House of Representatives
5 June 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 3393

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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 Dr J. F. Cairns, Mr Bryant, Mr Bennett, Mr Bourchier, Mr Cadman, Mr Donald Cameron, Mrs Child, Mr Clayton, Mr Coates, Mr Corbett, Mr Cross, Mr Drury, Mr Duthie, Dr Edwards, Dr Forbes, Mr Fulton, Mr Garland, Mr Graham, Dr Gun, Mr Jarman, Mr Keogh, Mr Lamb, Mr McKenzie, Mr Mathews, Mr Nixon, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Oldmeadow, Mr Riordan, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Staley, Mr Street, Mr Wentworth and Mr Viner.

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. 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 every pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Hunt and Mr Lucock.

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. Lead to the nationalization of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.
  3. Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

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 Drury.

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. Trade unfairly.
  3. Add to the Taxpayers burden.

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 Erwin.

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 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 Flan 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.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mulder, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

The Australian Government has recently stated that it intends to enter the field of insurance.

We are of the opinion that this an invasion of this industry and would amount to unfair competition.

We make the following points:

Why is the insurance industry making such a fuss about the Australian Government’s proposed entry into the insurance business?

We do not believe it is necessary. The 45 Life and over 200 General companies provide every conceivable form of contact in a strongly competitive market.

The timing is all wrong. Apart from inflation, which itself is strangling the industry, the Government’s own moves on compensation and superannuation are greatly reducing the size of the available future market.

There is no apparent attempt to retain expert advice. The Government has just appointed two consultative committees of high powered and experienced insurance people but it is not consulting them on this matter.

We cannot accept that the competition offered to existing offices would be completely fair. If it were, the Government Office would face similar problems to all others. Policy results would thus be similar and growth would be slow. What would be the justification for such an operation?

We do not believe it is just concern for the consumer. Mr. Whitlam said as long ago as 19S7 that since Australian Governments are inhibited by the constitution from Nationalisation of Banking, Credit and Insurance’ . .. ‘The only recourse left to them is to compete in those fields’.

It is clear that the taxpayer is to finance the development costs of the new Government Insurance Office.

There seems little doubt that the claims costs and administrative costs of running the office will also be supported by the taxpayer, to whatever extent this is necessary.

We think the Government should stick to the role of umpire in these fields and not attempt to take part in the game.

We are of the opinion that our jobs, our livelihood, our way of life is being jeopardised and our future and security is imperilled should the Government continue with this legislation.

We see the Australian Government’s intention as Nationalisation of our industry, controlled by Canberra, disregarding not only our independence but also any rights our State might have.

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray and the undersigned petitioners call upon the Government to reject this legislation. 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 tq 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 improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than $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 Connolly, Mr Jacobi, Mr Macphee and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Wool Reserve Price

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

That the 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, 2S0 cents.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Corbett, Mr Fisher, Mr King, Mr Lucock, Mr McVeigh and Mr O’Keef e.

Petitions received.

Nuclear Power

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. That the use of uranium as an alternative source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposal of radioactive wastes, nor ever likely to be.
  4. That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia only discourages importing countries from investing into research on viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved Third World will increase yet further.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and exporting of uranium until perfectly safe disposal methods for the radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their plea for a fair share of the world ‘s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

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

Petitions received.

Pre-School Centres: Fees as Taxation Deductions

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

  1. pre-school centres are accepted as educational facilities,
  2. while qualified teachers are not always available, preliminary training for school work is undertaken in all centres and
  3. rulings with regard to tax deductibility have been inconsistent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Government to allow fees paid to pre-schools, child care centres and kindergartens as taxation deductions.

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

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

  1. the proposal to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation must be regarded as an attempt by the Government to nationalise the insurance industry, and we strenuously oppose such action,
  2. there are at the present time a great number of insurance companies, as well as State Insurance Offices in operation and these give satisfactory services and provide adequate competition between themselves in regard to premium rates, bonuses, etc.,
  3. if the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation is designed to undercut premium rates charged by all other existing insurance activities, the operation of such a corporation will probably be carried on at a loss and consequently will in the last resort be a burden on the taxpayer,
  4. the setting up of the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation will result in an increase in the number of Federal public servants, and as such the employees of such a corporation, will become entitled to salaries, wages and superannuation, at higher rates than those enjoyed by employees of existing insurance companies. These additional payments in so far as they are not covered by the profits, if any, of the activity will be a burden on the taxpayer,
  5. if as a result of the operations of the proposed corporation, existing companies, or some of them are put out of business, the employees of such companies, or many of them would join the ranks of the unemployed and
  6. the setting up of the proposed corporation will not be of any benefit to the community generally.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House completely reject the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Public Service

Superannuation Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned contributors to the present Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme respectfully showeth:

That we (1) believe the amendments proposed by the Opposition to the Superannuation Bill 1975, if accepted, will result in a less beneficial and more archaic scheme and

  1. wish to register our protest at the proposed amendments.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House pass the Superannuation Bill 1975 without amendment.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Power

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 power plants fueled by uranium products produce highly radio-active nuclear waste for which there is no satisfactory method of disposal; that the contamination of the environment by these nuclear wastes will lead to an increase in birth defects, leukemia and other malignant diseases; that we fear the mining, enrichment and selling of uranium by Australia is a way of solving our immediate economic problems at the expense of the future of our children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will suspend all mining, enrichment and selling of uranium until a high-level open enquiry can be made into its effect upon the total environment; and at the same time set in motion meaningful research into alternative sources of energy. by Mr Giles.

Petition received.

Whales

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. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

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

Petition recieved.

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 3396

PRIVILEGE

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. I draw your attention to page 3 of this morning’s ‘Sun News Pictorial’ and in particular to an article headed ‘Doctored letter in Cairns case’. It is an article written by Laurie Oakes and John Lombard. In order to identify the article, may I refer briefly to one part. It states:

Canberra- A ‘doctored’ letter has turned up now in the case of the swift removal of Dr Cairns as Treasurer.

The letter in some way reached the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, before his decision to remove Dr Cairns from his post.

Some Labor Party sources say that it triggered the dismissal, but whether it was critical in the decision is not clear.

The letter, written by Dr Cairns, concerned overseas loan raisings.

Government sources said a vital paragraph of the letter was omitted from the copy shown to Mr Whitlam.

The letter- with several others- had been removed from Dr Cairns’ personal files without his permission.

I will not read out the rest of the article, because it is all embodied in allegations which would seem to imply that a person unknown has or persons unknown have entered into the personal files of a member of the Ministry. The member is also a member of this Parliament. If the implications are true, no member of this Parliament can regard the files in his possession as sacrosanct. For that reason, Mr Speaker, I ask for your consideration as to whether this is a matter which should be referred to the Privileges Committee. I refer to the precedent of an allegation concerning the breaking into the office of the honourable member for Dawson 2 Parliaments ago, in respect of which it was felt that the privilege of a member had been breached. I regard this as a similar allegation. For that reason I submit it to you, Mr Speaker, this being the first possible occasion. I ask that the whole matter be examined by the Privileges Committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will examine the matter. I undertake to indicate at a later time whether I consider a prima facie case exists.

page 3397

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3397

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC DECISIONS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– Does the Prime Minister support the economic decisions so far made by his Government?

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

-Of course.

page 3397

QUESTION

HONOURS AND AWARDS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My queston is directed to the Prime Minister. When will awards under the new Order of Australia be announced? Can the Prime Minister inform me how many awards will be made and whether the States also will be making awards?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honours list for the new Order of Australia- the first such honours listwill be announced on the Queen’s official birthday, Saturday week. I am looking forward, and I am sure the honourable gentleman is looking forward, to seeing who will be the recipients. I do not know who they will be. For the first time in Australia we now have a non-political honours system under which awards are recommended to the Queen by the Council of the Order of Australia and not by the Australian Government. The Council is a very distinguished body under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice and representative of all interests and all States. I have not inquired, nor should I be told in advance, who the recipients will be; but of course I shall be very interested to see the announcement when it comes.

The maximum number of awards under the Order for any one honours list is laid down in the statute of the Order. There is, however, no obligation on the Council to make the maximum number of awards if the Council wishes to do otherwise. So I cannot say how many awards will be made in the first list, which is to appear on 14 June. I can say that the maximum number of awards under the statute is fewer than the numbers of awards given prior to 1973 under the British honours system on the recommendation of earlier Australian governments. The honourable gentleman may have seen the Order of

Precedence of Awards issued recently by the Governor-General with the Queen’s approval. It indicates that awards under the Order of Australia will be, as they should be, very substantial and, I am sure, highly prized. Some State governments have indicated an intention to continue nominating awards under the British system. These will be political honours in the sense that they are honours recommended by the Premiers through the British Government’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The recommendations, of course, in the case of British awards on the recommendation of State governments are made to the Queen not by the State governments or the heads of the State governments but by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am sure, however, that all Australians who receive awards under either system will be very worthy of them. Naturally, I would prefer to see the Australian system used for all Australian honours. Most Australians, I am sure, would prefer this, too.

page 3397

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Prime Minister say 7 months ago that the present Treasurer was the best man for the job? Why is he proposing, as has been widely reported, to sack him tonight or tomorrow morning, especially since he has already admitted that he supports all the economic decisions of the Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have seen some speculation in the newspapers that there may be some changes of portfolios. It would of course be highly improper, almost indecent, for me to make any public statements on such matters. I probably will speak to some of my colleagues today on the subject of these newspaper reports. (Opposition members interjecting. )

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Prime Minister to resume his seat for a moment. When honourable members want question time to continue, it will continue.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Australia has had for the last Vh years the best government that it has had for 2Vi decades. It is almost certain that after I have waited upon His Excellency, the GovernorGeneral, the Viceroy, tomorrow morning, it will have a still better government.

page 3397

QUESTION

NORTH-WEST SHELF GAS RESOURCES

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I ask: What stage has been reached by the Minister in discussions with the Burmah OU Co., relative to development of the north-west shelf for gas resources?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I had, by appointment, a very amicable discussion with Mr Dewhurst, the vicepresident of the Burmah Oil Co., who is representing the major partner in the WoodsideBurmah consortium. We discussed at some length the position as to what could be done, the relative attitudes of the consortium and the Government and, in particular, the impact of the delay in the decision of the High Court of Australia in relation to the challenge by the various State governments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. I might say in relation to the north-west shelf that the matter has been beset by one fundamental problem, and that is that in 1965 certain exploration permits were issued by the then Western Australian Government which were remarkably lenient. Those conditions have been carried forward under the transition clauses of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. They by no means meet the current needs of the Australian people, nor do they meet the geographical realities of the huge area which is to be fully explored.

I might also state- and here I quote the opinion of the adviser of the Western Australian Government and also that of no less an authority than Dr Lewis Weeks, that the north-west shelf is in fact gas prone. Therefore, the niggling and the nit picking which have occured over the last 2 years suggesting that there are unlimited quantities of oil available there are completely incorrect. The oil resources are much further offshore than the continental shelf; they are on the continental plateau itself. It is entirely anomalous that we have an Australian Government which represents, and discharges the function of representing, Australia at the Law of the Sea Conference; which negotiates treaties with adjoining nations; whose navy patrols and polices the adjacent waters, yet at the same time we are saddled with an archaic piece of legislation, conceived in parochialism, which allocates to the various States the right to dispose of what is part of the Australian patrimony.

The Woodside-Burmah consortium has carried out a very substantial feasibility study in respect of the offshore pipeline development and the construction of a production platform. Onshore, under the auspices of the then Western Australian Labor Government, we have carried out a feasibility study for an appropriate sized natural gas pipeline from Dampier to Perth. May I add that I have a very great respect for the High Court of Australia, a respect which pervades the whole of the English-speaking world and for a

Court whose judgments have at least persuasive acceptance. It is entirely anomalous- and here I quote what the Prime Minister has said on many occasions- that internally the boundaries of Australia have been dictated by London Colonial Secretaries of 150 years ago, and we have backward States still asserting that beyond lowwater mark they have jurisdiction and sovereignty. It is quite clear that there is a new branch of jurisprudence, which is conditioned by modern technology in respect of geomorphology and petro-geology, and that jurisprudence undoubtedly will be applied, according to our contentions and beliefs, in the judgment of the High Court, which we expect at an early date.

page 3398

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHARGES

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the following statement by the Special Minister of State:

The real problem for local government in many areas is that it is not efficient. It is parochial. It is more interested in frittering away its rather small funds. It does not have an adequate work force to carry out major works.

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

– I agree with the Special Minister of State that a great deal of inefficiency exists in local government, insofar as many of the local government bodies are small units that should be amalgamated into larger units so that we could have a much more efficient organisation. If honourable members read the report of the Barnett Committee, which was set up by a conservative government of New South Wales, they will see that it indicates that that is the situation. But local government has had a very difficult struggle because, as honourable members know, from 1950 to 1970 whereas the Australian Government’s internal servicing debt remained practically static, the State government’s debt increased sevenfold, that of local government increased by some 2000 per cent, and the debt for semi-government authorities- that is, the sewerage undertakings- increased by some 2800 per cent. This has thrown an enormous burden on local government and semi-government authorities particularly. The Australian Government of that period, of which the honourable member was a supporter, never went to the aid of local government or semi-government authorities. Only under this Government have we started to try to assist them in that way. We have given assistance to local government, particularly through the Grants Commission, which is a quasijudicial authority and comes under the direct jurisdiction of the Special Minister of State. We have given assistance through other mediums, through the Department of Social Services, through the Department of Tourism and Recreation, and certainly through my own Department and, as far as we are concerned, we are out to try to lift the efficiency of local government, working in co-operation. However, let me say that I do not want to start name-calling anybody in local government, the States, or anywhere else. I want to see them working together in co-operation, which is necessary if we are to solve those problems.

page 3399

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the agreement reached last night by the Tasmanian Legislative Council to the signing of the hospital agreement under Medibank between the Australian Government and the Tasmanian Government and the historic nature of that first signing. In view of the conservative nature of the Upper House in Tasmania. what will be the effect on New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria?

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

– I should imagine that if the people in those other States are at all enlightened they will be positively inspired. But the hard facts are that Tasmania, through its common sense, will be deriving the financial benefits of the hospital agreement under Medibank from 1 July. The people in those other States to which the honourable member referred will not be deriving those benefits and will not for some time. I am increasingly concerned at the lengthening period before which it seems it will be possible for them to draw on those benefits. In the meantime, severe financial stresses will be suffered by their public hospital systems. In the case of Victoria, if one can take the newspaper comments of that State at their face value, it would seem that some large public hospitals may not be able to continue operating because of the seriousness of their financial difficulties. As the honourable member pointed out, the first hospital agreement between the Australian Government and the Tasmanian Government was passed by the Upper House of the State Parliament of Tasmania last night. This morning I wrote a note to the Prime Minister inviting him, at the suggestion of the Tasmanian Government, to journey to Tasmania in the next week or fortnight- it may be that he will be visiting that area in that period- to participate in the signing of the hospital agreement. He might be interested to learn that his father, Mr H. F. E. Whitlam, as Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, drafted the 1946 Chifley hospital benefit agreement with the

State. The Prime Minister will be maintaining a fine family tradition when he journeys to Tasmania

page 3399

QUESTION

HMAS ‘STIRLING’: HOUSING FOR PERSONNEL

Mr BUNGEY:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction and refers to the provision of housing for naval personnel who are working at the Cockburn Sound naval base. I ask: Firstly, is the Minister able to give a construction program in respect of the homes to be built to house naval personnel working at the base? Secondly, can he indicate where the houses are to be built? Thirdly, does his answer of 1 1 September 1973 to a similar question, which was to the effect that 79 homes were to be built at East Rockingham, still apply? If not, why not?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Navy requirement for housing for HMAS ‘Stirling’, the naval base at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia, is for 2 12 houses. As the honourable gentleman would know, there is a requirement to the effect that the State Government must approve the site of such houses for the purpose of making certain that in the event of those houses becoming surplus to the Services they would revert to the State housing authority for housing commission purposes. There has been some disputation between the Navy and the State housing authority as to the location of those houses. It is my understanding that the Navy favoured Rockingham and the Housing Commission favoured Kwinana. My departmental officers went to Perth in March and effected a reconciliation along the line that 100 houses are to be located at Rockingham and another hundred at Kwinana. It is my understanding that the first 1 5 of these houses are to go under construction in the near future.

page 3399

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION APPEALS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister representing the Minister for the Media will be aware of the large number of appeals that were conducted following the Darwin cyclone disaster. I ask the Minister: What power does the Australian Government have under the Broadcasting and Television Act to supervise the conduct of telethon appeals by radio and television stations? What supervision is made of the amounts collected as compared with the amounts promised to radio and television stations? What supervision is made of the amounts deducted by television stations from the money collected during the telethons? For what reasons are the deductions made?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I share the concern of the honourable member for Shortland about the collection and disposition of funds collected by television stations. I personally was not aware that deductions were made by television stations from the sums that they collected. These funds in fact can be quite substantial. Some television stations do not make any deductions, but other television stations make deductions up to $27,000. 1 regret to say, in response to the question that the honourable member has posed, that under the Broadcasting and Television Act the Australian Government has no powers whatsoever in respect of the matter raised.

I think this is a cause for disquiet. We certainly believe that there should be accountability for the funds raised through telethons. I believe that the people who so generously donate funds have every right to expect that the funds which they donate will be made available for the purposes for which they are being collected. The Minister for the Northern Territory has made a number of observations concerning the funds that have been raised for the Darwin appeal. In a report that the Minister tabled I think there is a further area for disquiet as he pointed out that a number of organisations were holding relief moneys and that, due to the fragmentation and the lack of one consolidated fund, there had been duplication of relief payments and an inequitable distribution of funds.

In response to the question, I think there is a capacity for a gigantic rort on the part of the television stations collecting funds. There must be accountability. Their accounts must be audited. I will take up the suggestion coming from the honourable member for Shortland that the Broadcasting and Television Act be amended to provide for this type of responsible control. I hope that Opposition members will support this sort of amendment to give the necessary powers to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I will refer the question that has been raised by the honourable member for Shortland to the AttorneyGeneral for any action that he may see fit.

page 3400

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Labor and Immigration give the House some indication of how many people would be unemployed at present if the Regional Employment Development scheme was not operating? Can he also indicate how many people who otherwise would be out of work are undergoing retraining? Mr Speaker, I ask these questions so that the Minister may be able to give his swan song explanation of how successful he has been in handling the growth of record of unemployment during his period of responsibility.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is estimated that the number of people unemployed would be 63 000 more than there are now if no Regional Employment Development scheme was operating and also if the National Employment and Training scheme was not operating. There are 13 000 people under the NEAT scheme, and they are not included in the unemployment figures. In round figures, there are 25 000 people directly employed under RED. It is estimated that another 25 000 persons are employed in providing materials and ancillary employment for those who are directly employed by the RED scheme.

page 3400

QUESTION

PROPOSED AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY FUEL AUTHORITY

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Capital Territory. What will be the major functions of the proposed Australian Capital Territory Fuel Authority? What forms of energy will it cover? Will the Authority indulge in price cutting in relation to petroleum products? What effects will its establishment have on petrol dealers in the Australian Capital Territory?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The first duty of the Fuel Authority is to overcome the deficiencies imposed upon Canberra by the neglect of previous governments and by the failure of private enterprise to maintain a consistent supply of fuel in times of crisis. So logically, arising out of previous crises, it was necessary to take steps to ensure that, no matter what comes or goes, there will be adequate fuel in this city, because of its particular and peculiar vulnerability. The first task of the Authority will be to ensure that there is a continuing source of supply. It also will be necessary to co-ordinate both public and private usages of fuel. The Authority has both a short term and a long term function. In the short term it is to overcome the immediate deficiencies and in the long term it is to rationalise the consumption of energy resources in this city. I hope that it will be a model to the States to go and do likewise.

The Authority will take over responsibility for the reticulation of gas when it reaches Canberra perhaps next year, as my colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy advises me, and it will co-ordinate the usage of electricity. It will control and develop resources and storages of heating oils. One would hope that ultimately it would be able to be adventurous enough to deal with such matters as solar energy, bio-gas and centralised heating systems. Local petrol dealers are inclined to worry about price cutting, but that is not one of the Authority’s objectives. It will not be competitive in that sense. The petrol sites which will be controlled by the Authority may well be leased to private citizens or particularly to community groups. It is a model for the rest of Australia, as are so many good things which are happening in this city under the present Government.

page 3401

QUESTION

PAIR ARRANGEMENTS

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister yet given an assurance that the Government will not break pair agreements unilaterally and without notice?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I know nothing about this matter, other than a news item I heard on the Australian Broadcasting Commission at 6.45 this morning attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. I think the Leader of the Opposition was quoted as referring to the situation last Monday. It may be that he was referring to the vote on the Constitution Alteration (Sumultaneous Elections) Bill. Such legislation, of course, has to be passed by an absolute majority of the House and every member of the Government Party voted- except you, Mr Speaker, of course, you being in the chair. If pair arrangements were broken in those circumstances, I was not aware of it and I certainly regret it; but I must say that I have not heard previously of any allegation of my Party breaking a pair arrangement in this House. I was astonished to hear on the radio that the Leader of the Opposition had made this allegation. He certainly had not mentioned it to me. I am prepared to discuss it with him. I know of no occasion in this House on which a pair arrangement has been broken. I do know of a case in the Senate in which a pair arrangement was broken, I think last year, and I certainly took steps to see that it would not be done again.

Any undertaking that the Government Whip or the Leader of the House or the Deputy Government Whip or the Deputy Leader of” the House makes, I am certain will be honoured. I have not had the opportunity this morning to check on this matter, but it may help for me to say at this stage that certainly I believe that pairs should be honoured. I believe that they always have been honoured in this House and when they were not honoured in the other House I took steps to see that it did not occur again. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Whip are referring to the situation on the referendum Bill, I suppose it must be understood that in those circumstances there must be an absolute majority; there must be 64 people voting for the legislation.

page 3401

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration been drawn to the latest survey of employment advertisements by the ANZ Bank, which showed that there was, according to the Bank, a significant improvement in the demand for labour? Will the Minister inform the House whether he regards this regular survey of advertised job vacancies as being a lead indicator of employment trends? If so, does he expect that this significant improvement in the demand for labour detected by the Bank will soon result in substantially reduced levels of unemployment?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The surveys by the Bank are always, in my view, a more accurate assessment of the unemployment position than are the figures that are released from the Department of Labor of the number of registrants for employment, which is an altogether different measurement from the one which the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the ANZ Bank set out to achieve. The position is that there is a marked improvement in the employment or the unemployment position. The figures for the month just ended show that there has been a very substantial drop in the number of registrants for employment.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Not on the seasonally adjusted basis.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The seasonally adjusted figures have not been worked out yet, but I say to the honourable member: Do not smile too soon.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the Minister -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, will you stop him from interjecting?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections cannot be stopped. I suggest that the Minister not answer questions asked by honourable members who do not have the call.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The seasonally adjusted figures will be known this afternoon for certain, but I have already had supplied to me a preliminary estimate of them, and it shows a fall as well. The fall is not as great as it is in absolute terms, but I am assured by those who made the preliminary estimates that the number of unemployed on a seasonally adjusted basis has fallen as well. My Department estimated that the unemployment position would not peak until the end of June and that when it did peak it would peak at 300 000. 1 have no doubt that it would have reached 300 000 but for the 63 000 who have since been given employment either directly or indirectly under the Regional Employment Development scheme and the 13 000 who have been given employment under the National Employment and Training scheme. This does not surprise me. It might surprise some other people.

My estimates of the employment position have been singularly correct. They have been very much more accurate than some other people’s estimates have been. I was able to say on 8 December 1974 in an official Press release that further significant curtailments in employment opportunities could occur in the coming three to four months. I was right. I said in the same statement that the seasonally adjusted unemployment level could not be expected to plateau until the second quarter of 1975. This means that a significant decline should not be anticipated earlier in the new year. Again what I predicted turned out to be true.

In January 1975 I said that the Government’s expansionary economic measures were beginning to have a positive impact in the building and finance sectors and that this augured well for a stabilisation of the employment situation in the second quarter of 1975. Again the figures now being revealed show that my prediction was correct. The building industry is picking up to the point where there are now very serious bottlenecks involving special kinds of skilled labour. In February, the following month, I said that our measures were beginning to take effect and that we were confident that by the middle of the year there would be a very substantial reduction in unemployment.

I can go back even to December 1973, when a lot of people who should have known better went on record criticising me for saying then that 1974 would be a year of rising unemployment, that it had to happen because of the energy crisis in the Western economies and because of the downturn in economic activities in the countries that are our chief trading partners. I was right then, and those who criticised me were wrong.

page 3402

POLITICAL MORALITY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Lowe- the right honourable member for Lowe.

