one lives. The answer must be a community solution- a social or a national approach.

Co-operative federalism, when successful, is carried out against a barrage of criticism that each government $1 increases the Budget deficit. Each claim for $1 is shadowed by a criticism of increased government expenditure. The States and the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They must acknowledge that State government expenditure must have the same impact as national government expenditure, whether their income is derived from their own sources or from the Australian Government under section 96 of the Constitution or whether the spending program is their own initiative or part of a national program- part of the Australian Government’s nationally accepted responsibility. Co-operative federalism implies an end to ad hoc or piecemeal decision-making and a start to national planning for the environment, for the cities, for the country and for our economy. One aspect of the national program forms the second feature of this Bill that seeks to amend the Act. The Australian Government policy statement ‘A National Approach to Water Resources Management’ which the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) tabled in Parliament in October sets out a broad framework and a series of objectives for a balanced approach to water resources management. One of the stated objectives is ‘to encourage the zoning of flood prone land, with a view to its orderly management. Such zoning and management must of course be carried out in the context of the regional development framework and take full account of the overall social, economic and environmental requirements of particular districts and the nation as a whole ‘.

This Bill will provide $450,000 for flood mitigation works on the Breakfast-Enogerra Creek in Brisbane which urgently requires attention before it can be incorporated in the national water resources program. The urgency is obvious. The 1974 flooding cost 1 1 lives and probably was the most serious of the four or five floodings since 1950. The honourable member for Sturt may decry the additional funds provided in this Bill, but action to lessen the tragedy of floods must be taken on all fronts, of which flood mitigation is just one. In conclusion, I compliment the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Government on continuing their national responsibility in the areas of urban and regional development and water conservation.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I wish also to compliment the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) for introducing this Bill which provides $450,000 to be spent during the current year on flood mitigation works in the Ryan Federal electorate in Brisbane which I have the honour to represent. This proposal, as the Minister has pointed out, represents the first contribution from Canberra for flood mitigation in urban areas of the States. It will certainly be a boon to a large number of residents who for years have suffered considerably whenever very heavy rain has fallen. It is good to have the Minister’s assurance, subject of course to parliamentary approval which I have no doubt will be readily forthcoming, that further funds will be made available in future as the work proceeds and as the need arises. I regret that the joint move has been so long in coming to fruition. The loss of lives and the serious damage to many homes in Brisbane during the devastating flood of January 1974 are still fresh in the minds of all who suffered.

The proposal to make a substantial sum available for flood mitigation is a very important step in the right direction. I know it will be warmly welcomed, especially in those areas that have been affected most. I should like also to compliment the Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Council on the joint arrangement which I understand has been made. It is the result of a good co-operative effort which deserves warm commendation. For years negotiations have been proceeding at all levels of government and repeated representations have been made by me and by State and municipal representatives. Some public meetings have been held, particularly in the Enoggera district. On such occasions as my parliamentary duties have allowed I have attended these meetings, along with other public representatives. I believe that our joint representations to the various authorities concerned have helped to reach the present stage.

People living in the flood prone suburbs surrounding Enoggera Creek for years have lived in fear of the loss and damage that the next cyclone season or the next heavy storms would bring. Of course there are other areas besides Enoggera Creek that are also badly affected from time to time. It will be most reassuring to the long suffering citizens in these areas when the Parliament passes this legislation, as I am sure it will. The commencement, and more especially the completion, of these much needed flood mitigation works will be looked forward to keenly and will help to relieve many anxious minds in the areas. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-As the previous speakers have said, this Bill provides for two main changes in the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974. The first is the provision of an additional $450,000 to be spent on flood mitigation works in Brisbane in the 1974-75 financial year. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) it was indicated that further funds will be made available in future years as the work proceeds. Of course this has to be with parliamentary approval. This is the first major Australian Government contribution to urban flood mitigation. Although this may be a small beginning we feel that it is extremely urgent that urban flood mitigation should receive considerable assistance because over the years urban flooding has caused considerable losses throughout the length and breadth of Australia.

It has been said by some people that the additional allocation in the legislation will mean an increase in the already large Government Budget deficit which may be considered undesirable in the current inflationary situation. But I would agree with other honourable members that this program is of such importance that this sum should not be regarded as too great in the circumstances. The indication given in the second reading speech that more funds will be provided in future years means that the Queensland Government can commit itself to long term flood mitigation projects, but as the amount of future assistance is unspecified it may face problems in drawing up a long term flood mitigation program. By providing assistance for flood mitigation works the Government will be helping to reduce losses from future floods and hence part of the burden of public disaster relief which it might otherwise have to bear.

Over the years the Paterson electorate, which I represent in this House, has seen some very disastrous flooding in the towns of Muswellbrook and Singleton and in the City of Maitland. I have no doubt that this Bill will pave the way in the future for urban finance for flood mitigation in these towns that I have mentioned and indeed in many other towns right throughout the length and breadth of Australia. So it is a measure which, in the main, we support.

It is interesting to note that in the United States of America the Government has taken a different approach by subsidising flood insurance for people living in identified floodprone areas, tied to incentives to encourage land use policies which would limit building in floodprone areas or allow only elevated flood-proof construction. If communities which have been identified as flood-prone by the Government did not satisfy the building requirements, the residents would be ineligible to buy flood insurance at the subsidised rate, that is, US$0.25 per $100 or 0.25 per cent, with the Government paying about 90 per cent of the actual cost. Neither would they be eligible for disaster relief should a flood occur. A stronger incentive over the long run is that residents in flood-prone areas would be unable to obtain any federal or federally-assisted loans for new construction or mortgages on existing buildings unless they had flood insurance.

At present, flood insurance cover in Australia is generally unavailable or, where it is available, only at very high cost from private insurers. However, the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation will be undertaking natural disaster insurance, possibly in the near future, and there is no doubt that we need natural disaster insurance cover in this great country of ours.* The United States example shows that future government assistance for flood mitigation may be unnecessary if incentives are tied to government flood insurance to encourage more responsible use of flood plains. It is something that could be looked at here.

The second part of this Bill provides for a more flexible approach to the terms of loans made by the Government to the States, and for the terms to be defined in the financial agreements made with each State on each project rather than in the general legislation providing the financial assistance. Of course, under the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 loans had to be repaid within a period of 30 years except in the case of loans for sewerage projects which were over 40 years. The change provided for by the Bill will permit the Government to defer repayment of loans if the relevant projects fail to generate sufficient income to meet the repayments when they fall due. I notice that in the Bill specific reference is made to the Albury-Wodonga regional development scheme in which the Australian Government is co-operating with the New South Wales and Victorian Governments. Many of us on both sides of this House are not completely in favour of this type of development because it could dampen the enthusiasm of those local governments which are anxious to develop their own areas. Be that as it may, the AlburyWodonga complex is under way and everyone would want to see it become a success.

By allowing changes in the terms of loans to be made directly in the financial agreements with the States, the Government will be able to give individual consideration to the circumstances of projects in each State. This will refer not only to the Albury-Wodonga complex but also to any other projects of a similar nature throughout Australia. I have no doubt that if this complex is successful there will be others, such as the scheme for the Orange-Bathurst area. However, the proposed changes would not be necessary if the Government considered that the projects for which it was providing financial assistance would be viable and able to earn sufficient income for the loans to be repaid within the time specified. The proposal to change the Act would imply that there are some doubts about the viability of projects in terms of generating money returns as opposed to providing social benefits.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I should like to join with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr 0’Keefe) in some of his remarks about flood mitigation work. In common with him, I have very strong recollections of the damage caused by the Hunter River in parts of his electorate and in other parts of the Hunter Valley. I can recall what used to be a regular sequence of property loss and damage caused by the Hunter River. I can recall in 1955 the severe hardship and damage that were caused by the Hunter River, particularly at Maitland. I can recall during those floods going to the area with teams of community workers to assist in repair work and in the recovery of homes and people’s possessions. I think it is appropriate to say that the New South Wales Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission has done some very good work in controlling and directing the course of the Hunter River. It has carried out control measures which since 1955 no doubt have saved a lot of hardship and loss of property which otherwise would have occurred through severe flood damage. I welcome the remarks of the honourable member for Paterson in respect of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. He seems to have comprehended one of the things that we were trying to get across to the Opposition in the debate on the legislation concerned with the Corporation, and that is that there is a need for national disaster insurance. There is a need to provide across-the-board protection for people who are likely to be the victims of floods and of other natural occurrences over which man has no control.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this Bill which seeks to amend the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974. There is no need to recapitulate the stories about loss and personal hardship that occurred in the aftermath of the Brisbane floods in early 1974. Suffice it to say that much of the property damage- not to mention the loss of human lives- could have been avoided with closer control over building and development approvals. The Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) has stated on other occasions that flood plains are for floods. This fact should be borne strongly in mind in all land use planning schemes. The funds to be provided to the Brisbane City Council under this amendment to the Act will enable flood mitigation works to be carried out on the Enoggera and Breakfast Creeks to prevent property damage and loss of life should there be in Brisbane another flood of the magnitude of the tragic flood of last year. I wish to emphasise the point made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury) earlier in the debate, namely, that the $450,000 to be provided under this amendment to the Act is being matched by the Queensland Government by way of a non-repayable subsidy or grantwhatever one cares to term it. So, 40 per cent of the total cost, or $450,000, will be provided by the Australian Government, 40 per cent of the total cost will be provided by the Queensland Government, and the remaining 20 per cent of the total cost will be provided by the Brisbane City Council.

Despite the claims of opponents of the Aus.tralian Government about the infringement of State rights by this Government, this legislation is a shining example of the co-operation and coordination between the 3 levels of government in our nation that can develop and that do exist. It is an example of the results that can be achieved when problems confronting the community are approached in a true spirit of co-operative federalism, which has been promoted so staunchly by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who is presently sitting at the table. He has been outstandingly successful in promoting a spirit of co-operative federalism in relation to the responsibilities of his portfolio.

When this Government came to office, one of its early decisions was to set about developing a national approach to water resources in lieu of the previous piecemeal system of providing financial assistance to the States for water resources management. This sum of $450,000 from the Australian Government should be seen as the first instalment of a future capital works program to improve the quantity of water supplies, to improve the quality of water supplies and to prevent property damage at times of unavoidable floods. The Australian Government has asked all States to submit a 10-year program for water resources development. This will include not only urban projects concerning urban water supply and flood mitigation but also rural projects concerning flood mitigation and irrigation. Those 10-year programs are coming in readily and the Australian Government will be examining them and allocating financial assistance on the basis of national priorities. In the interim urgent projects such as the one now before the House, the Breakfast Creek /Enoggera project, and the one which was approved some months ago in respect of the Adelaide water supply, have been undertaken to try to alleviate the existing conditions.

Reference is made in the principal Act to land commissions. A level of harmony and cooperation can be achieved when problems are approached in the true spirit of trying to find a solution and when they are approached by all levels of government. Again the Department of Urban and Regional Development has been remarkably successful in this area. Land commissions have been established in 3 States and the stage has been reached that urban land councils are now operative in South Australia, New South Wales and Western Australia. I understand that agreements with Victoria and Tasmania are shortly to be signed. Under that program there will be a direct flow of finance from the Federal Government to State governments to assist in providing additional home sites based on the cost of acquiring and developing those sites rather than on whether there is a profit incentive to make home sites available.

We hear constantly of the need for local government to receive assistance from the federal purse. Last week the Opposition mentioned that 5 per cent of federal income tax revenue should be directed to local government. I do not support the proposal of a flat percentage. At least it should be looked at a lot more closely before we set a flat percentage figure. But through the Department of Urban and Regional Development, through its recognition and co-operation with local government and the State governments, there is already a direct flow of funds from the Federal Treasury right down to the ground level of local government.

I wish now to look at the establishment of the regional organisations. I mention the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) and myself in respect of the Hunter Valley and I point out the success that has been achieved by the Hunter regional organisation which embraces 15 councils in the Hunter Valley, covering geographically almost the whole of the Hunter Valley. In that organisation there are 5 urban or semiurban councils, with a clear majority of the population of the Hunter Valley, and 10 rural councils.

Mr Uren:

– Their progressive leadership should be commended.

Mr MORRIS:

– With progressive leadership, as the Minister points out. Almost complete harmony has been achieved by the members of the Hunter regional organisation. As I pointed out, ten of them are from rural areas and five are from urban or semi-urban areas. The problems of the region have been approached properly and responsibly by the regional organisation on the basis of what is best for the region. This in itself evidences a very large step forward for local government, because if the community is to receive the services it needs right down at local government level in terms of community facilities, better roads, better drains and better kerbing and guttering- things as mundane as thatthe personnel of local government must be prepared to look beyond their own council area. The mechanism provided by the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Australian Government, through the regional organisations, gives them the opportunity to do that.

I would like to pay tribute to the Hunter regional organisation for its forward thinking and for the spirit of co-operation that exists between those 15 councils. I put that forward to the House as an example of what can be achieved by people in local government and by the 3 levels of government in this nation when all concerned get together, face up to the problem and look at ways of solving the problem, not with a view to trying toobtain some cheap or quick political mileage but rather in providing solutions that are best suited to meet the community need. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-In supporting this Bill-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be put.

Mr HODGES:

-This is outrageous, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had less than one hour on this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The question is:

That the question be put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Uren) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-A good deal of nonsense has been spoken about the Government’s proposals in this Bill, and I think it should be exposed. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has put the whole case on the growth of the Australian population. The point is that the Australian population has ceased to grow.

Motion ( by MrNicholas ) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3135

RAILWAYS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The Bills we are debating are the Railways (South Australia) Bill and the Railways (Tasmania) Bill. The purpose of the Bills is to give legislative effect to the takeover of the rural railway services in South Australia and both the metropolitan and rural services in Tasmania along the lines set out in the papers tabled in the House several weeks ago entided ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian Railway system to the Australian Government’ and ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railway System to the Australian Government’. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) pointed out in his second reading speech that there is a constitutional provision in relation to these measures, namely, section 5 1 of the Constitution, which gives the Australian Parliament power with respect to:

The acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State.

The Minister made the point that this proposal was considered worthy enough by our founding fathers to be included in the Constitution. He then made this odd comment:

The transfer of the State railways to the Australian Government has been portrayed by the Opposition as a centralist and socialist measure.

I do not know who wrote his speech for him. The Bill certainly is a centralist measure- I would not quibble with that description- but to describe the transfer of a railway system from a State-owned instrumentality to a Federal-owned instrumentality as some form of socialist measure makes the mind boggle a little. The Minister went on to talk about the need for a government with a national outlook. We have heard this fine rhetoric from the Minister before. He said: . . . Australia has had to wait for a Government with a truly national approach to transport problems before the vision of the framers of the Constitution could commence to be realised.

The Minister not only aimed his attack at the previous Government but at previous Labor governments which also had not seen the need for this measure to proceed in this way, as will be demonstrated later. As for this being a Government with a truly national approach to transport, I do not believe for one moment that the taking over of the rural services of the South Australian railways, or indeed the taking over of the Tasmanian railway system, can be described in any way as a massive national approach when compared with the great railway standardisation program that previous Liberal-Country Party governments undertook over previous years. The Minister pointed to what he believes are the major problems that have flowed from the decentralised control of railway systems under present arrangements. He referred to such matters as the duplication of facilities and administrations. That is an extroadinary complaint when one looks at the provisions of this Bill which will maintain staff at the present levels. Indeed, they cannot be reduced. Operation costs obviously will not be reduced by staff reductions because there is provision for all staff to be taken care of under this Bill.

The Minister then talked about the inefficient operating procedures at present in the State railway systems. I think that railway workers throughout New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland would love that attack on them. He also talked about the poor utilisation of available resources but he did not give any example. He referred to the limited standardisation of equipment and the lack of a uniform approach to railway policy. He totally ignored the fact that the railways commissioners of the various States had been meeting and overcoming these problems. They have been doing so for a number of years and have been reducing the area of conflict between one railway system and another. Some of the complaints the Minister raised do have a measure of currency but the fact is that there have been tremendous achievements as a result of the railways commissioners meeting over the years. I doubt that the passage of these Bills will stop the commissioners from meeting and going properly about their affairs as they ought to do.

The Minister then pointed to some of the technical difficulties relating to trains in one State and another as a reason for the Commonwealth taking over the State railway systems. One of the examples he gave was that there are more than 9 different designs of car carrying waggons. I think that only 5 States are involved in carrying cars by train, so it must be more than just coincidence that there are 9 designs for such waggons. I suspect it is something to do with the cars themselves, their size, their length, height and breadth. I suspect that an over simplified approach, as the Minister pretends, cannot be taken. He then talked about the changing of train crews and the remarshalling of trains at State borders, saying that this wastes both time and resources. This argument has some appeal but I think a closer examination may demonstrate that the change of train crews coincides with the completion of their working hours for a period. As an excuse for the transfer of these rail systems the Minister used such a thing as the fact that hand brakes are located in different places on freight waggons used on different systems. Indeed, he stooped to using the small problem of shunters steps on waggons from different systems varying in height, design and location on the waggons. Some of these may be important, some of them may even be costly, but they scarcely justify the expenditure by the Federal Government of an excessive $200m for the takeover of the South Australian and Tasmanian railway systems.

Many inquiries have been held into the rail operations of the various States. One of the most comprehensive and recent ones was the Bland Committee inquiry, the report of which was tabled in the Victorian Parliament last session. It certainly pointed to much more major reasons than those which I have just read and which were advanced by the Minister for Transport as his reasons for taking over the State railway systems. In the Bland Committee report there was reference to the use being made of a number of railway stations in country areas and of a number of railway lines in the areas and of the need for some rationalisation of some of these services. They are the major reasons put up by the Bland Committee for a change in the railway system.

The Minister has said that this Bill provides specifically that little change can flow out of the takeover by the Commonwealth of the State railways because clause 9 specifically requires the agreement of the State Minister to any proposed closure of lines or reduction in services. To use an old expression- I do not know whether it is parliamentary but it is a well known Australian expression- I think the Minister has been conned. Here is a situation where the Federal Minister takes over the State railway systems, advancing the argument that only by so doing can he rationalise these services that are in poor shape. We have heard him make speeches before attacking the poor rail services in those States. He advances the argument that there is only one way, and that is for centralised control, and that the Commonwealth has the answers.

Clause 9 specifically requires a State Minister’s agreement to any such closure. Imagine the political situation that will occur in South Australia when the Federal Minister for Transport tries to close down a line or a railway station that has not been used much. Of course his colleague in South Australia will refuse to agree to such closure and the Minister will be left with a lot of egg on his face. It seems to me that all the advantages in this respect lie with the State Minister. Again, the Australian National Railways may recommend a change of fare structure in Adelaide and there may be a great political row. Clause 8 says that where general fares,, freight rates and other charges at the commencement date have established a relative advantage to the users, that advantage shall not be diminished. I do not know how the Federal Minister for Transport expects to restructure either the fares or freight rates in South Australia while that clause remains. As I said, it seems to me that the Minister at the table has been conned into accepting this proposal. It seems also that all the advantage lies not with the Federal Minister or with the Australian National Railways, which will find that its proposals will not be able to be proceeded with because the Minister has fallen into the trap set up by these clauses.

In his second reading speech the Minister spoke about the problems existing between the 2 States and the practical differences between one rail systems and another. He said:

It is no wonder then that the railways were basically incapable of coping with increased capital costs and the spirited- and mainly united and co-ordinated- competition provided by the road hauliers and freight forwarders. As a result freight has been diverted to inadequate highways with consequent economic and social costs to the community as a whole, in the form of higher road maintenance costs and the human misery and personal financial burden road accidents bring.

I can say only that that is a gross oversimplification of the facts. Indeed I find the whole speech somewhat oversimplified. Certainly it will lead to high expectancy from both the users in Tasmania and the users in South

Australia. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister will be able to satisfy that expectancy.

I believe that that extract from the speech makes the Minister look just a little foolish. He ought to know that within a State door to door operations by road hauliers are much more economic than the use of rail. Take the situation of a manufacturer making a product who can put the product on a truck and send it 100 miles across country to the point of delivery. The product would be handled only twice- at the loading stage and the unloading stage. Compare that with the requirement to use rail, if such a requirement were introduced. The product would have to be loaded on to a road haulier then put on a train- when the train turns up, that is- and finally sent to its destination to be unloaded again on to a road haulier for delivery to the consumer’s door. Obviously that is an expensive and inefficient operation. Within the States a great deal of that circumstance prevails. Yet conversely in interstate haulage, rail has increased its volume of carriage of freight immensely. The Minister should know that road hauliers themselves demonstrate the capacity of rail to carry large volumes of freight on long haulage because they hire a great number of rail trains- complete trains as I understand it- for example, on the Sydney to Melbourne run. Rail can and does compete under these circumstances more effectively, favourably and indeed economically with road.

Later in the second reading speech the Minister went into his usual expansive attitude to Government actions in respect of transport. He is the living example of the old adage that success has a thousand fathers. He talks about how the Government is implementing the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway program, the Adelaide-Crystal Brook program and even the urban transport program. Not one of those programs was initiated by this Government; they were all initiated by the previous Liberal-National Country Party Government. All policy decisions in respect of them were taken by the previous Government.

Mr Charles Jones:

– That would be humourous if it were not so untrue.

Mr NIXON:

– It is a pity that the Minister cannot really have a win on one of these programs. This is the first Bill- I compliment the Ministerin which the first single initiative of a Labor Government in the transport field is seen that is sensible and that was not proposed and prepared to be implemented by the previous Government. Of course, it is more to the philosophy of the

Labor Government than it would be to a Liberal-National Country Party Government. This is a policy of centralism. If follows very closely the lines that have been taken by the Minister and the whole of the Government. So one can expect this sort of initiative, this new centralist initiative, to be expanded by this Government. As I have said, it is about the only decent initiative- if one can call it decent; it is the only initiative, perhaps I had better phrase it that way- that I have seen taken in the transport field by this Government that was not taken by the previous Liberal-National Country Party Government. It is the later statement in the Minister’s speech that I find the most fascinating. He says:

One may ask why the Government does not just provide the States with sufficient funds to bring their railways up to an acceptable standard; I must admit this solution has an elementary plausibility in that it would appease the States. But it would be a denial of our responsibility to the railways and the people of Australia- that awesome responsibility that accompanies the spending of public money. We cannot, and will not, divorce the responsibility of raising funds from the spending of them.

That is a fine piece of verbiage, I must say. Inherent in the last part of that statement- ‘we cannot, and will not, divorce the responsibility of raising funds from the spending of them’- is obviously a proposal that this Government will set out to control the expenditure of all tax funds that are raised by the central government. Every member of this House knows that all taxation revenue comes to the central government. Is it the wish of the Minister and his Government to control the expenditure of all the funds that are raised? I suggest that such a proposition is untenable. The Minister says in his speech that major transport projects have been subject to vigorous cost benefit analysis by the Bureau of Transport Economics. Has this proposal been subjected to analysis by the Bureau of Transport Economics? The Minister did not say that it had been, and I do not recall seeing tabled in the Houseperhaps I have not been reading my mail cor.rectly: there is such a volume of it these days- an analysis by the BTE of the proposal to take over the South Australian and Tasmanian railways systems. Yet the proposal is costing $200m or more. Did the BTE in fact make such an examination?

Mr Kelly:

– Ask him again.

Mr NIXON:

– I think he is a bit deaf at times. He does not wish to hear. If I could divert from the Bills just for a moment, let me say that it is rather in line with the Minister’s proposal that 40 per cent of imported oil should be carried in Aus.tralian bottoms, or in Australian ships. The fact that that will cost the Australian consumer a minimum of some $12m and probably $20m, and a growing amount year by year because of the feather-bedding of Australian crews on Australian ships, goes by the board and does not seem to matter. I ask the Minister again: Was this $200m South Australian and Tasmanian proposal subject to a BTE cost-benefit analysis? Was the oil proposal subjected to a cost-benefit analysis?