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am sorry but I sat down when you did not refer to me as ‘right honourable member’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I corrected myself.

Mr McMAHON:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In the aftermath of the rather sordid Khemlani affair and now the operations associated with the Ranger project, will the Prime Minister establish a school of political morality and ethics at which the first students will be the Minister for Minerals and Energy and one of the senior officers of his Department? Will he now ensure that his own Department takes responsibility for this second sordid affair so that an honourable settlement can be achieved? I might say that he would be helped in making up his mind if he read Bryan Frith ‘s article in today’s ‘Australian’ which tells the truth and not the mythology of the Department of Minerals and Energy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable member is not in order to comment.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The right honourable, learned and gallant gentleman affords me an opportunity to announce before the House goes into recess an important initiative in terms of political science and public morality- the establishment of such a body as he suggests on the initiative of the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education which are shortly to be amalgamated. The need of such an academy, preferably on a bi-partisan basis, has long been acknowledged in this Parliament. But, of course, still more is it necessary for the State parliaments.

Mr McMahon:

– I raise a point of order. I do this with considerable -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable member cannot comment.

Mr McMahon:

– But I would like to say something nice about him for once.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The 2 Commissions were naturally anxious that the new academy should get off on a bi-partisan basis. There were to be dual vice-chancellors. I accepted the offer of one. The trouble was that the Commissions could not find a suitable vice-chancellor from the other side of politics.

page 3402

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION SETS

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science. I have read a recent Press report which indicates that certain colour television sets containing half-way rectification are not only a danger to the major earthing systems at least in the States of Victoria and New South Wales but also under certain circumstances a hazard to public safety. As I know from my own personal knowledge that large numbers of these sets have been sold what steps are to be taken to inform the public of the names of these sets? What steps are to be taken to have the sets recalled? Further, what steps are to be taken to have consumers recompensed for the errors or the actions of the companies concerned as letters from the State Electricity Commissions of Victoria and New South Wales were sent to the companies concerned some time ago advising them of the danger.

Mr MORRISON:
ALP

-As the honourable member will be aware, the Minister for Police and Customs and I issued a statement which advised that there is now a curtailment of the import of the sort of sets referred to by the honourable member. I might say that the sets, which are of West German origin, are perfectly safe for use in West Germany. When the normal Australian earthing systems are applied, the television sets are highly dangerous. The company involved in a West German company called Graetz. I want to underline that not all the sets produced by that company have this dangerous capacity. Unfortunately the Australian Government is not empowered under any existing legislation to require the recall of the sets. We have to use the customs powers to prevent the importation, of such sets. But under the legislation that will be introduced in regard to the Consumer Affairs Commission, which it is hoped will be introduced in the Budget session of the Parliament, we will be making provision for the recall of any equipment that is deemed to be unsafe. I hope that when that legislation is introduced the Opposition will give it its full support.

page 3403

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Does the Prime Minister regard the 66 Vietnamese refugees who entered Australia on 17 May 1975 as the fair share of Indo-Chinese refugees in the terms that he gave an assurance to President Ford on his recent visit to the United States of America? Is he prepared to broaden the eligibility criteria of those who are in essence not immigrants but refugees? Finally, would he be prepared to receive some members of the deputation of the Welfare Committee for Refugees from Indo-China who I understand are in Canberra today?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Honourable members might realise from my answers to earlier questions that I will be somewhat busy today. I have full appointments for the whole day and for a fair amount of tomorrow. So I will not be able to receive the people to whom the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party refers. I do not believe that any request has come to me on their behalf. This certainly is the first I have heard of it. I am not suggesting that there could be any political motivation in the fact that the honourable gentleman drops it on me at this notice and in this place.

I do not respond to his suggestion that I should disclose in precise terms what the head of the United States Administration said to me or what I said to him. The honourable gentleman knows that that is not the custom. I therefore will not oblige him in that regard. I do not believe that the number of Vietnamese who came to Australia on 1 7 May is a fair share for Australia to take. Of course, there will be further Vietnamese coming to Australia. There is an Australian team in Hong Kong at this moment selecting them. There is one member of the Opposition who knows that the case that he brought to my notice was very promptly processed. He gave me a letter- I think on the Friday- and I passed a note to him during question time on Monday saying that the family upon whose behalf he had made representations are to be admitted. There will be other people admitted from Hong Kong.

Of course, there is a difference in the criteria for admission of migrants from Vietman which applied before there was a change of government in Vietnam, and the evacuees from Vietnam who are now within American jurisdiction on the one hand and the refugees on the other hand. The criteria for the admission of refugees are obviously wider than the criteria for the admission of migrants or evacuees. It is well known; I have given answers to questions on notice and the Foreign Minister has given answers to questions on notice concerning the approach that the Australian Government made some 4 weeks ago, I think it was, to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whose skill and standing in these matters are most desirable in meeting the situation for resettlement in other countries or repatriation to their own countries. All I need say with respect to Australia’s part is that Australia has spent much more money and Australia has received many more Vietnamese than any countries in the Western Pacific or in South-East Asia.

It might interest honourable gentlemen to be informed of a statement which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently made. He said that he had received a request from the South Vietnamese authorities to assist in the organisation of the return of all Vietnamese wishing to go back to their country. He said that the modalities of the operation were being worked out and that those Vietnamese wishing to return were being asked to fill out a UNHCR questionnaire for forwarding to the South Vietnamese authorities. He said:

Based on our experience, voluntary repatriation can be the happiest of solutions, though it is seldom the easiest. It depends on the understanding of all concerned. This request from the Vietnamese authorities, expressing their willingness to have their citizens return, represents the first and most important step. I would like to express a note of caution that solutions for all will not be found overnight. Unlike many situations that my office has faced in the past, this was not a mass exodus across a frontier to a neighbouring country. The Vietnamese situation is much more complex. Different groups in different circumstances are involved and it will take time to sort it out. However, it has been our experience that while these operations might begin slowly, they gain momentum as the return begins.

I conclude by assuring honourable gentlemen that the Australian Government - (An Incident)

Mr Wentworth:

– Would you like to wash your hands, Mr Prime Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I name the honourable member for Mackellar.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put

That the honourable member for Mackellar be suspended from the service of the House.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 52

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3404

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! On 15 May the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asked me a question about the accommodation occupied by the Press in Parliament House. I wish to inform him that Press representatives occupy 43 rooms in this building, having a total floor space of approximately 6300 square feet. This accommodation is made available free of rent. I would say that it is free of rent at the instruction of the Presiding Officers and not at the request of the Press. The costs of the facilities provided for the Press Gallery, with one exception, are impossible to identify because there are no separate metering arrangements for the cost of such services as electricity, water and heating. They cannot be established, nor is it possible to establish the cost of routine building maintenance which is carried out. The only item of cost which could be stated with reasonable accuracy is cleaning which is currently running at a rate of $13,700 per annum. Other facilities in the offices, such as air conditioning, furniture and furnishings are provided by the Press organisations themselves. At this stage it is not proposed to make available any additional accommodation for the Press representatives, nor are there any current proposals for the improvement of existing facilities. I inform honourable members that I consider that the existing facilities are far below standard, but I think that is general with most of the facilities within this building.

page 3405

IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘Survey of Views of Local Government Authorities Relating to Immigrant Settlement and Integration’.

page 3405

WAR PENSION ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1920-1974 I present the annual reports of the War Pension Entitlement Appeal Tribunals numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the year ended 30 June, 1974 together with a statement by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) on the report of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal No. 4.

page 3405

TERRITORIAL CRIMINAL LAW

Mr ENDERBY (Capital TerritoryAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable members I present a report by the working party on Territorial Criminal Law together with a short ministerial statement. Due to the limited number of copies presently available, reference copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The report will be distributed to honourable members and senators when additional copies become available.

page 3405

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of disabled entitled ‘Design for access and mobility’.

page 3405

RECREATION MINISTERS’ COUNCIL

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the record of decisions of the second meeting of the Recreation Ministers’ Council held in Melbourne on 6 September 1974.

page 3405

PAIRS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I seek leave to make a very brief statement concerning pairs.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I appreciate what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said during question time but I draw attention to a letter dated 2 June 1975 signed by Government Whip, to the Opposition Whip. It says:

I have to advise that because of the Government’s action in requiring a constitutional majority, all pairs are cancelled for Monday 2 June 1975.

That is the date on which the letter was written. The letter continues.

Those members concerned are: The Hon. Jim Cairns; The Hon. D. N. Everingham; Mr A. Lamb; Mr J. Coates; Mr R. Sherry;

All those members had been paired. The letter was marked as having been received in the office of the Opposition Whip at 9.55 on Monday morning. That was the time at which our Whip saw the letter. It was dated 2 June, the date for which pairs were cancelled. Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said at question time, it appears that if what he said is to be pursued the Government would feel free to break the pair arrangements at any time it required an absolute majority for a particular purpose and that could be not only for a constitutional Bill of the kind that was under discussion last Monday but also in relation to the suspension of the Standing Orders without notice. I can only say that for the -

Mr Whitlam:

– No. I want to make it plain immediately that I would not consider it honourable to break an arrangement just to suspend the Standing Orders.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I hope that the Prime Minister would regard it as not honourable to break pairs under any circumstances and that if the Government wanted an absolute majority on a constitutional Bill it would take action in such a way that there would be some foresight and the Opposition would be warned beforehand that there would be no pairs on a certain day because the Government wanted its total numbers present. That was certainly not done on this occasion. Unless there can be an assurance from the Government that proper procedures will be preserved in relation to the granting of pairs in the future no further pairs will be granted to the Government. Our Whip has today written to the Government Whip in these terms:

I refer to your letter of 2 June 1975 which cancelled all pairs for the same day. This letter was handed to me at 9.55 a.m., 5 minutes prior to the start of the sitting of the House.

In view of this action by the Government of cancelling pairs, I wish to advise that in future no pairs will be granted unless accompanied by an assurance in writing that such pairs will not be withdrawn under any conditions. Requests for pairs on compassionate grounds will be the only exceptions to this decision.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that the Government broke pairs at short notice. He should know as should the shadow Leader of the House on the Opposition side who is a lawyer, that a proposal to alter the Constitution requires the support of an absolute majority of the members of this House. I point out that the notice paper for Monday, 2 June 1975 showed the first item of business to be the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1975 (No. 2). That notice paper was issued to all members of this House on the Friday preceding the Monday and therefore the Opposition knew full well on the Friday that there would be a constitution alteration Bill coming up for discussion on the Monday. I realised that we would require a majority and we recalled our members from overseas. Had the Opposition been as alert as we were we would have brought their members back too had they requested us to do so, but the fact is that, the Opposition went to sleep on this matter. The statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition did not know about this until Monday is completely wrong by reason of the fact that its members knew on the Friday, and it is there on the notice paper for that day for all to see. The honourable gentleman could have recalled members of the Opposition from overseas had he so desired. He knew on the Friday that this Bill would come up for discussion on the Monday, and that is when I woke up to the fact that we had to have our members present.

Surely the eminent Leader of the Opposition does not think that on a constitution alteration matter members from either side, who are required by the Constitution to be here, should stay away from the Parliament. This is one of those exceptional matters on which all members are required to be here. To say that the Government would break pairs to suspend the Standing Orders is, of course, drawing a very long bow because that would not happen, as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has stated. Honourable members will have noticed in this session that when we required the suspension of the Standing Orders we have given notice of it if we did not have an absolute majority available. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he knew this would be necessary only at 9.55 on the day in question. Certainly the letter was sent on that day, but if the liaison between the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) and the Leader of the Opposition was similar to that which exists between the Prime Minister and myself in respect of the management of this House none of these things would arise. Consequently, for the Leader of the Opposition to say that an arrangement for pairs could be broken at any time is a matter that, of course, will not bear investigation. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he knew precisely what would happen. The notice paper indicated it and it would have been apparent to every member of this Parliament.

Mr Whitlam:

– And to anybody reading the newspapers on the Saturday or Sunday.

Mr DALY:

– Anybody who read the newspapers on the Saturday or the Sunday would know that members would have to be here. They would know also that members were being brought home and that similar arrangements would have been made for honourable members opposite. I have been in a similar position. I was brought back from London on a previous occasion to vote. The Leader of the Opposition has asked that pairs be not withdrawn under any conditions. The letter from the Opposition has just been received, but I will be surprised if that request will be met because it is an impossible situation when matters concerning the Constitution are involved. I do not think any responsible Leader of the Opposition could expect members to stay in London or somewhere else when a constitution alteration Bill is coming up for discussion particularly when 3 days’ notice is given to all honourable members.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I wish to make a brief personal explanation. Only one point needs making. It was the Government that specifically asked for pairs on that day Monday 2 June. It was the Government that broke that pair arrangement.

page 3407

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes. On 23 May the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that my conduct was unethical in that I had opened a letter addressed to him and processed it.

This is not true. As I consider this a most serious allegation against my personal integrity I feel that I must place the full facts on record. On 22 August 1974I received a 12-page letter, written in longhand, dated 9 August 1974, from a Mrs G. V. Potouloff of Box Hill. The letter was addressed to:

Hon. MP Mr J. Armitage, Federal member, BLACKTOWN.

Mr Martin:

– To you?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, that is right, to me. In this letter Mrs Potouloff stated that on the advice of her solicitors, as she put it, the firm of McCaw Johnson and Co. of Sydney, she was writing to complain about an interview she had had with the officer in charge of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Blacktown. She had had a dispute with a neighbour concerning the construction of a dam on the neighbour’s property and the alleged consequent damage to a dividing fence between the 2 properties, Box Hill being a rural area. As my judgment was that the letter was highly emotional to say the least, I decided to refer it to the officer in charge of the Blacktown Legal Aid Office for verbal comment. However, he did better than that: He sent me a written report of his interview with Mrs Potouloff which he had prepared as a precaution immediately after the interview, as he felt she spelt trouble. In the meantime, I acknowledged Mrs Potouloffs letter to me indicating that I would look into the matter she had raised. The officer in charge of the Blacktown Legal Aid Office in his report to me indicated that he had told Mrs Potouloff:

I consider that my professional and ethical obligation was to make no comment on the conduct of the matter by the solicitors.

He meant her solicitors. He also stated that his attitude was not influenced in any way by the fact that one of the partners in her firm of solicitors was the New South Wales State AttorneyGeneral. As a result of the report I had received from this public servant, I wrote to Mrs Potouloff stating:

I have made careful investigations of the issues you raise and I am satisfied that the officer of the Blacktown Legal Aid Office acted as he is required to do in accordance with legal ethics.

On Wednesday, 3 June, having heard nothing of the matter in all the intervening months, I received a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister addressed to him. It was dated 23 May. This letter had been written to the Prime Minister by the Federal Liberal member for Mitchell, Mr Cadman, and enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr Cadman from the State Liberal member for Hawkesbury, Mr Rozzoli. These letters alleged that I had received a letter from Mrs Potouloff which was addressed to Mr Cadman and that I had opened and processed the letter. Nothing is further from the truth, as Mrs Potouloffs letter was clearly addressed to me. Fortunately I keep good files and therefore can prove this. Mr Cadman, in his letter to the Prime Minister, states that Mr Rozzoli ‘s letter points to:

  1. . what I - he means himself- consider to be, unethical conduct by the Member for Chifley.

He was referring to the untrue allegation that I had opened the letter addressed to Mr Cadman and processed it myself. He then went on to say:

Would you suggest -

He meant the Prime Minister- to the Member concerned -

That is me- that he make an apology in the House of Parliament.

That is rather an unusual way for a member of this chamber to refer to this chamber. I ask leave for photostat copies of these 2 letters to be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)- 23rd May, 1975

page 3407

THE PRIME MINISTER,

The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P.,

Parliament House,

Canberra 2600

My dear Prime Minister,

Please find enclosed copy of a letter from the Member for Hawkesbury, Mr. Kevin Rozzoli, M.L.A., where he points to, what I consider to be, unethical conduct by the Member for Chifley.

Since my election in May 1974,I have at all times endeavoured to adopt, what I feel to be, a high level of conduct in relation to other Members of Parliament. Wherever possible, I have referred enquiries from residents living outside the electorate of Mitchell to their sitting Member and have never ever taken up a matter on behalf of someone else’s constituent.

The act of taking up a matter directly outside one’s electorate added to the act of opening mail addressed to another person, is anything but a high level activity for a Member of Parliament.

Would you suggest to the Member concerned that he make an apology m the House of Parliament. Should a similar matter come to my notice at any time, I will not hesitate to make it known publicly.

Yours faithfully, ALAN CADMAN, M.P., Mitchell.

page 3408

ENCL:

29th April, 1975

Mr. A. Cadman, M.P. Member for Mitchell, 12B The Mall, Dunmore Street,

page 3408

WENTWORTHVILLE, N.S.W. 2145

Dear Mr. Cadman,

I just wish to draw to your attention a rather disturbing occurrence which was brought to my attention by a constituent. The person involved is Mrs. G. V. Potouloff, Lot 7, RMB 277 Windsor Road, Box Hill.

Mrs. Potouloff had occasion to write to you with regard to a Legal Aid matter and the attitude of the Officer in Charge of the Legal Aid Office at Blacktown.

Following enquiries with Blacktown Council, she was advised to write to you C/o Blacktown Council, which did seem rather strange but nevertheless she assures me that the letter was clearly addressed Alan Cadman, Member for Mitchell, C/o Blacktown Council Chambers. The mail apparently was handed to John Armitage who, instead of forwarding the mail to you, opened and processed it himself.

While the consequence of this was probably not particularly great, Mrs. Potouloff was incensed that a member of the Parliament should take such a step, and felt that you should be advised of what had happened. I told her that I would bring the matter to your attention. However, the basis of her requirement is a State matter and so I am taking up her complaint as it lies within my jurisdiction.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely, Kevin Rozzoli, M.L.A. for HAWKESBURY.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Naturally on receipt of the copies of these 2 letters from the Prime Minister I rang my office, got my secretary to check the files and ascertained that both the allegations of Mr Cadman and Mr Rozzoli were completely untrue. I then slipped across to the other side of the chamber and told Mr Cadman that in regard to the letter to the Prime Minister, it was he who would have to apologise and not I, as he had his facts wrong. At approximately 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday night he rang me in my office and asked if he could see me, to which I agreed, in the presence of a witness. In my office he stated that he had that day been in touch with Mrs Potouloff by telephone- no doubt as a result of my conversation with him- and that she had reaffirmed that the letter was addressed to him and not to me; that he had then asked her to sign a statutory declaration to that effect; that she had refused and that she had finally admitted that she had told both him and Mr Rozzoli an untruth when she said she had addressed the letter to Mr Cadman and not to me.

I told Mr Cadman that I found it difficult to believe that a member of this chamber could be so immature as to make serious allegations against another member of this chamber to the Prime Minister, which implied against, in fact attacked, the integrity of that member, without first checking his facts. I pointed out to him that he could have rung me to check the facts whereupon I would immediately have made my files available to him, as I have nothing to hide. In fact, a photostat of the whole file has now arrived in Canberra from my Blacktown office and Mr Cadman may inspect it if he so wishes. I told him that I would indeed raise the matter in this House as he had asked the Prime Minister to instruct me to do. He said- obviously to try to stop me from doing this- that he was writing a letter of apology to the Prime Minister that night. I told him that I would give him the opportunity of reading it out in this Parliament. He did write that letter of apology, dated 3 June. I ask leave of the House to have a copy of that letter incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Australia, Parliament House, CANBERRA. A.C.T.

My dear Prime Minister,

Following my recent letter to you suggesting that the Member for Chifley was involved in unethical conduct regarding one of my constituents, I am pleased to inform you that information to hand now indicates that no breach of ethics occurred.

The lady involved- has admitted that she provided inaccurate information to Mr K. Rozzoli, M.L.A. and myself.

I wish to apologise for any concern I may have caused yourself or the Member concerned.

The matter has been discussed with the Member for Chifley and I have apologised to him.

Yours sincerely, Alan Cadman M.P.

Mitchell

Mr ARMITAGE:

-Incidentally, Mr Cadman and the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is making a very long explanation. I think he ought to conclude his remarks.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I shall, very quickly, Mr Speaker. Mr Cadman seems to have taken umbrage that I would dare to handle a matter of a constituent who lives in his electorate. Actually, although that constituent lived in his electorate, she was complaining about a public servant who was stationed in my electorate. Anyhow, it is so, that quite a number of Mr Cadman ‘s constituents do come to me and ask for help as they know they will get service. I would not deprive someone in need of the help I can give them. Finally I wish to say that I know that Mr Cadman is very young and very inexperienced -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, the honourable member -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member might conclude his remarks. I think it is fair to say that the matter was of a personal nature. I intend to give the honourable member for Mitchell the same sort of leniency.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Finally I wish to say that I know that Mr Cadman is very young and very inexperienced, but I find it hard to comprehend -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member might conclude on that point.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– How anybody could be so foolish -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I shall not take up much of the time of the House. I wish to state that in the circumstances I made all the investigations that I thought I could make. Both the State member and I were completely misled in these circumstances. I made the apology as I felt I was duty bound to do, and I have nothing further to add to the matter.

page 3409

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-I seek leave to move the motion standing in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Daly:
Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– In accordance with standing order 1 58, 1 move: ‘ That the motion be dealt with forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not in order. The motion cannot be dealt with except by the honourable member concerned. The honourable member for Corangamite can move that the motion be set down for another day.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I move:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Corangamite from moving that the following matter be referred to the Public Accounts Committee under the provisions of paragraph 8 (d) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-1966-

Whether, and if so to what extent, payments of un- . employment benefits have been made during this financial year to persons not entitled under the law to receive them; and

Any matters connected with the foregoing which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be reported to this House.

Mr Speaker, it is a matter of public scandal that this question of payment of unemployment benefit has not -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he cannot make the speech which he has prepared on the motion. He must deal only with the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, the reason for the suspension of Standing Orders is that it is a matter of scandal that unemployment benefits have been paid to people who were not entitled to them. That is the matter on which -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is the substance of the motion, not the -

Mr STREET:

-But that is why Standing Orders should be suspended, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That may be the reason, but the honourable member started his speech without even mentioning the reason why Standing Orders should be suspended. I suggest that he will have to keep very close to that motion. I will not allow debate on the substantive motion.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, Standing Orders should be suspended because this House should have the opportunity to discuss a matter which is of great national significance and of great national economic importance, because a great many Australian citizens are being called upon to make financial contributions to people who are not entitled to them. I submit that it is a reasonable request to make to this House, to suspend Standing Orders to enable such a matter to receive the attention of the House. There have been public admissions by the Ministers concernedthe Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden)- who have both admitted that there have been clerical errors for one reason or another, that there have been computer errors and that there have even been cases of people who have received benefits wrongly and have been advised to hang on to them. I consider that it is reasonable to ask the House to suspend Standing Orders to enable these matters to be discussed. There may be good explanations for them. Well, if there are, we want to hear from the Ministers responsible what the explanations may be; but on the face of it, from the statements made by the Ministers and the comments in the national Press, reasonable explanations are not apparent to me and I do not think they are apparent to other members of this House.

Therefore, it is reasonable to enable this House to discuss them, because I believe that it is reasonable to suspect, without having a proper explanation and in the absence of proper explanation, that fraud may have been committed. When fraud is committed on the public purse, surely, of all things that should be discussed in this Parliament, that is one of them. I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the House does not want this subject debated properly in public.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member, I believe, is debating the point. It is not a matter of my not wanting to discuss it. The man who should be moving the motion was thrown out for disorderly conduct.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order, and I think the honourable member was as close to debating the question as most members usually are.

Mr STREET:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a measure of the concern of this House that the honourable member for Mackellar, who unfortunately is not here to take charge of this motion, with his usual foresight put this matter on the notice paper and, as it has been on the notice paper for a long time, it is reasonable to expect the House to debate it. We have all sorts of issues on which we would like the responsible Ministers to reply. I have mentioned some of them. Are computer errors leading to these payments? Are there clerical errors? Are the officers responsible for making out these returns overworked? These may be the explanations, but we cannot know if the House does not allow the matter to be debated.

There is the question of the adequacy of the work test that is applied, and this is the matter that the House would like clarified. What is the meaning of the word ‘equivalent’ in the term ‘equivalent work*? Apparently, in the absence of ‘equivalent work’, a person can claim unemployment benefits virtually indefinitely. Does ‘equivalent’ in fact mean ‘suitable’; that is, suitable in the sense that it is work that the applicant is physically and mentally able to do? These are the things on which the House would like clarification.

It is impossible, in the absence of explanations by the Minister, to know the criteria by which people are paid these benefits and, unless we can get the matter debated in the House, the people in the community are going to remain in ignorance of this question for 3 months, or whatever time will elapse until the House resumes sitting in August. There is the question of ‘equivalent’ being taken to mean ‘the same as’; that is, that a person is entitled to receive unemployment benefits so long as the same work as he did previously is not available to him. This is a matter of public scandal, because it is well known that some people deliberately register as having -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member come back to the motion.

Mr STREET:

– Well, I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am aware of that. The honourable member is debating the question now.

Mr STREET:

– I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can clarify just what is meant by these words. There is confusion in the public mind and there is confusion in the Parliament and, as is not unusual, there is total confusion in the Government. I am asking that Standing Orders be suspended so that the Government can clarify the matter in the public mind and clarify the matter to Parliament. As a side benefit, the Government may even be able to clarify its own mind on what is meant by ‘equivalent’ work as a criterion for unemployment benefits payment, and the Government may be able to clarify whether the definition should be ‘suitable’ work; that is, work which the person is physically and mentally able to do. Does ‘equivalent’ mean equal in pay? We do not know. There is no means of finding out unless we suspend Standing Orders to get an explanation from the responsible Ministers on this question. For example, does ‘equivalent’ mean equal in standing, equal in status, to the job -

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. With due respect, Mr Speaker, the honourable member has spent most of his time debating the motion that he seeks to suspend Standing Orders to discuss. I know that you have bought him to book, but I would suggest that he is transgressing again, because he has no knowledge of the subject and is really wasting the time of the House.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, I take exception to that allegation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think I would take exception to that, but I also point out that the matters that the honourable member mentions as reasons to have Standing Orders suspended are not contained in the motion, either. I suggest that the honourable member should confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr STREET:

– I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable, for example, the sort of situation that applies in Broken Hill to be clarified. It is a matter of public knowledge that a couple of years ago a major mine in Broken Hill closed, and that put people out of work, with no possibility of obtaining work of a similar nature in Broken Hill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member has reached the stage where I will have to sit him down. He is just not debating the question at all. The question is for a reference to the Public Accounts Committee, not for an inquiry within this House into some things that happened a couple of years ago or into matters relating to what is the meaning of ‘equivalent’ work. They are not mentioned in the motion, and they certainly are not the subject of the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. If the honourable member transgresses again I will have to sit him down.

Mr STREET:

– This question of the payment of unemployment benefits is very relevant in the case I have just mentioned because, as I understand it in the absence of any explanation from the responsible Ministers, there is a time limit on the payment of these unemployment benefits.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That would not be resolved by the carrying of the motion to suspend Standing Orders or the motion which you are seeking to bring on. I suggest that the honourable member cannot debate that.

Mr STREET:

– I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Public Accounts Committee to discuss this matter. The Public Accounts Committee seems to be an ideal body to discuss the matters that are before the House today but, if Standing Orders are not suspended, the Committee will not have the opportunity to discuss this problem. I am moving for the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of enabling a proper investigation to be carried out by a Committee of this Parliament into a matter which is rapidly becoming one of notoriety in the Press and in the Parliament, and it is reasonable to express the desire that this Parliament debate the matter now, while it is still sitting. If we do not suspend Standing Orders now and refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee, we will not have another opportunity to discuss it until well into August. Therefore, I consider it entirely proper to suspend Standing Orders to enable a properly constituted Committee of this Parliament to discuss, investigate, and report on a matter of public notoriety.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parrramatta

-I second the motion that the Standing Orders of the House be suspended to enable us to consider the motion on notice in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). Mention was made by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) by way of a point of order that the honourable member for Mackellar was not here to move this important motion. That is so. But I do not think that discounts the reasons why we ought to discuss this important matter. I for one was of the view that this matter would be discussed today. I might have taken another course of action available to me if I had known that this motion would not be discussed. The motion reads:

That the following matter be referred to the Public Accounts Committee under the provisions of paragraph 8 (d) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1 95 1 - 1 966-

1 ) Whether, and if so to what extent, payments of unemployment benefits have been made during this financial year to persons not entitled under the law to receive them; and

Any matters connected with the foregoing which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be reported to this House.

It is clear from the notice paper as I read it today that this will be the last day upon which this Parliament will have an opportunity to consider this most important matter. There will not be another opportunity for some three or so months, if the motion that is to be moved later this day by the Leader of the House is carried. For this reason, I believe that while we are discussing matters of General Business this important motion ought to be dealt with and that the Standing Orders ought to be suspended to enable it to be considered.

Why is this motion so important? It is clear from the Grievance Day debate that took place only one week ago that important matters have been disclosed on which the Government has not yet acted to deal with in a positive way. I believe that this is the most urgent reason why this House ought to take its own action by suspending the Standing Orders to consider the motion. Honourable members will recall that in that debate the honourable member who has been suspended and who intended to move this important motion disclosed certain circumstances to the Parliament. He cited the case of a Mr Alan Dudley, who lives at 162 Penshurst Street, Penshurst. He indicated -

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member is citing a case in support of the substance of the motion of the honourable member for Mackellar, which does not give the reason why Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Parramatta that I gave the honourable member for Corangamite much more latitude than he imagines. I do not intend to give the same latitude to the honourable member for Parramatta or to the Leader of the House when he replies.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Certainly, Mr Speaker, I do not require any latitude and I would hope that you would deal quite properly with me if I infringed your rulings on this matter. I am endeavouring to indicate to the House that there is considerable urgency associated with this matter. The abnormal circumstances that took place today have denied the honourable member who proposed to move the motion an opportunity to move the motion and to debate it. In normal circumstances he would have moved the motion. The circumstances demand that Standing Orders be suspended so that the important matters that he would have been able to raise may be raised in debate. I have dealt, I believe, with the urgent need for these matters to be debated. The matters involve not only the ones which were raised by the honourable member in the Grievance Day debate and which I will not canvass any further but also the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), who indicated that the facts that the honourable member for Mackellar intended to raise were correct. In the debate on the honourable member’s motion I wanted to raise circumstances concerning constituents of mine. I believe that the matter ought to be investigated by a competent committee. It ought to be done urgently- not neglected or left for some 3 months until the matter hopefully might be forgotten. Because of the dramatic rise in the number of people who are unemployed, the number of possible ‘dole cheats’- that is the term which has been used- also could be rising. It becomes increasingly apparent, with the rising unemployment on a seasonal basis which we have seen again today in statistics that are to be released -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now starting to debate the question. I have warned him about that.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I certainly hope not, Mr Speaker. I should like to emphasise the urgency of the matter. I believe that that is the reason for the suspension of Standing Orders. Nobody is more concerned than I am that we should not rap over the knuckles the public servants who are doing their best -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– We on this side of the House agree that this is an important matter. We were prepared to debate it this morning. But evidently the person who put it on the notice paper thought more of behaving in a disgraceful and disorderly manner in this Parliament -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister not refer to the honourable member in those terms when he is absent.

Mr DALY:

– All I say is that the honourable member who put it on the notice paper was suspended for misconduct in this House this morning. If he is not prepared to behave himself and to be here to move the motion, the Government considers that the motion should be treated accordingly. I listened to the 2 amateurs who rose to speak in this debate with no knowledge of the subject, who gave support to the conduct of the honourable member concerned and who now want all the business of this House to be suspended although the honourable member concerned did not even think it was worthwhile staying in the Parliament to move the motion.

It is true that this matter will not be debated for a couple of months if it is not debated today. But that is not our fault; that is the fault of the honourable member who put it on the notice paper but could not behave himself. I suggest that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) does not give a hang about those who are unemployed; he is just attempting to make political capital out of the matter. Honourable members opposite know full well that they cannot suspend Standing Orders. They do not have the numbers to do so. So, the very moving of the motion to suspend Standing Orders is a phoney proposition. The Opposition knows that.

It knows also that the honourable member for Mackellar did nothing at all in regard to these matters when he was the Minister for Social Services. But he has become a great reformer in Opposition. If the honourable member for Mackellar could not ensure that he remained in the Parliament on the day the motion was to be debated, the full responsibility for this motion not being moved today is on that honourable member, who was discharged from this Parliament on your naming, Mr Speaker, earlier today. The fundamental reason why the matter will not be discussed is that the member of the Opposition who put it on the notice paper behaved like a larrikin in the Parliament and accordingly was suspended.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Again I suggest that the Minister not refer to an absent member in that manner, even though he may have been suspended.

Mr DALY:

– I refer to the honourable member for Mackellar, who could not behave himself. We on this side of the House cannot be expected to postpone everything just to suit the convenience of a member who wants to come and go in the Parliament, good or bad as it might be, as it pleases him. However, I do not intend to allow the time of this House to be wasted any further. I just indicate to honourable members opposite that if motions such as this are put on the notice paper the members of the Opposition who place them there ought to be here to move them. I am not at all impressed by the 2 amateurs who spoke in support of the suspension of Standing Orders. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) knew nothing at all about the motion and tried to speak off the cuff. I will give him the good oil: He was a pretty poor performer. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), who spoke a few moments ago, tried to make his speech on the substance of the motion .on the notice paper and to go around the rulings of the Chair, which your astuteness stopped, Mr Speaker. This is a phoney proposition, and we have had enough of it. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 3413

GENERAL BUSINESS

(The Clerk having called on General Business, notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar having been suspended from the service of the House, the motion lapses. (The Clerk having called on General Business, notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar having been suspended from the service of the House, the motion lapses.

page 3413

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (VOTING AT REFERENDUMS) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I move:

This Bill has to do with the rights of Territorians. I remind the House that this proposal was on my platform when I was first elected to this House in 1966. The proposal has been continually pressed by me on very many occasions, especially in the. course of the 1969 referendum which was concerned with the breaking of the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The other question posed at that referendum concerned the voting rights of Aborigines. The people of the Northern Territory, who were probably more concerned with the rights of Aborigines than were people in any other community in Australia, were denied the right to vote at that referendum.

On the day of that referendum, a mighty meeting was held in Alice Springs. Interest in that meeting was whipped up by quite a number of Territorians. I think there were at least 500 to 600 people at Colacag Park. We were carrying banners demanding the right to vote at referendums. We marched to what would have been the electoral office if we had been entitled to vote in that referendum and hammered on the door; no one replied, so we spent the rest of the day getting citizens of that area to sign a petition which was presented to this Parliament. That petition asked that citizens in the Northern Territory have the right to vote at referendums. That plea did not succeed but it did bring the matter to the notice of the then Government.

I have spoken about this matter on many occasions. I bring this Bill forward now demanding that the rights of Territorians be recognised. After all, are these people second-class citizens? They live very often under very hard conditions. This is especially so in the northern parts of the Northern Territory, specifically Darwin since last Christmas. Normally these people are subject to fairly inclement conditions. They live in an area which produces a tremendous amount of wealth for Australia and which would be producing far more now were it not for the anti-primary industry policies of this Government. The two major industries in the Northern Territory involving beef and mineral production have been castigated in every possible way. One of the main income earners at the moment is the production of uranium in the Northern Territory. The double dealings and shifty talk of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) about the uranium leases in the area close to Arnhem Land have disadvantaged tremendously not only the companies involved there but also the Northern Territory as uranium exports would be a great source of income to the Northern Territory and of great assistance to the rehabilitation of Darwin.

On 22 November 1973 I put a question on notice to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) asking: ‘ 1. Is it a fact that electors of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory will not be entitled to vote in the referendum proposed for 8 December 1973?

  1. If so, what action is proposed by the Government to rectify this situation in respect of future referenda?

The answer from the Prime Minister was typical. He answered: ‘Yes’ to the first question and then referred me to his second reading speech in Hansard on the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974. In the referendum questions put as a result of the passage of that legislation, Territorians could have been granted the right to vote at a referendum proposing laws to alter the Constitution were it not for the third question in respect of that referendum proposal. If that question had been omitted and the remaining questions agreed to Territorians would have had the right to vote at a referendum.

Once again, typical of its double dealings, the Government was not really sincere in its pseudo acts of friendship to the Northern Territory. Instead of restricting the Bill and the subsequent referendum questions to the rights of people in the Territories to vote at referenda, the Government added a third question which had heavy implications which the people of the States just could not possibly accept. If that question had been omitted and the remaining questions agreed to, Territorians would have gained the right to vote at referenda. The Government was endeavouring through that additional question to alter the specification of the majority of States required to vote for a referendum proposal for that proposal to be carried. The people of the ^States said by their vote that they would not go along with that proposal because the Government was trying to change the four-two majority of States required for a referendum to be carried to a three-three vote among the States, on which vote a referendum question would be declared to be carried. The Government’s ‘gift’ to the Northern Territory of the right of Territorians to vote at referendums was tied to this additional proposal which had the effect of a heavy stone on those proposals; the proposals sank.

The Government may say what it likes. The fact is that it is not interested in giving and has really made no effort to give Territorians their full rights. Territorians are being continually disadvantaged. We have had many instances in this House recently of the Government completely ignoring the Northern Territory. Bills are being passed by this Parliament which the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory should have the right to introduce and pass through its chamber. What has happened in this respect? The Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, as a result of its inquiry into constitutional reform in the Northern Territory, has recommended many functions which should be taken over by that new legislative body which was elected on 1 9 October of last year. The fact is that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory has been given no rights or powers despite the recommendations contained in 2 reports by that Joint Committee. Amongst other things, that Committee recommended that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory have the right to legislate regarding urban land and control of the Northern Territory Police Force. Only recently, without consideration of the effect of its action on the Police Force of the Northern Territory or Territorians, this Government in a high handed manner has placed the Northern Territory Police Force under the control of what it calls the Australia Police Force. The Government can take it from me that this action will not do any good for law and order in the Territory or for the morale of police officers there.

With regard to the right of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to legislate in respect of urban land, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, this Government has set up the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Despite the recommendations of the Joint Committee, that Commission within the Darwin area has complete control over all land. We in the Northern Territory can see that the Commission has the job of rehabilitating the city of Darwin which was devastated last Christmas and is still in a devastated state. There is a long hard row to hoe to get the people of Darwin on their feet financially and into decent houses and also to strengthen their morale.

As I said, this Government has worked continually against the people of the Northern Territory. Only yesterday there was introduced into this House the Ombudsman Bill. A similar Bill has already been introduced 3 times into the Legislative Assembly. This is why I am bringing to the attention of the House the fact that people of the Northern Territory are being denied their rights in respect of voting at referendums. They are also being denied the right to have considered in their legislature many other matters. The Ombudsman Bill is to come before this House again today. Similar legislation, as I said before, has been introduced 3 times into either the Legislative Council, as it was in earlier days, or the Legislative Assembly that we have now. Yet the Federal Government has the effrontery to put that Bill through this place.

Legislation relating to travel agents is to come before this House today. The Northern Territory is a very strong producer of income through tourist activities. Central Australia has some of the most famous scenery and most visited areas in Australia. Why cannot the people of the Northern Territory through its Legislative Assembly control travel agents within the Territory? After all, travel agents are the people who organise the visits by tourists and they are a most essential part of the tourist industry. But no, this control must be exercised by the Australian Government. I refer also to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill which was introduced earlier this session into this Parliament. There are people who administer places such as Ayers Rock, Mt Olga Reserve, (Catherine Gorge and the famous wildlife parks in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Reserves Board is a very efficient, able and experienced institution on which I served at one time. It is doing a fabulous job for national parks and wildlife in the Northern Territory. But this Commonwealth Government wants to control those parks and wildlife reserves. A collection of very experienced men in the Northern Territory will have to report to this Parliament and decisions will be made here, at least 2000 miles away from the areas that are to be controlled.

We have had the overruling of the Legislative Assembly’s Darwin permit ordinance. It was exactly the same story again. No thought was given to the wishes and feelings of the people of the Northern Territory. The Darwin people considered, and the Assembly voted for it, that the permit system should be relaxed on 31 March. The date was then extended to April. But this

Government took the matter out of the hands of the Northern Territory authorities and the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) made a decision. This is the sort of thing that is happening throughout the whole administration of the Northern Territory. Even with respect to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission the Minister has final and absolute say on almost every decision that is made. Another example of this attitude is the stabilisation of Northern Territory land prices whereby the Federal Government sought to control land prices within a 96 kilometer radius of Darwin. To illustrate how much thought was given to this matter- that Bill passed through this Parliament and no one gave any consideration to the people, whether Aboriginal or European- I point out that that radius included Bathurst Island, on which there is an old time Bathurst Island mission now called Nguiu, and also the Wagait Reserve. It is this attitude which is so detested in the Northern Territory. It is an attitude which is exemplified only too well by this Government.

The Government is disregarding the people of the Northern Territory. It is not giving us a chance to run our own affairs. We should have the right to vote at referendums. We saw the fiasco in the Northern Territory of the 32 square mile land acquisition which was forced through by a bullheaded and ignorant Minister. Misinformation was given in the Senate and although we managed to get the legislation blocked on one occasion we in the Northern Territory suffered defeat and the Bill providing for the acquisition of 32 square miles of land around Darwin was passed. Then it was found that much of the 32 square miles was unsuitable for urbanisation. The people of the Territory were disregarded and the Federal Parliament had its way. It ground the people of the Northern Territory into the dirt and then found out that it had done the wrong thing. I have dealt with the matter of the Northern Territory Police Force before. It is a very sore point with people in the Territory that their police force is to be controlled from Canberra. It is necessary that the control of law and order be in the hands of people who are living in the area and although there are some advantages on the technical side in the Northern Territory Police having recourse to the Australia Police Force operating from Canberra, there are certainly no advantages to the general organisation and running of the force.

While pressing for the right of people in the Northern Territory to vote at referendums, I stress that the newly elected Legislative Assembly is being by-passed. It is obvious that it is the

Government’s policy to let the Assembly wither on the vine. I think the Government is allowing the citizens of the Northern Territory to wither on the vine also. I urge the Government to consider this Bill and listen to the cries of the people from the Northern Territory to have the same rights as people in the rest of Australia. It is not as though we do not pay taxes. It happens that it costs us two or three times more to live in the Territory than, it would cost us to live anywhere else, so people will be able to realise just how much it costs us. I urge the House to pass this Bill in the interests of everyone in the Northern Territory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I second the motion with great enthusiasm and wish to make some comments. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has gone into the matter in great detail and my hope is that this Bill will be the climax of a long, effective and sincere crusade that he has carried out to have this right given to the people of the Northern Territory. It seems that it took two devastating events, each almost complete in its destruction, to bring focus on to the people of Darwin and the Northern Territory. The , first event occurred on 19 October 1974 when an election for the first fully elected Legislative Assembly was held. That was certainly a complete devastation because of the 1 9 seats, 1 7 were won by the Country-Liberal Party and two by Independents. Probably equally destructive in a far more tragic manner was Cyclone Tracy. It took these 2 events to make people realise that there were in that very important area of this nation people who were carrying out activities which were in every way valuable to the progress and development of Australia. Matters that could be put to a referendum are of the most profound concern to the people of the Northern Territory. One such matter could be amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in support of the principle of one vote one value.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Order! As it is now 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of General Business Notices of Motion Nos 4 to 10 be extended.

Mr KATTER:

– I thank the Leader of the House. I shall not be more than a few minutes. I was pointing out that matters which could be put to referenda are of the utmost, profound and fundamental importance to the people in the Northern Territory. I was speaking of the possibility of a change to the electoral system. It is difficult to live in remote areas and have your case heard effectively and consistently. The people of the Northern Territory are fortunate in this regard because they are represented in the Parliament by a man of the Territory, who grew up with the Territory and who has been associated with it in the most profound aspects of pioneering and realistic experience, and that is what really matters. People who live in remote areas such as the Northern Territory go there only for one or two reasons. They have to live under climatic conditions which are not normally acceptable. They remove themselves willingly from the amenities of the intensely populated areas. If we examine the spectrum of population in an area such as the Northern Territory, we find that they do so to contribute to the wealth of this nation.

If we look at the Territory with interest- not too many people do that- we realise that there is a huge potential in the mining industry. Regrettably, I have to use the word ‘potential’ because not one sod of earth has been uncovered to release the wealth of uranium deposits in the Territory, and the prospects of this happening in the near future are extremely remote. The huge pastoral industry of the Territory, despite the claims of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), is waning to a much greater degree than it should be because of their failure to take a stand in Cabinet and demand, just as a starter, that many of the measures discontinued in compliance with the recommendations of the Coombs Task Force be reintroduced. These measures include the petroleum differential subsidy. These Ministers accepted the elimination of these measures, and in a time of almost complete disaster in the beef cattle industry have allowed their absence to persist.

These are the reasons that the Bill presented by the honourable member for the Northern Territory time and again and his insistence that the people of the Northern Territory be given a voice in a referendum are extremely, critically, important not only to the people of the Territory but also to the people of this nation, because fundamental matters are at stake- such matters as the export of uranium and changes to the electoral system. A referendum regarding Aborigines was passed with a huge and overwhelming majority by the nation. Aborigines constitute a very great part of the voice of the Northern Territory. Let us be honest and realistic. If we feel that they should have a voice, that voice should be continued through to a voice in a referendum, should it be held.

I could go on. There are many arguments that could be exposed and used to support this Bill, but I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory time and again has presented evidence to this House in support of these arguments. All I can do is support him entirely and join him in his continued campaign, which I hope will not be necessary in the future. I end my contribution as I began it. I hope that today we see the beginnings of the fulfilment of the hopes of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory, the people of northern Australia and the people of all of Australia who have any sense of balance would see that it is obvious that the right to have a vote in any referendum held in this country should be given to the people of the Northern Territory.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 3417

GENERAL BUSINESS

(The Clerk having called on General Business Notice of Motion No. 5 in the name of the honourable member for Bruce) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-As the proposer of the motion is not present, the motion lapses. (The Clerk having called on General Business Notice of Motion No. 6 in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Mackellar having been suspended from the service of the House, the motion lapses. (The Clerk having called on General Business Notice of Motion No. 8 in the name of the honourable member for Bruce) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– As the proposer of the motion is not present, the motion lapses. (The Clerk having called on General Business Notice of Motion No. 9 in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar having been suspended from the service of the House, the motion lapses. (The Clerk having called on General Business Notice of Motion No. 10 in the name of the honourable member for Mackellar) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar having been suspended from the service of the House, the motion lapses.

page 3417

SUPPLEMENTARY ASSISTANCE FOR PENSIONERS

Debate resumed from 22 May 1975 on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That, in the opinion of this House, restrictions upon the granting of supplementary assistance to pensioners are too severe.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– The motion which has been moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is one with which all members of the House would have sympathy, but I think it should be pointed out for the purposes of the record that supplementary assistance is one of a great number of responsibilities to which the Government of the day has to attend in preparing its Budget and in deciding the priorities to which it will commit itself. This Government has in fact increased supplementary assistance by 25 per cent. It did this not so long ago. Whether it is the intention of the Government to take further action on this rate of benefit payment is really a matter more properly appropriate for consideration in the forthcoming Budget context. Quite clearly, in the preparation of the Budget the Government will have to consider the wide range of demands which are put before it for improved benefits, for instance in the field of social security, and measure these demands against the resources which can be made available. So it comes down to a matter of priorities and deciding what are the highest priorities.

The Government, on its record, has been outstanding in the range of priorities and the generosity with which it has responded to that range of priorities that it has taken up in the field of social security. For instance, since we have been in office the married rate of age and invalid pension has increased by nearly 74 per cent and the single rate by 80 per cent But in the same time the consumer price index increase has been a little over 36 per cent and the increase in average weekly earnings less than 47 per cent. So you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, and so too can honourable members, that the Government, with obvious determination, has set about successfully improving the rate of benefits measured in any real sense at a much faster rate than has occurred with other relevant indices in the community.

We have moved to eliminate anomalies. For instance, class B and class C widows pensions are now paid at the same rate as class A pensions. We have introduced a supporting mothers’ benefit. We now pay unemployment and sickness benefits at the same rate as our other forms of social security benefits. It is a matter of some notorious comment that the rates of these payments were considerably less than the rates of pension under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. This year in the Department of Social Security we will be spending over $3,000m in support of various forms of programs for which my Department is responsible. Next year the amount will be higher just because of the natural and unavoidable- not that we want to avoid it- demand that comes from movement in indices in the economy.