Mr Charles Jones:

– You are making the speech.

Mr NIXON:

– I am asking the questions too. I am not getting much of an answer. I do not think the Minister knows. He is so unprepared for the debate on these Bills that he does not know the answer; so he tries to bluff his way through.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The Minister will have his chance to reply. Will the honourable member address his remarks through me?

Mr NIXON:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall be delighted to do that, as long as the Minister is able to answer the questions. That is really the key to the whole issue. Then the Minister stated:

The South Australian Government has decided to retain the SAR metropolitan railways, because it sees a need to coordinate all urban passenger transport under one authority.

How does the Minister rationalise the difference between his approaches to raising money and spending it on the metropolitan railways and on the rural railways? He said that he has the awesome responsibility of spending the money, but apparently that applies only to the rural railway sector.

The fact is, of course, that Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, stood the Minister up and told him to go to some other place and play marbles, that in fact he would not get the metropolitan railways to play with. It might be part of the Labor Party’s policy that main-line railways be taken over by the Federal Government, but it certainly is not part of its policy to take over the metropolitan railways. I think it is quite clear that the Premier of South Australia has told the Minister to take his marbles some place else. Then the Minister told us:

However, the staff to man the metropolitan system - that is in South Australia- will be ANR employees who will work under the general direction of the State Transport Authority.

The Minister went on with these fine words:

This means that all SAR employees will be transferred to the ANR. This arrangement offers advantages for both the

Australian National Railways and the State Transport Authority as it preventsduplication of manpower resources, personnel and training facilities.

That is quite contrary to what the Minister said in his speech about 4 paragraphs before that. Then he went on with this fine bit of verbiage:

It also enables the employees of the ANR to continue to enjoy the social advantages of living in a large city as well as leaving the present career patterns of many railway employees unchanged.

Apparently that is the Minister’s excuse for not being able to secure the takeover of the metropolitan railway system- and a fine excuse it is, I must say. The main reason for acceptance by the South Australian and Tasmanian Governments seems to be a financial one. In practical terms, the financial inducements are lump sums of $5m to Tasmania and $10m to South Australia, as well as a takeover of debts incurred by the railways over past years. The Minister made it quite clear that in his view there had been an unwillingness or an incapacity on the part of the States to incur the necessary capital outlays for adequate railway development. He said:

In recent decades, the increasing need for new capital investment in railways and the inability or reluctance of State governments to meet this need has magnified the difficulties resulting from this diversity of interests and approaches.

He goes on to state:

It is no wonder then that the railways were basically incapable of coping with increased capital costs and the spirited- and mainly united and co-ordinated- competition provided by the road hauliers and freight forwarders.

There are a number of factors causing this position. It is certainly not just the States’ inability or reluctance to meet the need for capital investment. For a start, the States have not had sufficient money to finance railways either from their own resources or from federal grants. There is a situation in all States in which the railways simply have to continue with certain uneconomic services in order to provide for essential community needs. It is obvious that any State government will be most reluctant to close down a well established service if the result is that hardship will be caused to too many people. All States are faced with heavy maintenance costs for both rolling stock and track. They are also faced with large capital outlays to provide new rolling stock. Transportation planning is still so new as a technique that the long term benefits which would come from comprehensive State-wide integrated plans have not yet had time to become effective. State railways and road transport systems have developed in comparative isolation from one another. This has made it difficult or impossible to eliminate branch railway lines in many instances even though the service could be done more efficiently by road. In other words, the State governments have had no option other than to continue to provide some services at the expense of the community as a whole. It seems that rather than look at what appears to be the simple solution for development- that is, to hand over the responsibility to the Australian Governmentit would be better to get down to long range development planning at the Australian Government and State levels.

One of the effects of these Bills may be that the Australian Government will introduce road and other services incidental to rail services. Certainly there are constitutional limits as to how far the Australian Railways Commission could go with such services. However, the limits are not clearly defined so that it is possible to see conflicts arising and the imposition of certain services upon the States at the expense of existing undertakings. I hope that the Minister will pay true regard to the spirit of the amendment I moved to the Australian National Railways Bill in respect of the bus and other road services within the States which should not be put into the position of having to compete with the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission should not pre-empt private enterprise in setting up a service which is considered to be ancillary or incidental.

Whilst no one can be certain just how far the Australian Government will go in setting up services related to railways, I hope that commonsense will prevail and that proper use will be made of the established and efficient private road hauliers. What really happens as a result of these Federal-State government agreements is that instead of a highly desirable central coordination with each State continuing to have the ultimate policy direction of its railway service in its own hands, the Australian Government takes over full ownership and control. A significant aspect of future State development and internal management will be given away. The effects of this will spill over into other areas of State administration and planning. Long range State regional planning proposals which depend in any way upon railways will be influenced by federal control and the Australian Government. The Australian Government will be put into the position of being able to acquire land for the purposes related to railway development. In other words, significant areas of State administration and control are being given up. The long-term effects and full extent of direct federal power which can be imposed as a result of the agreements is not easy to predict. It seems that the proper way in which the Australian Government can best provide assistance in the overall rail transportation scene is in the interstate field. Itwould seem natural and proper that main trunk routes be handed over to the Australian Railways Commission and be operated by it. Country services within the States are essentially a State government matter because the State governments know the problems. As for metropolitan services, of course there should be no thought of Australian Government ownership and control. Indeed, the Bill concerning South Australia does not envisage that particular point. I want to draw particular attention to the difference between the deal, if we could call it such, that South Australia got and the deal that Tasmania got. I trust that my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) will be given time to speak to these Bills and that he will not be gagged, as is the practice of the Government.

The number of differences- extraordinary differences concerning financial and other implications- between the 2 agreements has been drawn to the attention of Tasmania by Mr Bingham, the Leader of the Opposition in that State. I think that all Tasmanians would be wise to read his constructive approach to this matter. For example, he has pointed out that South Australia gets a down payment of $10m whilst Tasmania gets only $5m. He says that the Commonwealth is taking over a debt of $124m in South Australia but in Tasmania the debt is $63m. He says that the Commonwealth is also picking up other South Australian debts in connection with railways dating back to 1949. Added to this the Commonwealth is making $26.4m available to South Australia. Mr Bingham deals with this subject in some detail. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth will deal with this matter in some detail. But there is certainly no parallel between the 2 agreements. The arrangement with Tasmania is obviously an ad hoc one. I would think that the best deal that the Minister has been able to arrive at is certainly unsatisfactory from Tasmania’s point of view. I would think that Tasmanians are hostile and very unhappy about the proposals put forward.

The Opposition holds the view that because the Bills are the result of agreements between the Federal and State sovereign governments they should not be opposed. The Opposition believes that the State parliaments themselves should decide whether or not they are prepared to allow the central government dominate this important area of State activity.

Mi WALLIS (Grey) (3.57)- I rise to support .the Bills. Whilst the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) would not claim that the unification of Australian railways is his original concept I think that at least we are reaching the stage where this concept has been given some teeth and we are now proceeding to overcome one of our biggest hurdles, namely, the disastrous decisions of the last century to operate railway systems with different rail gauges. This hurdle was recognised even by our founding fathers who drew up the Constitution. They saw that there would be a need at some time for the Commonwealth to move into the field of rail transportation. That is why provision is made in section 5 1 (xxxiii) of the Constitution for the Australian Parliament to have power with respect to:

The acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State.

The Railways (South Australia) Bill and the Railways (Tasmania) Bill propose to give effect to what was envisaged by the founding fathers.

A few years ago the provincial city of Port Pirie, which is in my electorate, had 3 different railway gauges- gauges of 3 feet 6 inches, 4 feet 814 inches and 5 feet 3 inches- a situation which clearly illustrated the difficulties. Since that time the standardisation of the Broken Hill to Port Pirie line has done away with the need for the 3 feet 6 inches gauge. The standardisation of the line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide will, of course, reduce the gauges to one. Port Pirie was unique in that it had 3 railway gauges within the one railway yard.

Australia certainly has paid a price for the lack of foresight by the colonial governments of the last century. The lack of a standardised rail gauge is probably one of the greatest hurdles that this country has had to overcome. The fact that we have different rail gauges has been the result of the insularity of the various colonial governments which looked on themselves as separate entities. They did not co-operate with one another and as a result this abominable disadvantage has been placed on us.

Many thinking people certainly have done their best over the last few years to try to overcome these problems. I know that the standardisation of the Broken Hill to Port Pirie line was carried out during the time of the previous Government. The introduction of new rolling stock ideas such as bogie exchange has allowed inter-system working where different gauges existed. But all the problems have not been overcome despite the fact that there has been some progress over the last few years and I think some greater cooperation between the various railway authorities. We still have many difficulties to overcome.

The Minister mentioned some of these difficulties in his second reading speech. Perhaps I could mention a few. They include the break of gauge itself, different types of rolling stock, different types of locos, different designs in the various systems, different signalling systems, and different forms of control in each of the States. An inhibiting factor in the past has been the jealousy between the States. These problems have all added to the Australian transport difficulties and have certainly retarded the development of this country. We would hope that with these 2 Bills we are starting to take a big step forward. One of the disadvantages with a country such as ours is its small population and its large area, and we cannot afford to go along with these problems much longer.

The fact that the Minister has introduced these Bills is a step in the right direction and a step towards the achievement of that goal. I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House would like to see a standardised system throughout Australia. I would hope that we would all agree that there should not be problems at the State borders. Of course, for quite some time this Government has recognised the problems that exist. I think these problems have been recognised in the Labor Party’s platform. Since coming to power the Government has taken some quite positive steps to ensure that its long term aims are put into effect, at least in part. We have taken a number of initiatives since we became the Government. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), said that the initiatives for the standardisation of the Adelaide to Crystal Brook line and the new Tarcoola to Alice Springs line were initiatives taken when the previous Government was in office.

Mr Calder:

– That is correct.

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The previous Government certainly did discuss these matters, but when the Labor Party came to power there was nothing on the statute book in relation to these railway lines. There was no agreement with the State of South Australia about the provision of these 2 systems of trans-rail transport. It was not until such time as the present Government came to power that the Minister was able to successfully negotiate with the South Australian Government. The result is that both the projects are now in the course of being started. Those who had the opportunity a few weeks ago to go to Tarcoola saw the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) turn the first sod for the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. That was tangible evidence of the progressive moves of this Government. Prior to our coming to power there was difficulty between South Australia and the Commonwealth about these particular lines. I know that the previous Minister for Transport and the South Australian authorities had discussed the difficulties for quite some time. There were some problems in South Australia. The South Australian Premier wanted to ensure that at least the line which brought coal from Leigh Creek Coalfield would not be affected by any Commonwealth takeover because it was the lifeblood of South Australia.

These problems had not been resolved between the previous Government and the South Australian Government when the Labor Party came into office. It is a fact that once the Labor Party Government came to power it was able to negotiate successfully with the South Australian Government, with the result that these 2 proposals were able to proceed. As all honourable members are aware a start has been made on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line and the other line will commence shortly.

On this question of the Australian Government taking over the State railway systems, a few years ago both Sir Robert Askin and Sir Henry Bolte offered to hand over their State systems. Prior to the 1972 election the Prime Minister indicated that the Labor Party, if returned to office, would take up the offer to take over the 2 State systems, but when the Labor Party was elected to office and the offer to take over the systems was made to the States we found that we did not get any response from the Liberal States. The South Australian Government the Tasmanian Government and the Western Australian Government responded. Of course, a State by-election was held in South Australia. The Liberal-Country Party coalition came to power in that State and withdrew the offers that had been made prior to that time. Arrangements were more or less tossed aside and the Western Australian Government threw in with the other Liberal governments by not agreeing to a takeover of its railway system. My own opinion is that if any State stood to gain by a Commonwealth takeover of its railway system it would be Western Australia, but the people in power in that State allow their politics to colour everything they do including the decisions they take and because there was a Labor Government in Canberra at that time they withdrew all their offers. We will probably have to wait until a Labor government is returned to office in Western Australia before this matter can be taken up again.

As to the proposed amalgamation of the South Australian railway system with the Australian National Railways, the South Australian Minister for Transport and the Federal Minister for Transport have held a number of conferences on this subject and I have had the opportunity of taking part in some of them myself. I know that they successfully thrashed this proposal out and agreement was reached. I am sure that after the discussions with the Australian Minister for Transport the South Australian Minister went away quite satisfied with what was achieved. Under the agreement the ANR will take over all the non-metropolitan railway systems of South Australia. This created some problems for the South Australian employers but both the State and the Australian governments were able to approach the major unions involved, the matter was thrashed out and agreement was reached not only on the question of the conditions of employment and whether employees under the State. systems be disadvantaged but also who would be the employer. It was determined that all employees of the South Australian railway system would become employees of the ANR. An assurance was given that in any amalgamation the employees would not be disadvantaged in respect of wage rates, long service leave, seniority rights in some cases and superannuation. Under the agreement although employees of the South Australian system will become employees of ANR they will work under the control of the South Australian Transport Authority mainly because of the necessity for that body to have control in co-ordinating other forms of transport in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. Under this arrangement the State authority will be able to co-ordinate road transport with rail transport. I think this is reasonable, although the employees will be under the direction of the Australian National Railways Commission.

There will be union representation on the Commission. Therefore the interests of the employees will be taken into account in any decisions of the Commission. The very fact that a union official is to be appointed to the Commission means that the interests of union members will be looked after. There are probably still some problems to be thrashed out. It will take some time to sort them out. These problems probably lie at the union level. Sometimes they lie at the management level but I think that if there are any problems everybody concerned will sit down in a spirit of co-operation and thrash them out to everyone’s satisfaction.

The closure of country railway lines is a matter of particular interest to me because I know that employees of the South Australian Railways, particularly those in that part called the Lincoln Division, have some concern about their future position mainly because of the competition between rail and road transport. The line never was really first class. Quite some money has been spent on it in recent years but the employees are still concerned about their position. But I am very glad to say that the Minister has stated that, as the line is there, it will continue in operation. The Minister said in his second reading speech that before there is any closure of any lines the South Australian Minister for Transport will have a say, more or less, in any decision that is made. I certainly hope that this does take place because there are some lines in South Australia that, if there were an assessment of them, I doubt whether it would be decided that they were viable lines to keep in operation.

I should like to refer now to how this Bill dovetails in with general Government policy. Our policy is that we should adopt a national transport system in a policy in which each major form of transport fulfills the task for which it is best suited. This is only logical. There are plenty of areas where goods can be carried much better by road transport than by rail. Also, in bulk carriage, there are many items, such as coal, iron ore and similar types of things, which logically can be best carried by rail. I do not think that road transport can in any way compete with the railways in the bulk cartage of cargo. But there are other areas, of course, where road transport can compete successfully with the railways. I think it is our policy -

Mr Fisher:
Mr WALLIS:

– Where the characteristics of a particular form of motor transport are used to their best advantage. There are just a few matters on which I should like to conclude. The honourable member for Gippsland mentioned that there are 9 different types of motor car carrying wagons on the Australian railway systems and that those wagons might be for 9 different types of vehicles. From my knowledge of railways I think that this would be incorrect. Most of the car carrying vehicles on the Australian railway systems are basically similar in design, but different. I think the width between the wheels of a motor car governs the design of car carrying vehicles. I think they are all standard in that respect and that a Holden, a Ford, a Valiant or any other vehicle can be put on them. But the fact is that they are all different in design and they are all different in such a way that sometimes they cannot be used on other systems; the) have different braking systems and so forth. So I do not think the comments of the honourable member for Gippsland on that were quite valid.

The honourable member made reference also to the urban transport system in Australia. I understand from the Minister for Transport that previously, when the honourable member for Gippsland was the Minister for Transport, the States did approach the Commonwealth Government to get the Bureau of Transport Economics to carry out studies on urban transport and how it could be improved. Despite these approaches to the Liberal-Country Party Government these matters were resisted. It was left until the Labor Government came to power before any positive moves were made in this field. I think we have seen the result of this delay, just as we have seen the problems that have arisen with the railways in Australia over the last few years. There are insufficient railway vehicles to carry the stock that is offered and, as a result, the railways lost many millions of dollars last year. One of the actions of the present Government was to decide to provide 1300 new railway wagons to be loaned to the States, with the provision that, if more were required, further consideration would be given.

I think that the best thing that has ever happened to the railway systems of Australia was the election of the Labor Government in 1972. I hope that such projects as the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway and the Adelaide-Crystal Brook standardisation, will link up every capital city throughout Australia. Also, 1300 new wagons will be provided for interstate use on the establishment of the Australian National Railways Commission. All these matters augur well for the transport industry and are a credit to the Minister who introduced them.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I rise in this debate as the Opposition spokesman for Tasmania in the House of Representatives. I rise to support the Opposition’s attitude to the Railways (Tasmania) Bill which is, because it is a Bill to implement an agreement between 2 sovereign governments- the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Tasmania- that the Bill should not be opposed. It is, of course, an historic debate because it represents the Australian Parliament’s first intrusion into the running of State railways. Therefore it may be an occasion which the Australian Parliament could well live to regret when it comes to consider the growing deficits that appear in railway operations over the years. However, let us be optimistic and hope that in the coming years the deficits will grow into surpluses. Let us hope that there will be an efficient railway system in this country.

Of course the Bill in relation to the railways of Tasmania can only come into operation if an Act of the Parliament of Tasmania approves it. The current position in Tasmania is that the Upper House will not pass the Bill because it takes the view that Tasmania has not got as good a deal in this matter as South Australia has and therefore it has sent the Tasmanian Government off to the Australian Government to see if it can get some better assurances. Perhaps for that reason it would have been better had this debate not proceeded. However, no harm can really be done to Tasmania by proceeding with the measure because, as I say, it is a Bill that is dependent for its operation on the approval of the Tasmanian Parliament- an approval that has not yet been given.

However, what should be of grave concern to this Parliament and to anybody interested in Tasmania’s rights are the reasons that have apparently caused the Upper House to request the Government of Tasmania to obtain further assurances from the Australian Government in relation to the Agreement. This concern of the Tasmanian Upper House arises out of a comparison between the 2 railways agreements, namely, the Tasmanian agreement and the South Australian agreement. Both are the subject of this debate, and I do not wish to repeat at length what the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) has said already both with clarity and vigour in relation to the matter.

But I wish to refer to the differences as it may be of assistance to honourable members and also to the listening public to consider shortly what the main points of difference are between the 2 Agreements. I think we need to emphasise those matters which indicate that Tasmania really is not being adequately protected by the existing Agreement. The main points of difference are: First of all, Tasmania is transferring all its railways, whereas South Australia is transferring only its non-metropolitan railways. In the South Australian Principles of Agreement, there is the following provision:

The Australian and State Governments agree that a separate metropolitan rapid transit system in South Australia is a desirable long-term objective and that studies will be initiated to establish the technical and economic feasibility of a complete or partial separation between the systems.

No such provision is contained in the Tasmanian Principles of Agreement. No such undertaking has been given by the Commonwealth Government to enter into any inquiry or to give any consideration to the introduction of a rapid transit system into Tasmania’s 2 large cities- Hobart with a population of over 140 000, and Launceston with a population of over 70 000. Tasmanians may well think that surely Tasmania is entitled to a similar guarantee. Again clause 8 of the South Australian Agreement as set out in the Schedule to the Bill requires the Commission to maintain in general, fares, freight rates and other charges at levels comparable with those applying in other States and requires that advantages already given in relation to fares, freight rates and other charges are to be maintained. Obviously, this is a most beneficial provision. But, again, it is not included in the Tasmanian agreement.

Tasmania, under its agreement, is to continue to subsidise any concessional rates. Why is there this discrimination? Is it perhaps indicative of the fact that there is a relatively strong Government in South Australia and a weak one, perhaps an abysmally weak one, in Tasmania? Why should Tasmanians be disadvantaged in this way? Why are not honourable members representing Tasmanian seats in this House pressing for some change of this agreement in order to put Tasmania in a better position?

Another matter of difference relates to the differences in the standards of operation of the railways. Clause 7 of the Agreement, as set out in the Schedule to the Railways (South Australia) Bill, provides:

The non-metropolitan railways -

Those are the ones taken over by the Australian Government: . . . shall be operated, on and after the commencement date, in accordance with standards in all respects at least equal to those obtaining at the date of the agreement, and the Commission will pursue a program of improvements, which it considers to be economically desirable to ensure standards of service and facilities at least equivalent, in general, to those at any time current in respect to the remainder of the Australian National Railways and the railways of States other than South Australia.

In other words, the South Australian nonmetropolitan railways to be taken over by the Commonwealth will not be run any less efficiently than the railways in any other States.

Clause 9 of the Agreement relating to South Australia says:

  1. 1 ) The Australian Minister will obtain the prior agreement of the State Minister to-

    1. Any proposal for the closure of a railway line of the non-metropolitan railways; or
    2. The reduction in the level of effectively demanded services on the non-metropolitan railways, and failing agreement on any of these matters the dispute shall be determined by arbitration.

I turn now to the Railways (Tasmania) Bill, in the Schedule to which is set out the Agreement relating to Tasmania. What do we find in clause 6? This clause provides:

When so requested by the State, the Australian Minister or his delegate will consult with the State on matters regarding the operation of the existing and new railways within the State which the State considers to be of concern to the State.

Again, why is Tasmania not entitled to the maintenance of standards at the level existing elsewhere in Australia? Why is it disadvantaged? We might well ask: Is it again the result of a strong Government in South Australia or a relatively weak one in Tasmania? Is it because representation in the Government from Tasmania is not pressing sufficiently for Tasmania’s rights in relation to this very significant acquisition of Tasmania’s property?

Let us look now at clause 5 of the Principles of Agreement relating to South Australia. The clause provides:

The Australian Government will agree to construct and operate a rail connection to the container terminal at Outer Harbour and to improve and where necessary replace the main line to Murray Bridge in order to ensure a high standard service to the growth centre at Monarto, subject to evaluation by the Bureau of Transport Economics showing these to be economically desirable.

One can search the Tasmanian Agreement or the Principles of Agreement, but there is no such provision for Tasmania. There is no agreement to give to Tasmania the right to have particular lines constructed, even though there must be situations in Tasmania similar to those covered in South Australia.

Other provisions illustrate this discrimination. For instance, clause 11(8) of the South Australian Agreement provides:

The Commission will transfer to the State free of charge land within the State which is vested in the Commission pursuant to this Agreement and is no longer required for railway purposes.

I turn to clause 10 (5) of the Agreement relating to Tasmania. What do we find? The sub-clause states:

Australia or the Australian Commission will give to the State the right of first refusal in respect of any land to be vested in the Australian Commission pursuant to this agreement and no longer required for the purposes of Australia, the Australian Commission, or any other Authority or Instrumentality of Australia, on such terms and conditions as shall be agreed between the parties, and having regard to the basis on which the relevant land was vested in the Australian Commission.

In one case the Australian Government has agreed to transfer free of charge to the South Australian Government land which it does not require. Tasmania has no such guarantee. It may get it free of charge, but it may not. All Tasmania has by way of right is a right of first refusal. So again we find a distinct disadvantage to Tasmania in this agreement. There are other provisions. For instance, the South Australian Government has the right to appoint to the Australian National Railways Commission a part time representative for 2 consecutive terms of 5 years. Under the Tasmanian agreement the Tasmanian Government can appoint a representative for only one term of 5 years. Why is there a difference? Why is South Australia to have greater representation than Tasmania? In relation to the Australian Shipping Commission the Tasmanian Government is given the right to appoint a representative to that Commission for one 5-year term. In view of the fact that the Railways Commission is such an important body one wonders why Tasmania is limited to a single 5-year term.