Let me mention very quickly that when we are talking about this area of supplementary assistance we must bear in mind that the Government makes a very expensive commitment, without any reservation at all, because we regard it as a high priority, to programs in support of the provision of accommodation for the aged. For instance, under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act this year we will be spending more than $23m. Next year the amount will be considerably higher. Under the Aged Persons Hostels Act we will be spending more than $19m; next year we expect the amount to exceed $40m. In all, this year we will be spending $42m on these 2 programs; next year we expect to exceed $70m. These are extremely generous amounts which we are providing. These programs, as honourable members know and as interested members of the public are well aware, are programs to provide hostel type accommodation, nursing home type accommodation and also independent, self-contained, flat-unit type accommodation for aged people.

This Government has been responsible for introducing a $4 for $1 subsidy. In effect, we meet 80 per cent of the capital cost of these buildings. We have introduced a separate land subsidy component which did not apply before. Previously there was an across the board $2 for $1 subsidy; that is, a little over 60 per cent of the cost was met. We have written in a provision for rise and fall clauses in contracts for building so that as costs go up once a contract is signed we have a commitment to assist the agencies providing this sort of accommodation in meeting the increased cost of these services.

An amount of $30m has been allocated by the Government for accommodation under the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act. I mention these things as an indication of the initiatives that we have taken and the outlays for which we are responsible. Firstly, we have been involved in the provision of accommodation and support services for the aged. I have mentioned more generally some of the other benefit programs that we have taken up. I have scarcely touched the edges of the very broad range of commitments for which this Government has been responsible. I mention that to justify my proposition that matters such as the one now before the House- the level of supplementary assistance and the need to review it- are matters which more properly are considered in the Budget preparation context. This was an attitude that was taken by previous Liberal-Country Party governments, one that was properly taken by those governments in those circumstances and one that we would take too. Accordingly, I move:

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I would like to make a brief comment. I would not agree with the amendment moved by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). In fact, one might say that it is the last motion he will ever move as Minister for Social Security. I feel a tinge of sadness at that.

Mr Daly:

– It has been a harmonious relationship.

Mr CHIPP:

– It has been a harmonious relationship between the Minister and me over a period of 2 years.

Mr Hayden:

– For God’s sake don’t let my colleagues know that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! This is a delightful conversation, but I ask the honourable member to return to the subject under debate.

Mr CHIPP:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, do you want me to stir things up a bit? I will do that if you want me to. We do not agree with the amendment because, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has pointed out on many occasions, we regard the need for the provision of additional supplementary assistance as being extraordinarily urgent. It is becoming more and more urgent as the position of the recipients of this assistance is being exacerbated because of continuing inflation.

I remind the House that supplementary assistance is that small additional amount that is paid to pensioners who have virtually no other sources of income and who pay rent. These people in times of high levels of rent are finding it extraordinarily difficult to make ends meet. One of the first recommendations made in the interim report of the Henderson Committee was that the present rate of supplementary assistance should be doubled from $4 to $8 a week. A leading plank in the platform of the Liberal and Country Party Opposition which was announced by our then Leader in April 1974 was that we would increase the level of supplementary assistance from $4 to $6. As the honourable member for Mackellar said in the case he made out when he originally presented this motion, we believe that inordinate hardship is being suffered now by pensioners and that this position should be reviewed immediately and should not wait for a total budgetary consideration. In fact, the statement made by the Minister for Social Security today to the effect that this matter should be considered in the context of the Government’s total social security program rings a little hollow because tomorrow he will be the Treasurer of Australia and later this year he will prepare a Budget to which he has already committed himself and will honour the commitment and instruction of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to make that Budget a tough one. I imagine that in the Budget there will be very little extra in hand-outs or benefits for pensioners.

I believe that the Minister has moved a hollow amendment because neither he nor the Government has any intention of increasing the amount of supplementary assistance in the next Budget. The amendment moved by the Minister states that the Government’s total social security program should be commended. That is a proposition to which I could not possibly ascribe. But I believe that this is neither the time nor the place to debate that issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 3419

QUESTION

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

Debate resumed from 21 November 1974 on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential, having regard to experiences over the past 2 years, that the Ministers should be truthful in their statements both in this House and in the public media.

Upon which the House had voted to omit all words after ‘That’, and upon which Mr Daly had moved by way of amendment that the following words be inserted: ‘this House congratulates the Ministers of the Labor Government on their honest, informative and comprehensive reports in this House and in the public media. In these statements they have, in the opinion of this House, displayed an expert knowledge of their Departments, kept the Parliament and the people fully informed and set a high standard of Parliamentary representation and Ministerial responsibility. ‘.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not a noted authority on Shakespeare, but occasionally I remember some ‘ of the speeches from plays which I have read and in which I even played a part during the time that I was at school and university. Consequently, you will forgive me for commencing my speech with some lines from ‘Henry V in which the King said:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

My interpretation of what King Henry would have said if he had been in this House is: ‘And fill these walls up with Labor’s misleading Heads’. That is the substance of what I want to put to the House today.

I believe that every member of this House wants the parliamentary system to survive. We want parliamentary democracy. We want the elected representatives of this country to be able to present their views and to act in the best interests of the Australian people. I think you can take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that would be the personal wish of every member. But that is not necessarily borne out by political performance. I express the greatest regret that this should be so.

I would like to point out 3 grounds on which we can take exception to Labor Party actions in recent years. The first concerns the question of misconduct, that is occasions on which members of either House have misled the Houses. At page 135 of May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ it is stated:

The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

I now turn to one of the other 2 most important questions, that of intimidation. Under the heading ‘Attempted Intimidation of Members’, at page 146 May said:

To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.

And I refer to the necessity for this House to maintain the Rule of Law and the Australian Constitution. Let me get back to some of the incidents to which I think it is desirable that attention be drawn. I believe that they show a tendency and a trend that we have never known in the history of this Parliament since its opening in 1901 with deception becoming under Labor the syndrome and the practice of the day, where intimidation is possible and has been practised in the last few months and where the law and the Constitution have been undermined. I go right back to the beginnings of the Australian Labor Party transfer from Opposition to Government and the Treasury bench. If we believe in the Constitution we ought to think always of what it > means. And we should do our best to uphold that Constitution and the Rule of Law.

When did this happen? We will remember the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, the then Senator Murphy, who carried out an illegal raid on the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation without a warrant, just cause or the approval of his Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). That was contrary to the law of this land. If any private citizen or even a police officer had carried out such a raid, the person concerned would have been punished at law. But that was not done under a Labor regime. The then Senator Murphy, the Attorney-General and highest law officer of the land, the man who, with the Prime Minister, should most protect the Constitution, carried out this raid himself.

Then there was the Gair Affair. The Government was forgetful of section 44 of the Constitution. Knowing that Senator Gair was no longer eligible to be a member of the Senate, the Government permitted Senator Gair to vote in the Senate and took no action until it had to make a statement about his appointment as Ambassador to Ireland. During this period the Government knew that the deception was being practised on the Australian people. I turn from the question of deception to matters of greater immediate concern. The first is associated with the deposition of my friend the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) the former Speaker of this House. No one could doubt that there has seldom, if ever, been a member of this House as respected, who has attracted such affection to himself, who is of impeccable character and who would never display; nor show anything but goodwill towards his fellow citizens.

In his case we saw intimidation by the Prime Minister. We remember the occasion when the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), a man given to dictatorial or commissar-like habits, defied the Chair. The Speaker named him and the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) on behalf of the Government moved to suspend the Minister from the services of the House. The Prime Minister himself said ‘no’ and threatened the then Speaker of the House saying in pretty foul language that he had to take the consequences of his action. In other words, the Speaker was right but he was intimidated in an effort to get him to admit that he was wrong. When that did not happen, it led to the unfortunate departure of the honourable member for Sydney from the Speakership of the House. He deserved more of the country and he deserved more of his own former friend the Prime Minister.

Let me turn to a few events of recent days which ought to be mentioned to show the way in which this House is gradually going through a process of desecration and how its integrity is being undermined. I refer to the 2 cables that were sent relating to the attitude of the Australian Government to North and South Vietnam. The Prime Minister protested that it was part of the same even-handed policy that he applied to the Middle East. But he never showed any even-handedness in relation to Israel or the cause of zionism. In this case, despite what he said and the fact that he protested his innocence or even-handedness, he sent or caused to be sent 2 cables, one to our representative in North Vietnam and one to our representative in South Vietnam. Anyone looking at those cables must admit that they represented an entirely different approach as between the North and the South. I can see another honourable gentleman opposite whom I admire and respect who is nodding enthusiastically about what I intend to say. The cables represent another example of the syndrome of lack of accuracy, the tendency to misrepresentation and deceit when it serves the political purpose of the Labor Minister concerned.

I must state that I divide our Prime Minister into 2 people. I think that the Prime Minister personally is a man of complete integrity. But in political life there is no doubt that he will use information and guile in whatever way he wishes to achieve his own political purposes. I come to a recent episode not so much concerned with the misrepresentation syndrome, but with the ethical standard of the Wollongong strangler, the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). I refer to the Ranger mining problem that has been raised in recent days. Honourable members will know that the Minister for Minerals and Energy rises in the Parliament and speaks with an apparent knowledge of what he is talking about. If honourable members do not agree with him, he attempts intimidation and threats. If honourable members do not agree with him then, he battles on in language impossible for any honourable member to understand. In the whole of the time that he has been Minister for Minerals and Energy he has not explained a consistent and complete minerals or energy policy. If ever there were a cast-iron case proved beyond any reasonable doubt, a case that could be proved in a criminal court in Australia -

Mr Martin:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. I did not hear in the House what the right honourable member for Lowe said because I was not present in the House. However, I heard from outside the House the right honourable member refer to the Minister for Minerals and Energy as the Wollongong stangler. I think that that is a highly disorderly statement and I ask for its withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-The point of order should have been taken when the words were used. If exception had been taken to the words at that time I would have asked the right honourable member for Lowe to withdraw them. Exception was not taken at the time. I will leave the matter to the right honourable member to decide.

Mr McMAHON:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, if you feel that it is preferable that the words ‘the Wollongong strangler’- a pseudonym which the Minister well knows and to which I do not think he objects- should be withdrawn, I certainly will withdraw them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think that it would be proper to do so.

Mr McMAHON:

– I have done so. However, I move on to say what has happened in the Ranger episode. It involves 2 associated and reputable Australian mining companies. One is E.Z. Industries Ltd and the other one is Peko Wallsend Ltd. I say that I have no direct or indirect association with either of these companies nor am I aware of any other people who have such associations.

The Minister made certain statements in the House which, if made outside the House, would be clearly defamatory. What he said turned out to be completely wrong. He has based his arguments on 2 meetings. The first occurred at Kirribilli House one Sunday morning on one of those glorious days when troops were not attacking this country from Tasmania. On that day, negotiations were started relating to the Ranger project. Not long afterwards- I believe it was about 30 or 3 1 October last year- a meeting was held at a cocktail party at the Lodge. At that meeting which went from 6 o’clock until 2 o’clock the following morning, the Minister- I do not say ‘the strangler’- produced out of his hat a 3-page document setting out some guidelines or letters of intent with regard to this enormously important matter. Since then he has not hesitated to use the most dubious approaches and has falsified the truth in such a way that great harm can be done to these reputable 2 companies.

As to this, I say that it is wrong politically to damage anyone in any way in this Parliament, when you do not know the facts and you do not tell the truth, in order to substantiate your case.

Secondly, I believe it is only an irresponsible member who will do that harm by speaking in the House without knowing what the facts are and without desiring to speak the truth. At question time this morning I mentioned an article by Bryan Frith in the ‘Australian’ which establishes beyond any doubt that in the dispute he is having with two Australian mining companies the truth lies with the companies and not with the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I therefore ask that that article be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Daly:
Mr McMAHON:

– Then may I table it?

Mr Daly:

– I have not read it.

Mr McMAHON:

– I did not have the opportunity to show it to the Minister because, as I said, once more unto the breach, dear friends. I was asked to speak at a late hour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-I wonder whether the right honourable member would direct bis remarks through the Chair.

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, Sir, but one of my ‘ friends over there objected to the incorporation. Finally I deal with the question of leaks that are occurring.

Mr Keating:

– Fancy you speaking about leaks! You were the greatest leaker in your own Government.

Mr McMAHON:

– I wish I had been. The Opposition might have been in government today if I had been. The honourable member was not here, so he would not know what he is talking about.

Let me return to the conduct of the business of this House. We have read in the newspapers in recent days of various changes that will occur in the Ministry of this country. There can be no doubt about it because so far the forecasts have all been pretty accurate- and I hope the latest one turns out to be both accurate and a change of direction, that the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) will not go to the Ministry of Social Security but of Special Minister of State. Nonetheless, we are plagued with rumours and leaks. The business of government and the integrity of the Government are being destroyed by this kind of action which I think is unfortunate. I repeat that I stand here as one who believes in parliamentary democracy, who wants it to be successful, who wants this country to be effectively governed no matter who may be in power. We want to protect the people’s interests.

In rising now and in staking my claim to represent the thinking people of this country I say that it is time that the Minister for Minerals and Energy was removed from his office as Minister for Minerals and Energy and given a portfolio more suitable to his person such as VicePresident of the Executive Council where he could not do much harm. I also believe that it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to establish standards of integrity and decency. He can do so. With his tremendous persuasive capacity he can do much to sustain the Westminster tradition and to ensure that the Government of this country and the conduct of parliamentary affairs are properly conducted and carried on.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 3422

PENSIONERS- ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

(The Clerk, having called on general business, order of the day No. 4)-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-There being no seconder, the motion lapses.

page 3422

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-As Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts I present the 156th report of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr GRAHAM:

– I seek leave to make a short statement

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

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

Mr GRAHAM:

– The 156th report of the Public Accounts Committee comprises the 2 Treasury minutes relating to the previous reports of the Committee. These reports were the 147th report, which dealt with expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for 1972-73, and the 148th report, which related to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Appropriation Acts of 1972-73. In the 147th report the Committee made reference to the fact that it had found clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance to the Treasurer when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates.

In the 148th report the Committee found it necessary to refer to cases of unsatisfactory estimating or administrative performances that resulted in shortfalls in expenditure. The Committee is pleased to note from the Treasury minutes that action has been taken by departments to overcome these inadequacies and that the conclusions of the Committee have been brought to the notice of the appropriate officers. The practice of presenting Treasury minutes is the result of an arrangement made between the Committee and the Treasurer before the presentation of the Committee’s first report on 10 March 1953. The arrangement is that the Committee forwards a copy of each report to the Treasurer for consideration immediately that report is tabled. His reply in the form of a Treasury minute is then examined by the Committee and included in a later report to the Parliament. The 156th report is one of these later reports. Before preparing its minute the Treasury consults the departments concerned and obtains their views on the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee. Essentially, the Treasury minute system ensures that Committee recommendations are acted upon and informs members of the steps taken to meet their proposals. I commend the report to honourable members.

page 3422

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Prices I bring up the Committee ‘s report on the prices of frozen and canned vegetables. I also bring up extracts of the minutes of proceedings taken in connection with-this inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HURFORD:

– I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

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

Mr HURFORD:

-The report which has just been tabled is the fourth report from the present Committee and the ninth report from the Joint Committee on Prices. In addition, 2 statements on Committee inquiries have been made to the Parliament in lieu of reports. The inquiry on which this report is based was commenced by the Committee established in the 28th Parliament. The delay in presenting this report to the Parliament was caused, among other reasons, by the time taken by major processors to provide certain information, and the dissolution of the 28th Parliament. In this report the Committee has made 2 recommendations that would assist the consumer in the purchase of frozen and canned vegetables. The recommendations relate to regulations under section 63 of the Trade Practices Act. The Committee has recommended quality standards for frozen peas and quantity standards for frozen and canned vegetables. These standards amount to more informative labelling and would therefore assist the consumer to relate price with quality for frozen vegetables and price with the quantity shown on the can or packet of frozen and canned vegetables. The Committee is of the opinion that such regulations would be very beneficial to consumers who shop around- and we are keen to persuade all consumers to fall into that category.

These recommendations apart, the Committee does not find in its examination of the industry evidence that showed that the consumer was being disadvantaged by any particular practice engaged in by the processors in this industry. The industry is, like soaps and detergents, highly concentrated, but unlike the latter the Committee has found that the frozen and canned vegetables industry is one where the competition is real and effective, that the amount of advertising was low, that charges of brand proliferation were not substantiated and that the profits earned in the industry are not high. Perhaps the main reason for the existence of strong competition is the importance of house brands, products made by processors for retailers or wholesalers under their own private label. There are more than one dozen house brands for frozen peas and beans and these supply more than 40 per cent of the market. The inability of the processors to get national acceptance for their brands is probably the reason for the importance of house brands in this industry. House brand contracts are determined mainly on the basis of price, and price competition between processors has been and is strong.

Thus the power of the retailers has acted as a balance against the power of the processors and has brought benefits to the consumer as well. From the commencement of the inquiry the Committee’s attention was drawn to the position of the grower vis-a-vis the processor in this industry. While evidence that the processor has exploited the grower was not conclusive, the Committee noted comments in the Green Paper on Rural Policy in Australia which argued a case for Government involvement where there was a vast disparity in the bargaining strength or the growers and processors. This is the case in the frozen and canned vegetables industry where 4 major processors deal with large numbersliterally thousands- of individual growers.

The Committee examined various proposals that would restore the competitive balance between the buyers and sellers of vegetables. It has recommended that because of the relatively strong bargaining position of the processors, the

Minister for Agriculture should establish a national panel of vegetable growers and processors of peas and beans. The Committee has further recommended that the panel should consist of an official of the Department of Agriculture and an equal number of growers and processors. A representative of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations should be invited to attend meetings of the panel. The main function of the panel would be to discuss the long-term future of the industry and other matters of mutual interest, such as prices and contracts. To give effect to this recommendation the Committee has recommended also that the activities of the panel be exempted from the relevant provision of the Trade Practices Act.

Before recommending the report to the House I would like to thank, in particular, the members of the Committee of the last Parliament as well as the members of the Committee in this Parliament for the contributions they have made to the Committee’s work. I want to draw to the attention of the House that it was a member of the National Country Party of Australia who originally brought this subject of frozen and canned vegetables to the attention of the Committee. It was, indeed, brought before the Committee because of the action of processors in relation to growers. The fact is that although there are a number of processors in Australia- each one of them has a particular group of growers in a geographical area with which to deal- there is virtually a monopoly position in relation to processors and a very fragmented group of people to deal with when it comes to the number of growers.

So, in this case, the Committee’s recommendations relate not only to price but also to harmony in the industry. As far as the price is concerned, we have honestly brought to the attention of the Parliament, and thus to the people, that there is true competition among processors, and, we believe, reasonable efficiency and the lowest possible price is being obtained. But we think, for harmony in the industry and in the interests of the growers, the Minister for Agriculture should set up a panel at a national level in order to facilitate the communciations between the growers and the processors in that particular industry.

I want to pay proper tribute also to the staff of the Committee for the work they have done in this inquiry. Mr John Cummins is a young man who has been with the Committee for some time now. He has performed extremely valuable services in relation to this report. Although I was not able to mention him during the prepared part of my statement which I have given to the House, I now pay tribute to him for the work that he has done.

I should like to mention to the House two other matters to which the Committee is now devoting its attention. One relates to building materials and in particular to timber. That matter was brought to the attention of the Committee some time ago by the Minister who is sitting at the table, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson). He referred to the Committee the problems of building materials. We are hoping to do valuable work for the Parliament and for the people when we present the report on timber in the near future. The other matter before the Committee at this stage is the question of bread prices. We know that work is being done in various States of Australia on this subject but we feel that the Committee has a real role to co-ordinate the work that is being done in the various States. I have pleasure in commending the report to the House.

page 3424

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May on motion by Dr Cass:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-Today is World Environment Day. What an appropriate day for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill to be debated in this House. It is a Bill to establish the legislative machinery to protect the Great Barrier Reef as a significant part of the Australian heritage. If reports are correct the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) will be transferred from his Environment portfolio today, on World Environment Day. If this is so and it does happen, it is a most unfortunate event. The Minister has done an excellent job in this field and deserves much commendation and praise for the efforts that he has made and the cooperative actions he has taken with the community at large and with the Opposition since he has been the Minister. I commend the Minister for what he has done.

The immediate objective of this Bill is to establish an authority to examine the entire Barrier Reef region to determine which sections of the region should be proclaimed as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and decide appropriate uses for its various sections. The ultimate objective, of course, is to protect the world’s largest known assemblage of living corals and associated organisms, which have formed in the 100 000 square miles or 2 600 000 hectares of the Great Barrier Reef province. I would remind honourable members that in the report of the Inquiry into the National Estate, the Reef was described as ‘the most important feature of the Australian coastline’. The report continues:

It is the only one unquestionably accepted by international authorities as a portion of the World Heritage. As such, the responsibility of Australia in regard to the Great Barrier Reef is crucial.

The Committee ‘s conclusions were: … the Australian Government and, insofar as its responsibility may be decided, the Queensland State Government, have an overriding responsibility to the world for the preservation, management and presentation of what is a heritage of unquestionable world stature. Any and all threats to the Reef should be avoided at all costs and prevented by all available means.

The report goes on to say:

We see great merit in the recommendation to us by the Great Barrier Reef Committee and also contained in the submission to them by the Royal Commissions on Petroleum Drilling in Great Barrier Reef Waters, that legislative action be taken to set up a statutory authority or Commission, possibly by the Australian Government, and State ‘mirror ‘ legislation, as an agency of the Crown, for the administration of the Great Barrier Reef province as a whole.

I have quoted at some length from the National Estate report because I regard it as being a landmark in Australia’s environmental history and a monument of industry, perception and integrity. It is well on its way to becoming part of the national heritage itself. The Bill before the House is the response of the Government to the challenge so clearly defined in the passages I have quoted. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

The Australian Government … has decided that protection of our unique Barrier Reef is of paramount importance to Australia and the world.

The Opposition supports this attitude wholeheartedly and congratulates the Minister on the motivation that has led him to introduce the Bill. We disagree with some of the existing provisions in the Bill, but that does not mean that we disagree with the total concept of a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. On the contrary, the Opposition Parties regard the Great Barrier Reef as potentially a marine park of world significance. It is our policy that the Federal Government should co-operate with and assist the Queensland Government in the declaration and preservation of the Great Barrier Reef as a marine national park. Our prime concern at the moment is to examine the Bill before the House in order to ascertain whether it is a suitable instrument to achieve the commendable objectives which all parties in this Parliament share.

I will comment on the Bill in more detail later, but first of all I point to a most remarkable feature of the Minister’s second reading speech: Not once did he mention, either by implication or by name, the State of Queensland. Honourable members will recall that the passages which I quoted from in the Hope report refer to the joint responsibility of the Federal and State governments and speak of legislative action by the Federal Government and mirror legislation by the Queensland Government. Admittedly, there is contention about the relative powers of the States and the Commonwealth in the field of the seas and submerged lands. The Seas and Submerged Lands Bill was assented to on 4 December 1973. As honourable members know, the legislation has been challenged in the High Court, but the Court has not given judgment in that matter.

Whether the High Court will decide that State jurisdiction ends at the 3-mile limit or at the high water mark is a matter of conjecture. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the Queensland Government has considerable powers and, whatever the findings of the High Court, will continue to have considerable powers in areas which are included in the Great Barrier Reef province, as delineated in the Schedule to the Bill. Incidentally, the Great Barrier Reef province is a phrase that I have borrowed from the report of the Royal Commission into Petroleum Drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef, known as the Wallace Commission. It is used by the commissioners to describe the whole 2Yi million hectares of the Reef area. The State of Queensland owns all the foreshores bordering on the Reef province and it owns all the hundreds of islands included in it. It is impossible to conceive of any plan of management for any area of the province which the proposed Authority may wish to declare a national park and which would be able to function efficiently without the cooperation of the Queensland Government.

One of the key points in the management plan must be the prevention of pollution. Where is pollution likely to come from? According to Dr John Knauss, the dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, marine pollution comes from 4 main sources. Firstly, it comes from the man-built outfallssewerage, industrial effluent and the likewhich are a clear State responsibility. Secondly, it comes from the ocean dumping and vessel pollution which is a responsibility part State, part Federal and part international. Thirdly, it comes from rivers and estuaries- a State responsibility.

Fourthly and finally, it comes from the atmosphere, which is more of an international responsibility than anyone else’s responsibility. No anti-pollution measures in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park can be effective without the co-operation and goodwill of the Queensland Government. For example, consider the islands in the Great Barrier Reef province. There are hundreds of them and they all belong to Queensland. One of the functions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, as laid down in clause 7 of the Bill, is to recommend areas that should be declared to be parts of the Marine Park and to prepare zoning plans for the Marine Park. What will the Authority do with the islands? Will it try to exclude them from the Park because it cannot exercise authority over them without the co-operation and goodwill of the Queensland Government? Given a reasonable spirit of compromise and give and take, I can assure the Minister, following discussions chat I have had in the last week or so with the Queensland authorities, that co-operation and goodwill will be forthcoming.