It is in this situation that we find differences between the 2 agreements on a very vital matter. I am only pointing out ways in which Tasmania seems to be disadvantaged when compared with South Australia in relation to the agreement. Of course there are other differences in relation to amounts which the honourable member for Gippsland has mentioned. Tasmania gets $5m whereas South Australia gets $10m by way of grants. In relation to South Australia, debts totalling $ 124m are taken over whereas the debt in relation to Tasmania is $63m. This difference may be explained by other reasons. It may be that calculations were done on a different financial basis. I must say in fairness that what superficially may be open to criticism may turn out to be not so great a disadvantage to Tasmania as it at first seems. However, there are unexplained differences in financial matters on the face of the agreement.

As to the other differences, these are matters which it appears the Tasmanian Upper House requested the Tasmanian Government to take up with the Australian Government. I have pointed them out. I trust that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) who is at the table will give consideration to these matters. Perhaps in his speech in reply he will indicate his willingness to give some assurance to Tasmania that it will not be disadvantaged when compared with South Australia in relation to these matters and that Tasmania will be on an equal footing with South

Australia. Another matter which has caused concern is the fear on the part of many people in Tasmania that the intention of the Government is to intrude into road transport. The Minister stated in his second reading speech on the Railways (South Australian) Bill: . . . in the debate on the Australian National Railways Bill I accepted an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) relating to the ancillary services that the Commission can engage in. The definition of ‘services’ contained in clause 1 of the Agreement has been drawn with the honourable member’s amendment in mind for it defines ‘services’ as ‘services including passenger and freight road services that are incidental or supplementary to, or ale operated in association with the non-metropolitan railways’.

The Minister in his speech which relates to both Tasmania and South -Australia was referring to a specific provision for South Australia. Clause 10 of the Railways (Tasmania) Bill provides:

On and after the declared date, the Australian Commission may-

construct and extend railways in Tasmania in accordance with the Agreement and administer, maintain and operate railways so constructed or extended and services (including passenger and freight road services) incidental or supplementary to, or associated with, those railways.

Those words have a very wide meaning. They would enable the authority, the Australian National Railways Commission, to undertake road transport in Tasmania in such a way that it was not merely incidental, in the sense that some goods were being transported and had to be taken to a close destination because most of their journey had been by rail; it could encompass activities which would involve the Australian Railways Commission engaging in road transport to a considerable degree. Having in mind the Minister’s second reading speech, one assumes that that is not the intention of this legislation. It would be of grave concern to those who are engaged in road transport in Tasmania if their businesses were to be the subject of competition from the Commission. I do not believe that the Tasmanian Labor members of this House would support the Australian Railways Commission engaging in competition with road hauliers in Tasmania and putting many people out of business. One looks to the Minister, in the light of his second reading speech, to assure this House that it is not the intention of his Government that the Commission undertake large road haulage activities of a business character in Tasmania.

I conclude by repeating the Opposition’s attitude to this Bill. We regard it as an historic first step by the Australian Parliament to enter into the field of the acquisition of State railways. At the same time, because it is an agreement between the governments of Tasmania and Australia, we see no proper basis on which the Bill ought to be opposed. It should be passed. On the other hand, we can have only mild optimism whether the venture will be successful. Many people in Tasmania think it is a retrograde measure which will put the railways into the hands of people who are distant from their concern. Let us hope that the Australian Railways Commission, when it takes over the railways of Tasmania, will show that concern which is just as close as it has been in the past and as it would be with a concerned railways commission operated by a State. However, that is still to be seen.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-The Opposition takes a very strange attitude to this Bill, stranger than most of its attitudes which are straight out opposition to legislation which we put to this Parliament. I think there is a fair amount of politics intermingled with its attitude or motivating its attitude to this Bill. After all, Tasmania will get approximately $80m over the next 10 years under this agreement. No Opposition would want to go to Tasmania at election time and say that it opposed the Bill in this Parliament. That would be disastrous for the Opposition. So apart from the beginning and the ending, we get a highly critical and analytical speech, by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). I would expect it from him. He said: ‘We will support the Bill. We see no real reason to oppose it’, yet he spent 20 minutes telling us how crook it is. I cannot really understand the Opposition’s attitude. He talked about the very important contribution to the debate in the Tasmanian House of Assembly last week by Mr Bingham, the Leader of the Opposition in that State. Mr Bingham criticised the relative assistance to South Australia and to Tasmania. But he forgot to tell the Tasmanians- and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) who is an ex-Minister for Shipping and Transport this afternoon forgot to tell us- that there is a vast difference between the railway systems of South Australia and Tasmania. There is the width of the tracks, for a start. Tasmania has a narrow gauge railway of 3 feet 6 inches; South Australia has the standard gauge and the 5 feet 3 inches gauge. Think of the extra cost of track laying and the capital investment in track laying alone. Then there is the size of the rolling stock travelling on those 2 systems, one a narrow line and one a broader line. Then there is the work force. South Australia has very many more railway workers than Tasmania has. So it is incredible to suggest that Tasmania is not getting a fair deal under this Bill. The comparison with South Australia is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The Tasmanian Government has approved of the measure. It has been passed by the House of Assembly and is now anchored in the Legislative Council which, as the honourable member for Wentworth rightly remarked a moment ago, is asking for an undertaking before it will pass it. Do honourable members know the undertaking for which it is asking? It is this: That there be written into the agreement the power for the Tasmanian Government to take back the railways in the State at some distant date. That must be the most laughable amendment ever suggested by an upper House. What State would want its railways back after handing them over lock, stock, barrel and debts to an Australian government? All those in a State who wanted the railways back in those circumstances would need to be mentally examined, from the Premier down. That request by the Legislative Council is utterly ridiculous. Surely it is only a delaying tactic.

Let me come back to the actual losses, etc., that Tasmania has been suffering. I shall quote official figures. In 1973-74 the railway losses growth rate in Tasmania was 27 per cent; but the financial assistance grant increased in that year by only 10 per cent. So, each year Tasmania’s railways have been going backwards financially. Over the 3 financial years to 1973-74 the losses on our railways reached 67 per cent; the financial assistance granted in that time reached 35 per cent. So, each year Tasmania has been getting further behind in its financial status in respect of its railways. In other words, the losses were increasing at a more rapid rate than was the financial assistance that Tasmania was receiving. So Tasmania was reaching an impasse. How could it continue to finance these losses on its railways? The Commonwealth offer, in my opinion, has come at a most opportune moment for Tasmania. Any Tasmanian who really opposes this scheme surely must have a strange philosophy. The Commonwealth proposes to take over everything- the rolling stock, the buildings, the land, the equipment, the superannuation schemes, the protection for the workers in the Tasmanian Railways, the debts which are considerable and the losses which have been enormous. What State in its right mind would refuse such an offer? I am only hoping that in the next week or two the Legislative Council will be convinced to support the Tasmanian Bill so that the agreement can become law in Tasmania and will be able to begin to operate from 1 July.

It has been suggested that we are going to nationalise State transport and take over the road transport services that feed the railways, and others as well. As far as I know there is no truth in this suggestion. I would be against the Commonwealth taking over all road services. I believe the private operator has a part to play in the internal transport system in my State as much as in any other State. I have no desire to see all road transport taken over by the Australian Government or State governments. What this really means is that we will co-ordinate State and Federal road matters and where the Tasmanian Government operates road services at the moment to feed our railways, these services will be co-ordinated with the Australian National Line in a road-sea transport system.

The Tasmanian Government Railways was the pioneer in Australia of the container system when it forwarded farm produce and other goods from our Tasmanian factories by container to the ports and across to the mainland on ferries and then by rail to Sydney. I must congratulate Mr Collins who was the brain behind this move a few years ago. He revolutionised the Tasmanian railway system, connecting it with the mainland railway system by the use of ferries. It brought about the cheaper transport of goods to Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, a more regular transport service to those centres and a far more businesslike transport system.

Honourable members opposite cry about socialism and centralism but the railways have always been a socialist enterprise except for a small railway on the west coast of Tasmania owned by the Emu Bay Railway Co. Ltd of Burnie. For over a century all railways have been government owned. I know that a few privately owned railways started in Australia way back in the middle of the last century but they did not last very long and later the State governments took them over. So today, apart from the Emu Bay Railway, the Tasmanian railway system is a socialist railway system and the governments of all States, no matter what size or political colour, have agreed to the railways being in government hands.

Mr King:

– I thought you said you were not going to socialise railways.

Mr DUTHIE:

– They are socialised now.

Mr King:

– Which way do you want it? I thought you said you were not going to socialise them.

Mr DUTHIE:

– They are socialised now and the Liberal governments of the States through the years have agreed to it and have poured money into the systems. They tried to meet the losses but they could not.

Mr King:

– So long as we know where you stand. You are going to nationalise them.

Mr DUTHIE:

– We are going to do nothing of the sort. They are a State socialised enterprise. Liberals in Tasmania for many years have condemned the railways’ indebtedness, the burden of interest payments they are forced to make, unsafe tracks and out-of-date rolling stock. What humbug it is now to fight against a transfer to the Australian Government. There is criticism that railway workers in Tasmania will be worse off under this proposed scheme. A study of the Bill’s superannuation clauses completely torpedoes this assumption. Railways workers in Tasmania, in conjunction with the Australian Railways Unions have consulted with the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) on this issue and they are completely satisfied that the conditions on which the Australian Government takes over the railways will not jeopardise their position at all.

In total and over the long term it will probably improve the conditions of railway workers throughout Tasmania. The State will be millions of dollars better off each year as a result of this transfer. The losses which I mentioned before will be absorbed by the Australian Government so the State will not have those to worry about. It could possibly be $3m a year better off in total with the Australian Government taking over the railways- perhaps it would be more than thatand the State will also be better off because a tool annexe is to be built in the next 10 years on land outside the railway area of Launceston.There will be new rolling stock and an upgrading of the tracks which in some areas are in a bad way. The debt burden will be lifted from the Tasmanian Government. A nominee from the Tasmanian transport system will be appointed as a 5-year term commissioner to the Australian National Railways Commission. He will have his say in all decision making, as will the nominees from the other States who are appointed to the Commission. A nominee from Tasmania will be appointed as a part-time member of the Australian National Line. This is being done because of the Australian Government’s determination to co-ordinate rail and sea transport more effectively for our State.

I put forward the fond hope that at some time in the future- it might not be in my time- some portion of the Tasmanian railway system will be electrified. Our hydro-electric system provides us with the cheapest electric power in Australia. I know that initially the hydro-electric rail system is expensive, but in the long term it is cheaper and safer to run than diesel engines. All States have to import diesel fuel to run their diesel engines, but we generate our own hydro-electric power in Tasmania. Why could not the Hobart suburban rail system or the Launceston to Bell Bay section of the railways be electrified in the future? Tasmania is coming out of this deal probably better than South Australia, because the South Australian railways are in a much better condition in every respect than the Tasmanian railways are.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Yours are a bomb.

Mr DUTHIE:

– When one considers the losses to which I have referred, the Tasmanian railways could be described as the Minister for Transport has just described them.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It will cost about $80m to upgrade them.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes. Earlier in my speech I mentioned that in 10 years it will cost $80m to upgrade the Tasmanian railways. The 27 or 28 miles of the new Bell Bay section of the railways have been built during the last 5 years. The Liberal Government in Tasmania set the ball rolling for this section and estimated the cost at $4m. The section cost $30m before it was opened. Tasmania had to meet that cost. That extra cost is included in the takeover bid by the Australian Government. So Tasmania is very fortunate that the costs of that section of the Bell Bay line will not run on into the future. I believe that what is proposed in the Bill will in the long term increase Tasmania’s capacity to earn money through the railways. I believe that upgrading the railways by providing better tracks and better rolling stock will contribute towards confidence in the State. People will use our railways more and more and this will increase the total income from our railways and so help to pay off the debt in the long term.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-The Opposition has made it clear that it will not oppose the Railways (South Australia) Bill, but some criticisms ought to be made about it. The first criticism I make is that it is the wrong way to go about it. I think that there should have been from the South Australian Parliament an expression of opinion that it wants this agreement. I am not certain whether or not the South Australian Parliament will oppose the agreement; I do not know. However, I will be surprised if the South Australian Parliament does not oppose some parts of the agreement. Of course, the first part is that the metropolitan section of the railways will be separate from the other section. This will be a dog’s breakfast of the worst kind and an administrative monstrosity.

I presume that there will be workers employed by the Commonwealth controlling trains that are owned by the South Australian railways. I presume that these trains will be running on tracks owned by the Commonwealth or the South Australian railways- no one has said- and maintained by the Commonwealth or the South Australian railways-no one has said. I do not think that the Commonwealth or the South Australian railways knows that yet. It is clear that, if the 2 sections are to be separate, the proper decision should have been to do it across the whole State. If it is not done it will put hobbles on the new machine and will make it awfully difficult to be operated efficiently. Honourable members should just imagine the problems that will be involved in the Australian Government being responsible for paying the employees and yet operating trains owned by the other arm of government. If this must be done at all it seems a great pity that it should not be done across the whole field. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) must feel that this will handicap the new system in a way which I think will be a great pity.

Mr Charles Jones:

– You speak for yourself.

Mr KELLY:

– I am speaking for myself. I was hoping that the Minister would follow my logic. The second reason why I expect the South Australian Parliament to alter at least some parts of the Agreement concerns the question of road transport. Sub-clause 13 (2) of the Agreement states:

Nothing in this clause shall operate to restrict the introduction of new freight or passenger road services . . .

That means that there is nothing to stop anybody operating a road service. Sub-clause 13(5) states:

Australia . . . shall not be liable to pay any fees, taxes or other charges in respect of the application or approval … in connection with the operation of the road services referred to in this clause.

That means categorically that the Commonwealth could just put in a road service which does not have to pay taxes- ton-mileage taxes or any other kind of tax- and can put the existing road services out of business. The Minister has not said that he will do that, but there is clear provision in the Agreement for that to be done.

I would be surprised if the South Australian Parliament did not have a very clear look at this matter, because it has made it clear that the State

Government insurance organisation, if it is to operate in competition, must operate in fair competition with private insurance companies, must pay taxes and must be on equal terms. If the Minister does what he is allowed to do under this Agreement, he would not need to close down a line but he could leave a line open and run a parallel road service in quite unfair competition with the private hauliers. I hope that the South Australian Parliament would have a long cold look at this Agreement because it does not look good to me.

That brings me to the question of closing down lines. I listened with some attention to my friend the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). I do not adopt the same attitude as he does. I think that if a line is a bad one it ought to be closed down. If it is uneconomic it ought to be closed down. It is one of the great handicaps of a railway system that it must carry the uneconomic lines which in many cases are kept open mainly because of local pressures including local union pressure. I do not shelter from the fact that if a line is a bad economic project it ought to be closed down. I was a bit surprised to see the qualification that has been put into the Agreement which states that it can be done only if the State agrees. But when one comes to think of it, that does not really mean much because a line does not have to be actually closed down. A train could be run every 3 weeks and the line would still be regarded as being kept open. A train could run on only the day before Christmas and it would still be regarded as being kept open. The point is that the Commonwealth would be able effectively to close down any line and put in a road service that would compete on unequal terms with private industry hauliers. I think that that is a warning that ought to be sounded. I presume that the South Australian Parliament will have a good hard look at that aspect also.

One matter ought to be mentioned. I do not intend to spend much time on it. I refer to the eloquent plea made by the Minister for Transport in his second reading speech. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) quoted it. I think I ought to do the same. The Minister said:

One may ask why the Government does not just provide the States with sufficient funds to bring their railways up to an acceptable standard. I must admit this solution has an elementary plausibility, in that it would appease the States. But it would be a denial of our responsibility to the railways and the people of Australia- that awesome responsibility that accompanies the spending of public money. We cannot, and will not, divorce the responsibility for raising funds from the spending of them . . .

I suspect that the Minister wiped a tear from his eyes at that stage. That is why he is saying: ‘I am going to do this. I am going to have a say. I am going to pay over the money that the Treasurer is knocking up in the bowels of Parliament House with his printing press. I am going to give that to the States and then I am going to run them’. He did not say but he knows that he is going to do the exact opposite with the metropolitan section. He is just going to pay the States the money and they are going to run it. There is a complete difference in the points of view. The Minister must have been so sorry to see that the States would not hand over the metropolitan sector also because he is going to have to pay the money to the State railway systems to run the metropolitan lines. The Minister has made the claim that he is going to put his mouth where his money is- to reverse the usual phrase- when it comes to the country lines, but when it comes to the metropolitan lines he is just going to pay over the money and let the States run the lines if not take the decisions. Mr Johnson, I want to make it clear -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! I remind the honourable member that he is not speaking in the Committee stage of the debate. With due deference, I would prefer it if he were to address the occupant of the Chair by his proper title.

Mr KELLY:

– My affection for you is such, Sir, that I was -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I appreciate and reciprocate the feelings of the honourable member, but I do request that he address the occupant of the Chair by his proper tide.

Mr KELLY:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill but that I do hope that the South Australian Parliament will have a long, cold, clear look at this legislation because there are some matters in it which I should think would lead the South Australian Parliament, with its more intimate knowledge of its own railway system, to make some alterations to the agreement. It is mainly the South Australian Parliament’s responsibility to do so. The railways in South Australia are the South Australian Parliament’s railways as they are operated now. It knows the railways in much more detail. The South Australian Parliament knows the various problems associated with running the railways. It knows its needs and it knows its costs. I hope that the South Australian Parliament will have a very long, clear look at this legislation. If the agreement is altered in any way I presume that the matter will have to come back before this House. The Minister may advise me on that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3149

RAILWAYS (TASMANIA) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3149

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Clyde Cameron) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate amendments.

Clause 14.

Senate’s amendment No. 1-

In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (f), leave out ‘ other ‘.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 2-

In sub-clause (4), leave out ‘and (f),’ insert ‘(f). (g), (h) and(i)’.

Clause 17.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

Leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clauses: “(2) Subject to this Act, a member referred to in paragraph 14 ( 1 ) (g), (h)or (i) holds office for 3 years. “(3) A member or a deputy member of the Australian Council other than such a member or deputy member in relation to whom sub-section ( 1) or (2) applies holds office until he resigns his office or his appointment is terminated in accordance with section 28.”.

Clause 18.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 4-

In sub-clause ( 3 ), leave out ‘ 6 ‘, insert ‘ 8 ‘.

Clause 19.

Senate’s amendment No. 5-

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), leave out ‘sub-section ( 5 ) ‘, insert ‘ sub-section ( 6) ‘.

Clause 27.

Senate’s amendment No. 6-

Leave out sub-clause ( 1 ),insert the following sub-clauses:

1 ) A member of the Australian Council appointed by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the person by whom he was appointed, but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by that person. (1 a) A member of the Australian Council appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Education may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to that Minister, but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by that Minister. (1B) A member of a council other than the Secretary, a Director or a member to whom sub-section ( 1 ) or (2) applies may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister, but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by the Minister.’.

Clause 28. (3)If-

a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief ofbankrupt or. insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit;

the organisation upon whose nomination a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies was appointed notifies the Minister in writing that it has withdrawn the nomination of the member or the deputy member; or

a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies fails to comply with his obligations under section 2 9, the Minister shall terminate the appointment of the member or deputy member, as the case may be.

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

In sub-clause (3), after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: “(aa) a member of the Australian Council referred to in paragraph 14 (1) (g) or (h) ceases to be a member of a House of the Parliament; “.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

After sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub-clause: “(3a) For the purposes of paragraph (3) (aa), a member of either House of the Parliament shall be deemed not to have ceased to be a member of that House while he continues to be entitled to the Parliamentary allowance that became payable to him as such a member. “.

Proposed new clause 5 1 A.

Senate’s amendment No. 9-

After clause 5 1, insert the following new clause: “ 5 1 a. ( 1 ) A council may, either generally or otherwise as provided by a resolution of the council, delegate to a member of the council or to an officer of the Authority any of its powers under this Act, other than this power of delegation. “(2) A power so delegated by a council, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the council. “(3) A delegation by a council under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power by the council. “.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The amendments are consequential upon the amendments moved by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) in this House during the Committee stage. The effect of the amendments which were in fact moved by Senator Bishop on behalf of the Government is to give complementary effect to those amendments which were moved by the honourable member for Corangamite, who is now at the table. One of those amendments provides that the 3 additional members of the Australian Council- that is, the person nominated by the Prime Minister, the person nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and the person nominated by the Minister for Education- shall hold office for 3 years. That amendment became necessary because we had to specify the period for which they should hold office. There was a typographical error in clause 18, and that has been corrected. The same kind of error has been picked up in clause 1 9.

A consequential alteration has been made to clause 27 by the addition of 3 new sub-clauses. The first one makes it clear that the member of the Australian Council appointed by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Opposition may resign his office in writing but that he remains a member of the Council until the resignation has actually been accepted. The same would apply in the case of the person nominated by the Minister for Education. Any member of the council, other than the Secretary, a director or a member nominated under proposed new sub-sections ( 1 ) and (2), could resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister, but again such resignation would not operate until it had been accepted by the Minister.

The rest of the amendments are purely consequential, except one machinery amendment to insert a new clause 5 lA, which provides that the Council may, either generally or otherwise as provided by resolution of the Council, delegate to a member of the Council or to an officer of the Authority any of its powers under the Act, other than the power of delegation. The new clause has been made necessary by the insertion of the first sub-clause to which I have referred.

I take this opportunity to thank the honourable member for Corangamite, who is at the table, for the co-operation which he has given to me in this matter. He has shown considerable reasonableness. The amendments which he moved in this place were good amendments. The Government accepted them. Uncharacteristically, the Senate accepted the Bill without any amendments other than the ones that were merely complementary to the earlier ones about which I have talked. I place on record my appreciation of the co-operation and assistance which the honourable gentleman gave me in this matter. It indicates that trade union training and the establishment of a college for trade union training are now no longer party political matters. I think that is good.

Mr Sinclair:

– Perhaps we ought to name the college after the honourable member for Corangamite instead of the Minister.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, I do not think he would want that. I just place my thanks on record.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-As the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said, most of the amendments are consequential on those which the Opposition moved in the House of Representatives and which were accepted by the Government and the Senate. Most of the amendments referred to required alterations to the Bill consequent on members of Parliament becoming members of the Council, with the one exception mentioned by the Minister- that of the power of delegation held by the Council. This is perfectly acceptable to the Opposition, and it is in context with amendment No. 9 referring to the powers of delegation. I thank the Minister for his co-operation in limiting the power of delegation, which as originally proposed was very wide. All the amendments moved by the Minister are acceptable to the Opposition.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3151

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 3151

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS (QUEENSLAND DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) BILL 1974

Message received from the Senate intimating that it had agreed to the first amendment made by the House of Representatives to this Bill, with an amendment, and had agreed to the second amendment made by the House of Representatives to this Bill.

Motion (by Mr Bryant) agreed to:

That the amendment made by the Senate to amendment No. 1 of the House of Representatives be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

In Committee.

House of Representatives amendment No. 1-

After clause5, insert the following new clauses: ‘5a. (1) An Aboriginal or Islander shall not be prevented from entering, residing on, visiting or otherwise being on, and shall not be ejected from, a Reserve by reason that a permit authorizing him to reside on, or visit, the Reserve is not in force in respect of him under a law of Queensland. ‘(2) It shall not be unlawful for an Aboriginal or an Islander to be on a Reserve by reason that he is a person in respect of whom a permit authorizing him to reside on, or visit, the Reserve, is not in force under a law of Queensland. ‘. ‘5b. (1) An Aboriginal or Islander shall not be ejected’ from a Reserve, or be penalised in any other way, under any law of Queensland relating to a Reserve by reason only that he has conducted himself in a way that is not to the satisfaction of an authority or person established or appointed by, under or for the purposes of a law of Queensland, if his conduct was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. ‘(2) The burden of proving that the conductor of an Aboriginal or Islander was unreasonable in the circumstances of a particular case lies upon the person who alleges that the conduct was unreasonable. ‘.