The House may not be aware that the State of Queensland for years has been movingalthough perhaps not fast enough- in the direction foreshadowed in this Bill; that all the islands in the Great Barrier Reef province have been declared sanctuaries; and that most of the major ones, including Heron Island and Green Islandthe only 2 inhabited reef cays- have been declared national parks. At the same time, the State Government has declared fisheries habitat reserves below the high water mark, which have had a major and favourable environmental impact. I think I have said enough about the Queensland responsibilities and the Queensland achievements to convince the House that it is collaboration- not confrontation- that we all must seek. Frankly, I was disappointed that this did not come out in the Minister’s second reading speech. In his Press conference on 23 May the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that he had written to the Queensland Premier at least 6 months ago, suggesting that a joint board or commission run the national park and that he would be disappointed if he did not receive the Premier’s co-operation. The Bill, as it stands, makes some gesture in the direction of securing that co-operation, but the Opposition felt that it did not go far enough. Clause 10 (3), of the Bill, as it stands, is worded in this way:

Before choosing the persons to be appointed as the first members or choosing a person to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the membership of the Authority, the Australian Government shall, in writing, invite the Queensland Government to consult with it concerning the appointments or appointment, as the case may be, and an appointment shall not be made until agreement has been reached between the Governments as to the persons or person to be appointed, as the case may be, or the expiration of the period of 3 months after the invitation, whichever is the earlier.

The Opposition felt that that clause, as it stood, had all the elements of confrontation in it. We felt that either the appointments should be jointly recommended by the Governor-General or the Queensland Government should be given the statutory right to appoint in its own right at least one member to the Authority. It was against this background that, as the Opposition shadow Minister for Environment and in association with the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), the former distinguished SolicitorGeneral, I commenced negotiations with the Minister for Environment to give more consideration to Queensland in the personnel to be appointed to the all-important Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Similarly, as the Bill is drafted, the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee is to consist of one member of the Authority and not fewer than 12 other members, with Queensland having the right to nominate not more than 3 members. This is an important committee. It is important to have on it representation from the various Commonwealth departments and it is even more important to have on it people with special qualifications, such as biologists, marine life specialists, ecologists and other people with scientific qualifications; but surely it is important to have people with specialist knowledge nominated by the Queensland Government, people who live in the area, people who know the area and people who are qualified to advise on the practical problems from first hand experience of the region. The Opposition felt that the Bill, as it stood, did not consider the full rights and the full needs of Queensland’s involvement in the exercise of powers within the Park itself. After consultation, the Minister has endeavoured, in his usual co-operative and sensible manner, to meet our concern. As a consequence, the Government will be moving amendments to provide that not less than one-third of the membership of the Authority and the Consultative Committee be nominated by the Queensland Government in its own right.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr HUNT:

– Before the suspension for luncheon I was making the point, on behalf of the Opposition, that it is very important to try to ensure that we obtain the complete co-operation and involvement of the Queensland Government and the Queensland authorities to ensure that the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef does flow from the legislative provisions of this Bill. I was talking about the need to ensure that there was direct Queensland Government representation upon the Authority that is to be established under the provisions of this Bill to administer the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We were dealing with the Consultative Committee which, under the terms of the Bill, will have 3 nominees from the Queensland Government. The Minister for Conservation (Dr Cass) and the Government have agreed to amend the legislation to give the same ratio of membership on the Consultative Committee as Queensland will have on the Authority itself in accordance with an amendment to be moved.

I wish to refer to another area of the legislation that was the cause of some concern to the Opposition and that is, that in clause 47 there are powers that are extremely wide, as indeed they need to be. They are powers that apply to inspectors who will have the job of policing the area and the region to ensure that damage is not done to the reef from one activity or another. But the powers that the inspector is to have are quite enormous. The inspector will be able to seize a vessel or an article and take it into custody. We felt that there was not provision in the Act to compensate an owner of a vessel or an article that was seized wrongfully- an owner who was not in contravention of the Act. So we sought cooperation from the Government, asking it to accept an amendment that would make it necessary for compensation to be made in the event of an article or vessel having been seized wrongfully. This has been accepted. It will mean now that an inspector will be able to take into custody a vessel or an article for a period of 7 days, and if he holds it longer than that, and if it is proved that the owner of that vessel or article was not in contravention of the Act, then the owner will be able to claim compensation for the inconvenience and/or the loss that might have been occasioned as a result of a wrongful seizure.

There could well be an objection by the Queensland Government even to the amendment which the Opposition is supporting. Queensland, I suspect, will claim that it should have the right to have equal representation on the Authority and equal representation on the Consultative Committee. If we do not achieve the type of co-operation that we are setting out to achieve, as a result of the limited Queensland Government representation, on behalf of the Opposition I give an undertaking that should we return to office we would be prepared to renegotiate these provisions with the Queensland

Government to give it equal representation on both the Authority and the Consultative Committee. We do this because it is necessary to ensure that there is smooth and co-operative action. There is also objection from the Queensland Government to the wide regulationmaking powers. We do not feel that we should hold up the legislation in order to alter the regulation-making powers in the Bill. We want to see this Bill passed through this House and the Senate today so that it will come into operation as soon as possible. But if in the course of time it is shown that the wide regulation-making powers, if they are used and cause friction and problems in the general administration of the park and bring about confrontation between this Government and the Queensland Government and the local authorities, we would, when in government, review those areas. I think I should conclude by saying that whilst we have the reservations that I have mentioned, the Opposition welcomes the Bill. We do not intend to delay its passage. I should like to quote again from the report of the Interim Committee on the National Estate to re-emphasise for the sake of all members of the Government and for all members of this House. I quote these remarks because they are worth putting on the record. The Committee states:

We also strongly believe that the most effective conservation movement will be one which has deep roots in local communities. We have therefore agreed that policies and programs for the protection and management of heritage sites must be developed in close co-operation with the States and local government

It is only because we feel that the present Bill does not give full expression to the necessity of achieving this co-operation that I have expressed these reservations on behalf of the Opposition. However, having said that, I want to stress again that the Bill represents an excellent first step to preserve the reef. As time goes on and deficiencies become clear, as indeed they will because this is the first time that an authority has even been set up to try to manage and to protect a marine park; of course there will be deficiencies and problems- I would expect that this Government or our own Parties, if in government, would quickly move to try to overcome those deficiencies by amending this Act.

We commend the objectives and also the motivation and the diligence and the cooperative attitude of the Minister for Environment and his Department for the way in which they have co-operated with me and with the Opposition in these and in other matters. I hope that the reports that are circulating that the Minister is to be removed from his portfolio are untrue. I think the Government would be most unwise to remove Dr Cass from this position. I say that sincerely, because he is seeking to achieve the sort of co-operative community involvement in matters affecting our environment that is needed. He is to be commended for it, and I wish him well with this legislation. The Opposition is anxious to give it speedy passage.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I also should like to congratulate the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) on his initiative and the initiative of his Department in bringing forward this legislation, which marks another very great step forward in the field of conservation. Without any doubt the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which is to be established by this Bill will be one of the great marine parks of the world. I should also like to congratulate the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who leads for the Opposition on matters of this kind, on the very reasoned and reasonable speech which he made and on the support which the Opposition is giving to the Bill. It is true that the Minister is a most flexible and co-operative Minister; he is always willing to listen to suggestions and criticisms and to take them into account. I should like to express my support for those views which have already been expressed by my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Gwydir.

I note that the boundaries of the proposed Great Barrier Reef Marine Park extend, as I take it, due east from Cape York, excluding substantial areas of the Torres Strait and going to the edge of the continental shelf somewhere east of the 200-metre line and again being terminated by a line somewhat north of Fraser Island. This area includes almost all of the Australian continental shelf in the Queensland area. I wonder whether the northern boundary has been truncated at that point because of a desire not to beg the question of boundaries in the Torres Strait area, but obviously there are areas to the north of the present proposed boundaries that should, at some time in the future, be attached to the park, given the different environmental circumstances of some of the islands immediately north of Cape York. One would hope that that is a matter that the Government, the Department and, indeed, the organisation set up under this legislation will keep in mind.

It has been argued that this is a matter that should have awaited the challenges at present before the High Court on the questions of the law of the sea, the extent of the territorial sea, which government controls the seabed, and where the boundary of that control lies on the landward side of the sea. But the legislation excludes very carefully those areas which are under the control of the State of Queensland, so it is difficult to imagine that any decision of the High Court could affect the legislation. Whichever way the court decision may go, I think the Bill takes that decision into account. So, I think there is no obvious need for conflict with the State of Queensland, although I welcome the Government’s proposed amendment, which will be moved later this afternoon, because it strengthens Queensland’s involvement in the present authority.

I would like to support what the member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said about the need for close co-operation with the State of Queensland if the total objective is to be attained and also if the proper management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is to be effected. This Park encloses islands that are part of Queensland, many of which are entirely national parks or sanctuaries at present, and some of those islands, of course, also have on them areas which are tourist resorts, but together this is going to be a major national park complex, not only with the Marine Park established by this Bill but also because of the national parks on the islands off Queensland which this Marine Park will enclose, and so it will be necessary for this Marine Park to be administered taking into account what happens on those islands and what happens on the mainland.

The matter of pollution has been mentioned and, of course, the Reef is very prone to pollution, as indeed marine life generally is prone to pollution. I, as a former officer of the Queensland Treasury Department, well recall that, as in those days we administered the Department of Harbours and Marine in that State, from time to time matters came before the Treasurer of the day dealing with pollution, including the effluent from sugar mills. Frequently there were instances of fish being poisoned in the coastal streams because of material from the sugar mills flowing into those streams. The successful growing of sugar cane involves using very large quantities of pesticides and fertilisers, and the effect of these is little known insofar as the marine environment is concerned.

Then, of course, there is the existence of present and future industries which could affect the Reef. One thinks of the new Greenvale nickel refinery. I know it is under the control of the State authorities in Queensland, in terms of the Pure Water Act, and presumably there will be no pollution from that, but again it is a matter that comes under State control and it is important that the State government should be sympathetic to the purpose of this Bill. We have, of course, sewage from the major centres, the developing centres of population on the Queensland coast, and we have the local problems from the tourist resorts on some of the islands on the Reef which I have mentioned previously.

Many of the tourist resorts are wellestablished. One thinks of Lindeman Island, where the Nicholson family has conducted a tourist resort for some 50 years. The Lindeman family is very very careful about environmental considerations, but in more recent times, in some of the other resorts, it has been obvious when one has looked at the area that not enough care has been given, and these are matters that are going to require considerable care and attention. Then, of course, there are the activities of State Government instrumentalities, and I suppose one would think of dredge spoil and the way in which the beaches around Magnetic Island have been despoliated over a large number of years, due to the dumping of dredge spoil from the port of Townsville. If all those matters to which I have referred are to be controlled effectively, they will require the co-operation of the State of Queensland, and so I join with the honourable member for Gwydir in underlining the importance of that co-operation. I hope that, following the passing of this legislation, a pattern of cooperation with the Queensland Government will be evolved which will ensure that this great Marine Park becomes a successful operation.

I am pleased to see reference in clause 7 of the Bill to the matter of scientific research being taken into account, because it is a fact of life that comparatively little is known about the Great Barrier Reef, given the vast amount of knowledge yet to be disclosed. We have in Queensland an organisation not comprised exclusively of Queenslanders but, indeed, drawing membership from the other States and overseas. It is known as the Great Barrier Reef Committee. It was set up more than 50 years ago on an initiative of the Royal Geographical Society in Queensland, and in those early days it benefited much from the leadership of Professor H. C. Richards, then the Professor of Geology at the University of Queensland. The Committee has sponsored several major expeditions to the Reef and it is at present sponsoring another such expedition. For many, many years it has conducted a marine research station on Heron Island, and I know that this organisation, above all others, has proved itself in the research work that it has carried out on the Reef.

I would hope that the Minister, when he is setting up the Great Barrier Reef Consultative

Committee, would draw on the knowledge available to the Great Barrier Reef Committee in considering some, at any rate, of the appointments to be made to the committee. This organisation has already established itself and is well regarded throughout the world. It has shown a continuous interest in the Reef and it works in close co-operation with the University of Queensland, which now administers the marine research station on Heron Island. Of course, one could also point to the work being done at the James Cook University at Townsville and also, hopefully, the work which in the future will be done by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which will be domiciled on the Reef close to Townsville.

It is good to see that this area of scientific research is recognised in the Bill. It is extremely important, not only because of the value of the work itself, but also because of the way in which that research will be important for the proper management of the Marine Park. This is a day on which we have a very heavy program and I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House. I know that the initiative taken in the Bill will be well received in Queensland. I am sure it will be well received throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. The Great Barrier Reef is not only a scientific wonderland, it is also a great centre of tourism, an area of great beauty and an area where people go to restore their health- to get away from the rush and bustle of our cities and perhaps the environmental problems there. A balance has to be worked out between the conservation and protection of the marine park, the tourist industry and those other industries that already exist in the area. I believe that this Bill is a good piece of legislation, something that will be well received through Queensland and throughout Australia. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

-I am wholeheartedly in favour of the concept of the Great Barrier Reef being declared a national marine park. But I have some reservations regarding the machinery necessary to achieve this as outlined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill 1975. To my way thinking there are some provisions of the Bill that should be more definite and explicit. Some are too loose, leaving them wide open for misinterpretation. As the Minister for the Environment (Dr Cass) said in his second reading speech, the Barrier Reef is a vast collection of islands and coral reefs extending some 1900 kilometres along our northeastern coastline. But I notice that it is intended that only sections of this area will be proclaimed as a national marine park- at least that is how I interpret the Minister’s second reading speech and the Bill. The Minister certainly used a broad brush method- there is no doubt about thatwhen he said: Some zones will be set aside for tourist development, shipping, fishing and other appropriate uses.

I should like to know why only portions of the Reef region will be declared a marine park. Why not declare the whole of the Reef- its entire length and surrounds- as a marine park? I know that this would make the people of north Queensland a lot happier. Declarations of sections of the Reef for scientific purposes could still be made. I have a reason for suggesting that. The entire coastline of north Queensland depends completely on the protection of the Reef from tidal surge and any wave activity from the Pacific Ocean. From Cooktown in the north to Rockhampton in central Queensland there are a number of coastal cities and towns which are only a few feet above sea level. This includes such cities as Cairns, Townsville and Mackay. Any profound interference with the structure of the Reef could be disastrous. That is a point that is always with us in north Queensland.

A further important reason for the declaration of the whole of the Reef as a park was raised by the Minister when he said:

Marine ecosystems, especially the rich inshore parts, are vital to the survival of many species- including man.

While I have no doubt that those areas not declared a park could come under some sort of surveillance, authority to arrest and prosecute offenders would be restricted. So I ask again: Why not declare the whole of the Reef area a marine park and not just portions of it? Another matter which causes me concern is the wording of the Bill in regard to co-operation with the State of Queensland. Queensland has a big stake in the Barrier Reef in many quarters- tourism, fishing and scientific research to name just a few. The wording of the Bill in clause 8 is a good example of the reason for my concern. This clause states definitely that the appointed authority can ‘enter into contracts’ although there is no mention of the kind or type of contracts. This must lead to an open-ended- in fact wide openinterpretation. The authority can also ‘occupy, use and control any land or building owned or held under lease by Australia and made available for the purposes of the Authority’ and most important, can ‘acquire, hold and dispose of real or personal property’. This to me is too much licence to give to any government alone, let alone any constituted authority of 3 men. Yet the Government tempers the blow by stating in clause 8 (3) that the authority has power to perform any of its functions in co-operation with Queensland, with an authority of that State or with a local governing body in that State. If the Federal Government were fair dinkum in its desire to co-operate with Queensland why is not the wording in the Bill: ‘The authority will perform its functions in co-operation with Queensland . . .*? Clause (2). of Part IV of the Bill states:

The Minister may enter into an arrangement with the Queensland Government for not more than 3 persons nominated by that Government to be appointed members of the Committee.

And again in clause 42 ( 1 ) the Bill states:

The Australian Government may make arrangements with the Queensland Government for the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under this Act -

I should like to know- perhaps the Minister might explain to me- what this word ‘may’ means? Does it mean that permission is granted such as in the sentence: ‘You may do this’? Or does it mean that the Government might or might not do something? The wording makes for loose interpretation. There is nothing definite about co-operation with Queensland. I mentioned before that Queensland has a big stake in the Reef and this loose wording is not good enough. Why not substitute the word ‘will’ for ‘may*? Then Queensland could be sure of cooperative action and the intention of the Federal Government would not be suspect.

I notice that the Reef Consultative Committee will consist of a member of the Authority, 3 members nominated by the Queensland Government and not fewer than 12 other members, making a total of 16 members. I notice also that the members shall be appointed by the Minister. That wording in the Bill is definite enough, so why not make it all definite? The proper formation of this important Committee is a must. I counsel the Minister- as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) have mentionedthat the members be chosen carefully and to the best advantage. I hope that these positions will not become another case of jobs for the boys. The members should have expertise in matters affecting the Reef. There are men in the north, one I can recall in particular, whose knowledge of the Reef and its waters, the currents etc., have received world wide recognition. There are professional fishermen who have spent a life-time studying the habits of fish in Reef waters. There are many other men who have spent many years making a study of the Reef. These are the people who should serve on such a committee. Their knowledge would be of tremendous advantage to the Authority.

Also, the Bill states that a member may be a representative of an authority or organisation. I hope this includes local government authorities. I think it is most desirable that local councils or shires which have a common interest in the Reef should have representation on the Committee. In Part VI of the Bill titled ‘Administration’ considerable emphasis is placed on the policing of the parks and zones. In my opinion this is one of the major matters of importance in the legislation and every facility should be made available to allow the inspectors to carry out their tasks of policing the area thoroughly. It is an extremely large area to cover and in lots of instances the Reef is not easily accessible from the mainland. Therefore some form of air surveillance may be necessary in conjunction or cooperation with fast patrol launches. But I stress that co-operation with the Queensland State Government in policing the area is a matter of major importance.

One of the clauses of the Bill that really interests us in north Queensland is clause 38, which states that there will be no drilling or mining allowed in an area designated as a marine park. I go all the way with this. But earlier I mentioned my concern at only portions of the Reef being declared a marine park, according to my interpretation of the Bill. If this is so, will drilling and mining be allowed in those areas not declared? I think this is another excellent reason why the whole of the Reef area should be declared a national park. This would certainly tighten up the looseness of this clause of the Bill.

It has been said, and I think mentioned also by the honourable member for Brisbane, that the Reef is in more danger from passing oil tankers because of the possibility of oil spillage than it would ever be from drilling operations. Well, this could be so, but I do not think we could afford to take this chance; nor do I think that we should ever consider permitting drilling to be carried out. To assist in avoiding the possible spillage from tankers which have run aground on the Reef- a few ships passing through have run aground- I would suggest that one of the primary tasks of the proposed Authority would be to define clearly and to mark a navigational passage through the Reef waters, which would assist considerably in eliminating the possibility of a tanker striking the Reef. In that event the owners of any tanker found proceeding outside this clearly marked passage could be lawfully prosecuted.

I notice in clause 66 (2). that regulations may be made to regulate or prohibit in the marine parks the use of nets and fishing apparatus, etc. I trust that it will be remembered that there is a big fishing and prawning industry in the north that uses the waters of the Reef extensively. Any restrictions on this usage could have an adverse effect on that industry. This also reminds me that there are many people who fish the Reef waters for recreational purposes. This recreation is traditional in the north. Again, I trust that this activity will not be restricted in any way.

I have mentioned my support for this Bill, but I strongly urge the Government to consider the alterations that I have mentioned in order to make this Bill more definite in its intent. I have mentioned also that the Queensland State Government has a big stake in the protection of the Reef. Consideration of closer co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government should be of major importance. Any amendment that may be moved in an endeavour to guarantee this cooperation will receive my wholehearted support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 9- by leave- taken together.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I rise to speak to clause 7 which deals with the functions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In doing so, as I did not have the opportunity because of the arrangements that were made to speak on the second reading of this Bill, I wish to stress that I, too, welcome the establishment of this marine park. I fully concur with all those remarks which stressed the scientific importance of the area. The Great Barrier Reef is obviously one of those areas in the world which can truthfully be said to be unique. It does not belong just to one section of Australia or to Australia as a whole; it belongs to the world. Therefore, it is of immense importance in that respect as it is of great importance for its social and recreational value. As the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) has pointed out, the Great Barrier Reef plays a very large part in the life style and in supporting the lives of many individual Queenslanders.

I was a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee which inquired into wildlife conservation. One of the recommendations of that Select Committee, which reported in 1972, related specifically to the marine areas of the Great Barrier Reef. I think that it is worthwhile picking up this point. In paragraph 129 of its report the Committee says:

New South Wales aims to establish a number of marine national parks, but the marine environment of the greatest extent and interest is clearly the Great Barrier Reef.

The report goes on to deal with the importance of the Great Barrier Reef. This aspect has been stressed by other speakers in this debate. The report talks about the scientific, aesthetic and recreational reasons for regarding the Great Barrier Reef as being of particular importance. But the main point which this report stresses- and I think it was the first major report which did stress this aspect- is the fact that the Committee accepted at that time and recommended that the Great Barrier Reef should be set aside as a marine national park and made secure against mineral exploration or exploitation. Clause 7 of the Bill deals with the recommendations of the Select Committee at that time.

I have a particular interest in this matter because as an Opposition backbencher in the previous Parliament I introduced a private members Bill in relation to the establishment of a Great Barrier Reef marine national park. I was pleased that such a program was announced in the Governor-General’s Speech in opening the present Parliament. In that Speech stress was laid on the need to establish such a park. Before the Committee now is the legislation which brings that proposal into effect.

I join with the honourable member for Herbert in saying that I am a little surprised that the legislation has not gone further to declare the whole of the area of the Great Barrier Reef as a national park. I think that a number of people would be much happier if the whole area had been set aside and then specific exceptions made rather than to follow the somewhat piecemeal approach which is adopted in this legislation.

The functions of the Authority are as laid down in the Bill. I draw attention to the difficulties of policing the administration of this very large area of water and the marine life to be found therein. If we are to do a really effective job in relation to this marine national park, a great deal more stress will need to be placed on such aspects as coastal surveillance and the allocation of additional moneys by all governments concerned to ensure that the provisions of this legislation are effectively policed. The greater the extent of special zones, the more difficult the job of policing them will become.

Mr Hunt:

– And stop the Royal Australian Air Force using it as a rocket range.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– As the honourable member for Gwydir says, one of the matters that we are worried about is the RAAF using parts of this Reef as a rocket range or as a bombing practice area. This action will need to cease forthwith. We also have the problem of people, not all of them Australians, engaged in fishing on the Great Barrier Reef. This will pose a great difficulty for those charged with the job of policing the marine park.

I believe that, at all times, those charged with the authority to administer this park must keep in mind the very diverse nature of the uses of the area. It would be a pity if one group or another gained ascendancy on the Authority and forgot about the multiple uses of this very extensive area of the globe. For instance, purely scientific research could be over-emphasised to the detriment of the ability of people to make use of the magnificent opportunities that are available within this area to follow other pursuits. I congratulate the Government on bringing this legislation forward. I have some reservations about other clauses. But as this legislation realises a dream that I have had for some time, I am fully in support of the Government’s initiatives in this legislation.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 10.

  1. Before choosing the persons to be appointed as the first members or choosing a person to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the membership of the Authority, the Australian Government shall, in writing, invite the Queensland Government to consult with it concerning the appointments or appointment, as the case may be, and an appointment shall not be made until agreement has been reached between the Governments as to the persons or person to be appointed, as the case may be, or the expiration of the period of 3 months after the invitation, whichever is the earlier.
Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I move:

Omit sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clauses: ‘(3) Subject to sub-section (3a), one of the pan-time members shall be a person appointed on the nomination of the Queensland Government. ‘(3a) Where-

the Australian Government has invited the Queensland Government to nominate to the Minister a person to be appointed to a vacant office of parttime member (whether or not the office has been previously filled); and

at the expiration of 3 months after the invitation, the Queensland Government has not nominated a person having the qualifications referred to in sub-section ( 5 ) for appointment to the office, a person other than a person nominated by the Queensland Government may be appointed to the office notwithstanding that, upon the appointment, there will not be a part-time member who is a person appointed on the nomination of the Queensland Government. ‘.

My amendment relates to the appointment of members of the Marine Park Authority. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) indicated, we discussed the appointment. We are happy to move this amendment which gives the Queensland Government the specific right to appoint one member of the 3-member Authority. If the Queensland Government should not comply with a request by the Australian Government to provide such a nomination within 3 months, the Australian Government undertakes to appoint that member itself.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I am very pleased that the Government has adopted the amendment. I wish to speak to sub-clause ( 7 ) of clause 10. Sub-clause (7) reads:

The appointment of a member is not invalidated and shall not be called in question by reason of a defect or irregularity in, or in connection with, his selection or appointment.

I am not a lawyer, but that provision seems to me to be open to a number of interpretations. For example, if a person is appointed irregularly or if the preceding conditions of appointment are not complied with, it would seem that sub-clause (7) would allow that person to retain his appointment. I believe that it is a let-out provision to cover a situation in which a person is appointed on the basis that he has a high reputation in the field of biological conservation and somebody later says that he has not. That may be the intent of the sub-clause but on a sheer reading of the sub-clause as printed it seems to me to have a wider application.

Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I must accept that this sub-clause is a let-out .provision for the difficult situation, as has been suggested. We have tried to define the sort of people who should be appointed. Perhaps we can have another look at this matter to see whether there is any obvious defect in its wording which would allow the irregular appointment of a member. I understand that all the legal eagles think that this is a not unreasonable proposition. I am not a lawyer either.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 21- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 22.

  1. 1 ) The Committee shall consist of-

    1. a member of the Authority nominated by the Authority;
    2. such persons as are appointed members of the Committee by virtue of arrangements under sub-section (2); and
    3. not fewer than 12 other members.
  2. The Minister may enter into an arrangement with the Queensland Government for not more than 3 persons nominated by that Government to be appointed members of the Committee.
  3. The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Minister.
  4. A member of the Committee referred to in paragraph ( 1 )(c) may be appointed to represent a Department or authority of Australia or an organization, being a Department, authority or organization with interests in the Great Barrier Reef Region, and the Minister shall ensure that, as far as practicable, Departments and authorities of Australia with those interests are so represented.
  5. A member of the Authority is not eligible to be a member of the Committee referred to in paragraph (l)(b) or (D(c).
  6. The preformance of the functions of the Committee is not affected by reason only of there being a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Committee.
Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– Clause 22 relates to the appointment of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee to advise the Authority. As forecast in the second reading speech, we will be seeking to have on this Committee people interested in this area who can advise us on how best to manage it. The Government again has accepted the representations made by the Opposition and has clarified the position of the would-be nominees of the Queensland Government. The provisions conform fairly closely with what basically was agreed to in regard to the appointments to the Authority.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson) Does the Minister seek leave to move amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 together?

Dr CASS:
The CHAIRMAN:

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

Dr CASS:

Omit sub-clauses (1) and (2) and substitute the following sub-clauses: ‘( 1 ) The Committee shall consist of-

  1. a member of the Authority nominated by the Authority; and
  2. such number of other members, not being less than 12, as the Minister from time to time determines. ‘(2) Subject to sub-section (2b), not less than one-third of the number of members referred to in paragraph (1) (b) shall be persons nominated for appointment by the Queensland Government. ‘(2a) Before appointing any member or members referred to in paragraph ( 1) (b) at a time when there are not already members nominated by the Queensland Government not less in number than one-third of the number of members for the time being determined by the Minister in accordance with that paragraph, the Minister shall, in writing, invite the

Queensland Government to nominate a person or persons for appointment to the Committee, but so that the number of persons nominated is not to exceed the number of appointments that are to be made or the number sufficient to cause the membership of the Committee to comply with subsection (2), whichever is the less. ‘(2b) To the extent that the Queensland Government does not nominate a person or persons in accordance with an invitation under sub-section (2a) within 3 months after receipt of the invitation, the Minister may appoint to the vacant place or places a person or persons not nominated by that Government. ‘.

In sub-clause (4) omit ‘paragraph (1) (c) substitute ‘paragraph ( l)(b)

In sub-clause (5) omit ‘or ( 1 ) (c) ‘.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 34- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 35.

  1. 1 ) Where the Authority decides that a zoning plan is to provide for a special zonefa) the Authority shall inform the Director of that decision and supply him with particulars of the zone; and

    1. as soon as practicable after the Director has been so informed, he shall prepare a plan of management in respect of that zone as if it were a park or a reserve, as the case may be, and sub-sections 1 1 (2) to ( 16) and, subject to sub-section (3) of this section, sections 12 and 13 of that Act apply in relation to the plan of management as if it were a plan of management prepared in pursuance of sub-section 11(1) of that Act.
Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (1) paragraph (b), omit ‘that act’, insert ‘National Parks Act’.

This is a purely technical amendment due to a misprint in or omission from the Bill. Without the amendment, the reference is not clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 46- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 47.

  1. 1 ) where a court convicts a person of an offence against this Act, the court may order the forfeiture to Australia of any vessel or article used or otherwise involved in the commission of the offence.
  2. An inspector may seize any vessel or article that he reasonably believes to have been used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence against this Act and may retain it until the expiration of a period of 60 days after the seizure or, if a prosecution of an offence against this Act in the commission of which it may have been used or otherwise involved is instituted within that period, until the prosecution is terminated.
  3. The Authority may authorize a vessel or article seized under sub-section (2) to be released to its owner, or to the person from whose possession it was seized, either unconditionally or on such conditions as it thinks fit, including conditions as to the giving of security for payment of its value if it is forfeited.
  4. A vessel or article forfeited under this section may be sold or otherwise disposed of as the Authority thinks fit.
  5. A warden may seize any animal or plant that he reasonably believes to have been killed or taken in contravention of this Act.
  6. Where an animal or plant has been seized under subsection ( 5 ), the Authority may cause it to be-

    1. retained; or
    2. b) sold or otherwise disposed of.
  7. 7 ) Where an animal or plant seized under sub-section ( S ) was not killed or taken in contravention of this Act, any person who has suffered loss or damage by reason of the seizure is entitled to reasonable compensation.
Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– -This clause relates to the situation in which somebody in authority seizes a vessel or article because it is felt at the time that it might have been involved in some misdemeanour in the area, but subsequently that is found not to have been the case. The Opposition spokesman made the point to the Government that this could mean some considerable burden to an individual who, for example, was unnecessarily deprived of the use of his vessel while the position was being clarified. On the other hand, the Government has sought to provide some time in which to establish the truth or otherwise of the claim that something has been going on that should not have been going on. In discussion we have agreed to a compromise which allows the vessel or article to be held for a period not exceeding 7 days. If in that time some resolution can be achieved, well and good; but, if it is felt necessary to detain the vessel for longer than that time and subsequently it is found that it was not involved in any misdemeanour, the owner could reasonably expect some compensation. The Government is quite happy with this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister seek leave to move amendments Nos 5 and 6 together?

Dr CASS:
The CHAIRMAN:

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

Dr CASS:

After sub-clause (2) insert the following sub-clause:- ‘(2a) Where a vessel or article seized under sub-section (2) and retained for a period exceeding 7 days was not used or otherwise involved m the commission of an offence, any person who has suffered loss or damage by reason of the seizure is entitled to reasonable compensation.’.

At the end of the clause add the following sub-clause:- ‘(8) Compensation under this section is payable by Australia and may be awarded- i

  1. by a court dealing with an alleged offence against this Act in relation to which the vessel, article, animal or plant was seized; or
  2. by any federal court or court of a State or Territory having jurisdiction in actions for the recovery of debts up to an amount not less than the amount of compensation claimed. ‘.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 61- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 62.

In any proceedings for an offence against this Act, an averment of the prosecutor, contained in the information or complaint, that, at a specified time-

  1. the defendant was in the Marine Park or in a specified zone; or
  2. an animal, plant, aircraft, vessel or article referred to in the information or complaint was in the Marine Park or in a specified zone, is prima facie evidence of the matter averred.
Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-Clause 62 is what is commonly known as an averment clause. Honourable members will know that my Party, when in government, was not without guilt in insisting from time to time that averment clauses be contained in legislation. The reason for that view when my Party was in office, and no doubt the reason that would be advanced for the inclusion of a clause as wide as clause 62 in this Bill if the matter were pursued, is that it facilitates the prosecution in certain circumstances, particularly where technical matters have to be dealt with. Honourable members might be aware that there are clauses of this nature in such Acts as the Dairy Research Act, the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Repatriation Act, the Dairy Research Levy Act, the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Act and the Public Order (Prosecution of Persons and Property) Act. There is any number of them. If one went through the debates on those Bills one would find that numerous speeches were made, perhaps even by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), in which the use of clauses of this nature were criticised.

When we were discussing at an earlier time the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill, I drew attention to clause 65 of that Bill which was in similar terms to clause 62 of the Bill now under consideration. On that occasion I indicated that the clause was wider than even the clause contained in the National Parks and Wildlife Act of New South Wales. That put a start up me because I would have thought that, if anything, New South Wales would have been well in front of this Government, not behind it, in terms of averment clauses. Therefore, I did a little research and spoke to the officers concerned. I found that this clause was intended to facilitate proving that the place where an offence occurred was within the boundaries of a national park or, in this case, within the boundaries of the Marine Park. The reason for the averment clause was to avoid the necessity of having to bring a surveyor into court to prove that the place was within the boundaries of the park. The clause as drafted however is of wider operation.

Upon averment of this fact if the defendant wanted to dispute whether or not he was within the boundaries of a park, he would have to place the matter in issue. This would make it easier to facilitate the prosecution. I accept that this may be a reasonable basis, although I have a personal aversion to averment clauses in general. I therefore thought that it may well be desirable that on this occasion I put an amendment to the Parliament to avoid the possible difficulty of having to bring into court a surveyor to prove matters and having necessarily to put the matter in issue in the first place. I understand that the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) may consent to the amendment. I move:

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong · ALP

-The Government is quite happy to accept the amendment. We agree with the principle mentioned by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-Today is a very important day. It is World Environment Day. It is 5 June. It is also the day when the Stockholm environmental conference began in 1972. I hope that it is also the day when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) abandons any thought of removing Dr Cass as Minister for Environment. Nobody else on the other side of the chamber has shown more competence to do this task. I know that sometimes the words of friends can be the kiss of death, but I hope they are not on this occasion.

Obviously this is a very significant Bill, but particular clauses have a particular significance. The aim of the Bill is to preserve the marine environment. Clause 65 provides: . . . this Act applies, according to its tenor, to all persons, including foreigners, and to all vessels and aircraft, including foreign vessels and aircraft, whether or not they are within the limits of Australia and the Australian coastal sea.

It then proceeds:

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

This Bill, as did the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill, seeks to embrace a great deal of Commonwealth power, but basically it has to depend on the external affairs power and on the convention on the continental shelf. That of course enables Australia, as a sovereign state, to explore and exploit the national resources of the continental shelf. That power is given to Australia as a sovereign nation for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the shelf, and with it goes that degree of sovereignty that is necessary. However one cannot consider that without also considering the effect of the convention on the high seas, which provides that, the high seas being open to all nations, no state may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Of course the high seas are that area beyond the 3-mile limit.

One of the questions that has to be considered in relation to this measure and particularly clause 65 is whether it bases itself soundly in constitutional power, because it would be tragic if Australia and this Parliament had no power to control the marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef. It is a matter that has given me some concern. I expressed it in relation to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill, which the Opposition supported wholeheartedly and to which I have given some thought since it was debated here. As I raised a doubt then, I want to say now that it does seem to me that there is sufficient power to be gleaned from the continental shelf convention in order to support this measure.

Mr Whitlam:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The Prime Minister naturally says: ‘Hear, hear! ‘ At the same time, however, the Bill purports to have an effect which might to some seem to be an assertion of sovereignty over a wide area of the high seas. Clause 65 says that the legislation applies to foreign vessels as well as vessels flying the Australian flag. Of course jurisdiction under the high seas convention can only be exercised usually over our own vessels and not over foreign vessels. We can exercise the right of hot pursuit out of the 3-mile territorial zone over foreign vessels. Clause 65 (1) might appear to go beyond power. However clause 65 (2) says this:

This Act has effect subject to the obligations of Australia under international law -

That is the draftsman’s means of ensuring the validity of this measure.

Mr Whitlam:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ELLICOTT:

-However-and I do not want to disappoint the Prime Minister- clause 66, with which we are also dealing, gives a very wide regulation-making power. I think it is true to say- and again the Prime Minister will say: ‘Hear, hear!’- that this is the first measure perhaps anywhere in the world to establish by legislation a marine park. I have not been able to find any other piece of similar legislation. There may be some. Because it attempts to assert or seems to assert a great deal of control but yet subjects it to the obligations under international law there is, I suggest, a grave burden on the draftsman drafting the regulations to ensure that he stays within power. The reason I rise on this matter is merely to highlight the fact that that situation exists and that the draftsman might give attention to this most difficult problem- first of all the situation as to foreign vessels vis-a-vis our own vessels, and secondly the extent of power under the continental shelf convention, which relates to exploitation and conservation of natural resources. Coral, of course, is a living thing and therefore it is part of the natural resources of the seabed and therefore should fall within the relevant article of the convention on the continental shelf. However those steps that are taken in order to protect it have to be related to that very matter.

Clause 66 provides that regulations may be made, for instance, providing for the removal of vessels from places in the Marine Park where they have been left in contravention of the regulations or have been abandoned, and for the impounding of such vessels. One honourable member has already referred to the rights of fisheries in these areas. Fishermen’s rights have to be taken into account. The right of movement over the high seas has to be taken into account, and therefore what might seem on the face of it a very wide regulation-making power, in order to stay within validity, should be read down so that the measures that are taken are clearly relevant to the protection and the conservation of the marine environment concerned. My only point- I hope it is not regarded as pedantic- is to signal that fact, because the Bill does give the impression on the face of it that Australia is attempting to assert sovereignty over a very wide area of the continental shelf and of the high seas. Of the former, it may well do because of the convention; of the latter it cannot because of the convention on the high seas.

I wish to refer to one other matter. In case there be any doubt I suggest that one of our efforts in the law of the sea discussions should be to achieve a situation where coastal States have either a right or an obligation to preserve the marine environment around their shores, not unrealistically and not without regard to the rights of fishermen, traditional or otherwise, but having regard to the fact that it is part of the heritage of Australia and indeed of the world beyond. To date there is no such provision in the continental shelf convention. There are provisions relating to pollution of the seas from oil and the like, and from radio active wastes. These provisions we relied on in the nuclear test case. But there is no provision of the nature that I have just mentioned. I would suggest that as a means of asserting the obligations of nations as well as assisting the powers of this Parliament it would be helpful in a future convention on the continental shelf to find such a power to exist.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Dr Cass)- by leave- read a third time.

page 3436

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Having read the transcript of Hansard of 2 June I would point out that in my speech on the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill I made mention of the need for a national disaster fund. However, I used the words ‘Australian Government Insurance Corporation’ when I intended to say national disaster fund.

page 3436

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– by leave- When I last reported to the

House on the Government’s achievements at the end of the last sessional period in December I stressed the continuing importance of the Government’s programs. I emphasised that we would press ahead with our programs in fulfilment of the undertakings we had given to the Australian people. The people had twice endorsed those programs at the elections of 1972 and 1974. They had twice confirmed the trust placed in us. The last 6 months- this first sessional period of 1975- have brought us closer to the great goals we proclaimed. For all the difficulties, for all the distractions and diversions we have faced in this place and outside, for all the propaganda of our opponents, for all the obstruction of the State government and vested interests, for all the denigration of the Press, this has been a period of great and positive achievement by the Australian Government. This is very much a time to keep those achievements in mind, to put the record in perspective, to reflect on the basic strength and prosperity of the nation, the underlying strength of the economy, the real gains we have made in social reform and social justice and in the living standards of the Australian people.

The last 6 months have certainly not been easy. When was there a time when the task of government was easy? Where is there a country where government is easy? We began the year in the aftermath of the Darwin cyclone- the greatest natural disaster Australia has known. It was followed by a second calamity in Hobart involving appalling social disruption and loss of life. The Government’s response to these calamities was prompt and generous. I know that all honourable members will join me in a tribute to the natural disaster organisation for its handling of the Darwin crisis, and to the Darwin people themselves for their fortitude and undaunted spirit. We immediately established a Darwin Reconstruction Commission and entrusted it with the massive task of rebuilding the city. We agreed to establish a joint Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission. We have committed more than $58m to the Darwin reconstruction program and have made an initial grant of $6m for Hobart. I need hardly stress that in times of economic difficulty, disasters of this magnitude place new and unprecedented demands on the nation’s material and financial resources. Unstinting and unquestioning though our response has been, the Darwin and Hobart disasters have certainly not made it easier to contend with the economic difficulties facing Australiadifficulties which Australia shares with all other comparable countries.

We can, however, take heart from signs of improvement already apparent in the economy. Of course it is not a time for complacency; there is still a need for steady judgment and a calm, rational approach to our difficulties. But there is good reason to believe that a recovery is underway. Consumer confidence, reflected in rising retail sales and higher disposable incomes, has shown significant gains. Private investment in the basic areas of the economy is rising. The important thing to remember is that the Government’s policies have put money in the pockets of Australians. People are more prosperous today than they have ever been.

Whenever we hear criticism of this Government’s policies remember this simple fact: The Australian people have never been better offbetter off in the money they have to spend, better off in their real incomes, better off in the range of services and opportunites available to them from this Government’s agencies and programs. Since December 1972 incomes of wage and salary earners have grown much faster than the cost of living. Average minimum weekly award rates for men have increased by 53 per cent; for women by no less than 75 per cent. Real average weekly earnings after tax for all wage and salary earners have increased by 7.3 per cent since this Government came into office. In addition, we have tackled the great and difficult problem of wage indexation. In its historic judgment of 30 April the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission accepted the Government’s case for a restoration of quarterly cost of living adjustments. With reason and goodwill we can make this reform work. Properly applied, it can bring greater benefits and greater material security to all wage earners and contribute to the solution of our long-term economic problems.

For all that, we do not see real living standards solely in money terms. We have never done so. The real prosperity of the Australian people lies increasingly in the quality of the services governments provide for the whole community. That higher order of prosperity- that wider and deeper commitment to the people’s gooddepends on the success of our social programs. My Government has given primacy to this Parliament as the chief instrument of social reform. Our programs are essentially legislative programs; the measure of their scope and importance can be seen in the number of Bills passed through this Parliament. Our legislative program in our first 2 years surpassed all records since Federation- 254 Bills introduced in 1973, 229 in 1974. So far this year, to the close of business last night, Parliament has sat for 421 hours and a total of 126 Bills has been introduced. It is a formidable achievement. I think it proper to acknowledge that the Opposition, under its new leadership, has behaved with greater decorum in this Parliament than previously. This has certainly meant a more rational and more orderly despatch of business. It does not mean that the Opposition has abandoned its tactics of obstruction. It does mean that the proceedings of this House have been less demeaning to the reputation of parliamentary democracy.

I interpolate here to pay tribute also to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and his counterpart in Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair), who have worked together very well indeed to see that the hours of the Parliament have been spent effectively. We have spent a very great number of hours sitting, but an exceptionally large percentage of those hours in fact has been taken up in proper debate. A greater percentage of the Parliament’s time has been concerned with proper Parliamentary business than has been the case for a couple of years.

We have seen this year a number of significant Government programs brought to fruition. Others have been brought to the point of implementation. Their benefits will soon be flowing to the Australian people and the particular groups who need them- the low-income earners, the children, the sick, the handicapped. Radical and enduring social reform is not achieved overnight It is not achieved by spending more money, though money is certainly needed. It requires new institutions, new scales and priorities, new social attitudes, new political guidelines, new efforts at co-operation, new men and women in positions of authority. This process can be difficult and painfully protracted, but eventually the results will show. We have seen it in the creation of Medibank, now the law of the land, a great pioneering reform which the reluctant States have been driven inexorably to accept, because they know that they themselves will benefit and above all that the people will benefit. What a lesson our opponents have learned. After all the obstruction in this Parliament, after all the attempts to delay the Medibank Bills- not just the basic. legislation which the people specifically endorsed, but the ancillary Bills to establish and finance the program- the anti-Labor States are now seeking to join the Medibank scheme and, if their advertisements can be believed, even taking some of the credit for it.

One of the themes of all our reforms has been to assert the principle of competition- free and fair competition in a mixed economy, productive competition between private and public enterprise. We have seen the benefits of such competition in the airlines and the banks. We shall extend it to other fields. In the face of an unscrupulous and continuing campaign of misrepresentation, we have passed legislation in this House to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It will provide the widest possible cover for homes at the lowest possible premiums and offer a wide range of insurance services. What public initiative can achieve in health insurance it can achieve in fair competition in general insurance.

We have developed and extended our legal aid service. Six regional offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office have been opened this year and more than 60 000 people have been assisted. We have set up an Australian Housing Corporation to take action in areas where the existing housing system is unable to meet existing housing needs. Already this year we have funded the construction by State housing authorities of 13 580 homes for low-income earners- 5000 more than the number built in 1973-74. We have established the Australian Film Commission to promote local film production. These are allareashousing, Medibank, general insurance, legal aid, film production- where existing services have failed to meet demonstrable human or social needs, or where competition is likely to bring new benefits to the consumer.

Let me give a further example in a field where progress thus year has been remarkable. I refer to transport. In my last statement of this kind I mentioned our massive contribution to national and urban roads programs. Those programs are well in hand. The outstanding area of progress this year, however, has been the railways. Suburban commuters, in Sydney especially, may wonder at that statement. Their overcrowded and increasingly inadequate rail services continue to decline in frequency and quality while the States refuse our offers, repeatedly made, to assume financial responsibility for rail systems and raise their present atrocious standards. But in the area of national railways we have seen great and permanent development.

More than any of its predecessors, the Government has recognised the need for a national approach to railways. We have recognised that the railways cannot effectively solve their problems within the present fragmented system. It was this recognition that prompted my offer in my 1972 policy speech to accept responsibility for the railways of any States prepared to transfer them. During this sessional period the Australian

National Railways Bill, the Railways (South Australia) Bill and the Railways (Tasmania) Bill have been passed. Following appropriate legislation in the South Australian and Tasmanian Parliaments they will allow the transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian and the Tasmanian Railways to the Australian Government. This is the first major step toward the creation of a truly national railway. The Australian National Railways will have the organisational structure and operational powers necessary to consolidate into a single system the Commonwealth Railways and the transferred State Railways. This year we have commenced construction of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway, the largest railway project in Australia for over half a century. This year also we have commenced construction of the standard gauge railway between Adelaide and Crystal Brook, which will remove the last break of railway gauge between the mainland capitals.

We have done much to relieve the short-term problems of railways. There is a desperate lack of modern inter-system rolling stock. We have instituted a program to purchase modern highspeed wagons which will be available for lease to the States. This program provides for the purchase of 1 300 wagons over the next 2 years. Contracts have already been let for the first order for 500 wagons; tender documents are being prepared for an additional 800 vehicles. And finally, to meet the challenge of moulding a truly national transport system- including the railways and other forms of transport- we have sought to restore the Inter-State Commission specified in section 10 1 of the Constitution.

Two other achievements of the present session reflect something of the Government’s fundamental social and human priorities. The Family Law Bill- a monument to the former AttorneyGeneral, now Mr Justice Murphy- has completely refurbished the marriage and divorce laws of Australia and done away with the medieval concepts of guilt and fault. The Bill has established a Family Court of Australia which will explore methods of reconciliation and protect the rights of all parties in divorce proceedings in an atmosphere of dignity and humanity. This was a major social reform. I am proud that it was brought forward under this Government. Of course, the votes were taken on non-party lines. The Bill could not have been passed without members of the Opposition supporting it as well. In the same spirit we introduced legislation to establish a Children’s Commission. That legislation has now passed both Houses. The Commission will administer a comprehensive range of services for children- pre-school, day care, part-time and emergency care services, after school and holiday projects. Approximately 165 000 children have been catered for under this new program.