Senate’s amendment to House of Representatives amendment No. 1-

After clause 5a., insert the following new section: ‘(3) Nothing in subsections 1 or 2 authorises an Aboriginal or Islander to enter, reside on, visit or otherwise be on, a Reserve in contravention of a direction given to him by or on behalf of a Council established under a law of Australia or Queensland in respect of that reserve. ‘

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

– I move:

That the amendment made by the Senate to amendment No. 1 of the House of Representatives be agreed to.

The amendment carried by the Senate resolves some of the difficulties posed in debate in both Houses on this matter. The Government has agreed to the proposition put in the other place and I suggest it be adopted forthwith.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-The Committee will recall that when the Bill was introduced into the Senate it contained provisions which would have enabled any Aboriginal or any Islander to have access to a reserve in the State of Queensland. This proposal met with great opposition from the Aboriginal and Island councils in Queensland who claimed that they should have the right to say who shall go on to their reserves. Honourable members will recall that the Opposition supported strongly the councils’ attitude and in the Senate the original provisions were taken out. The matter came back to this House and the original provision was put back in by the Government by use of its numbers in this place. But when the Bill returned to the Senate the Government indicated that it would be prepared to move an amendment which would recognise the right of the Aboriginal and Islander councils to say who would go on to their reserves, either by way of visit or by way of residence.

The Opposition regards this as an acceptance of the principle of self determination which we regard as of great importance. In a sense we treat it as a victory for self determination. We hope that a Bill relating to land rights in the Northern Territory, which we understand the Government is about to introduce into the Senate will contain a similar principle so that the rights of Aboriginal councils in the Northern Territory to say who goes on to their lands will be preserved. At the moment, of course, there is a veto right in the Government in relation to the Northern Territory. One hopes that this will be removed in favour of a right which will be exercisable by the Aboriginal councils. This amendment is one that the Opposition wanted all the time, and therefore it is very anxious and willing to accept it.

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

– I still view the provision with the same reservations I had when the matter was debated here. I hope that we will pay proper regard to the need to preserve the civil rights involved in this legislation. Councils may well be self determinants, or whatever the correct word may be for people carrying out the function of self determination, but in the long history of human affairs the exercise of the kind of authority posed in this legislation often has been to the disadvantage of many people. We on this side of the House are concerned that the legislation become operable as soon as possible. It is a very important piece of legislation and we do not think it ought to be held up because of debates in this area.

Mr Hunt:

– Try it and see how it works.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. I suggest that honourable members in all parties in this House, as well as those in the other place, pay constant regard to the need to preserve the rights of freedom of movement as well as all the other privileges that ought to appertain to people. We do not want to surrender too many rights over individuals to any sort of legislative body- the House of Representatives, the Senate or an- Aboriginal council on a reserve.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3152

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

Motion (by Dr Patterson) agreed to:

That the amendment be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Clause 6.

Senate’s amendment. .

In sub-clause ( 3 ), leave out ‘ Research ‘, insert ‘ Promotion ‘.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The reason for the amendment is quite clear. The Bill before the Committee is a Bill to establish a Pig Meat Promotion Trust Account and for purposes connected therewith. Under the definitions clause, ‘Promotion Account’, means the Pig Meat Promotion Trust Account. Honourable members will notice in paragraph (a) of subclause 6 ( 1) the words ‘with the approval of the Minister, for the purpose of promotion’ and in sub-clause (3) the words ‘The Minister shall not exercise his power to approve the expenditure of moneys from the Research Account for the purposes referred to in paragraph 1(a)’- the paragraph to which I have just referred- ‘except in accordance with recommendations of the Committee’. It is clear that the word ‘Research’ should be ‘Promotion’. That is quite consistent. I do not know just how the word got there, but that does not matter. One can see from the definitions clause, clause 3, and from sub-clause 6(1), which deals with promotion, that in subclause (3) the word ‘Research’ should be ‘Promotion’, because under the existing legislation the levy is for research and not promotion and this Bill is establishing funds to provide for promotion. Therefore, the word in sub-clause 6 (3) should be ‘Promotion’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3153

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Message received from the Senate intimating that it insists upon the amendments made to this Bill and disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

page 3153

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

page 3153

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

page 3153

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

page 3153

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26 May.

Clauses 5 to 12- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion ( by Mr Beazley ) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I would like to raise one matter at the third reading stage. This legislation relates to grants in respect of colleges of advanced education. We read in the Press at the weekend of a proposed amalgamation of the Universities Commission and the Commission on Colleges of Advanced Education. As yet that matter has not been placed before this House. It was known that the Parliament was sitting last week; it was known that it would be sitting this week. Yet an announcement as significant as the amalgamation of the two commissions was made outside the House. I would be interested to know from the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) whether in due course opportunity will be given to discuss this significant move. The implications for universities of a move such as this are very large indeed.

The Minister will remember that on 1 5 April in the debate on the Bill to establish the Commission on Technical and Further Education I drew to the attention of the House a statement that he had issued in respect of the establishment of a committee to look into some special problems with regard to what was in his statement described as post-secondary education in northern Tasmania. The Minister was at some pains to emphasise that that committee was established merely to examine the problem that has arisen in northern Tasmania. When I drew to the attention of the House the significance of the implications of the establishment of a committee that comprised the Chairman of the Universities Commission, the Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education and the chairman of the interim committee dealing with technical education, the Minister endeavoured to dismiss the importance of the committee. By way of interjection, the Minister said that the committee has been set up at the request of the Tasmanian Government, and that is true. But I pointed out:

It may have been at the request of the Tasmanian Government, but it is significant that the committee has been set up and that it is to include the Chairman of the Universities Commission, Professor Karmel; the Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education, Mr T. B. Swanson; and the Chairman of the Committee on Technical and Further Education, Associate Professor E. Richardson.

The Minister then interjected and said:

It is not a committee of post-secondary education. It is a committee to examine the needs of north and north-west Tasmania for post-secondary education.

I went on to say then that the Minister was endeavouring to narrow down the responsibility of the committee because, as I pointed out then and as I point out now, the scope of the brief given to that committee could have been interpreted as far more extensive than to deal merely with the problem of post-secondary education in Tasmania. Now, less than 6 weeks later, we have an announcement made outside the Parliament that the Universities Commission is to be amalgamated with the Commission on Advanced Education. Six weeks ago the Minister put great stress on the fact that the Commission on Technical and Further Education represented the establishment of the fourth of 4 very significant commissions. Is it now suggested that the amalgamation of the 2 commissions- the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education- was not then in contemplation?

Mr Beazley:

– Very definitely.

Mr WILSON:

– It seems somewhat strange. If it was not then in contemplation, has the decision to amalgamate those commissions arisen as a consequence of the examination by the group of Chairmen of the Commissions through their meetings on the small problems that arise in Tasmania? If it has so arisen, why then was that group not given the responsibility of seeking views from education authorities around Australia as to the way in which post-secondary education should be organised? If it was proper that within the scope -

Mr Beazley:

– The committee on north Tasmania has nothing to do with this. The personnel is not even the same.

Mr WILSON:

-The Minister says that the personnel is not even the same. The committee did comprise the Chairman of the Universities Commission, the Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education -

Mr Beazley:

– Professor Richardson is not on the committee that is examining the amalgamation of the 2 Commissions. Mr Ken Jones of my Department is on it and Mr Gott is on the other committee.

Mr WILSON:

-The Minister would serve this House better -

Mr Beazley:

– If you sit down I will answer you. I do not know why you are going on about it.

Mr WILSON:

– When I was speaking previously on the legislation dealing with the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Order! I think the honourable member is straying from the real content of the Bill. I have given him a lot of latitude in that respect.

Mr WILSON:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, in straying from the content of” the Bill I have pointed out that we are dealing with recommendations of a commission for expenditure in respect of colleges of advanced education. On the next occasion when we consider expenditure for these colleges we will be considering the recommendations of the one commission which will be responsible for both universities and colleges of advanced education.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– With due respect, that is another matter. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the actual contents of the Bill.

Mr WILSON:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have made the point that I wished to draw to the attention of the House. I hope that the Minister will now give to this House some explanation as to why the combination of the 2 commissions is to take place so shortly after he so strenuously said that they had an independent role.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I do not know why the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) chooses to rise in the House and weave fantasies that connect this Bill with an investigation as to what post-secondary educational institutions should be put down in the north of Tasmania. Not only is that investigation taking place at the request of the Tasmanian Government but Professor

Tannock of the Schools Commission is making a special investigation of the needs of nongovernment schools in the north of Tasmania. It is a region in certain educational difficulties. That has absolutely nothing to do with this Bill nor has it anything to do with a committee consisting of Mr Ken Jones of my Department, Professor Karmel and Mr Swanson about how to combine the Universitites Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. Their triennial funding analysis is over. The next time there will be a triennial funding recommendation will be 3 years hence. It will not be an action of the immediate future. The have done the work in regard to the next triennium and the question that is under investigation is the possible manner of the combination of the 2 Commissions which should be possible.

I state in answer to the honourable gentleman that of course this must come before the House. It would involve a radical amendment of legislation. The legislation which the Parliament has considered has established a Universities Commission and a Commission on Advanced Education. If those commissions were to be turned into a single commission on universities and colleges of advanced education, the decision must necessarily be debated in this House.

Mr Wilson:

– Has any decision been taken that this will be done?

Mr BEAZLEY:

-There is investigation by Mr Jones and others how to effect it. They would be perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that there were difficulties in the way. If the honourable gentleman would contain himself in patience and would see the immensity of the recommendations that will come down in triennial funding, he would realise that there are a great many anomalies as between the 2 commissions that have come into being which would probably necessitate a higher education body with perhaps a committee of the universities and another committee examining the needs of colleges of advanced education. I am not entitled to anticipate the decision.

Mr Wilson:

– What is the position in regard to technical and further education?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– As the honourable member would recognise, we have just introduced a Bill in regard to that. He would also recognise immediately- this is the last point that I want to make on this matter- that there is a very fundamental difference. That is, we are totally funding universities and colleges of advanced education. We are being invited to increase our stake by the Technical and Further Education Commission in the funding of technical education. But up to the present, the major initiative in that field rests with the States. In those circumstances it is impossible to combine the 2 areas. There is no suggestion in the work of Mr Jones, Professor Karmel and Mr Swanson up to October that the Technical and Further Education Commission which is coming into being will be involved in that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3155

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 May on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I address myself to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. My comments will be rather brief. I take this opportunity to deal with certain aspects arising out of the substantial cost of funding our universities’ programs. It is quite apparent from clause 3 of the Bill that substantial costs have been incurred in numbers of areas relating to the maintenance of universities. Clause 3 proposes to increase substantially the remuneration of university professors, lecturers, tutors and others. Clause 4 seeks to increase expenditure grants on university building projects. Members of Parliament no doubt recently have been approached, as have I, by representatives of the Australian Union of Students who are seeking substantial increases in other areas of university expenditure, particularly in the payment of tertiary allowances. Paragraph 1 of the letter that I received from the Australian Union of Students -

Mr Beazley:

– I rise on a point of order. The subject of allowances paid to students does not come under universities legislation. It is covered by legislation dealing with benefits to students and is an entirely different matter. Clause 3 of this legislation relates to academic salaries which have increased as a result of changes in an award. Clause 4 is another matter.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-My proposal was to deal with what I see as increasing expenditure in the total area. What I want to put to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) in regard to the clauses is that we ought to examine the competing priorities. I put these comments in the light of competing priorities for the sort of expenditures that we have in the Bill. The proposal that I put is that the students who wish to increase substantially the costs of running universities ought to be required to make a choice as to whether they want to see expanded building programs of the nature that we have before us or alternatively whether they want to accept some respite for the moment in advancing of separate expenditure programs in terms of increased allowances which I consider to be of an exceptionally high character. I trust that that short statement of the direction in which I am heading will perhaps indicate that I am not out or order. But assuming that I have been -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! If the honourable member pursues that specific line I will have to uphold the point of order. The purpose of the Bill before us is clear. It refers to the Australian Government’s funding of universities and the abolition of tuition fees.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I am particularly concerned to the substantial costs which are noted in clauses 3 and 4 in specific areas- the building program and the remuneration of staff. I have indicated generally that there are other competing priorities. My specific concern in relation to clauses 3 and 4 is that, if we wish to maintain expenditure at the rate that we have here on these projects, we cannot afford as a nation to be considering other alternative avenues of expenditure. I invite all those who are involved in the funding of universities and in considering the priorities that we have before us to note carefully the large increase in Government expenditure in these particular areas. I am not in any way critical of the Government. I accept that the Government has decided that these are the orders of priorities that it wants. Having regard to that, I would hope that the Government does not widen these areas without giving the people involved an opportunity to consider those matters.

In relation to clause 4, 1 wanted also to highlight the need for the establishment of a university in the Parramatta area. Reference is made in this clause to the planning of new universities. Particular reference is made to the Deakin University. I wish to compliment the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) on his suggestionwhich in fact is following up suggestions that my own father has made in other places from time to time- on the need to plan now for a new university to serve the Parramatta area and the hills area of Sydney- in the areas which we jointly serve. These are fast growing areas -

Mr Beazley:

– Is this your way of reducing expenditure?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-No, 1 am talking about planning. I believe planning is important now if we are to achieve the objective of establishing universities of this type at a reasonable cost in the future. The areas of which I am speaking are expanding. Until recently we have seen rapid escalation in the cost of land in those communities. I believe that unless some steps are taken now to plan for a further university in the Sydney area- in addition to the Campbelltown proposals which have been made- the opportunity to meet such a need will be lost. I believe this is the ideal time to look at these proposals.

I should like to raise a final matter in relation to costs. 1 am concerned about rising costs, as I mentioned. One of the matters in relation to building costs, which has come to my attention indirectly and which I believe is receiving the sympathetic consideration of the Government, is the problem experienced by university colleges and perticularly by those that have been recently established. The Macquarie University comes within the boundaries of my electorate of Parramatta. Recently completed colleges are experiencing considerable difficulties as a result of escalating building costs. The university itself is being compensated for the increased costs under clause 4 of this Bill. The colleges to which I am referring are run by churches. They are experiencing considerable difficulty in meeting the increased interest repayments on loans that they necessarily had to negotiate in order to complete the colleges.

Unfortunately, no government has indicated at the moment that it is prepared to meet the additional building costs that the colleges have suffered as a result of inflation. In clause 4 of this Bill the Government has accepted such responsibility in relation to universities generally. I believe that colleges of this type, which most other universities have established and which proceed in these difficult times on a reasonable basis without substantial costs to the organisations that have sponsored them, are essential at the new universities. The Macquarie University has been developed in recent years, no doubt at considerable public cost. The University has a considerable number of students coming from all areas of Sydney. They want to live near the University but there are not the older homes available for rent that exist in areas such as Glebe, which is near the Sydney University. Newer homes, built largely for young married couples and so on, surround Macquarie University. It is difficult in such circumstances to find the sort of accommodation that colleges themselves offer, and it is difficult for them to find the sort of accommodation that students are able to find in the older and more established areas in which these is provision for flats, sub-letting and so on. Accommodation of this kind does not exist in the newer areas which are being developed.

I wish particularly to ask the Minister when considering these proposals to assist the colleges at Macquarie University that the colleges be given assistance to maintain their existence on the university campus. I understand that in other areas of Australia where new universities have been developed there has been a request that colleges be developed within the universities to assist students to create that special environment in which they will be able to pursue their studies to advantage. I would not like to see a situation arise in which, because of the very costs that the Government is accepting under this legislation in relation to the universities themselves, university colleges are in fact driven into bankruptcy or will have to close because of the inability of the organisation which originally sponsored them to carry the substantial costs which have arisen through the increased building costs of which we are all aware.

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-When I spoke in the recent debate on the’ States Grants (Universities) Bill I welcomed the initiatives that the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) had taken in this field, but, as is the case in most Government programs, the value of those initiatives is now being lost in a series of increasingly incoherent economic decisions. I believe it is most disappointing for all honourable members to realise that rising costs are nullifying the tremendous advances which have been made and which could be continued in the field of education. Actually this Bill only updates these adjustments for cost variations to the end of 1974. In general it does not allow for cost increases that have occurred since 1975. The actual variations incorporated in the Bill are based on the following improved indices prepared by the Universities Commission. First of all, there are the academic salaries. As recommended by Mr Justice Campbell in late 1974 these rises were retrospective to 1 6 October 1 974. They ranged from 16 per cent for professors to 25 per cent for lecturers and 34 per cent for tutors and demonstrators.

The last non-national wage case rises in this area occurred in January 1973. Academic salaries make up about 45 per cent of the general recurrent grants for universities under this new legislation. Non-academic salaries and wages are calculated largely on the Australian Public Service indices. Non-salary recurrent cost indices are those which have been especially prepared by the Commission for its own purposes. The last two I have mentioned, non-academic salaries and non-salary recurrent costs, make up about 55 per cent of the total additional university general recurrent grants. Of course the fourth area of cost increase is in the Commission’s own building costs. Grants for general university building projects have risen in the 1 974 and 1975 legislation by $24.2m since the original programs were specified. This amounts to an increase of 21 per cent since the commencement of the triennium. Compared with the automatic cost escalation of 6 per cent allowed in Schools Commission programs, built in inflationary factors in tertiary programs are very small.

I do not wish to delay this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation. We see in this Bill an additional amount of $104m recommended simply because of the huge inflationary costs that have occurred, so I believe it would be fair to say that this Bill is about inflation. It tells the story of a government that is unable to manage what was once a strong economy. This Bill is evidence of the disastrous effects which the Government’s mismanagement is having upon essential Government responsibilities, of which I believe education is the most important. This Bill shows also that the huge increases in Government spending are not being used to advantage but simply are only allowing to continue programs that were provided for by this Parliament at the commencement of the last triennium.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I should like to ask the Minister further with regard to the point I raised a few minutes ago: Did he suggest by his reply that the basis for amalgamating or considering the amalgamation- he did not make clear whether it is a Government decision to amalgamate or whether the Government is only considering that amalgamation- of the Universities Commission and the Commission on Colleges of Advanced Education and the reason that they are funded -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! I indicated to the honourable member previously that this matter gets out of the general context of the Bill. I allowed him a lot of latitude, and also the Minister in his reply, but this matter does certainly get outside the ambit of the Bill.

Mr WILSON:

-I defer to your ruling, Mr Deputy Chairman. I should have thought that, in an examination at the Committee stage of a matter that deals with grants made by the Universities Commission, involving the funding of the several universities throughout Australia, it would be possible to raise the implications for those universities in their future funding of a change in the fundamental structure of the Universities Commission. But if you feel that that matter cannot be raised, Mr Deputy Chairman, I shall leave it at that.

Bill agreed to.

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

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3158

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 May on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-This small, apparently simple Bill cloaks one of the most intractable industrial relations problems in Australia. The Bill has great and increasing significance for all citizens, even though many of them may not realise it. But it has greatest significance for exporters. The Australian waterfront has always had a stormy history. Certainly not all the faults have been on one side. There were highly undesirable practices on the part of employers many years ago and the legacy of bitterness of those days is with us still today. I do not intend to go over all the history, but we do need to look at what has happened since 1967 when, following the Woodward report, a scheme of permanent employment was introduced on the waterfront. Everyone had great hopes for a new era. There was to be a new employeremployee relationship; the bad old days were finished.

Unfortunately, the high hopes that were held for the future of waterfront employment were not realised. There was a brief period of much reduced industrial trouble, but gradually the situation deteriorated until now we are just about back where we started, but with one huge difference: Costs have got completely out of control. That is the crux of the problem which is facing us today. The permanent employment scheme, while it has undoubtedly brought great benefits to a very few- the waterside workershas imposed enormous increases in costs on the vast majority of Australians. The vast majority includes all consumers of imported products since a larger and larger proportion of the retail price of goods imported into Australia is represented by shipping and stevedoring charges. In the case of exports a larger and larger proportion of the value is swallowed up by the same means, that is, shipping and stevedoring costs. It is vital to remember that the two are in reality, one and the same. Since stevedoring companies in many instances are controlled by overseas ship owners, increasing stevedoring costs are soon reflected in increased freight rates. I shall be returning to that central issue later, but in the meantime it is important to remember that the benefits gained by waterside workers have been at the expense of lowering the purchasing power and the standard of living of every Australian who buys any imported goods and at a cost to every Australian exporter.

Let us now look at the waterfronts since the introduction of permanent employment. Following a dramatic reduction in man-hours lost through stoppages from 1966 to 1968, the figure of 4 per cent of man-hours worked was higher in 1973-74 than for 16 years. The figures for wages lost were also the highest since 1964. So there has been no overall improvement in these areas. Productivity has increased in the handling of some products, but not in all. For example, wool handling has about the same productivity performance now as it had 10 years ago, that is, about 0.35 tonnes per man-hour. Where productivity has increased markedly, it has usually been at the cost of enormously expensive capital investment such as in containers and their associated handling equipment.

The central problem as has been spelt out on many occasions in this place, particularly by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) is that the employers of waterside labour are beholden to ship owners for their business and give in to every unreasonable demand made upon them. Shipowners would rather pay more for stevedoring than have their ships tied up. I admit that this is understandable, but the point is that they do not end up paying for it. It is always easy to buy one’s way out of trouble if one is using somebody else’s money, the money in this case belonging to Australian exporters.

A depressing side issue, but nonetheless an important one is the reference in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority annual report for 1 973-74 to the deplorable failure of employers of waterside labour to exercise appropriate and consistent control in relation to undesirable, undisciplined behaviour by a minority of waterside workers. I draw the attention of the House to this point. It is most significant that the people who nave expressed concern at this situation are responsible members and offices of the Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia. It would be difficult to imagine a more damning commentary on any employer group in Australia. It is part of the problem which has brought about the need for this legislation. As honourable members know, a charge is levied under this legislation on a man-hour basis on all employers of waterside labour. The charge is used to fund a variety of purposes, but by far the most important in financing terms, is idle time, that is, the time for which waterside workers are paid even though they are not working. This charge has been successively increased over the years, each increase in due course being passed on in the form of increased freight rates.

The finances of the ASIA are in more or less perpetual trouble, and no wonder when we look at the figures for idle time. Last year, a year of greatly increased imports, the cost of idle time fell from $6.4m in the year before to $3.6m. But this substantial improvement was short lived. A combination of greatly reduced imports and costs incurred as a result of recruiting additional waterside workers to cope with the high level of imports in 1974 and above all, a new national waterfront wage agreement granting increases in minimum pay of between 26 per cent and 30 per cent, plus a 25 per cent loading on annual leave, have sent idle time costs right through the roof.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr STREET:

-When the sitting was suspended this evening, I was explaining to the House that the costs involved in stevedoring in Australia had been very significantly affected in recent days by a new national waterfront wage agreement which had had the effect of granting increases of between 26 per cent and 30 per cent in the minimum wage, and a 25 per cent loading on annual leave. I was explaining that the effect of this national wage agreement had been to send the idle time costs right through the roof.

I remind the House that the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill that we are debating now is concerned principally, so far as the financial aspects of it are concerned, with paying for the cost of idle time on the waterfront. My information is that idle time is now running at an average of about 10 000 man days a week at a cost of approximately $28 a man. According to the information that I have, that works out at about $ 15m a year.

Mr Kelly:

-Did you say $ 1 5m?

Mr STREET:

– It is $ 15m a year for idle time. That is the current rate. But I am informed that last week idle time was approximately 14 000 man days costing approximately $420,000. I would suggest to the House that that just cannot goon.

Mr Kelly:

– It will break us.

Mr STREET:

– It will break us, as the honourable member for Wakefield so rightly says. As an example of the situation in which we are today, I cite an instance that is set out in the annual report for 1973-74 of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. The example is given of a week in Melbourne when one employer had a surplus of 2954 man days of labour which cost the Authority over $50,000 for idle time. But in the same week, in the same port, other employers were short of 1877 man days of labour. In that week alone $32,000 was paid in wages for 1877 wasted man days of locked up idle time.