The documents I shall presently table- and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard- set out the full scope and detail of the Government’s achievements during the past 6 months. That record speaks for itself. What it does not convey is the true nature of the Opposition’s behaviour in this period. It would be pleasing to be able to report that the Opposition’s new decorum in this place has been matched by saner and more conciliatory attitudes to the Government’s legislative program. We have had nothing of the sort. Behind the facade of reason and responsibility the familiar campaign of obstruction has continued. Our overdue redistribution proposals, our Bill to modernise and simplify the electoral laws, our Bills to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, to establish a Superior Court of Australia, to deal with lurks and malpractice in the securities industry, to establish a Government Purchasing Commission, to provide simultaneous elections for the Senate and House of Representatives- all these have been rejected or delayed or unacceptably amended in the Senate. And of course the campaign of obstruction has been pursued beyond this Parliament in the courts and in the States. Once again we saw the flaunting of an established constitutional convention when the New South Wales Government refused to appoint a senator of the Government party to fill the vacancy caused by Senator Murphy’s resignation. We have seen the same State Government pursue its pettifogging tactics in blocking appointments to Federal bodies and refusing to co-operate in such things as a soil conservation program. We have seen our legislation persistently challenged in the courts- especially those parts of it most likely to benefit the weak, the unorganised, the unrepresented sections of society.

I leave the Australian people to judge these tactics for themselves. They will not deter the Government from its goals. The past 6 months have shown what a determined government can achieve in the face of senseless and sustained obstruction. Despite our difficulties in the Senate, despite the blind unreason of anti-Labor States, despite the economic problems with which every nation has to contend, we have brought new and permanent reforms to the statute book of the nation; we have continued to enhance Australia’s standing in the world; we have produced a society which has never enjoyed greater individual prosperity, greater opportunities or greater prospects for the future.

I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard details of achievements, which I have summarised; details of legislation resulting from recommendations of parliamentary committees, Government established committees and commissions of inquiry, as an additional feature to those I have had leave to incorporate in Hansard at the end of the earlier sessional periods in the middle of 1973 and at the end of 1973 and 1974; a list of committees, commissions of inquiry and task forces established between 5 December 1974- when I made the last statement- and 31 May this year to report to the Government; a list of reports tabled in the Parliament between 5 December 1974 and 31 May 1975 on inquiries instituted by (a) the present Government and (b) the previous Government; a list of statements arising from meetings of Australian Government and State government Ministers, tabled in the Parliament between 5 December 1974 and31 May 1975; a list of treaties tabled in the Parliament between 4 December 1974 and 4 June 1975; details of the Australian Government’s welfare reforms; and the Government’s legislation program for the 29th Parliament to 4 June 1975.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted, subject to the normal requirement that the Government Printer is capable of handling the printing required. (The documents read as follows)-

page 3440

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Part 1 : January to June

The first half of 197S saw further gains in living standards for the Australian people and further progress towards a more just and prosperous society. Many of the Government’s broad policy objectives were brought to fruition. Others, like Medibank, are on the point of implementation. This progress was achieved against a worldwide background of continuing economic difficulty. The Government has fought the problems of inflation and unemployment with every weapon available to it. Recent months have seen a continuing improvement in the employment situation.

Higher Incomes

Tax cuts announced last year and the benefits of mortgage interest deductions from taxable income since 1 January 1975 have put more money in the pockets of the average Australian. This has been reflected in a resurgence of demand for private consumption and home building.

Lower Interest Rates

The Government has reduced short-term interest rates on Government securities. This action was followed by reductions in borrowing and lending rates by banks and building societies.

More Housing Loans

The banks made available an extra $150m for housing loans appropriated by the Government at the end of 1974. These funds were fully committed by March 1975 and produced a sharp rise in savings bank lending for housing in the first half of the year.

Wage Indexation

The Government’s case for automatic quarterly cost of living adjustments was upheld by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its historic judgment of 30 April 1975. The Commission granted a further increase of $4 in the minimum wage and increased total wage rates by 3.6 per cent.

More Money for States

The Government has boosted funds for the States to relieve unemployment. At the Premier’s Conference on 14 February we provided an extra $240m to the States and their authorities. The Australian Government and the States agreed on an extra $110m in government and semigovernment loan programs.

page 3440

AIDC

The Government has strengthened the power of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to assist Australian industries. The range of industries which the Corporation may assist has been expanded. Restrictions on AIDC’s borrowing and investment powers have been removed. The securing of maximum Australian ownership and control of the industry is now an equal primary function along with that of financing industrial development. The Government will also provide funds through AIDC to particular projects considered important in the national interest.

Better Insurance Facilities

The Government has introduced legislation to establish the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to compete in all forms of insurance and to provide the widest possible cover for homes at the lowest possible premiums. The Corporation will also consider the provision of natural disaster insurance. The Government has asked the insurance industry, through the Insurance Industry Conference Committee, to examine the feasibility of establishing a natural disaster crop insurance pool.

Overseas Trading Corporation

The Government has introduced legislation to establish an Australian Overseas Trading Corporation to supplement the activities of private companies in trade with developing countries and centrally planned economies.

Regional Employment Development Scheme

The RED Scheme is continuing to boost employment and assist useful local projects. The number of projects approved under the scheme up to April 1975 was just over 4800. The number of employment opportunities created was approximately 4 1 000.

Manpower Policy

The National Employment and Training System is continuing to alleviate unemployment and shortages of skilled workers. At the end of April, 13 130 persons were in training under the scheme. The National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme, since its introduction in 1 973, has lifted the national apprentice intake by 35 per cent.

Natural Disasters

The Government responded promptly and vigorously to the Darwin cyclone, the largest peacetime disaster Australia has known. To rebuild the city, the Darwin Reconstruction Commission was established with a five-year charter. The Commission has let contracts for 1300 new houses at a cost of $58m. The Government is making compensation available to cyclone victims and providing low-interest loans for rebuilding homes. It is also committed to provide massive assistance to Tasmania as a result of the Hobart bridge disaster on S January.

page 3441

DEFENCE

National defence continues to be a primary concern of the Government A substantial Defence Force is maintained to meet current and foreseeable tasks; it is capable of timely expansion should developments in our strategic circumstances require this. The Government continues to promote sound co-operative relations with Australia’s allies and regional defence associates and maintains defence co-operation programs with Australia ‘s neighbours.

Defence Programs

For the current financial year, defence expenditure is estimated to be of the order of $ 1792m. Future requirements are under active consideration.

Equipment

Planning for the progressive and orderly re-equipment of the Services has continued under the Five Year Defence Program. Major new procurements now under way include two patrol frigates, S3 Leopard battle tanks and eight Orion long-range maritime aircraft.

Further decisions will be taken on items of new equipment in the near future. Areas under consideration include longrange transport and mobility both air and maritime, an improvement program for the Oberon submarines, patrol boats, light anti-aircraft capability for the Army and replacement of the Army fleet of quarter-ton and three-ton vehicles.

Strength of Armed Forces

The Government has decided to increase the strength of the Regular Army by 1,300 to 3 1,500 and this objective will be achieved. Recruiting results for the Navy, Army and Air Force in 197S have generally been very satisfactory and reengagement rates in all Services are running at record levels.

Women in Services

The expansion of employment opportunities for women in the Defence Force has been under study in the Defence Department A report has now been completed and will be considered by the department in the near future.

Army Reserve

Implementation of the broad recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry in the C.M.F. (the Millar Committee) has proceeded throughout the year. The major aspects of the reorganisation covering the role of the Army Reserve and financial conditions of service are expected to be completed by the end of 1975.

Naval Dockyards

A committee of inquiry has been set up to inquire into industrial relations in Naval Dockyards. The committee is under the chairmanship of Mr W. B. Wilson, a former Deputy Public Service Arbitrator and a former Commissioner under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Natural Disasters Organisation

Less than three months after its establishment by the Government last year the Natural Disasters Organisation was put to its first major test in the Darwin relief operation in which 35,000 people were evacuated from Darwin and the essential services restored to the city within a period of 6 days. The Natural Disasters Organisation has also been engaged in co-ordinating Australian Government support to the States in combating bushfires and floods.

Papua New Guinea

The Government has transferred responsibility for the defence power, along with most existing defence assets, to the Papua New Guinea Government, subject to the limitation of Australia’s ultimate responsibility until PNG becomes independent. In addition the Government undertook to continue to lend men and support units to help develop the PNG Defence Force.

Support for United Nations

Australia has provided transport aircraft for the United Nations. One Caribou aircraft was deployed to the Kashmir area for tasks with the United Nations Military Observer Group in March and is intended to remain in service with the United Nations for 12 months. In April two C130 transport aircraft were despatched to South-East Asia for transport of relief supplies on behalf of UN agencies.

page 3441

ENVIRONMENT

The Government has taken new measures to protect the environment and safeguard the national estate. We are the first Government to tackle these problems seriously and effectively.

Impact Statements

Our legislation requiring impact statements for all proposals likely to affect the environment is now in force. It was passed on 11 December 1974 and applied to all operations within the Australian Government’s jurisdiction.

Great Barrier Reef

The Government has introduced legislation to establish a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to control conservation planning for the reef.

Other National Parks

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed in March. Notice of intent to proclaim the Kakadu, Simpson Gap, Fink Gorge and (Catherine Gorge National Parks has been published.

Fraser Island

We have acted to ensure that Fraser Island will be protected from any future mining operations which may damage the environment This will be achieved by our environmental impact legislation. In addition, the Government has appointed Commissioners to conduct public hearings on the environmental aspects of activities on Fraser Island and on plans to develop uranium deposits in the Northern Territory.

Public Awareness Program

The Government has developed a pilot environmental public awareness program to explain to the public the initiatives taken by the Government to safeguard and enhance the environment and inform the public on ways they can participate in these initiatives.

Marine Pollution

The Government is preparing legislation to integrate all Australian Government responsibilities for protection of the marine environment. It will include controls on ocean dumping, operational discharge of ships, pollution arising from accidents at sea, and discharge of pollutants into Australian marine waters from land-based sources.

Soil Conservation

The Government has agreed in principle to assist the States in a long-term program for the protection and restoration of Australia’s soil resources. A soil conservation study conducted jointly by Australian and State Government officers was commenced in April.

page 3441

RURAL INDUSTRIES

Seasonal conditions have been generally favourable and most rural industries are enjoying buoyant markets. The Government has initiated measures designed to overcome short-term difficulties.

Beef Industry Assistance

In April the Government proposed a joint scheme with the States to provide carry-on finance to beef producers. Under this scheme, which has now been agreed upon in principle by the States, the Government will make available $ 19.6m at concessional rates of interest to match funds already committed by the States for carry-on finance to beef producers.

The joint scheme with the States is additional to the $20m made available to the Commonwealth Development Bank in December 1974 to enable the Bank to expand its lending to beef producers. Loans approved by the Bank totalled $10.5m up to 7 May 197S.

Meat Board Loan

A $3m loan has been made to the Australian Meat Board to assist export sales. A significant proportion of this loan will be used to purchase beef against the recent sale of 40 000 tonnes of beef to the USSR which was negotiated during a Government-sponsored mission to Eastern Europe in February.

Wool Marketing

The Government’s decision to appropriate $3 50m for loans to the Australian Wool Corporation this season enables the corporation to operate a fixed floor price for wool sold at auction during the season and the wool market to be stabilised. This action prevented a price collapse. The decision to stand behind the wool industry throughout the season has engendered confidence in the wool market. This is evident in the significant strengthening in demand during recent weeks.

Fruit Industry Support

For the 1975 export season the Government will provide about $1.2m special financial support to the apple industry. This will be in addition to the support provided under the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Scheme.

Industries Assistance Commission

The Government has asked the Industries Assistance Commission to examine the need for assistance for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers and to report by 31 July. Other matters referred to the I.A.C. by the Government include superphosphate manufacturing, mushrooms, apples and pears, dried vine fruits, bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis slaughter compensation schemes, rural promotion, rural research, rural reconstruction, dairying, new land farms in Western Australia, nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and rural income fluctuations.

The Commission has already reported to the Government on mushrooms and the brucellosis and tuberculosis slaughter compensation schemes.

Rural Reconstruction

The Australian Government has agreed to provide $30m to the State Governments to grant loans to farmers under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme in 1975-76. This will be the final year of the Scheme under the present agreement. The provision of further assistance will be considered in the light of the I.A.C. report on rural reconstruction due by 31 December.

Locust Control

We have established an Australian Plague Locust Commission consisting of representatives of the Australian Government and the Governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Commission will co-ordinate control over locust outbreaks.

Repatriation Benefits

Loans offered to ex-servicemen to assist their reestablishment in civil life have been increased from $3,000 to $5,000 where the loan is for a business undertaking and from $6,000 to $10,000 where the loan is for re-establishment in agriculture.

Fertilisers

To ensure adequate supplies to meet the needs of Australia ‘s rural industries, the export of urea is now subject to control.

Australian Maritime College

We will establish an Australian Maritime College for the maritime and fishing industries. The Commission on Advanced Education, in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture, Education and Transport, is having discussions with State authorities and other interested bodies on suitable locations for the college.

page 3442

CITIES AND REGIONS

The Government’s plans to create new cities and improve existing cities have progessed further in 1975. Much wider co-operation has been achieved with the States.

Land Commissions

We have reached agreement with the New South Wales Government on the establishment of an Urban Land Council. In the current financial year $ 10.4m has been made available for a land acquisition program in Sydney and the Illawara and Hunter Regions. Agreement has been reached with Western Australia for the establishment of an Urban Land Council and $8m is being made available in 1974-75. Agreement in principle has been reached on an Urban Land Council in Victoria and a land commission structure in Tasmania.

A total of $26.5m was allocated to the South Australian Land Commission for 1974-75. The Commission has already released 300 residential blocks and expects during the coming year to market an additional 1000 home sites.

Growth Centres

In the 1974-75 financial year $45m was made available for land acquisition and development works in the AlburyWodonga and Bathurst-Orange growth centres. Funds for similar purposes are being made available following agreement with New South Wales to establish a development authority to be known as the South- West Sector Development Authority. An Agreement providing up to $6m in 1974-75 for the continued development of Monarto was signed in January.

National Estate

In 1974-75 we trebled the national estate financial assistance program. A sum of $8m for nearly 300 projects has been provided for use by State authorities, local government and public organisations for projects ranging from purchase of broad-acre conservation land to restoring historic bridges and buildings.

Australian Heritage Commission

Legislation has been introduced to establish the Australian Heritage Commission which will provide expert advice on financial assistance programs and advise the Government on national estate programs.

National Sewerage Program

Further progress has been made in reducing the sewerage backlog. Approximately 40000 sewerage connections will be made in the major urban areas during 1974-75. A total of $108m has been made available to the States this financial year for approved works.

Water Supply Schemes

In the current financial year a total of $4.4m was made available for Adelaide’s water treatment scheme. Assistance is also being made available for the north-west Tasmania regional water supply scheme.

Flood Mitigation

A total of $450,000 has been provided for flood mitigation works on the Breakfast-Enoggera Creeks and a monitoring and flood warning system on all Brisbane creeks.

Grants to Local Government

Grants totalling $56.3m recommended by the Grants Commission for allocation to local government and approved by the Government last August have now been disbursed to local government councils in the States.

Co-operation on Planning

There has been a considerable development in cooperation between Australian, State and local government in the field of regional and State planning. We have encouraged changes in planning systems in States and contributed to these discussions as well as meeting with sector planners. Arrangements for co-ordination of research have been developed, some to the point of joint planning studies such as the Moreton Region growth strategy investigation.

Area Improvement Programs

These programs operate in specific regions where rapid population growth has placed strains on cities and community services. Following the success of pilot schemes in the western regions of Sydney and Melbourne in 1973-74, the program has been extended to a further eleven regions in 1974-75, in agreement with the States. A total of $ 14.4m was appropriated for the Area Improvement Program this financial year for the thirteen regions in the five States in which the program now operates.

Inner City Rehabilitation

The rehabilitation and replanning of the Glebe area of Sydney is well under way. In Melbourne planning for the Emerald Hill Estate is proceeding under the control of a committee representing the Victorian Housing Commission, the South Melbourne Council and the Australian Government.

The Government has decided to provide $ 1 7m to the New South Wales Government for the acquisition of land in the Woolloomooloo area in Sydney.

page 3443

TRANSPORT

There has been radical and important progress towards the improvement of transport services in Australia during 1975. The Government is determined to upgrade roads, railways, shipping and other services.

Inter-State Commission

The Government has introduced legislation to restore the Inter-State Commission- a body specifically envisaged in the Constitution- to plan and co-ordinate modern transport services.

Railway Transfers

This Government, more than any of its predecessors, has recognised the need for a national approach to railways. For this reason, in 1972, we offered to accept responsibility for the railways of any State prepared to transfer them. During this session the Railways (South Australia) Bill and the Railways (Tasmania) Bill have been passed, enabling the transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian and the Tasmanian railways to the Australian Government. This is the first major step toward the creation of a truly national railway.

National Railways Commission

The Government has created the Australian National Railways Commission. The Commission will have the organisational structure and operational powers necessary to consolidate the former Commonwealth Railways and the transferred State railways into a single rail system of the highest standard.

Rolling Stock

In recognition of the desperate lack of intersystem rolling stock, we have instituted a program to purchase modern high-speed wagons which will be available for lease to the States. This program provides for the purchase of 1300 wagons over the next two years. Contracts have already been let for the first order for 500 wagons; tender documents are being prepared for an additional 800.

Standard Gauge

Work has started on the standard gauge railway line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs, the largest railway project for more than half a century, and on the standard gauge line from Adelaide to Crystal Brook which will remove the last break of gauges between the mainland capitals.

National Roads

Approvals have been given for the first State programs of roads projects under the 1974 legislation on national roads, export roads, urban arterial roads, urban local roads, and beef roads programs. Following an agreement at the February Premiers’ Conference an additional $30m is being made available to assist State road programs to cope with cost escalation and roads employment. .

Road Safety and Standards Authority

Legislation has been passed to establish the Australian Road Safety and Standards Authority. Plans for comprehensive facilities at Albury-Wodonga have been the subject of a Public Works Committee hearing.

Oil Tankers

The Government has taken the initiative in the national interest to encourage the introduction by Australian shipowners of Australian tankers into the import of crude oil. At meetings with the oil industry, shipowners and maritime unions all have indicated that their co-operation can be expected in the successful introduction of oil tankers into our overseas trade.

Liner Shipping to East Asia

The Australian National Line has commenced a cargo liner service to the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Korea with two container ships, the Australian Enterprise and the Australian Explorer. A new vehicle-deck container ship, the Australian Emblem has been introduced into the ANL service to Japan.

Botany Bay

Approval has been given for the Australian National Line to negotiate leasing arrangements for facilities at Botany Bay to meet the requirements of its expanding services.

Port Facilities

The Government has announced that it will consider providing financial assistance towards the development of designated coal export ports in New South Wales and Queensland.

InterScan

The Department of Transport and the Radiophysics Division of the CSIRO are continuing with the development of a new precision approach and landing guidance system called

InterScan. An experimental InterScan system has now been installed at Melbourne Airport and it is being flight tested.

Australia/Yugoslavia Air Services

An air services agreement with Yugoslavia was signed at Belgrade on 3 April 1975. The agreement provides rights for Qantas to operate a twice weekly service through Belgrade to London and for JAT to operate a twice weekly service to Sydney. Services by both airlines commenced in April. .

Sydney Airport

The Government decided to further develop the international terminal complex at a total cost of $7.8m. The first stage of the project, estimated to cost about $2.7m was authorised in July 1974.

page 3443

HOUSING

The Government has established new institutions and provided record funds to boost home building in Australia. The Government’s aim is the best possible standard of housing for every Australian.

Housing Corporation

The Government has set up an Australian Housing Corporation to take action in areas where the existing housing system is unable to meet housing needs. The Governmernt has in mind various schemes for the Corporation, including second mortgage lending to assist families bridge the deposit gap. It is considering a range of activities in association with co-operative societies, voluntary bodies and builders for the provision of housing, including rental accommodation. The Corporation will assist people for whom the Australian Government has constitutional responsibility and will also operate the largest single housing scheme in Australia, the Defence Service Homes Scheme. Under this scheme the Government spent $ 1 30m this financial year.

Welfare Housing

The Government’s allocation to the States for welfare housing has been increased by $S7m making the total allocation a record $375m for 1 974-75. This is $ 1 56m more than the amount available to the States under the last year of the previous Government.

This financial year the Government has funded the construction by State housing authorities of 13 580 homes for low income earners- 5000 more than the number built in 1973-74 and the highest number since the Australian Government began assisting State welfare housing.

Needs Test Adjusted

Agreement has been reached with all States to adjust the needs test for people seeking to qualify for State housing ‘ authority homes or Home Builders’ Account loans to keep the test more in line with current rising wages.

Homes for Pensioners

The Government is making non-repayable interest-free grants of $30m to the States over the next three years ending 30 June 1977 for the provision of self-contained dwellings for single pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance. The legislation widened eligibility conditions to include invalid pensioners, Class B widow pensioners and Service pensioners as well as aged pensioners.

Housing Research Council

The Australian Housing Research Council, established last year, has set up an advisory committee to consider submissions for projects to improve housing standards.

Forward Planning

Since December 1974 the Government’s Program on Indicative Planning, which is aimed at promoting a more stable growth in housing construction, has been advanced significantly. Inaugural meetings of the Council and its working parties in some States have been held and meetings of the working parties in the remaining States will be held in the near future.

page 3444

EDUCATION

The Government has pressed forward with the vast reforms in education undertaken during its first two years in office. We are spending four times as much as our predecessors on education, and are extending our initiatives into new areas.

Open Universities

The Government is developing its plans for open universities. The report of the committee on open ternary education in Australia was tabled in Parliament by the Minister for Education on 20 February 1975. The report recommended the establishment of a national institute on open tertiary education as a statutory body with the general objective of extending opportunities in tertiary education for all sections of the community.

The report also recommended the development of a network of university and college off-campus courses, study centres and libraries, by existing or new institutions willing to assume a major commitment in such work.

University Cost Variations

The Government has introduced legislation to fulfil arrangements made with universities to take account of cost variations in their triennial programs. The legislation also provides an initial capital and recurrent grant for 1975 for Deakin University, Geelong, to enable it to commence its planning and development.

Advanced Education

The Government has introduced legislation to provide supplementary grants for increases in costs in the programs of colleges of advanced education and non-government teachers colleges. The provisions are to offset the effects of cost increases in the programs originally approved for the 1973-75 triennium. The legislation also provides for a supplementary recurrent grant for the State College of Victoria’s constituent colleges and central office and for colleges of advanced education affiliated with the Victorian Institute of Colleges.

The Government has also made provisions in the legislation for the accelerated development of the AlburyWodonga study centre of the Riverina college of advanced education in 1975. This is in accordance with the Government’s intentions to develop the Albury-Wodonga region.

Student Assistance

The Minister for Education tabled on 19 May 1975 a report on the review of the tertiary education assistance scheme. The scheme was introduced in 1974 to provide means tested assistance to post-secondary and tertiary students. In October 1974 the Minister appointed a committee to carry out a major review of the scheme.

Education in the Territories

The Government will establish an education advisory committee in the Northern Territory .to advise on the development of education there and to serve as a link between the community, the Minister and the Department. The committee will advise on the-continued development of education in the Northern Territory.

page 3444

HEALTH

To support the nationwide Medibank scheme, now nearing fruition, the Government is improving health and medical services in many different ways. The Government regards sound health as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing- not just the absence of illness. That is the Government’s objective for every Australian citizen.

Hospitals Development Program

Grants to the States exceeding $28m have been approved under the Government’s five-year hospitals development program for public hospitals and other health institutions. The grants followed examination of the States’ hospital programs at joint meetings of State officers and representatives of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission.

Community Health Centres

We have made further progress with the Government’s Community Health Program and Community Mental Health, Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Program. These aim at providing high standard community-based health care services in co-operation with the States, local government bodies, voluntary agencies and community groups. In the two years’ operation of these programs the Government has provided funds totalling $60m.

Dental Health

Since the inception of the Australian School Dental Scheme six dental therapy training schools have been constructed. A further six schools, for which grants have been approved, are scheduled for completion by the end of 1 976.

In addition 47 school dental clinics have been completed or are under construction.

A.CT. Hospital Scheme

Free hospital treatment is being implemented in the A.C.T. This scheme will provide free medical treatment for hospital patients who choose to use it in the public hospitals in Canberra.

Quarantine Service

The Government is studying the introduction of a unified comprehensive quarantine service. Detailed discussions with State Departments of Agriculture are in progress. The aim of the unified comprehensive quarantine service is to achieve greater efficiency through integration of administration, more effective planning and uniformity of procedures.

Free Appliances Schemes

Two free medical appliance schemes have been approved in principal by the Government- the free home dialysis equipment and supplies scheme and the free stoma appliances scheme. The Government has made available $310,000 to the States for the maintenance of current home dialysis programs.

Medical Schools

The Government is providing funds through the Universities Commission to establish departments of clinical pharmacology in medical schools with the objective of developing such departments in all medical schools over a period of about seven years.