Many other equally absurd examples can be found in the ASIA annual report. The cost of these absurdities will increase rapidly with the further wage rises which apply from May this year. In total, these wage rises amount to approximately 30 per cent. The mind boggles at what will happen when the full effect of these costs is felt, first in the costs on the waterfront, and then, as inevitably as night follows day, in freight rises. My information is that all of these increases will lead to a 40 per cent rise in stevedoring costs compared with the costs on 1 May this year. That is the situation today. I repeat: Compared with costs a month ago, these increases will lead to a 40 per cent rise in charges. No industry can stand this.

It has been put to the Opposition that a more equitable way of calculating the levy would be on a tonnage cubic measure basis rather than on a man-hour basis. Clearly, the present method disadvantages those stevedores working convention cargo as distinct from container and bulk cargo. Conventional shipping is still important, especially in trade with the developing countries of Asia and the Pacific. The Opposition believes that there may be some merit in altering the basis of calculating the charge, but this would involve a very careful consideration of the many highly complex factors involved. For example, one factor which would have to be kept in mind would be the danger of attracting cargoes away from the most efficient method of shipping. Another factor would be the need to balance the importance of a relatively small percentage of our total trade against the interests of our major customers and suppliers. Other reasons involve the lack of time ana the lack of detailed information. For these reasons we have decided not to move amendments of this kind to the legislation but we bring the problem to the attention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) as being worthy of careful consideration.

In any case, the charge is only fiddling with the big problem, which is the structure of waterfront employment in Australia. As I have indicated, this enables unions to pick off employers one by one and to force them to concede to quite unreasonable demands because the employers, for their part, are subservient to the interests of the overseas shipping companies whose main concern is not the costs imposed on Australian consumers and exporters but to keep their ships moving. It is a classic case of ‘I’m all right, Jack’, with the Australian community paying for the feather-bedding and cosy deals benefiting a very small number of people.

Mr Kelly:

– Sweetheart agreements.

Mr STREET:

-Sweetheart agreements, as the honourable member for Wakefield so accurately observes. We must be able to develop a better system. This has been recognised by the Minister for Labor and Immigration. In a speech which he made last year on the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill he stated:

While recommending an extension of the temporary legislation for a further 2 years, it would be my intention to indicate to the Parliament the Government’s proposals for the industry well before the expiry of that period. Extending the life of the Act will not of course preclude the introduction of permanent legislation at an earlier date if this proves feasible. Indeed, an earlier date for permanent legislation is desirable.

Mr Kelly:

– When is he going to do that?

Mr STREET:

-That is the whole question. I am coming to it now. The Opposition agrees with the Minister and therefore will be moving some amendments to this Bill. They are designed to give the Minister a little gentle encouragement in getting permanent legislation before the House.

The Bill makes provision for setting the maximum rates of charge- with the actual rates being set by regulation-at $2.50, $3.50 and $2.50 for class A, B and C waterside workers respectively. According to the information available to me, it seems that the rate will be set by regulation at about $2.20 for class A waterside workers. That is over 50 per cent more than the current rate which is charged, namely, $1.40. We propose to move amendments to reduce this charge to $2.25, $3.20 and $2.25 for the respective classes of waterside workers. I am informed that that will be sufficient for present purposes. If further increases are required, it will be a signal that the costs for idle time and other purposes for which this charge is used have got completely out of hand. In these circumstances we believe that it is reasonable that the Government should have to come back to the Parliament so that the whole sorry business can be exposed. I emphasise that that is the reason for the amendment. We are not seeking to prevent the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority from carrying out its statutory obligation, which it does with great dedication and under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Another problem facing the Authority is the contingent liability for long service leave, now standing at over $20m. Incidentally, a measure of the attractiveness of this industry may be that so few waterside workers take long service leave when they become entitled to it. This huge hability is something which could well receive the attention of the Government and the industry. It is the sort of issue which I imagine is being investigated by the Minister’s troubleshooter on the waterfront, Mr Foster. That raises the question of Mr Foster’s long promised report. While I am pleased to have the long awaited report which was presented to Parliament earlier today, I make the point that little time has been given to honourable members to study it in any detail. I am hopeful that at least some of my colleagues may be able to refer to the report later in this debate. Speaking personally, I would have appreciated an opportunity to comment on it in this debate.

Consistent with the proposed amendment to the maximum rate of charge, we propose to move that the legislation will cease to be operative on 1 July 1976. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that that is the same date as that which applies to the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is to remind the Minister of his words in the speech last year, to which I have referred already, when he emphasised the desirability of introducing permanent legislation at an early date. Therefore I believe that the proposed amendments are consistent with the expressed objective of the Government as well as that of the Opposition. I believe that the Minister appreciates the seriousness of this issue and that in the interests of all Australians there is an urgent need to tackle a problem which has gone for far too long and which, regrettably, is getting steadily worse.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-In preparing for this debate I have been reading in Hansard the speeches which preceded and followed the 1967 agreement which brought in permanent employment. One thing that is abundantly clear is that the expectation and hope that all of us, including myself, had at the time was that we would have a new situation on the waterfront. It is now clear that the whole business of permanent employment has been a bitter disappointment to everybody. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) has spelt it out with crystal clarity. If one wishes to measure the failure of the scheme one should look at the cost of handling conventional cargo. An increase in costs of handling conventional cargo is occurring at the rate of about 30 per cent a year. Prior to the suspension of the sitting the honourable member for Corangamite spelt out the problem of indiscipline on the waterfront. I think I could do no better than repeat the quotation in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority’s annual report which we have just received. It states:

No improvement was noted in industrial relations between permanent employers and their employees, nor in the standard of supervision and disciplinary control by employers. Some responsible officials and members of the Federation -

That is the Waterside Workers Federation- have expressed concern at the failure of employers to exercise appropriate and consistent control in relation to undisciplined behaviour by a minority of waterside workers.

I heard the honourable member for Corangamite pose that as the greatest kind of indictment that one could have of the operation of the present system. He spelt out the position, so that we could see it clearly, about idle time. We want a greater number of people to work ships, yet we have an equal number of people, or in many cases a greater number of people, locked up and being paid for doing nothing when the port desperately needs people. We have a postion of redundancy. We know that under the conference agreement which we hoped would bear fruit, people can be declared to be redundant by the Authority only upon a request from either the Waterside Workers Federation or the Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour. Obviously neither body will ask for people to be declared redundant, although if people are declared redundant, according to the Authority’s report this year, they get a golden handshake of $3,263 a year.

We have to ask ourselves- I know that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) would be asking himself this continually. Why has the result been so disappointing? The whole history of the waterfront has proved desperately disappointing- I think as disappointing to the Minister as to us. We get the problem of the sweetheart agreements. I quote from page 42 of the report of Mr Foster, who adorned this place some time ago:

Companies generally agreed that these practices -

These are the restrictive practices on the waterfront- which were designed to make jobs last longer or employ more men, should have ceased with the introduction of permanent employment.

They did not, and the Minister knows that they did not. Because we have sweetheart agreements on the waterfront. I know that the Minister knows this, because of the necessity or the desire of the ship owners to get a quick turn around of their ships the ship owners always agree to what the Waterside Workers Federation puts up. I have asked many stevedores: ‘Why did you give in?’ They all say to me: ‘We have to. If we are not owned by the ship owners we are clients of theirs. We depend for our livelihood on the business of the ship owners’. The ship owners have one overwhelming drive: They must not have their ships held up. I can understand that. As the honourable member for Corangamite mentioned before dinner, it is very expensive for a ship, particularly a container ship, to be held up.

The Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour is always under a compulsion to make a sweetheart agreement with the Waterside Workers Federation. Therefore the costs continue to rise in the way that the honourable member for Corangamite mentioned. A 50 per cent increase in the levy does not really matter to the employers of waterfront labour. They know that because of the conference system they can recover their costs by putting up their freight rates. So we have the continual pressure of the Waterside Workers Federation leaning on the shipowners through the AEWL, causing a continual increase in costs which, as the honourable member for Corangamite spelt out so clearly earlier, is imposing a dreadful burden not only on the exporter but also on the community as a whole because the costs of imports and exports are increased by these sweetheart agreements. Although it is the sweetheart agreement which is the basic problem, there is one other problem which brings the situation home to the shipowner who is squeezed in a way that not many people understand. The Waterside Workers Federation can move in on a ship and take particular action and the shipowner will always give in because he is at the mercy of the Federation. So it is the sweetheart agreement that the Minister knows is in existence which we have to recognise.

I return to this report of Mr Foster. I would like to be critical of a remark which appears on page 56 in the following terms:

It is painfully clear that the industry continues to be operated for the convenience of shipowners alone . . .

That is not so. It is not operated for the convenience of shipowners alone. The tragedy of Australia’s situation is that it is operated for the convenience of the shipowners and the Waterside Workers Federation. That is the bullet that we have to bite on. It is not the fact that the ship owners are getting their way. The fundamental problem that we face is that the shipowners and the Waterside Workers Federation are getting their way. They are dining out at our expense and are forming sweetheart agreements. There is a long record of agreements being broken, of demands being given in to. That is the grim record of the sweetheart agreements which are the basic cause of our problems.

I do not blame Mr Foster for his observation. He was a waterside worker before he came into this place and since he left it he has been operating in this field. I would expect him to come out publicly and say, as he has said in his report, that the industry is operated for the convenience of shipowners alone. It is not, and he knows it is not. The Minister knows it is not. Mr Foster no doubt knows that it is operated for the convenience of the Waterside Workers Federation and the shipowners. They have made the sweetheart agreements and it is for this reason only that the costs have risen in a way that must be alarming the Minister. I know it is alarming me and I know it is alarming the honourable member for Corangamite and must be alarming every thinking person in this place. It is not the shipowners alone who have brought about the problems; it is the sweetheart agreements which are made possible by the present system. So we have a responsibility to try to work out what we ought to do in the future.

I am not going to be critical of the Minister because he has not to this stage introduced a new model of legislation that will tackle the problem. He is driving a model of the previous Government’s making. It is the previous Government’s machine that he is operating. We in this House have a particular responsibility in the few months that remain while the levy that is proposed under the legislation or under our proposed amendment is in operation. I do not know whether the levy will be sufficient to enable the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to meet its proper obligations. We have to go through the painful process of rethinking the way in which we ought to tackle the problem.

Mr Foster’s report spells out 3 possible solutions to the problem. He suggests that we might back away from the area altogether- leave it. One thing is abundantly clear: We cannot go on as we are going. I think that we all agree on that. I think the Minister for Labor and Immigration nods his head at that. What solutions can we offer? We have a duty to offer some solutions. As I say, one is that we could back away from the area and leave it altogether. The levy could be abandoned if the legislation were dropped. We could leave it to the supply and demand situation. I do not think for one minute that that would be acceptable to the Minister or to us. So I do not think that it is suitable that we should back away from the problem and leave the matter in a laissez faire situation. No one will accept that we ought to go on as we are going, because it is imposing on the exporter and the importer- on the economy as a whole- a burden that no one should be asked to carry.

Another solution can be divided into 2 parts, and Mr Foster refers to them all too briefly. Perhaps we could restore the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to the place that it once held before the 1967 permanent employment situation arose. We could give that Authority control over labour on the waterfront. Perhaps- Mr Foster referred to this- there should be a wider union than the Waterside Workers Federation covering the employment on the waterfront. Maybe all the unions should be brought into one area. This is something that I have not had an opportunity to think out. We could give the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority control over the labour force and get away from this nonsense of a SEAL pool and so on that we know has worked so badly and has created this locked-up employment situation. That is another solution.

The other solution is to bite on the bullet of the nationalisation of the stevedoring process on the waterfront. Probably it could be done under the Constitution in relation to overseas shipping, I do not know. However, I would say definitely that we cannot go on as we are going. I would prefer that we backed away from the area and left the Commonwealth out of it than to go on as we are going. At present we have this cost-plus situation, as Mr Foster points out in his report, which is intolerable. I do not speak for my Party here, but in looking at the matter with all the capacity that I can muster, I cannot see any solution other than the nationalisation of the stevedoring process on the waterfront, I do not put that forward lightheartedly. I do not put it forward with any great hope that it will be embraced by the people in my Party. But I do not know of any other solution.

We have 2 possible alternatives. The first is to have nationalisation pure and simple, and the second is to have a common pool of labour which is controlled and refurbished, if necessary, by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. But we must have one of those alternatives. We cannot go on as we are. For the benefit not so much of the Minister as of the people in my Party I pose the grim alternatives that face us. We cannot go on as we are with the cost escalation that is dogging us and that is imposing a burden on the whole community. Any thinking person in this place would admit that. We must examine the matter with all the care, courage and urgency that we can muster and we must bite on this bullet before it is too late.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I join in this debate to support the arguments of the honourable members for Corangamite (Mr Street) and Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and to ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to give very serious consideration, as I know he will, to accepting the amendments moved by the honourable member for Corangamite. I do that not in any spirit of criticism of the efforts of the Minister but as one who has been very impressed by the logic of the academic arguments advanced by the 2 honourable members from this side who have spoken. I cannot compete with those 2 eminent gentlemen in their knowledge of the waterfront and I would not dare to lock horns with the Minister in debate on this most important matter. But I want to be associated on the practical side with this very important piece of legislation. The theoretical side has been canvassed on many occasions not only in this House but also in the various political forums in the country.

I support the argument that it is time that something was done permanently to solve the problems of the waterfront rather than to take the ad hoc measures that have been advanced from time to time.

Mr Lucock:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member for Lyne implies, that would be an eminently logical thing to do. I was tremendously impressed by the argument advanced by the honourable member for Wakefield regarding nationalisation as a long term solution. I hope that in the months ahead- judging by events that have transpired over recent days the reign of the present Labor Government could be rather short- the Minister will give very serious consideration to accepting for the purposes of legislation the point of view advocated by the honourable member for Wakefield. I say this in a spirit of help rather than in a spirit of criticism because I am concerned- I know that the Minister is very concerned- at the state of the industry in Australia.

It is unfortunate that Australia depends to a large extent on the use of waterfront labour, because we are one of the great trading nations of the world, we have many resources and we need to use shipping which is our bloodstream. It does not matter how efficient we become as primary producers or as workers engaged in industry; we must remember that at the end of the line there are people who must purchase goods and use them. One of the great costs we bear as importers and in maintaining our place in the markets as exporters is the very high freight charges. I was disappointed to read recently that the exporters in this country have been experiencing a problem with the continual escalation in overseas shipping freight. The Australian Shipping Council and the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference raised their freights on general and refrigerated cargo on 20 January last year by some 2Vt per cent and increased them further by 2Vi per cent on 1 June.

Mr Lusher:

– Piracy on the high seas.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member for Hume said, that is piracy on the high seas. These increases are affecting some of the canned and dried fruits and fresh citrus industries in his electorate. High freight costs are one of the reasons why many of those industries are in very serious trouble. I believe it is an eminently suitable time to ask the Minister to do something through the channels that are available to him. Instead of having compiled reports that will gather dust or be pigeon-holed, possibly he could charge some of his officers with the very special responsibility of being apostles for the reawakening of the conscience of the Australian stevedores and waterside workers. It is unfortunate that Mr Sourer and Mr Fitzgibbon stir up such issues as demarcation disputes to use as a lever. In an excellent speech the honourable member for Corangamite detailed to the House in chapter and verse the large number of man days that are lost each year through strikes. The honourable member for Wakefield also touched on the problem of idle time. I believe that this would be a fertile field into which the Minister could enter and encourage the cross-pollination of ideas. He should tell the waterside workers that they have a particular responsibility to Australia as a nation.

Mr Fisher:

– And to the wheat growers, too.

Mr McVEIGH:

-I intend in a minute to touch on the subject of the wheat growers, which was the point raised by the honourable member for Mallee. He, like so many of us, is so much aware that a disaster could have been perpetrated on the wheat growers through the action of the waterside workers. I will come to that aspect eventually, but before doing so I want to conclude on the point I was making when the honourable member for Mallee interrupted with his quite pertinent interjection. As I see it there must be a 2-way arrangement between the industry and the stevedores insofar as they must realise that if they are to have job opportunities it is essential for them to increase their productivity. That was the essence of the speech of the honourable member for Wakefield, who made an earnest plea to the stevedores to get on with their own particular responsibility to Australia as a nation and to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.

It is absolutely essential that the legislation have sufficient teeth and that the Minister convey to the Cabinet his great feeling that the Government must have muscle in relation to this matter. It must not only govern but also it must appear to govern. We must abolish irresponsible strike action. I am not one of those who disagree with the worker having the right to strike. I believe that the worker has his labour to offer and that to protect his right to receive fair recompense for his work he must have use of the strike weapon. But there have been far too many occasions when needless emphasis has been given on the waterfront to things such as strikes on demarcation issues. We also had the example in New South Wales of the waterside workers striking because they disagreed with the New South Wales Government on the Medibank proposals.

I want to comment briefly on the irresponsible action of the trade unionists engaged on the waterfront as far as the banning of the sale of wheat to Chile is concerned. That was a completely ridiculous action to take in relation to Chile. I cannot understand how the waterside workers could use strike action to gain an advantage for themselves simply because they claimed to disagree with the politics of Chile. I would have thought that being men of compassion they would have been thinking of the millions of residents of that country who were practically dying of starvation. I would have thought that there was enough humanitarianism around to encourage them to get on with the job of loading some $40m worth of wheat bound for Chile. What they did was a blot on their character and a blot on their behaviour.

Mr Fisher:

-It still is.

Mr McVeigh:

– The honourable member for Mallee says that it still is. It is all very well to dismiss that action at the present time when we have access to good world wheat markets, but in times to come we will be looking to our traditional customers to take our wheat. They can quite legitimately use the excuse that when they wanted our wheat our waterside workers refused to load the wheat which would have satisfied the hunger of many millions of people in that country. Chile is our third or fourth biggest customer. I hope that the Minister can bring forth legislation which will enable the Government to control the waterfront and which will allow the Australian Wheat Board to control the shipment of wheat to its traditional buyers.

I endorse the remarks of the honourable for Wakefield in relation to sweetheart agreements. It is intolerable that shipowners should be held to ransom because of the political activity of the people who control the waterfront. It ill behoves them to say: ‘We will load ships only on certain conditions ‘. There is a price to pay for that sort of solution, and the price that will have to be paid is that the resources of Australia will be priced out of world markets. That surely is something at which any Government, of whatever political colour, must be aggrieved because in the final analysis, the improved quality of Australian life must be the hallmark for which any government aims.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-We have listened with interest to the earlier contributions in this debate. I am speaking tonight on this subject possibly as the only member of the Parliament, at least on this side of the chamber, who has had experience on the waterfront. Almost a decade ago I was an industrial officer with the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. Much has changed in that decade, but I believe that the framework which was surrounded by the skin of trouble in those earlier years is still the cause of much of the trouble today. When one looks back on the history of the Australian waterfront one recalls that it was approximately in 1928 when the old bulldog systemI think that was the name of it- of selecting gangs of workers was abandoned. For a long time the bad old days remained in the memories of the workers on the Australian waterfront. They were tough days when the boss or the stevedore had the right to select for himself those workers whom he felt had in the past given him the best return, and those people who had not worked as hard as others were left on the sideline.

The next major change occurred in the mid-1960s when the then Minister for Labour and National Service- I think it was Mr Holt or Mr McMahon- appointed the Woodward Commission to investigate the Australian waterfront. Mr Woodward at that time suggested that we needed the introduction of permanency of employment to give the Australian waterside worker a feeling of security so that in return he would put his heart into the job. Regrettably, permanency has not worked out as it was planned, and today we still see disruptions, a falling away of loading rates and many other troubles which for so long have been associated with the waterfront.

I do not believe that it is all the fault of the waterside worker. It takes two to tango. My colleague, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), touched on this point earlier, when he referred to the fact that the Australian stevedore, who in many cases represents an overseas ship owner, has one task. It is of paramount importance that he get the ship turned around and out to sea headed to the next port, because regrettably having a ship tied up for an extra 24 hours costs thousands of dollars. It is much easier to hand the waterside workers a percentage of that cost and save the rest than to enter into some dispute or to take a stand on some issue. I think the honourable member for Wakefield said that frequently the stevedores have been over the barrel. I say that they have been over the mast. They have been well and truly hung from the mast and have had to capitulate on many occasions when in other industries the employer would have been able to say: ‘All right, we will close down the plant’. Perhaps the only comparable industry in this country would be the airline industry. If the employees of Trans-Australia Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia go out on strike for 48 hours, it costs those 2 operators up to $lm a day to have their business tied up. The cost of a strike is one of the reasons why ship owners or stevedores have been so prepared to give in on many issues on which employers in another industry would take a firm stand.

Mr Speaker, I ask you: Who really can blame the waterside worker if his union official, who is subjected to the elective system, does his best by the men he represents and strives his utmost to win concessions and conditions? This is the name of the game, and this is exactly how it works. I do not believe that the suggestion made by the honourable member for Wakefield has the acceptance that he would like to believe it has. I refer, of course, to the nationalisation of the entire waterfront industry. I believe that the Australian waterside worker is no longer a member of the unprivileged class. He is no longer a member of the suppressed class. He has fought his way out of that position. In return for what my fellow Australians who are waterside workers have gained, I ask them to recognise that every time they pull on a bluey unnecessarily and every time they hold up a ship unnecessarily it is their fellow Australians who carry the financial burden.

We recall that not too long ago- about a decade ago- section 23A, if my memory serves me correctly, of the Stevedoring Industry Act provided that a waterside worker or a gang of waterside workers could stop work if he or they believed that a safety issue existed. Under that section there was trouble day after day on the Australian waterfront. It was removed by Mr Justice Woodward and there was a change. The number of stoppages on safety issues decreased as dramatically as the value of our currency has decreased since the advent of an Australian Labor Party Government. It was an indication that the waterside workers were not beyond pulling one on if they could. But in this day and age when they have won their conditions they have a responsibility and a duty, in my opinion, to recognise that the overseas shipowners still ply the Australian coastline. For all the battles in the past they have not disappeared. The Australian people do not own all the ships and the war which has been waged cannot be won. They should remember that the price of that war- a war which is still being waged- is borne by the Australian exporters and a very simple fact emerges. If our costs to manufacture and send our produce overseas continue to escalate we are pricing ourselves off the world markets and as a result fellow Australians will continue to join the ranks of the unemployed. I conclude on this point: The waterside workers have won their position and should guard it jealously but they should not sacrifice the standards and the rights of others to opportunities simply for unjustified pursuits.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– in reply- I listened carefully to the remarks made by the honourable members for Corangamite (Mr Street), Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). They were all quite thoughtful contributions. I did not agree with all they said but I thought that the 3 speakers had the distinction of attempting to offer some solution to the waterfront problem. This the last speaker, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), did not do. We all know what the problem is. The last speaker knows it also. His speech was an ambivalent one which seemed to blow hot and cold. He was all in favour of the waterside workers and it was good to hear him take that position but at the same time he suggested that they also were a bit greedy.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is that right?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Is that what you said?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am asking if that is right.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member is not prepared to say ‘Right ‘ to that.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They overdo it from time to time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Honourable members can see the ambivalence of the honourable member for Griffith. He offered no solution. We all know the problem and what we are looking for is a solution. The honourable members for Corangamite, Darling Downs and Wakefield at least did attempt to provide some solution to the problem. Their solution was not specific or definite or one of total commitment to what they were putting but at least they did canvass possibilities. One of the possibilities they canvassed in a non-committal way was that we look at the idea of setting up a national or an Australian stevedoring industry corporation to control the whole of the stevedoring operations which could be controlled constitutionally by such a body. It would be a body to control stevedoring operations and would remove the influence- I agree with all honourable members when they call it the sinister influence- of the overseas shipping companies on the stevedoring industry in Australia at the moment. We all know that most of the larger stevedoring companies in Australia are really the auxiliaries or the sudsidiaries of overseas shipping companies

To talk about the Australian Government setting up a corporation to control the stevedoring industry without at the same time setting up a corporation that would have complete control over the whole industry, to the extent that the Constitution would permit it to be done, is quite silly. If such a corporation were set up and the stevedoring companies that are now the subsidiaries of overseas shipping companies were allowed to continue to operate, it goes without saying that the P & O Line and the various other overseas shipping lines would continue to give their business to their subsidiaries no matter what the cost of this might be to the Australian shippers and to the Australian community.

So I believe that there is a lot of merit in the proposition that was canvassed- put forward not as a definite proposition but as one that ought to be considered- that we should establish a stevedoring industry corporation in Australia. I would be prepared to recommend that course to the Government. I have looked at this matter for a long time. I have gone into it deeply. I am not now talking idly, making a decision or saying something that has just suddenly hit me. Over 2 years at least I have been worried about aspects of the stevedoring industry, particularly those that concern the relationship that exists between foreign shipping lines and some of the stevedoring companies in Australia.

My own personal view- the Government has not endorsed it but the manpower committee of Caucus has done so- is that the Government ought to offer to buy out the existing stevedoring companies, not to confiscate them but to buy them out at fair valuation and pay them cash, to take over the stevedoring companies that are now out operating with overseas and interstate shipping, and to buy out container depots. I know that it would cost a lot of money but let us not forget that it is costing a lot of money at present. It is costing us a mint of money. We are getting nothing for it- nothing in the sense of having something to show for what we pay. Whilst it would cost a lot to buy out these companies we ought to quake at the idea. We ought to be prepared to set up the industry and have it controlled by a board on which all sections of the industry would be fairly represented and which would be answerable to Parliament. It would have to report to Parliament every year. In this way we would be establishing a corporation that would have complete powers over interstate and overseas shipping, with the right to compete in intrastate shipping but not the right to dominate or to control it. I venture to say that if this were done the efficiency of the corporation, properly managed in the way that I am suggesting, would be such that even though it had only rights to competition in intrastate shipping it would very soon assume virtually what amounts to full rights to take intrastate as well, because I cannot imagine how many of the stevedoring companies in the main ports could continue to operate if all they were allowed to do was to deal with intrastate shipping. Smaller stevedoring companies in little places like Albany, Thevenard, Ceduna and other outports that we now have would probably continue to operate. I want to make it clear to the Opposition that before the Government would be prepared to go to the trouble- an enormous amount of work would be needed to prepare legislation to bring in a stevedoring industry corporation of the kind we are now talking about -

Mr Kelly:

– You would have to face up to the Waterside Workers Federation.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Before we faced up to all the problems that would have to be faced we would want to have some reasonable assurance that the legislation would not be blocked in the Senate in order to achieve some Party political point of principle or even a point without principle. I would not be prepared to ask the Government to go to the trouble of preparing legislation like this if it were only going to be knocked back in the Senate. We have too many other things that need to be done and do not want to be wasting our time- and that is what it would amount to short of that assurancepreparing legislation to do the things that have been recommended or advocated in an unofficial, ad hoc sort of way by the honourable members for Corangamite, Darling Downs and Wakefield.

Mr Street:

– Could you indicate the sort of people you could have on the board of the corporation?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The sort of people I would want to see on the board would be representatives of the Waterside Workers Federation. I would want to see somebody from the existing stevedoring companies like Sir Reginald Reid or Mr Donald Strang. If we are to have a successful stevedoring corporation we would have to have on it people who know what stevedoring work is all about. Those 2 gentlemen I have just mentioned do know stevedoring. They know it backwards; they are good stevedores. They would be 2 people that I could name who would make a marvellous contribution.

Waterside workers understand stevedoring operations and ought to be represented on the corporation. For that matter I believe that the Government should be on the corporation as a representative of the consumers.

Mr Kelly:

– Shipowners?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-We own ships.

Mr Kelly:

– The Australian National Line?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Under the agreement that operates at the moment the Australian National Line is forbidden to carry out its own stevedoring operations, which is a tragedy. I do not know what justification there was for the previous Government’s putting that prohibition into the Act which set up the ANL, but it is there. It is true that we do not want a return to the old bull system. It was not the bulldog system, as the honourable member for Griffith described it. A bulldog system would suggest that the system smacked of aggressiveness. It was known as the bull system because people had to work like a bull to get into the bull gang. People went into the bull ring and were selected by the stevedoring foreman, not according to their bulldog characteristics but according to their capacity to emulate a bull while they were at work. It was called the bull gang.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am not so old as you. My memory does not go back to 1 928.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was not abolished in the year that the honourable gentleman said; it was abolished in 1944 when the Labor Government came into office. The honourable member is very young and he is very knowledgeable but his memory is not very good.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section 5 of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1973 is amended-

  1. by omitting from paragraph (a) the words ‘One dollar fifty cents’ and substituting the figures ‘$2.50 ‘;
  2. by omitting from paragraph (b) the words ‘One dollar seventy-five cents’ and substituting the figures ‘$3.50’; and
  3. by omitting from paragraph (c) the words ‘One dollar twenty cents ‘ and substituting the figures ‘$2.50 ‘.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to raise a matter of procedure. It would save time, since the honourable member for Corangamite wishes to have a vote on the amendments, if we could take the 4 amendments to clause 3 together.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Only the first 3 amendments deal with clause 3.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Could we take those three together?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honourable member for Corangamite seek leave to deal with the first 3 amendments together?

Mr Street:

– I would be happy to take together the amendments referring to the charges but not the one referring to the time of operation of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I move:

The first 3 paragraphs of this clause refer to the level of the charges which is provided for by the legislation. We seek to reduce each class of charge by approximately 10 per cent. As the Committee would know, the charge which is actually levied is not necessarily that provided for in the legislation but is set up to that maximum by regulation. As I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate, I am informed that the current level of charge to cope with the present rate of idle time and the other purposes for which the charge is used would be approximately $2.20. The Committee will see that the Opposition’s amendment provides for a charge for class A waterside workers- by far the most important class-of somewhat more than that. The reason for that is that the Opposition recognises the very difficult circumstances in which the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority operates. It has statutory obligations to perform and its finances are usually running right on the rims to enable it to fulfil its obligations. So the Opposition has allowed for a small but reasonable margin over the Authority’s current requirements in the limit to the charge that it has proposed.

I am further informed that a charge of approximately $2.20 would be sufficient to cope with idle time and the other purposes for which the charge is used- but principally idle timerunning at the rate of $15m a year. It follows therefore that if a higher charge is required the main reason for it would be idle time running at a rate in excess of $ 1 5m a year. I think the Committee will agree that $15m a year is a quite unreasonable amount of money to be paid to people for doing nothing, especially when the Australian community eventually is called upon to pay for it. So the Opposition proposes that if idle time reaches a figure greatly in excess of $15m a year the Government will be forced to come back to this Parliament for approval for a higher charge than $2.25. The Opposition believes that is reasonable because the situation then would have reached a stage where it deserved exposure in the Parliament. It would have reached a stage quite beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The same thing applies, but to a much lesser extent, to the charges for class B and class C waterside workers. The reductions are pro rata, but the effect on the Authority and on the population generally is very much less. As an encouragement to the Government to seek a more permanent solution to what has been a running sore, both from an industrial relations point of view and from an economic point of view, the Opposition urges the Government to accept the moderate reduction in charges provided by this amendment- charges which would still in the existing circumstances enable the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to fulfil its statutory obligations.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to intervene at this stage before the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron- one could almost say the bulldog for Griffith- rises to speak. There are some things about what the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) said that disturb me. The charges that are proposed are based upon the assumption of $ 11m a year for idle time. The honourable gentleman pointed out that at the moment we are running at the rate of $ 15m annually for idle time. For the sake of the record, I should like to say that, as the honourable gentleman pointed out, employers are taxed through the charge for every man hour in which they employ a waterside worker. Proceeds of the charge are then used by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to meet its statutory requirements. I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am a full bottle on this because the Acting Director of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, Mr Bellew, is here in the advisers chair and we have none less than Mr Norman K. Foster, a well-known authority on the industry, also sitting in the chamber. So I advise honourable gentlemen opposite to be very careful how they handle what they like to pass off as facts.

The statutory functions of the Authority are detailed in the Act. For present purposes, however, the most significant commitments are payments to the long service leave fund and as idle time payments. The honourable gentleman has recognised that. The amounts apportioned out of the charge to these areas can vary quite considerably depending on the level of the stevedoring activity. When a lot of imports came into the country, as in 1974, the amount of idle time was not as great as it is now. The 3 rates of charges are payable in respect of the 3 separate classes of waterside workers. They are outlined in the Bill. There is no need for me to go over those again. The charge is only one of the several factors which go into accumulating the total cost of employing a waterside worker. That cost also includes such factors as the award rates of pay which have to be paid as at the time the work is carried out, private levies and other private employer costs. During the early 1970s the former Government decided against increasing the charge in an effort to encourage the parties to the stevedoring industry agreement to agree to redundancy within the industry as an alternative means of meeting increasing costs. There is no doubt that that had the effect that the Government set out to achieve.

Responsibility for the repayment of the debt has been contested within the industry. Quite frequently, different points of view will be heard and it has been the subject of a large number of reports and submissions which I have received since I have been Minister for Labor and Immigration. Any short term arrangement to repay the debt would seriously disturb commercial arrangements within the industry and would require parliamentary endorsement and resolution of the matter to be taken into consideration in discussions concerning permanent arrangements in the industry. May I say this also: If we were to reduce the maximum amount which we can now charge to the figure suggested by the honourable member for Corangamite, we would have to face the fact that this Parliament would have to meet every 6 months to decide whether there was to be a further charge. If honourable members opposite are prepared to do that, while I do not say that is well and good, that is what they will have to be prepared to do. At 30 June 1975, the fund liability will be of the order of $23,300,000.

Mr Kelly:

-Oh, no.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, it will. Investments will total only $10m and the fund will be deficient by $ 13,300,000. The charge is based on man hours worked and therefore income from the charge reflects the level of stevedoring activity and wage movements within the industry. So honourable members can see what happens. The less work that is done on the waterfront, the more idle time there is. But because there is less work, the levy collected is less though the commitment for idle time is greater. The level of stevedoring activity remained buoyant right through 1974 because of the high level of imports. It declined rapidly in 1975 because of the low level of imports. This was in reaction not only to the Government’s tariff policy but also to the Government’s policies on import quotas. As I have explained already the difficulties created by this rapid fall in activity and income is compounded by the correspondingly rapid rises in expenditure on idle time for waterside workers for whom there is no work available. The exact extent of this downturn in activity could not be plotted with any accuracy until early 1975. In other words, what I am saying is that we had no way of being able to anticipate this situation 1 8 months ago. It was not until the early part of this year that we were in a position to be able to plot with any accuracy the course that we ought to be following in respect of charges.

Similarly, the factor of wage movements could not have been forecast with any accuracy because the indexation arrangements for waterside workers were dependent upon developments early in 1973. As honourable members will all know, waterside workers have an agreement under which their rates are increased at about this time each year to a point that brings them to within ninety-three point something per cent of the average weekly earnings. Information handed to me only this afternoon indicates that the seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings today have climbed to $ 1 52 a week. Who knows, having regard to the rate of increase of something like 36 per cent that has occurred in the last 12 months, what the average weekly earnings will be when the time comes around for the waterside worker’s agreement to be re-adjusted or restored- if it has not already by then reached it- to the 93 per cent of that figure in a year’s time.

The Authority estimates that even if all rates were to be increased by regulation to the current maxima there would be a shortfall in the income per month in the vicinity of $950,000. 1 can see by the intelligent look on the face of the honourable member for Corangamite that he is listening to me. That is the shortfall per month. I ask honourable members to think of it. If parliamentary passage of the Bill were to be deferred to the Budget session the accumulated shortfall would be in the vicinity of, believe it or not, a $5m deficit between now and the Budget.

Mr Kelly:

-Oh, no.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Well, it is true. Those are the facts. The Authority will necessarily have to meet its cash commitments by realising long service leave fund investments, which it has been forced to do on previous occasions. But what a way to run a show. (Quorum formed) I will not take much longer to conclude my remarks. I have already said that the long service leave fund debt already stands in the vicinity of $ 13m. If we continue the undesirable practice of meeting on-going industry costs through the use of long service leave fund moneys our situation will become quite disastrous, and ‘disastrous’ is not an adjective that over-stresses the situation. Any effort to back date or catch up, assuming the Bill is to be deferred until the Budget session, could involve a 100 per cent increase in the actual rate of the charge, with a consequential increased impact upon commerce. Further, it would not avoid the interim difficulties of having the Authority meet its cash commitments through the use of long service leave fund moneys. We cannot go on running the show in that way- dipping into the long service leave fund moneys to meet current day to day costs. I would, therefore, ask the Opposition to understand that from the point of view of costs we have no alterative but to press for what is being asked for.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-As the Minister for Labour and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said, we cannot go on -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put-

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 4.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-I move:

After clause 3, add the following clause: ‘4. The operation of this Act shall cease on 1 July 1 976, or at such earlier time as legislation is passed providing permanent arrangements for the Stevedoring Industry in substitution for the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.’.

The Opposition proposes to add clause 4 to this Bill. The purpose of the proposed clause is consistent with the amendments that we moved to clause 3 to reduce the charges by about 10 per cent so that if the commitments of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority made the charges proposed by our amendment inadequate, the Government would have to come back to the Parliament to get approval for a higher charge. Proposed clause 4 moved would have the effect of ceasing the operation of this

Act on 1 July 1976 or at such earlier time as legislation is passed providing permanent arrangements for the stevedoring industry in substitution for the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.

Honourable members may recall that when the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill was before the House last year the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- then the shadow Minister for Labormoved an amendment which would have required permanent provisions to be brought before this House before 1 April 1975. That amendment was defeated in this chamber. The voting in the Senate was 30 all. So although the amendment was not carried, there was a very substantial body of opinion in the Senate which clearly believed that permanent legislation for the waterfront should be brought back to this Parliament by 1 April 1975. Of course that has not been done. But the legislation of that timethe temporary provision legislation- expires on 1 July 1976 and we propose that this legislation too, the charges legislation, should expire on the same date. If the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) responds to the gentle stimulus which we have provided by earlier amendments and by this amendment and brings in legislation of a permanent nature before 1 July 1976 then of course this legislation would cease to have effect as from that date.

It is true that the range of options which have been canvassed, which might lead to permanent legislation for the waterfront will require careful consideration by the Opposition. As I know the Minister would realise, they would need careful assessment by the Government. But one thing on which I think both sides are agreed and with which I agree, is the statement of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who said that nothing could be worse than what we have now- anything would be an improvement. This Parliament has a great responsibility to the Aus.tralian people to ensure that the improvement that is made is the best that this Parliament can devise. We believe that the cessation of the operation of this Act on 1 July 1976 provides a reasonable amount of time both for the Government and hopefully the Opposition to reach a considered view on this very vexed and complex question.

We believe that the passing of this amendment would be an indication to all sections of the industry and to the public that this Parliament is determined to try to correct what year by year has turned into a greater problem- a problem apparently no nearer solution now than when the permanent employment provisions were introduced in 1967. It is a problem which is constantly brought before this chamber by the ever increasing requirements to increase the charge levied, culminating on this occasion in an increase from $1.40- the current rate, although legislation provides for up to $1.50- to a maximum of $2.50 with the probability that the actual levy set by regulation will be in the region of $2.20. Assuming that it is in the region of $2.20, that would imply an increase of about 60 per cent over the levy currently being charged.

I accept what the Minister has said about the contingent liability for long service leave. In fact I drew attention to that very fact in my speech during the second reading debate, although I did under-estimate the contingent liability to the extent of about $3m as I understand what the Minister said subsequently. But this merely emphasises the fact that we are now operating in an ever-increasing cost plus system with no light at the end of the tunnel. The amendment which we have moved, that is, that the operation of the Act should cease on 1 July 1 976, is intended to put an end to the tunnel so that the Government and the Parliament can turn their minds to establishing a better, permanent arrangement to meet this constant burden which has been placed on the Australian people in general and on Australian exporters in particular.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government appreciates the point of view put by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). The Government does hope to have this matter resolved by 30 June 1976. It is my hope and it is my prediction that we will have it resolved by then. What we have to understand about this Bill is that this is not an ordinary amendment to an ordinary Act of Parliament. This is a tax machinery Bill. It is quite a different sort of proposition from an ordinary Bill. If Parliament did not meet, for example, immediately before or immediately after 30 June, the industry would be without legal income.

Mr Street:

– You could introduce the legislation in May 1976.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. I appreciate what the honourable member is saying with respect to May 1976. We might be almost on the verge of being able to introduce permanent legislation, but not quite. We may need to wait until August or September. It would seem to me to be a messy way of doing things, if we were a few weeks short of having our legislation completed, to have to resuscitate the Bill in May in order that we could bridge the small time period which would separate us at that time of the year from the date when we could bring in the permanent legislation. I am sorry that, for those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment. I have been advised by Mr Bellew, who is an authority on this matter- he does not take sides one way or the other; he is purely professional in relation to it- of the technical difficulties which could arise if by some chance we find ourselves without legal authority to make the collections, and that means without legal authority also to make the payments.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have not had the chance to reply to the mauling that was given to me by my namesake, the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), when he referred to the fact that the bull system was abolished in 1944 and not 1928. I suppose that at my age 1944 and 1928 are both a long way back. To the Minister they are years of vivid memories, well into the past. He has a speciality in this House of living in the past. So often the Press Gallery typifies him as the shearer in a suit- a wool suit of coursewith attitudes which reflect the shearing shed.

The Opposition has moved this most thoughtful amendment because Opposition members are concerned that the Government, despite all its explanations and cries that it represents open government, is introducing these measures so that we do not need to look at the legislation again for some time. The Opposition believes that the waterfront is such a volatile industry that it should be examined frequently. We would hope that the cessation of the operation of the Act would lead to this procedure.

The Minister accused me of not having suggested in the course of my second reading debate speech any proposals which would help rectify the ills which presently beset the industry. It is far better to be brief and to say what has to be said than to indulge in exercises- such as the Minister has done for many years- and have the shallowness of one’s logic shown up when the opportunity comes to implement the fine words of the past. This is seen in the failure of the Minister to cope adequately with the elimination of those problems which presently beset the Aus.tralian waterfront. I notice the Government Whip sitting there ready to gag me once again. It is not my intention to prolong my contribution at this stage of the debate. The Opposition is concerned. As I said earlier, I disagree with the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who is advocating the nationalisation of the waterfront industry. His views were acclaimed by the Minister. I reject them. I do not believe that that is the answer to the problems. If all sides stiffened their backbones and resolved to work to end the difficulties which presently exist, I am sure it would be a happier waterfront. More importantly, the Australian exporter, manufacturer and worker would be the beneficiaries.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-Mr Berinson-

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause proposed to be added (Mr Street’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 50

NOES: 63

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Title agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 3174

SHIP CONSTRUCTION BOUNTY BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 May on motion by MrEnderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The measures contained in this Bill were announced on 18 December 1973. It is now more than 18 months since the Government stated its policies as regards the level of support to be given to the Australian shipbuilding industry. In the interval the industry’s confidence has suffered considerably as a result of the Government’s laxity on developments in both the Australian market and overseas. Since the Labor Government came to office the Australian shipbuilding industry has entered into a period of uncertainty and decline which will have a critical influence on the future of the industry. The time has come to refute the statements made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) that the Australian shipbuilding industry under the Labor Government has been more active than under the former Government. This claim is absolutely false. On 12 October 1973 in an address to the Australian Ship Repairers Group, the Minister for Transport stated:

Since we took office the number of ships on order has risen from 39 to 60 (50 per cent) and the number of ships for which tenders have been called has risen from 6 to 7 1.

That statement is a prime example of the dishonesty with which the Labor Party approaches these matters. The important figure for such comparisons is not the number of ships on order or under construction but the total deadweight tonnage. Prior to December 1972 the total deadweight tonnage of commercial vessels on order was 332 150 tons. In September 1973 the equivalent figure was 239 985 tons. So in fact there was a decline of 92 165 tons rather than an increase since Labor took office. Nor is this the whole story. Of the 14 freight earning vessels on order, one half of them totalling 192 825 deadweight tons comprised carry over orders placed prior to December 1 972. From this it can be seen that the new freight earning vessels and supply ships ordered since the present Government took office represent a mere 47 160 tons.

By December 1974 the situation had not improved. The total deadweight tonnage on order was 268 750 compared with 262 850 at the same time in 1973. Speaking in the House on 22 October 1974, the Minister for Transport said:

In the 12 months ended 2 December 1972 there were 30 ships on order or under construction. During the last 12 months- in our term of office- 68 ships have been on order or under construction.

What the Minister omitted to mention was that at least 16 of the 68 vessels were part of the 39 ships on order when the previous Government went out of office. Moreover, only 19 of the 68 vessels were larger than 1000 tons deadweight. In other words, most were very small vessels. In fact, 32 of them were prawn trawlers and the remainder consisted of an assortment of barges, fishing vessels and tugs. It is false for the Minister for Transport to claim that the Australian shipbuilding industry has seen an improvement since the Labor Party came to power; on the contrary it has declined. And its decline has been due to the policy of the Minister. The decline is easily illustrated by the fact that 4 major shipbuilding yards have closed and only two remain in business, all since Labor came to office. The Labor Government’s policy on assistance to the shipbuilding industry is best illustrated by the construction of new ships being undertaken for the Government shipping line, the Australian National Line. When Labor came to power the ANL had 2 steel carriers of approximately 7800 tons deadweight on order from the Newcastle State Dockyard and a 13 000 tons deadweight bulk carrier on order from a Japanese yard. On 30 June 1 974 the ANL had an order for 6 vessels which, had the Government wanted, could have been constructed in Australian yards. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that if the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) wants to count numbers in respect of a possible spill he do it at another time and pay some attention to the speech I am making.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They are too busy caucusing for cactus.

Mr NIXON:

-I think the Minister ought to stop caucusing and worry about his numbers on another occasion. He is one of those who is to get the axe. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has already numbered him. He is finished as a Minister and he rightly deserves to be.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order! The Bill before the House is the Ship Construction Bounty Bill.

Mr NIXON:

-On 30 June 1974 the ANL had an order for 6 vessels which, had the Government wanted, could have been constructed in Australian yards. Only three of these vessels are being constructed in Australia. So much for the Government’s cheap claim that it has assisted the Australian shipbuilding industry. The industry knows that such a claim is false and that under this Government it has suffered a greater decline than at any time since 1945. The present outlook for the industry is particularly grim.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)

Mr Nixon:

– You cannot move out Gough; it is a quorum. Did you notice that the Prime Minister left the chamber after attention was drawn to the state of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– He has not left the chamber.

Mr Nixon:

– Did you notice that? Can I draw it to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker? Are you prepared to correct the Prime Minister for his grave and calamitous discourtesy to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker? Do you not think that you should draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that he has shown a grave discourtesy to the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No. (Quorum formed.)

Mr NIXON:

-Since 30 June 1 974 ANL - Mr Nicholls- Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the question be put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The noes have it.

Mr Nixon:

– The noes have it. A division is required.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 47 which reads:

When the attention of the Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of Members present, no Member shall leave the area within the seats allotted to Members until a quorum is present or two minutes have elapsed.

Mr Speaker, I raised with the Deputy Speaker the fact that after his attention was drawn to the state of the House the Prime Minister walked out of the chamber, and that it was quite discourteous to the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not in a position to comment.

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not in a position to comment.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 50

Majority……. 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Government supporters- Hear, hear!

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-On 30 June the Australian National Line had on order 6 vessels that could have been constructed in Australian yards if the Government had wanted that to happen. In fact only 3 of the vessels are being constructed in Australia. So much for the Government’s cheap claim that it has assisted the Australian shipbuilding industry. The industry knows that such a claim is false and that under this Government it has suffered a greater decline than has occurred at any other time since 1945. The present outlook for the industry is particularly grim.

Mr Enderby:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The honourable gentleman is not speaking to the Bill in Committee; he is continuing his speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-As the Committee is taking the Bill as a whole, it is open to the honourable member to do so.

Mr NIXON:

– The industry not only has suffered from the uncertain and unsettling climate created by the confused policies of the Australian Labor Party but also has been subjected to administrative indecision and uncertainty as a result of the measures contained in this legislation.

This Bill is based on the results of a Tariff Board inquiry that was begun in 1969 and completed in 1971. The Government’s proposals for the shipbuilding industry were released on 3 1

May 1973. On 8 March 1973 the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) announced that an interdepartmental committee had been set up to investigate and recommend the level and method of assistance to the Australian shipbuilding industry. On 18 December 1973 the Minister for Secondary Industry released details of the Government’s proposals for assistance to the ship-building industry that resulted from the review of the interdepartmental committee. It is those proposals that are now contained in this Bill.

In the 18 months that has elapsed between the announcement of the Government’s policy and its present enactment many changes have occurred in the shipping and shipbuilding industries. For example, there is now a considerable oversupply of shipping in the world market, so that freight rates have dropped to extremely low and unprofitable levels. Consequently, orders for new buildings are being cancelled. Furthermore, the entire shipping and shipbuilding industries have been transformed by the advent of the very large cargo carriers and the supertankers. That has made much of the former thinking concerning shipping, as well as the technology and scale of shipbuilding, outdated. There is considerable uncertainty in shipbuilding circles overseas as to the immediate prospects of the shipbuilding industry. With the mass tie-up of vessels, especially of the large tankers and bulk carriers, yards that were designed to construct larger ships are now being adapted to build smaller ships. The oil crisis and the world-wide inflation have made the normally uncertain life of a shipowner and a shipbuilder even more hazardous. In the light of those developments since the Government’s policy concerning Australian shipbuilding was announced, it is unfortunate that this legislation will be of little relevance to the problems facing the industry.

The Bill provides that a bounty will be payable on the production in registered Australian shipyards of vessels of 150 gross construction tons or more and fishing vessels of 21 metres or more in length, such vessels to be used on the Australian coast or operated under the Australian flag overseas. The bounty is also payable for the modification in Australia of existing ships where the cost of modification exceeds $500,000. If the vessel is disposed of for use outside Australian waters by a non-Australian flag operator within 10 years of completion, then the bounty will be repaid on a pro-rata basis. The amount of the bounty payable for vessels of less than 1 000 gross registered construction tons and for vessels of 92 000 deadweight tonnes or more, for oil exploration vessels and for modifications to existing vessels, is 25 per cent of the cost of construction. For all other vessels the bounty will be 25 per cent after 1 January 1981, but will vary on a sliding basis up to that date from its present level of 3716 per cent.

The bounty proposals vary in some respects from those recommended by the Tariff Board in its 1971 report. Apart from some variation as regards the categories of vessels to which the bounty applies the main difference is the rate at which the bounty will apply. The Tariff Board recommended a subsidy to a maximum of 45 per cent for the period to 3 1 December 1 975, a maximum subsidy of 35 per cent from 1 January 1976 until 31 December 1978 and the introduction of a 25 per cent fleet rate after 1 January 1979. The Government’s proposal is for a sliding scale bounty. The lower rate of subsidy of 25 per cent which will apply after 1 January 1981 is, I submit, a disincentive to shipbuilding in Australia. Although the industry has been given notice that after 1981 a level of 25 per cent subsidy will apply, it must in the intervening period rearrange its equipment, planning and personnel to cope with the new situation which will exist. The reorganisation and rationalisation will require substantial investment on the part of the Australian shipbuilding industry and, unless some incentive is provided, I believe that after 1981 we will see the virtual disappearance of a shipbuilding industry in this country. A higher rate of bounty before 1981 would have provided more work and subsequently a greater opportunity for existing yards to prepare for and cope with the situation which will exist after 1981.

There are other matters, however, which ought to be raised in relation to this Bill. Firstly, I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted 2 proposals from the industry which deserved consideration. The first is the problem which existed as regards the determination of the bounty according to the keel laying date. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that the bounty is payable from a date fixed by the draft contract for the setting up on the construction site of a major unit from which the vessel is to be constructed. Not only does this provision recognise that there were many difficulties inherent in determining the keel laying date under a contract and sticking to the schedule involved, but it also recognises the essentially irrelevant nature of the keel laying for the purpose of determining the bounty. Under modern construction methods, there may not even be a keel laying as such; in fact, modular and unitised construction methods are becoming widespread. At any rate, a great deal of procurement and prefabrication of hull sections takes place.

The second proposal concerns the method of payment under the bounty. Clause 16 of the Bill provides for advances on account of the bounty on such terms and conditions as approved by the Minister. Shipbuilders have to obtain payment from 2 sources, from the owner and from the Government. Bounty payments should be made in accordance with the provisions for payment contained in the contract between the builder and the owner. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the method proposed is inappropriate.

There are several other aspects of the Bill, however, over which concern has been raised. The first is the fact that although the Minister for Manufacturing Industry has the responsibility for shipbuilding and construction, the Minister for transport will be responsible for the administration of this bounty legislation. I believe that unnecessary confusion and duplication of departmental function has been introduced into this field by the Government’s allocation of ministerial responsibilities. Shipbuilders are also concerned that there will be delays in determining the amount of the bounty payable under the Bill. As I understand it, the Minister will be unable to determine the bounty until after negotiations have taken place with a preferred tenderer on the final specification. It is thought that owners may be disadvantaged by this to such an extent that they will be completely discouraged from even entering into negotiations for building vessels in Australia. The owner already has considerable delays in obtaining a final price for a vessel, and since the future earning capacity of the ship and the rate of return on the ship owners investment depends upon this price ship owners will not be encouraged to construct ships in Australia.

A further element of uncertainty is the provision contained in clause 6 relating to the calculation of the bounty. The clause provides that the Minister shall determine the bounty price in accordance with the accepted Australian tender price. Where there is more than one tender the Minister has to follow the lower or lowest tender price, even though this may not be the tender accepted by the owner. The bounty price therefore may be unrelated to the accepted tender. The question of escalation clauses is also one which needs to be considered. The increase in ship construction costs in recent years has been quite phenomenal. A simple procedure for the calculation of cost escalation needs to be formulated along lines similar to those prevailing in overseas yards. Difficulties already exist in planning for and recovering cost increases, and under the proposed procedures contained in clause 13 shipbuilders will have greater difficulty in establishing with Government investigations their claims for increased bounty payments as a result of cost escalation. The Government should adopt the same escalation formula agreed to by the owner which is contained in the contract between the owner and the shipyard. A mutually agreed formula needs to be worked out to enable shipbuilders to recover in full cost increases incurred during the construction of a vessel. This is vital in the case of long term and multiple ship contacts, particularly in times of rapid inflation, which increases labour costs and the costs of material by substantial amounts. The provisions contained in clause 13 are unsatisfactory. Mr Chairman, may I take my second period now?

CHAIRMAN- That will depend on whether any other honourable member rises. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– I wish to take just a few moments to refer to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). He referred to various clauses of the Bill, but summing up the remarks I think it could best be said that what he has sought to do. is to suggest that the problems that exist in shipbuilding today as a result of the efforts of the Government over 2 years can be laid at the feet of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), who for the most part during the term of office of this Government has been responsible for that industry. Might I say that the industry was surely in the doldrums in December 1972 when the Australian Labor Party came in to office. In various ways subsidies have been given to the shipbuilding industry since 1947 but never at any time was any genuine and consistent effort made by the previous government to give the shipbuilding yards in Australia any indication that the Government had any desire to see shipbuilding a viable industry. The industry was never really given any chance to develop new techniques. It was never given any assurance that it had a secure future. This is the reason why over a long period we saw so many of the shipyards of Australia fall behind the standard of technology that was available in other shipyards throughout the world.

This Bill will place the shipyards of Australia on a stable footing. Despite what has been said by the honourable member for Gippsland, this Bill for the first time will give the ship construction industry in Australia a secure future. It is all very well for the honourable member to quote statistics and suggest that what this Government is doing is concentrating in a different way on smaller ships, and because of this the tonnage that is being constructed today and subsidised by this Government does not compare with the tonnage that was being constructed in the latter years of his term of office as Minister responsible. But of course we have sought to increase the range of subsidy, and in so doing we have given some of the smaller yards an opportunity that the Government of which he was a member denied them over the years when the former Government was responsible for this great industry. Let me say that in the provisions of the legislation relating to the phasing out of the bounty, the encouragement is there in very clear terms for the shipbuilding industry over a period to become a viable industry.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974 1 shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 3179

ADJOURNMENT

Education -Communism -Resignation of Honourable Member for Bass

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GARRICK:
Batman

– I rise to speak because a vast number of elements acting against the smooth running and implementation of the Karmel report’s findings and the Federal Government’s education program have been brought to my attention. In three major areas there have been deliberate and accidental, planned and unplanned barriers put up against a program which has set about getting a vast amount of money into areas of great need. A great deal has been said about States being tardy in taking up their allocations of Schools Commission money, and even more about the fact that many of them are still bumbling and chundering on, way behind in the use of the funds available to them for handicapped and disadvantaged children.

The fact that the program has suffered immensely in all States, excepting the Labor governed States of South Australia and Tasmania, would go unchallenged in most places. It is only the conniving, ‘do nothing’, and ‘care less’ Liberal Ministers for Education who will deny that their departments have mishandled the entire spending programs. Graham Williams, writing in the ‘Australian’ on 28 May, summed up the situation well when he said that the program had suffered because of the inertia, chronic lack of vision, and stiff necked attitude that bedevils several State education bureaucracies. He is right, too, in saying that several States have failed to draw up strong guidelines for their needs strategies, but instead have frittered away the money with no regard to an overall plan. The result is little obvious change in the overall balance- the deprived remain relatively deprived.

One can build up a huge case against the States and ask where have the priorities for migrant and remedial teachers, innovations, library books and the remedial problem in general been shelved. The arguments have been articulated and remade time and time again; yet the States will tell you expenditure is proceeding at a satisfactory rate. Deafness and blindness in politics is as sad as it is in real life but dishonesty of this order cannot be tolerated. However, disgusting and disheartening as these facts are, there are other areas of concern which have not had the same publicity and which must be mentioned in this place.

The Australian Government’s Schools Commission program has become both the source of profiteering and the victim of bureaucratic holdups and mishandling at the levels of local government and State Health Departments. In this regard I refer especially to the nongovernment schools situation in Victoria. In dealing directly with disadvantaged schools building projects in Catholic schools, one could be excused for thinking things would move much more quickly than through the State system. They do, but not as quickly as they could and not without excessive costs. While we have State Education Departments foiling the program in their areas we have State Health Departments retarding the progress of the independent schools. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, building at the present time is subject to inflation as much or more than any area of the economy. Deliberate and accidential hold-ups in the gaining of permits can therefore be very costly.

In Victoria, the absolute minimum time it takes for a Health Department all clear is 6 weeks. There are 2 qualified departmental officials working in the area- 2 men for the whole State- and consequently it usually takes a good deal longer than 6 weeks. That is the first problem. Every day lost is money, Karmel money and other, frittered away in inflation. A building permit cannot be gained without the all clear from the Health Department, and who knows how long that will take?

Then of course there is the problem of the Victorian State health regulations for schools. These far-reaching and progressive rules, which state schools do not have to conform to, were last rewritten in 1943. Although the wisdom of stipulating 11 -feet ceilings for classrooms was probably apparent to those dutiful public servants responsible, it can hardly to regarded as anything but costly and ridiculous for the preparatory and junior grades of today. This is yet another way that well intentioned and apportioned money has to be mis-spent or lose its value. However, the opportunity-cost of Health Department hold-ups, and the added expense their archaic regulations necessitate, are only the start of the non-government schools problems in regard to their building grants under the disadvantaged program. The real problems begin with building permit delays, excessive charges and the consequent erosion of the monetary value of their grants.

Take the example of a school in my electorate -Our Lady’s Convent in Cape Street, Heidelberg. The original tender price for work to be done at this school was $562,000. Showing its usual diligence and efficiency in this regard, the Catholic Education Branch swung straight into action after- it was granted $120,000 for this building by the Federal Government. Many people would argue that the Schools Commission grant was not enough, but the 12 months it took to get the necessary permits was the real problem. In the one-year delay, the price of the project increased by $75,000. This incredible escalation in cost meant, in fact, that the Karmel money-$120,000-was worth only $45,000. One has to deplore such delays, not only for their opportunity-cost to the schools and the children involved, but also because it is seemingly unncessary dissipation of Federal money. This however is a case of unfortunate, uncontrollable bureaucratic delays.

What I am concerned about as well, is that in other cases it seems that local municipal governments are deliberately squeezing schools for their own revenue. There is a case, for instance, of a Catholic school in inner suburban Melbourne where proceedings were held up to such an extent that not only did building costs double, but also, while they waited for their building permit, the cost of these permits more than trebled. When this school went to tender in June 1974 the contracted cost was $305,655. At the present time, as building finally begins, the estimated cost is some $40,000 in excess of this. Added to this, the cost of the building permit was $ 1 ,000 more than had previously been the case.

Originally the school had been granted a town planning permit, but due to a neighbour’s complaint it moved the planned building site slightly. When it submitted for a modification of its permit, it was disallowed. It had to re-submit for a new permit, which took nearly 12 months to materialise. In the interim the cost of such a permit had risen from $400 to $ 1 ,400.

The question many people are asking of the Melbourne City .Council therefore is: Did it decide in 1974 that, as there was so much Federal money around for schools, it should be siphoning off a bit? The argument for this case is that only for schools and hospitals- two areas heavily subsidised by the Federal Government- are the building plans slugged to this extent. Commercial buildings, for instance, are not. In fact, most commercial building projects are granted partial permits, so that they can proceed with construction and have their plans approved in stages, thus decreasing the effects of inflation. Schools, of course, are not granted this luxury.

I raise these points because people are concerned that local councils have seen lavish Federal spending on areas of need such as schools and are trying to raise revenue on what is in fact non-ratable land. The building permit is the way they have done it. The problem, as I have pointed out and cannot over-stress, is that while they dilly-dally over these permits, and charge excessively for them, escalating prices are eating even further into the schools’ funds. It is the helpless, the needy, and those who do not vote who will suffer in the long run- the children.

That these are matters of concern in the community and in education is reason enough to speak on them here tonight. However, my concern does not stop here. The Australian Labor Government was elected in 1972 and again in 1974 to carry out a program which placed great weight on education. Our program is being thwarted. As we enter the pre-Budget part of the year, and people everywhere begin to talk of government spending priorities- perhaps cutbackswe will find that education is one of the areas under scrutiny. There will be people who will say that education expenditure has not achieved the results hoped for, that only slight advances have been made and that it is not the children who have gained from Karmel but other people and groups. The natural corollary of this, therefore, is that it is the obvious area to cut back- and that capital building programs should be the first to go.

Although I shall reserve judgment on these questions, it must be said that many of the shortcomings that have been pointed out are, at least in part, valid criticisms. What must also be said, and said to the Australian people very loudly, is that the blame for weaknesses in the disadvantaged schools program must be laid squarely at the feet of the State government departments and some local government bodies. The Federal Government’s policy has been carried out through its programs. There have been serious obstacles which have to be eliminated, but there have also been a lot of rewarding results. I rose here tonight because I am disappointed that for reasons beyond our control-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Debate interrupted.

page 3181

RESIGNATION OF HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BASS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received from Lance Herbert Barnard, member of the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Bass, his resignation from this House.

Mr Sinclair:

– Would it be appropriate for me to say a few words?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Ryan is next on the list of speakers.

page 3181

ADJOURNMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

-In the Brisbane ‘Telegraph ‘ of 25 June 1 974 in the column called ‘People’s Forum’ there was a letter by a Brisbane resident, Mr A. Nicholls of Bulimba, under the heading ‘Frightening comparison’. I quote his words:

It is interesting and in some respects frightening to see how closely the present political situation in Australia is aligning itself with the Soviet take-over pattern of Czechoslovakia, the details of which were laid out in the Soviet manual circulated by the British Labor Leader, Lord Morrison.

He is better known as Herbert Morrison. Mr Nicholls continued:

The Soviet manual lays down the 10 steps essential to a bloodless transition to socialism (communism).

One might, I suppose, substitute the words: ‘The Quiet Revolution’. The 10-point program is given step by step and approximately one-half of the steps have on the record already been taken in this country. Tacked on to the Labour Day marsh in Brisbane last month was a contingent with a big banner called ‘Red Contingent’. This was clearly an unwanted addition to the march.

It marred the march. It was a substantial embarrassment to the leaders of the march. It proved in the end to be a noisy, disruptive and serious embarrassment to Mr Egerton, the State President in Queensland of the Labor Party, and also to Mr Hawke, the Federal President of the Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

I think it is high time that we in this Parliament took serious note of the inroads that are being made by international communism throughout the world. Twenty years ago one-third of the world’s population was under the control of communism. Today two-thirds of the world’s population are under the yoke of that philosophy. I have in my hands a photostat of a 4-page leaflet that comes from America. It is entitled: ‘Communist Rules For Revolution’. The leaflet was secured by a State Attorney’s office in the United States of America from a known member of the Communist Party who acknowledged it to be part of the communist program for the overthrowing of the Western governments. On the first page is the insigna of the hammer and sickle. Under it appears a quote from Mr Guss Hall, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the United States of America. Guss Hall said:

I dream of the hour when the last congressman is strangled to death on the guts of the last preacher, and since the Christians seem to love to sing about the blood, why not give them a little of it.

Slit the throats of their children and drag them over the mourners’ bench and the pulpit and allow them to drown in their own blood, and then see if they enjoy singing these Hymns.

What a delightful suggestion! At page 2 of the leaflet there are 3 headings, A, B and C, and in the limited time available to me I will try to cover these communist rules for revolution. They read:

  1. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.
  2. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby:

    1. Get people’s minds off their governments by fucussing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities.

Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and . . . ( abuse).

Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible.

By encouraging government extravagance . . . produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.

Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders, and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government towards such disorders.

By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

  1. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext . . . with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.

On the third page, under the heading ‘Ten Facts Concerning Communism’, it states:

Did you know?

That Atheistic. . . -

Materialism- now represents the greatest world threat to Christianity.

That since the Russian Revolution in 1917 btween 80 and 100 million people have been killed as a result of the application of Communist ideology.

That in the last seventy years more Christians have suffered martyrdom than during the whole of the past nineteen hundred years.

That in the Soviet Union and the majority of satellite countries the number of all churches has been very drastically reduced. Those registered churches that remain are now under the ownership and control of the Communist authorities.

That Soviet believers who meet together for prayer and . Bible Study- other than in registered churches- can incur the penalty of a heavy fine, confiscation of their homes and property, or imprisonment.

That under the legally binding interpretation of Article 142 of the Soviet Criminal Code adopted in 1966, parents who exercise the right to bring up their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs can be deprived of parental rights. Their children are forcibly removed and installed in a government atheistic boarding school.

That in the majority of Communist countries copies of the Scriptures are very scarce. In the Soviet Union Underground unregistered churches of 200-300 members do not possess one single Bible.

That in Albania and China all religious institutions were legally abolished between 1966 and 1967. Bibles, Hymn Books and Prayer Books have been destroyed.

That every month witnesses a further Communist advance. Every country of the free world is being increasingly subjected to Communist infiltration.

Mr Speaker, regrettably, it is clear that Australia is no exception.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It is with some degree of regret that I listened to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury), a man who is generally respected by all members of the House, giving what I consider to be a one-sided version of life in the Soviet Union. I think that most members of this House would not like to live in the Soviet Union, but for the past 50 years that country has been pioneering another political system against hes, subterfuge and great position from the rest of the world. I have been to the Soviet Union on 2 occasions and, like members in this House of all political colours I have enjoyed its hospitality. I know, and the Russians admit, that they have made a lot of errors in pioneering the Soviet system, but they have gained things in that system that are being emulated by many people in the Western world.

I remember that on my first visit to the Soviet Union I was most anxious to see the kindergartens because I had been brainwashed and led to believe that the children there were taken away from their parents, against the parents’ wishes, and brought up in and brainwashed to the communist system. I found that that was not true. I found that working couples voluntarily allowed their children to go to the kindergartens because those couples placed a high degree of importance on producing essential goods for the Soviet Union. After being back here for 3 or 4 years I noted a clamour by organisations for assistance from this Federal Parliament to set up kindergartens throughout Australia. Today they are commonplace.

Conservative organisations, such as Rotary Clubs, in my electorate of Hunter are working feverishly to establish kindergartens so that children will be cared for while the parents are at work because it has become commonplace for both parents to go to work. I remember a friend of mine from the coalfields in the electorate of Hunter went to Raymond Terrace. I think it was in the electorate of Paterson- Mr O ‘Keefe ‘s electorateto listen to 2 Soviet diplomats give a talk to Rotarians. During question time the diplomats were asked whether it was true that women worked in all types of professions in the Soviet Union, and whether this was necessary. One of the diplomats answered the questions very courteously by saying that more women worked in the Soviet Union that probably in any other country in the world, the reason being that when they were at war as our allies against the tyranny of Nazi Fascism, so many of their men were in the fighting forces that it was necessary for the women to do the men’s jobs. He said that they had lost so many of their men in that warapproximately 20 million to 25 million- that the women who had been trained carried on with their professions after the war. Then, the diplomat added in conclusion that women in the Soviet Union worked for the same reasons as women worked in Australia, that is, to get extra money for the household. I do not think any person could say that that was not a fair and honest answer to a pretty straightforward question put by a member of the audience to the Soviet diplomats. Since there has been a change in the cold war attitude of the Unites States of America, I ascertained recently that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), was very happy to have a member of the Soviet diplomatic staff address meetings in his electorate. I suppose that he has been a little self-conscious knowing that the Soviet Union for many years has been buying considerable quantities of Australian wool which the people in his electorate produce. This attitude that has been adopted in recent years by the honourable member for Gwydir would not have been adopted by any member of the Opposition 5 or 6 years ago because of the fear of being branded a communist.

I believe that we should not refrain from criticising the Soviet Union at times. But let us be fair and honest about the Soviet Union. Prior to the Russian revolution, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of the people were illiterate. We know that the Soviet authorities have introduced harsh laws. We know that in the Stalin era there was a degree of barbarity in the Soviet Union. Some students of Soviet communism say that harsh rule was necessary during the Stalin era. None of us in Australia have liked then or even now to live under oppressive law. But as I observed the position in the Soviet Union, the Russian people have become adopted to their firm laws. They are a disciplined people. They appreciate it. They realise what they have achieved in 50 years, over coming an 85 per cent illiteracy rate, having suffered 2 world wars and having been cut off from the entire world for 7 years after their revolution. I like to hear members of the Parliament make balanced speeches when they talk about the Soviet Union. As well as criticising the Soviet Union, they should point out the things that are praiseworthy in that country.

I remember an incident that occurred as a small delegation was wishing me goodbye when I was leaving Moscow in 1962. 1 made the faux pas of saying: ‘Is the driver coming in to have a drink?’ I was frowned upon. A member of the delegation said: ‘Oh, no; he is the driver, Mr James. Drivers do not drink here ‘. I said: ‘Oh, I understand. In Australia we have a problem in that there are some 1500 deaths on the road each year. I know that we have many more cars than you do, but the 1500 deaths are causing great concern to our State and Federal governments. What evidence do you put before the courts in Russia in cases involving driving under the influence of liquor, and what is the penalty for that offence?’ The Russians said: ‘It is 3 months gaol or a fine of 500 roubles’. That is equivalent to $500. 1 said: ‘We could not introduce laws like that in Australia, because Australia has a much hotter climate than your country has and 80 per cent of our drivers can drive quite safely after drinking five or six schooners of beer. If we introduced laws that were as harsh as yours, we politicians would be put out of office’. The Russians appreciated the point.

I said: ‘What evidence does the militia put before the court in cases involving driving under the influence of liquor?’ They said: ‘The police arrest people suspected of this offence and require them to breathe on a sheet of blotting paper. That is the only evidence that is presented to the court. If the blotting paper has changed colour, the person concerned is found guilty’. I said: ‘Oh, we could not introduce laws like that. Our people would resent such laws’. But what happened? After four or five years breathalysers were being introduced into Australia. So, we are following the Soviet system in the setting up of kindergartens which we once deplored and criticised -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish they would put one on you right now.

Mr JAMES:

-Let me tell the honourable member that I would be found to be sober, but that might not be the case with him. That was an untimely interjection by my learned friend. As I was saying, we now find that we are following the Soviet system in respect of kindergartens and breathalysers. I regret that a man as respected as the honourable member for Ryan is should give such a one-sided speech in bitter criticism of the Soviet Union. I have tried to balance the submissions he made to the Parliament by giving something which is favourable to the Soviet Union and of which I believe the Soviet Union is worthy.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I am sorry, in one sense, that I have not more time in which to speak. Having heard the apologia for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), I would have liked to have made some comments about some of the allegations and suggestions that he made. But the fact that he spoke at all is part of the reason why I am speaking. I want to speak in sorrow at the departure from the Parliament of Mr Barnard, the former member for Bass and Minister for Defence. He was a man whom we all respected. Throughout his parliamentary career we knew him as an upright honest man. We knew him as a member of the right wing of the Australian Labor Party.

One of the reasons why I think it is appropriate that the honourable member for Hunter should have spoken as he did is that it is quite apparent that the forces of the Left within the Labor Party are rampant. It is tragic that a man of the Right, such as the former member for Bass, should retire after such long and distinguished service.

Perhaps the Harradines and the Barnards of this world no longer have an opportunity to assert their ways and their attitudes within the Labor Party. To say it is the Hartleys, the honourable member for Hunter and perhaps the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby), who is sitting at the table- the men of the Left- who determine where the Labor Party goes. The former member for Bass, of course, held many portfolios in the brief period during which he and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) shared all the responsibilities of government.

In recent years the former member unfortunately fell from favour within the Labor cause. It was over that period that he, as Minister for Defence, tried to assert a role in which his colleagues apparently were not prepared to back him. It is a tragedy that a man as sincere as the former member should have been the Minister responsible for the Australian defence forces at a time when they have so run down. It is a tragedy that he was the Minister at a time when his colleagues -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3185

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Beef Roads (Question No. 2288)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 63- Department of National Development report on Beef Road Development in Northern Australia.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. As stated in the Parliament on 28 April 1966 (Hansard pages 1274-5), the report has never officially been made available to honourable members. After the report was printed in mid-1965, several copies were available in the Parliamentary Library. However, the copies were withdrawn in April 1966 at the direction of the then Minister for National Development
  4. I have arranged for copies of the report to be made available in the Parliamentary Library for the convenience of honourable members.

Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 2343)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Further to the answer to question No. 1658 in which he provided a list of all Departments, other than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, with some responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, which Departments are represented on the Bilingual Education Consultative Committee, the Aboriginal Community Committee and the Health Care for Aborigines Committee.
  2. Is it intended that Aborigines will be recruited to the Australian Electoral Office so that the function of informing and educating Aboriginal people of their franchise rights might be more adequately performed.
  3. 3 ) Does the Public Service Board intend to employ Aborigines in the areas of its administration designated as having some responsibility for Aboriginal affairs.
  4. Does the answer to question No. 1658 indicate that there are more than 3800 public servants, 830 of whom are Aborigines, engaged in Departments, other than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which have some direct responsibility for Aboriginal policies.
  5. What is the National Plan referred to under the Aboriginal Health Branch of the central office of the Department of Health.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Bilingual Education Consultative Committee comprises representatives of the Departments of Education and Aboriginal Affairs; the inter-departmental committee which co-ordinates activities relating to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory comprises representatives of the Departments of Health Aboriginal Affairs, AttorneyGeneral’s, Education, Housing and Construction, Labor and Immigration, Northern Territory and Social Security; and the inter-departmental committee which co-ordinates the delivery of health care to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory is made up of representatives of the Departments of Health, Aboriginal Affairs, Education and Northern Territory.
  2. and (3) The principles governing the recruitment of persons to fill positions in the Australian Electoral Office and the Public Service Board are the same for all and are based on considerations of merit. Aboriginals have the same rights to compete for vacant positions as other persons, but it is not possible to tell in advance who will be selected to occupy particular vacant positions.

The Australian Electoral Office arranges, as a separate measure wherever possible, for Aboriginals to accompany electoral officers and assist them in informing and educating Aboriginal people about their franchise rights.

So far as the Public Service Board is concerned I should add that those officers with some responsibility for Aboriginal affairs also have responsibilities in relation to a number of special categories of staff in the service.

  1. My answer to Question No. 1658 (Hansard 12 February 1975 pages 223-6) indicated the number of publicservants, including Aboriginals, working in departments other than Aboriginal Affairs, engaged in administering programs which include, but are not confined to, programs for Aboriginals. Overall planning and the co-ordination of Australian Government policies for Aboriginal people is a matter for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. The Minister for Health announced the establishment of the National Plan in a press release of 13 August 1973.

The National Plan is designed to raise the standard of health of Aboriginals to the levels enjoyed by their fellow Australians over a period of ten years. This envisages, in particular:

  1. lowering the infant and child mortality and morbidity rates;

    1. improving infant and child nutrition;
    2. eliminating growth retardation; and
    3. eradicating chronic diseases such as leprosy, trachoma, tuberculosis, gastroenteritis and respiratory and ear conditions.

At present, responsibility for and control of health services to Aboriginals rests with various Australian Government and State Departments of Health, Statutory Commissions and a variety of smaller organisations, some of which arc associated with academic institutions.

The Australian Department of Health has the responsibility of co-ordinating the National Plan. It does this by:

  1. advising the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on the allocation of Australian Government funds to areas of need;
  2. co-ordinating national disease eradication campaigns and State programs;
  3. providing expert consultative advice;
  4. supervising health campaigns in the areas of need under (a) to ensure that Government moneys are used effectively and that full support is given to the Plan;
  5. establishing and maintaining a central recording and information service as a source of reliable data relating to Aboriginal health;
  6. f) stimulating the training of Aboriginal health workers.

With regard to (e) the State authorities have been asked to assist in this task by furnishing on a uniform basis statistics on the health of Aboriginals.

Raising the standard of health of Aboriginals requires consideration of and improvement in all aspects of their living conditions and their social and economic environment and, of necessity, greater participation and direct involvement of the Aboriginal people themselves.

Public Telephones (Question No. 2363)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What steps are being taken to develop vandal proof public telephones in Australia.
  2. Is the Postmaster-General’s Department itself involved in research on this matter; if so, what amount is being spent on this research, and who is undertaking it.
  3. Does the Postmaster-General know of any company investigating the development of vandal proof telephones and booths.
  4. If so, what companies are involved, and what assistance does the Government provide to these companies.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. The Department is continuing the approach it has observed over the years by undertaking special research and design work aimed at developing a public telephone installation (that is, the instrument itself and the cabinet housing it) which would be vandal proof as far as practicable having regard to technical constraints and others imposed by the need for the installations to be of a design acceptable to the general public in the sense that public telephones should be attractive and easy to use.

In developing and introducing improved types of public telephone installations it is the practice for the Department to consult manufacturers of the instruments and cabinets. Also, to help solve particular problems, companies which manufacture safes and security equipment are consulted.

The introduction of multi-purpose public telephones which permit the making of STD calls commenced about four years ago. They were developed by the Department in consultation with a Japanese manufacturer. While these units have a high degree of security against theft and vandalism they are subject to a continuing process of design review and modification in detail to combat new modes of attack by thieves and vandals.

An extensive field test of a preliminary model of a new type of ‘local call only’ public telephone, designed and made by the Department, which also has a high degree of security is currently being conducted in the Melbourne area.

It is also relevant to mention that some years ago the Department designed a new type of cabinet which has three clear glass sides and which is lighted continuously was adopted for new installations with the object of deterring vandals by making their activities visible to people nearby at the time. Some degree of success as a vandalism deterrent is attributed to the cabinet.

  1. As indicated in ( 1 ) the Department carries out most of the research and design work itself. It is not possible to state what amount is being spent on this work because it is performed as part of the Department’s overall program of research and design work on telephone equipment and is not costed separately. As a matter of interest it is estimated that the cost of developing an external casing highly resistant to vandalism for the new ‘local call only’ public telephone referred to in ( 1 ) was approximately $60,000.
  2. Yes. Most manufacturers of coin telephones are investigating the vandal proofing of instruments as the problem is world wide. In particular, in recent years the Department has dealt with the Anritsu and Tanura companies of Japan, Associated Automation of England, and Sodeco and Autelca of Switzerland. The Department does not know of any company attempting to develop vandal proof booths.
  3. Companies interested in tendering to supply the Department with coin telephones are given the benefit of our experience in combatting vandals by being advised of methods which have been successful in the past. Also, units offered by these companies are subjected to the attacks which it has been learned are employed by thieves and vandals.

Perth Airport: Incinerator (Question No. 2443)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the reply by the Minister for Transport to Question No. 1936, is his Department satisfied with the results obtained at Perth Airport although that airport lacks a satisfactory incinerator.
  2. When will an incinerator be constructed at Perth Airport.
  3. Which of the seaports, presently without an incinerator, referred to in the reply to Question No. 18S are to have one constructed, and when.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. The main incinerator at Perth Airport is a wood fired unit which, although it requires considerable care in operation, does adequately incinerate quarantinable waste. It is, however, somewhat wasteful of time and labour/The incinerator is reaching the end of its useful life and it is not intended to expend any significant sum on repairs and maintenance. The capacity of the incinerator is adequate for present needs but will not be sufficient to meet proposed developments at Perth Airport. Present usage is 13- 16 hours daily.
  2. Design considerations are being finalised with the Departments of Housing and Construction and Transport and it is hoped to have construction undertaken during the financial year 1975-76.
  3. It is proposed that incinerators will be provided at the following ports:

Western Australia

Broome, Exmouth, Port Hedland and Geraldton during 1975-76. An incinerator at Esperance is in the final stages of construction.

New South Wales

Newcastle during 1976-77.

South Australia

Wallaroo during 1975-76, together with an incinerator at Port Lincoln to replace an existing unit.

Postal Institute: Travel Concessions (Question No. 2450)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the Postal Institute offering travel concessions of approximately 10 per cent for (a) its members, (b) their relatives and (c) their friends.
  2. Have carriers and others involved in the tourist industry denied that they are offering any concessions of this kind to the Postal Institute.
  3. Are these concessions being allowed.
  4. If so, how is it possible to allow them when other travel agents cannot.
  5. Is the Postmaster-General’s Department or any other Government body providing funds to assist the Postal Institute for this or other purposes; if so, what are the details.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. As one of its services, the Postal Institute subsidises travel by its members and their immediate families. The subsidy ranges up to a maximum of 7.5 per cent of the full costs.
  2. Nothing is known of any inquiry or denial in this matter.
  3. The Postal Institute is not being allowed any concessions by travel agents or carriers apart from off peak and group travel discounts which are available to the general public.
  4. This is covered in the answer to question (3).
  5. Since 1918, the Postmaster-General’s Department has assisted the Postal Institute financially so that it may provide social, educational, sporting and cultural facilities for its members. This assistance for the current year amounts to approximately $4.80 per member. However this money is not used in any way to fund the travel service which is entirely self supporting.

Treaties on Asylum (Question No. 2496)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government subscribe to the United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1967- Resolution 23 13 (XXII).
  2. If so, will this be applied to (a) supporters of former President Allende in Chile and (b) supporters of former President Thieu in South Vietnam who seek asylum in Australia from persecution by the current regimes in those countries.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. Australia voted in favour of the 1967 United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum. The Australian Government seeks as a matter of policy to give effect wherever possible to the humanitarian obligations affecting the grant of asylum. The right to seek and to grant asylum is accorded by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australia co-sponsored a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly last year convening a meeting of experts to draft a Convention on Territorial Asylum and deciding that the General Assembly should consider this year convening a Conference to adopt a Convention. At last year’s General Assembly Australia also secured the adoption of an item on diplomatic asylum and was instrumental in securing a study of the humanitarian and other aspects of diplomatic asylum by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  2. Yes. It is the policy of the Australian Government to apply the principles incorporated in the Declaration on Territorial Asylum without discrimination, and hence without regard to the identity of the regime alleged to be persecuting, or likely to persecute, an applicant.

Fund Raising Appeals (Question No. 1948)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. What fund raising appeals, known as telethons, have been conducted by (a) television and (b) radio stations in Australia during the last 2 years.
  2. For what purpose was each of these appeals conducted.
  3. What amount was promised by donors in each of these appeals.
  4. What amount was actually collected in each of these appeals, and what percentage did the actual collection represent of donations promised.
  5. What amounts were actually paid to the charitable causes concerned.
  6. What charges were made by each of the (a) television and (b) radio stations for facilities provided during conduct of the telethon appeals.
  7. Can stations nominate the amounts to be paid to specific individuals and/or specific groups.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Because the very detailed information sought by the honourable member was not immediately available to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, it was necessary for the Board to obtain information from the two industry bodies- the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters. The Board has now provided me with the information which the Federations have supplied concerning the activities of their member stations. I incorporate in my answer the results of the reports, which are in the form of detailed lists covering 103 appeals conducted by radio and television stations during the past two years.

The Board has advised me that it understands that in many cases the precise sum donated to particular charities is not known, either because the appeals have not yet closed or because the stations are not necessarily the collection centres to which the donations are delivered. In the latter situation the station may be only one of a number of collection centres or else the money may be delivered direct to the charitable organisation concerned. I am advised that in these cases the charitable organisations have provided the stations with an indication of the total amount received.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 2094)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 216 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 6 July 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– An answer to Question No. 216, was provided on 6 March 1975 (Hansard, page 1238).

Computerised Personal Data Systems: Personal Privacy (Question No. 2092)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 38 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 10 July 1974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– An answer to Question No. 38 was provided on 6 March 1975 (Hansard, page 1238).

Australian Wheat Board (Question No. 2285)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester ‘s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item S3- Financial accounts of the Wheat Board.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) Under the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1968-73 the Australian Wheat Board was not required to present an annual report to Parliament. It does, however, publish an annual report in which it provides a financial statement on each season ‘s pool as it is finalised. It should be mentioned that, because wheat was sold on credit terms of up to three years, there has been considerable delay in finalising pools from that of 1969-70. Consequently, the latest published accounts relate to the 1968-69 pool.

Legislation introduced last year by this Government to implement a wheat industry stabilisation plan commencing with the 1974-75 season requires the Australian Wheat Board to prepare for presentation to the Parliament a report of its operations during the year ended 30 November, together with financial statements in such form as the Treasurer approves.

Wheat Sales to China (Question No. 2286)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and in particular, An Inside Dopester ‘s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 54- Price of wheat sold to China.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The Australian Wheat Board is given sole responsibility under Federal and complementary State legislation for the marketing of Australia’s wheat crop. The Board is an independent trading organisation operating on commercial basis. In line with normal commercial practice, and often at the request of the buyer, the Board does not make public the prices at which its sales are made.

Gaol Sentences (Question No. 1186)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in (a) the Australian Capital Territory and (b) the Northern Territory were sentenced to terms of imprisonment during each of the last 3 years.
  2. What were the offences for which these persons were « convicted.
  3. How many persons were convicted in respect of each type of offence.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The Australian Capital Territory The number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment from:

    1. 1 January 1 972 to 3 1 December 1 972 is 98;
    2. 1 January 1973 to 3 1 December 1973 is 104;
    3. 1 January 1 974 to 3 1 December 1 974 is 90.
    1. The Northern Territory

The number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment in the Supreme Court from:

  1. 1 January 1972 to 31 December 1972 is 136;

    1. 1 January 1973 to 3 1 December 1973 is 180;
    2. 1 January 1974 to 3 1 December 1974 is 1 55.
  2. The answer to questions 2 and 3 for the Australian Capital Territory:

  1. The answer to questions 2 and 3 for the Northern Territory:

The figures for the Northern Territory represent convictions by the Supreme Court. Figures for records of the lower courts of the Northern Territory were destroyed by Cyclone Tracy and the information relating to these Courts is not readily available.

House and Flat Construction (Question No. 1896)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say how many (a) houses and (b) flats, were constructed in each State by State Housing Authorities in each of the years 1972-73, 1973-74and 1974-75.
  2. How many approvals were given for construction of (a) houses and (b) flats by State Housing Authorities in each State in the September quarter of 1 974.
  3. How many (a) houses and (b) flats were under construction by State Housing Authorities in each State at the end of the September quarter of 1 974.
  4. How many (a) houses and (b) flats were completed by State Housing Authorities in each State during the September quarter of 1974.
  5. How many applications for accommodation were registered with State Housing Authorities in each State at 30 June of the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Statistics of State Housing Authority dwellings dissected between (a) houses and (b) flats (as such) are not available. The answers to parts (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the question therefore give details of numbers of Government dwellings completed, approved and under construction in the relevant periods dissected between (a) houses and (b) other dwellings. The term ‘other dwellings’ is defined by the Commonwealth Statistician to include flats, home units, semidetached, or duplex dwellings, and terrace, row or town-house dwellings.

These figures, published by the Commonwealth Statistician, include State Housing Authority dwellings financed by the Australian Government under the Housing Agreements, Dwellings for Pensioners Schemes, CommonwealthState Housing Agreement (Servicemen) and Aboriginal Housing Schemes or from other State funds as well as those constructed by Australian Government agencies in the States.

Beef Stabilisation Scheme (Question No. 2417)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister co-operate with the Premier of Queensland in the latter ‘s initiative in establishing a beef stabilisation scheme.
  2. Does the Government agree with the Premier of Queensland’s statement that it is necessary to ensure beef producers get a proper return and that Australian families are not subject to wide swings in supply and price of meat
  3. If so, will the Government make finance available to eligible beef producers at 2 & per cent interest, as is done by the Queensland Government instead of the present Australian Government rate of U Vi per cent for such loans.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) I am not aware of any Queensland action to establish a beef stabilisation scheme.
  2. I agree that the producer is entitled to a price which covers his cost and a reasonable profit margin. Wide price swings as experienced in the last few years ultimately are to the detriment of both producers and consumers of beef. However, beef price swings have principally resulted from overseas market forces and the action of foreign governments in restricting world trade in beef- factors over which the Australian Government has no control.

The Australian Government has made and continues to make strenous efforts, however, to influence actions of foreign governments to improve market access of foreign governments (o improve market access for exports of meat from Australia.

  1. The Australian Government announced on 22 April proposals for a joint scheme with the States to provide further assistance to beef producers.

Under the Scheme, which has now been agreed to by the States, the Australian Government will match the amount of money already committed by the States for carry-on finance to beef producers. The funds will be provided to eligible producers at a concessional rate of interest, 4 per cent, with no capital repayments for 12 months and with interest charges for the first 12 months capitalised. In Queensland the interest rate will be 3V4 per cent, based on 4 per cent Australian Government funds and 2V4 per cent interest on Queensland funds.

Legislation to appropriate $ 19.6m for this scheme was introduced on 21 May 1975 and those funds will be additional to the $20m provided last December to augment Development Bank lending to beef producers.

Dried Apricots: Imports (Question No. 2428)

Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that quantities of dried apricots are being imported into Australia at present
  2. If so, what quantity is involved.
  3. What quantity originated from mainland China.
  4. What is the name and address of the central authority responsible in China for the export of foodstuffs.
  5. Does the duty on these goods date back to the Ottawa Agreement on Tariff sometime in the 1 920s or 1 930s.
  6. Was the rate of duty approximately 4 or 5 pence per pound, and remains so to this day, at a time when dried apricots produced in Australia were sold for 10 pence to a shilling per pound.
  7. Are prices now in excess of a dollar per pound.
  8. Is the rate of duty regarded as insufficient, and does the Government intend to do anything to upgrade the rate of duty on imported dried apricots.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. 178,1 10 kilograms of dried apricots were imported for the nine months period ended 31 March 1975. This compares with 19,664 kilograms imported in the full year 1973-74. The main reason for the increased level of imports in the current financial year has been due to the small domestic crop.
  3. 178 kilograms originated from mainland China in the nine months ended 3 1 March 1975.
  4. China National Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, 82 Tung An Men Street, Peking.
  5. In the early 1920s the rate of duty was 4 pence per pound. This was increased to 6 pence per pound plus 10 per cent primage in 1929.
  6. Apart from the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut in 1973 the rates of duty remained virtually unchanged since 1929.
  7. Yes. The wholesale price is around $2.80 per kilogram ($1.30 per pound).
  8. If the industry considers that it is being damaged or is threatened with damage from imports it is always open to the industry to apply to the Government for a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission, or if the situation is urgent, to the Temporary Assistance Authority.

Before a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission can be considered the industry or a substantial proportion of the industry would need to demonstrate a prima facie case of damage or the threat of damage from import competition.

Whaling (Question No. 2477)

Mr Killen:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

How many (a) male and (b) female sperm whales have been got by vessels sailing out of Albany, Western Australia, in each of the years 1 953 to 1 974.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Sperm whaling began in Australia in 1955. The numbers of each sex taken in each year to 1974 are as follows:

  1. Since 9 August 1963, the Albany station has been the sole whaling station operating in Australia. Only sperm whales are taken.
  2. Prior to 1972, female sperm whales (which rarely exceed 35 feet) were virtually protected by the size limit of 35 feet which applied to both sexes. On the advice of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, separate catch quotas were imposed on each sex in 1972 and the size limit was reduced to 30 feet.

In 1972 the International Whaling Commission established an annual quota of 13 000 sperm whales in the southern hemisphere to ensure that stocks of approximately 350 000 whales will be maintained at a safe level. Australia s share of the total quota for 1975 is 1397. The number of catcher vessels has not been increased since 1964.

Whaling (Question No. 2503)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. Did the Australian Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission in 1974, in the Technical Committee stage of the IWC proceedings, (a) vote to support an Antarctic minke whale quota of 7000 with area divisions, (b) vote against a motion for a quota of 5000 Antarctic minke whales; if so, why did he oppose this motion and (c) abstain on a quota of 9000 minke whales in the Antarctic with area divisions; if so, why did he abstain.
  2. Is there a scientific basis to the setting of the minke quota or is it a fact, as claimed by the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Lee Talbot, that the Japanese have forced a situation where quotas are set as they need them.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. Yes, because the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee consisting of the world ‘s leading scientists on whale population dynamics from 11 countries and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, recommended a quota of 7000 minke whales.
    2. Yes, see (b) above.
  2. There is a scientific basis to the setting of the minke and other quotas, see (lb) above. Dr Lee Talbot is not the Chairman of the IWC Scientific Committee. Catch quotas are decided by Commissioners voting at the plenary sessions of the IWC.

Privately Owned Motor Vehicles Used on Government Business (Question No. 2516)

Mr King:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. What mileage rates are paid for the use of privately owned motor vehicles used on Government business in respect of (a) 4, (b) 6 and (c) 8 cylinder vehicles.
  2. When were these rates last altered.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 9 cents per kilometre.

    1. 10 cents per kilometre.
    2. 12.9 cents per kilometre.
  2. The rates of this allowance are the same as those applied to members of the Australian Public Service and these rates were varied as a result of PSB Circular No. 1974-48 of 9 December 1974, with effect from 26 November 1974.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750602_reps_29_hor95/>.