National Health Plan

The Government is working to raise Aboriginal health standards. The Department of Health aims to lower infant mortality and morbidity, improve the state of infant and child nutrition, eliminate growth retardation and eradicate infectious and chronic diseases. We have provided substantially increased funds during the last two years to the State health authorities to enable them to expand their activities in relation to Aboriginal health.

Family Planning

The Government has established centres in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to provide counselling to young people on sexual problems. Additional support has been given to the voluntary agencies in the field. A family planning counselling service for people in the outback has been provided through the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

page 3445

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Government’s social security programs have brought help to millions of Australians in need. The Government sees social security as a right- not as charity or handouts. We do not believe that social security comes from cash benefits alone.

Medibank

The Medibank scheme will come into operation on 1 July. Most States have now agreed to co-operate in the hospital side of Medibank.

Higher Pensions

Pensioners are now better off than they have ever been. On 1 1 March the Government announced a further increase of $5 a week in the rate of pensions and benefits. The married rate is up by $8.50 a week for a couple. For the two and a half years Labor has been in office the standard rate of pensions has increased by 80 per cent- more than twice the increase in prices.

Means Test

The means test has been abolished for all people of 70 years and over. Further abolition of the means test has been promised by the Government.

Other Pension Reforms

The Government has enabled pensions to be paid to savings accounts with permanent building societies. We have unemployment, sickness and special benefits payable in advance, and special benefits payable immediately to persons newly discharged from gaol.

Aged Persons Homes

The subsidy for voluntary organisations establishing homes for the aged was increased from $2-$l to $4-$l, and the relevant legislation was widened to cover such things as rent, replacement equipment and salaries.

Nursing Homes

The Government has introduced an alternative form of financial assistance to nursing homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations. Under the new arrangements a religious and charitable nursing home may elect to have its operating deficits met by the Australian Government. Pensioner patients in these homes will contribute at a rate which will leave them with $4 a week for personal spending. Provision also exists for reduction or waiver of the fee where financial hardship is involved. The arrangements will encourage these homes to improve and expand their services.

Optometries! Benefits

The Government has introduced legislation to provide benefits of 85 per cent of the fees for optometrical consultations in co-operation with the Australian Optometrical Association. This scheme will be part of Medibank. The present limitation on benefits for doctors’ consultations which result in the prescription of spectacles will be removed.

Medical Benefits

Increased medical benefits and extended eligibility of services for benefits were implemented from 1 February 1975 for the more common services- general practitioner, specialist and consultant physician consultations and home visits. Other legislation removes or reduces the waiting period for pregnant women and uninsured people before they become eligible for fund benefits.

Community Information Centres

The Department of Social Security has begun a pilot program to help people make full use of social security benefits and the full range of facilities offered by community welfare organisations. Funds have already been provided to four of the twelve organisations who will be assisted by the scheme.

Welfare Rights Program

Ten grants of $10,000 have been made to community organisations to appoint welfare rights workers. These welfare rights workers are a way of breaking the communication barrier between disadvantaged people in need and government departments and to provide information on services currently offered.

Handicapped Children

The benefit paid for handicapped children living in institutions was increased from $3 to $3.50 per day from I January. A handicapped child’s allowance of $10 a week was introduced from 31 December for a severely handicapped child living at home.

Special Assistance Fund

The Government has established a fund to assist community welfare agencies in serious financial need. Funds have already been made available to many organisations providing valuable counselling and advisory services and direct financial assistance.

Trade Union Research

A grant of $15,000 is being provided to the ACTU to establish research and planning facilities within the trade union movement.

Social Policy Planning Units

The Government is providing financial assistance to the States to set up Social Policy Planning Units to develop social policies and establish their own priorities within the context of a national program. All States agreed to participate over a three year period.

page 3446

WOMEN

The Government’s programs reflect its continuing determination to remove or reduce all legal, social, educational and economic discrimination from which women have suffered in the past. The childhood services program, women’s health centres and the family planning centres are examples of long term programs initiated since December 1972. The Government is determined that this year, International Women’s Year, be a milestone in the improvement of the status of women in Australia.

International Women’s Year

As well as stimulating Departments to make a special effort during the Year to recognise the special needs of women and integrate consideration of women into their long term projects, the Government allocated $2 million for 1974/75 for special activities relating to the objectives of the Year.

Government Departments are also holding major conferences through the Year on women in politics, women and health, Aboriginal women, women as victims of crime and participation of women in the legal system.

In keeping with the Government’s aims to involve as wide a cross-section as possible of the women, and men, of Australia in International Women’s Year, and with the stated aims of the National Advisory Committee that we should encourage groups and individuals to develop their own activities, the Government has adopted a strategy of making grants to community projects. To date more than $.75 million has been allocated in this way for a wide range of activities in such areas as education, health, migrant women, women as victims of crime, women’s shelters, the prevention of violence to children, women in government and in the justice system, and the place of women in history and in the creative arts.

It is planned during the course of the Year to bring to Australia women who have made a significant contribution to the cause of women in other countries so that Australian women may be inspired and learn from their experiences.

The Government made a grant of $US40,000 to the United Nations for activities for International Women’s Year. Moreover, Australia is to host a United Nations interregional seminar on The Communication of Attitudes: Women, the Media and the Arts in Sydney in November/ December.

Education

The Schools Commission Report tabled this week foreshadows the report of its Committee on Social Change and the Education of Women to be published at a later date. The Commission recognises the need for textbooks, school curricula and organisational arrangements to reflect the changing role of women in society. The Commission will support, in all its Programs, action designed to remove distinctions in curricula options open to boys and girls and assist in the consideration of influences causing boys and girls to follow restricted patterns in their occupational and career choices. Within the Disadvantaged Schools Program, it will place emphasis on action designed to raise the aspirations of girls; through the Special Projects Program it will provide specific support for activities which will assist in widening options for girls.

Employment

Under the Regional Employment Development Scheme nearly 1000 women have been employed; a similar number is being retrained under the National Employment and Training Scheme.

By the end of this month equal pay for women under federal awards will have been fully implemented and the minimum wage will apply equally to women and men.

The first annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation stated that the majority of complaints brought to the Committee’s attention were on grounds of sex discrimination. To further its aims of eliminating discrimination in the workforce in accordance with I.L.O. Convention No. Ill- the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958- the Government plans legislation providing for the prosecution of employers who persist in discriminating against employees on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion or political opinion.

Town Planning

As a contribution to International Women’s Year, the Cities Commission is carrying out a study entitled Women and Planning. This study will investigate a wide range of constraints and choices that influence the domestic and career life styles of women including housing conditions, shopping and recreation facilities, employment conditions, health and welfare services and transport services.

Transport

The Department of Urban and Regional Development is currently undertaking a study to identify the scale and nature of transport disabilities suffered by non-working groups in Sydney, especially women. The study will review the causes and consequences of these disabilities and propose a possible range of solutions.

Delegations

Australia was represented on the United Nations Consultative Committee for the Year and intends to play a prominent role in the World Conference for International Women’s Year which is to take place in Mexico later this month.

Composition of Australian delegations is being reviewed in order to include a higher proportion of women and action has already been initiated with respect to the I.L.O. Conference which will be held in Geneva during June 1975.

Women’s History

The collection and study of resource and historical material concerning women is being encouraged. The National Library plans to publish an up-to-date bibliography and descriptive list of material held in the Library relating to women and is endeavouring to increase its collection of works by and relating to women with special emphasis on recording the present situation of women in Australia.

The Australian Archives is for its part preparing a special guide to the material in its custody concerning women.

Health

Since January this year women’s community health centres have been funded in Newcastle, Liverpool and Perth; two further centres, one in Adelaide and one in Melbourne, will be receiving Australian Government funding shortly. By the end of the year it is hoped that Brisbane and Hobart will also have women’s community health centres.

page 3446

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

The Australian Government is doing more for Aboriginals than any government in history. We allocated $ 1 3 1 m for expenditure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the financial year ending 30 June 1975. Expenditure by other Departments brings the Government’s total allocation for Aboriginal programs to $ 1 63.6m.

Land Rights

Legislation is being drafted to give effect to the recommendations made by Mr Justice E. A. Woodward second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. This Bill will provide, among other things, for freehold title to Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory to be vested in Aboriginal Land Trusts.

Aboriginal Land Fund

Commissioners have been appointed to administer the Aboriginal Land Fund established under legislation passed late last year. The Fund is now able to purchase land throughout Australia for Aboriginal communities.

Aboriginal Loans Commission

The Aboriginal Loans Commission has been established and is making loans to Aboriginals for housing, furniture and business enterprises.

Wider Responsibilities

The Australian Government, through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, has assumed total responsibility for policy, planning and co-ordinating activities in Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. Since the beginning of 1973 the Queensland branch of the Department has been formally established and recruitment is under way as a matter of priority. The New South Wales branch of the Department has also been significantly expanded.

Queensland Laws

Parliament has passed legislation to override provisions of Queensland State legislation which discriminate against Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on the basis of race or limit their fundamental rights and feeedoms.

Overseas Study Grants

The Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Education have announced the names of the first ten successful applicants under the new Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards. The scheme provides a means for leaders and potential leaders of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities to add to their skills and experience through short term study, discussion and observation overseas.

Aboriginals and the Law

Agreement has been reached with the Western Australian Premier on the membership of and terms of reference for the Royal Commission which will examine recent incidents in the Eastern Goldfields and relationships between Aboriginals and police in the area in general. A similar Royal Commission is to be appointed to examine and report on relationships between police and Aboriginals in the Northern Territory.

Employment

A substantial increase in the Aboriginal field staff of the Department of Labor and Immigration is envisaged during 1973. The increase in staff will ensure a high standard of employment and training services for Aboriginals. Already a number of assistance vocational officers have been appointedthe majority of them Aboriginals. The Department of Labor and Immigration is also appointing Aboriginals as arbitration inspectors in the Northern Territory.

page 3447

TOURISM AND RECREATION

The Government wants to improve the quality of life for all Australians. We are the first Government to provide assistance for facilities and programs to extend the range of choice of leisure pursuits.

Capital Assistance

The Government has committed $ 14m to provide leisure facilities in the community, specialist sporting facilities and artistic and cultural projects.

Recreation Workers

We are increasing the number of qualified workers in the recreation field to advise the community on the most advantageous use of leisure facilities. We have established three graduate and four under-graduate courses in recreation at tertiary institutions in Australia. We are also assisting selected applicants to undertake studies in the leisure field at overseas institutions.

Sports Assistance

We have widened the program of assistance to sports and physical recreation associations to cover coaching and general administration. The Government is supporting cultural sporting exchanges with other countries.

Tourism Promotion

We are developing the tourist industry in Australia. The Government has allocated $2.25m for tourism development grants in 1974-75. The role of the Australian Tourist Commission has been expanded to cover the promotion of domestic tourism.

Travel Agents Legislation

The Government is honouring its commitment to licence overseas and interstate travel agents operating in Australia. The Travel Agents Bill and the Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill were introduced in Parliament on 6 March. The legislation is intended to protect the travelling public when dealing with travel agents.

page 3447

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Family Law Bill

A milestone in Australian social reform came with the passing of the Family Law Bill. This provides a single ground for divorce- the irretrievable breakdown of marriage after 12 months separation- and establishes the Family Court of Australia to administer matrimonial causes, encourage reconciliation and protect the welfare of children.

Children’s Commission

Legislation to establish a Children’s Commission passed all stages on 4 June. The Commission will administer a comprehensive range of services for children- including preschool, day care, part-time and emergency care services, after school and holiday projects. Approximately 165 000 children have been catered for under this new program.

Australian Legal Aid Office

Six new regional offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office have been opened this year and more than 60 000 persons have been assisted. There are now eight branch offices and 2 1 regional offices.

Citizenship

The number of persons applying for Australian citizenship continues to increase. During the first three months of 1975 there were 35 260 applications. Comparative figures for the past three years are 42 361 for 1972, 57 188 for 1973, and 115 213 for 1974.

Ombudsman

The Government has introduced legislation for an Australian Ombudsman and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill to give effect to undertakings in the 1972 and 1974 policy speeches.

Australia Police

We are establishing the Australia Police by the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Police Forces of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory under the administration of the new Department of Police and Customs.

Anti-Dumping Legislation

The Government’s anti-dumping legislation will strengthen its powers to protect Australian industry against the practices of dumping and subsidisation of imported goods. The new law will give effect to the Government’s decision to adopt the GATT Anti-Dumping Code designed to achieve international uniformity in combating dumping.

Development Studies

The Government is co-operating with Western Australia and Queensland on comprehensive investigations of the resources of selected regions in northern Australia- the Pilbara region in Western Australia and the Bowen and Burdekin Basins and the North- West region of Queensland. The evaluations are essential for the optimum development of our vast mineral resources of land, water and minerals in northern Australia.

Uranium

Under the Government’s policy of full Australian ownership of Australia’s uranium resources, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has initiated a program of exploration for uranium in the Northern Territory. Five field parties and a drilling team will be exploring in the Northern Territory by the end of this year.

Pipeline Authority

We have constructed 694 kilometres of the 1298 kilometre gas pipeline from Moomba in South Australia to Wilton, on the outskirts of Sydney.

Australian National Gallery

The Government has introduced legislation to establish the Australian National Gallery as a statutory authority to develop, maintain and exhibit a national collection of works of art.

Australia Council

We have established the Australian Council as a statutory authority to administer Australian Government assistance to the Arts.

Science and Technology

An Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) and a Committee of Ministers will co-ordinate the Government’s scientific and technological programs. An interim Australian Science and Technology Council has been appointed pending Parliament’s approval of legislation to establish ASTEC.

Commission for Consumer Affairs

We have decided to establish a Commission for Consumer Affairs as an independent statutory authority responsible to the Minister for Science. It will develop consumer product standards for promulgation under the Trade Practices Act and provides a focal point for consumer groups and industry. Where necessary the Commission will hold public hearings on the preparation of consumer standards.

Population and Immigration Council

We established the Australian Population and Immigration Council on 2 February. It will enable the Government to assess the significance of shifting population patterns.

Festival of Arts and Sciences

A festival showing Australian creativity in the fields of arts and sciences was held in Canberra from 7 to 16 March. The festival attracted the support and attendance of artists, craftsmen, scientists and children’s tutors from every State.

Libraries

A commission of inquiry into public libraries was appointed on 11 March I97S.

Film Commission

We have established the Australian Film Commission to promote local film production. Staffing and financing the Commission is now taking place and it is expected that it will be fully operational by the end of 1 97S.

Film and Television School

The Film and Television School has begun its first threeyear full time training program with an initial intake of 25 students.

New Radio Stations

On 9 January the A.B.C. opened station 2JJ in Sydney, its first purely local radio station, broadcasting particularly to a young audience. On 12 May the A.B.C. opened its second local radio station, 3ZZ in Melbourne. This station gives access to the airwaves to a wide variety of community interests and offers programs designed for ethnic groups.

Colour Television

Australian television stations began colour transmission on 1 March. In the first three months of 1975 peak-time programs on A.B.C. television achieved a 74 per cent Australian content.

F.M. Broadcasting

Australia’s first FM radio station opened in Sydney in February. Orders have been placed for the supply of FM transmitters for A.B.C. stations in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra. Stereo program relay equipment has also been ordered with a view to having the service in operation later this year.

Committees, Commissions of Inquiry and Task Forces established between S December 1974 and 31 May 1975 to report to the Government

Australian Defence Force Academy Development CouncilChairman: Sir Henry Basten, C.M.G.

Australian Population and Immigration Council- Chairman: Mr J. M. Berinson M.P

Committee of Inquiry into Industrial Matters in Naval Dockyards- Chairman: Mr W. B. Wilson

Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries-Chairman: Mr A. Horton

Committee on Post-Secondary Education in TasmaniaChairman: Prof. P. H. Karmel, C.B.E.

Family Court of Australia Advisory Committee- Chairman: Mr G.J.F.Yuill

Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry- Commissioners: Dr J

  1. Hookey and Mr A. B. Hicks

Defence Forces Organisation Development Study- Chairman: Mr W. Jarvis

Joint Expert Advisory Committee on Second Derwent River Crossing- Chairman: Mr G. McKercher

Interim Australian Science and Technology Council- Chairman: Dr J. A. L. Matheson C.M.G., M.B.E

National Advisory Council for the Handicapped- Chairman: Mr Justice C. L. D. Meares

Private Inquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit PurposesChairman: Mr N. H. Mcintosh

Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry- Commissioners: Mr G. G. Kelleher, Dr J. F. Hookey, Prof. C. B. Kerr

Royal Commission on Norfolk Island- Commissioner: The Hon. Sir John Nimmo, C.B.E., O.St.J.

Working Party on Consumer Laws of the A.CT. Chairman: Mr A. J. Hartnell

Working Party on Restrictive Trade Practices- Chairman: Mr A. J. Hartnell

Addendum-1974

Committee of Inquiry on Interest Rates (Western Australia) Chairman: Mr A. Lewi

Committee on Taxation Matters- Chairman: Dr H. C. Coombs

Committee to Advise on Appropriate Policies for the Development of Manufacturing Industry- Chairman: Mr

  1. Jackson

Committee to Review Radio Pharmaceuticals, Radio Chemicals and Radio Biologicals-Chairman: Dr C. E. Evans

Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation- Chairman: Prof. R. Mathews

Working Committee on Social Change and the Education of Women- Chairman: Dr K. R. McKinnon.

Reports tabled in the Parliament between S December 1974 and 31 May 1975 on inquiries instituted by:

  1. The present Government 1 1 February: Royal Commissions into Petroleum Drilling in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef- Commissioner: The Hon. Sir Gordon Wallace-Tabled by Mr Bowen. 25 February: A report from the National Population Inquiry- Chairman: Professor W. D. Borrie- Tabled by Mr Cameron. 5 March: A report from the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation- Chairman: Mr R. E. McGarvie, Q.C. - Tabled by Mr Cameron. 6 March: A report from the Royal Commission into Petroleum and Petroleum Products- Commissioner: Mr Justice W. H. Collins- Tabled by Mr Bowen. 15 April: Computerisation of Criminal Data CommitteeChairman: Mr P. G. Ward-Tabled by Mr Enderby. 23 April: Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy-Chairman: Sir Walter Scott, C.M.G.- Tabled by Mr Bowen. 13 May: A report from the Committee of Reference for Defence Forces Pay- Chairman: Mr Justice P. Coldham, D.F.C - Tabled by Mr Barnard. 19 May: Committee for the Review of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- Chairman: Dr H. S. WilliamsTabled by Mr Beazley. 21 May: A report from the Australian Legal Aid Review Committee- Chairman: Mr R. F. Turner-Tabled by Mr Enderby. 26 May: Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation- Chairman: Professor R. Mathews- Tabled by Mr Whitlam.
  2. The previous Government 19 February: A report from the Australia Advisory Committee on the Environment- Chairman: Professor R. J. Walsh-Tabled by Dr Cass. 27 May: Taxation Review Committee-Chairman: The Hon. Mr Justice K. W. Asprey - Tabled by Mr Hayden.

Statements Arising from Meetings of Australian

Government and State Government Ministers, tabled in Parliament between 5 December 1974 and 31 May 1975 10 December 1974: Resolutions of the Ninetieth Meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held at Melbourne on 30 August 1974-Tabled by Senator Wriedt. 12 February: Proceedings of the Conference of Australian and State Government Ministers- Premiers’ Conferenceheld at Canberra on 7 June 1974-Tabled by Mr Whitlam. 13 February: Record of the decisions of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Tourist Ministers Council held at Sydney on 18 October 1974-Tabled by Mr Stewart. 8 April: Summary record of the Fifth Meeting of the Australian Environment Council held at Hobart on 30 November 1973-Tabled by Dr Cass. 13 May: Resolutions of the Ninety-first meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held at Sydney on 14 February 1975-Tabled by Senator Wriedt.

Report on the Meeting of the Australian Education Council . held at Perth on 17-18 April 1975-Tabled by Mr Beazley.

page 3450

TEXTS OF TREATIES, ETC., TABLED IN THE PARLIAMENT 4 DECEMBER 1974 TO 4 JUNE 1975

Treaties which have entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by signature 18 February 1975- Protocol for the continuation in force of the International Coffee Agreement 1968 as extended. 3 June 1975-

Treaties which Australia has signed and which will enter into force by an Exchange of Notes 3 June 1975-

Treaty which has entered into force and to which Australia has become a Party by Accession 3 June 1975-

Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects, opened for signature on 29 March 1972 and acceded to by Australia on 20 January 1975.

Treaty which has not yet entered into force and to which Australia has become a Contracting State by Acceptance 3 June 1975-

Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation, adopted by the twenty-sixth World Health Assembly on 22 May 1973 and accepted for Australia on 1 1 March 1 975.

Treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification 4 December 1974-

Protocols for the Further Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971 and the Food Aid Convention 1971, Constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1 97 1, opened for signature at Washington on 25 March 1975 and signed for Australia on 11 April 1975. 3 June 1975-

Withdrawal of Reservations to Treaties 3 June 1975- s

Treaty which has not yet entered into force and which Australia has signed subject to ratification 4 June 1975-

International convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, opened for signature at London on 2 November 1973, signed for Australia subject to Ratification on 24 December 1 974.

Supplementary Notes:

Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme

The rates of subsidy payable to eligible organisations have been increased on two occasions since 2 December 1972. At that date the annual rates payable in respect of each nurse employed since 1956 were $4,300 for organisations established at the introduction of the scheme in 1956 and $2, 150 for organisations since established. These rates were increased to $4,700 and $2,350 as from 1 September 1973 and to $6,200 and $3, 100 as from 1 October 1 974.

Royal Flying Doctor Service

For the triennium commencing 1 July 1974, grants towards the operating and capital costs of the Royal Flying Doctor Service have been increased to $2,900,000 from the amount of $ 1,455,000 available for the preceding triennium. The new level of assistance provides for operating grants of $700,000 and capital grants of up to $266,000 for each year of the triennium. For the preceding triennium the respective amounts were $315,000 and $170,000 per annum. In addition $64,000 has been allocated for single side-band radio conversion.

Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

Effective from 1 July 1973, the Australian Government’s contribution to the operating costs of the Blood Transfusion

Service was increased from 30 per cent to 35 per cent. Total expenditure during 1974-75 is estimated at $2,602,550.

Wynnum Public Nursing Home

A special grant of $ 1.2m to Queensland has been authorised towards the erection of additional public nursing home accommodation at Wynnum Aged Persons Home. This assistance is over and above amounts provided under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969.

page 3453

WELFARE HOUSING

Advances to States for Welfare Housing: 1973-74-$218.7m 1974-75-$375m

Note: Advances of $20.5m provided during 1973-74 were not spent in that year and were available for expenditure in 1974-75.

At the June 1974 Premiers’ Conference $235m was advanced to the States for welfare housing in 1974-75. Subsequently, in accordance with undertakings given by the Prime Minister to consider additional advances for welfare housing during the year in the light of developments in the building industry and the ability of the States to put further funds to productive use, additional allocations of $ 140m for 1974-75 were made to the States.

Appendix 1

29TH PARLIAMENT 1974-75

page 3457

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Bills Passed Both Houses

Budget Sittings 1974 (from 5 December 1974)

Aboriginal Land Fund Bill 1974

Appropriation ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Banking Bill 1974

Banks (Housing Loans) Bill 1974

Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Bill 1 974

Customs TariffValidation Bill (No. 3) 1974

Dairy Adjustment Bill 1974

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1974

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974

Export Market Development Grants Bill 1 974

Homeless Persons Assistance Bill 1974

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 974

Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1974

Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974

International Development Association (Further Payment)

Bill 1974

Judges ‘Pensions Bill 1974

King Island Shipping Service Agreement Bill 1974

Loan Bill 1974

Loans (Australian Industry Development Corporation) Bill 1974

Nursing Homes Assistance Bill 1 974

Papua New Guinea Bill (No. 2) 1974

River Murray Waters Bill 1974

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1974

States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Fruit-growing Reconstruction) Bill 1974

States Grants (Nature Conservation) Bill 1974

States Grants (Soil Conservation) Bill 1974

States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Bill 1974

States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) 1974

States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1 974

Structural Adjustment (Loan Guarantees) Bill 1974

Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974

Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill (No. 2) 1974

Autumn Sittings 1975

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1975 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1974-75

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1974-75

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1974-75

Appropriation Bill ( No. 6 ) 1 974-75

Appropriation (Development Bank) Bill 1975

Australia Council Bill 1975

Australian Film Commission Bill 1975

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975

Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1975

Australian National Railways Bill 1 975

Australian War Memorial Bill 1975

Book Bounty Bill 1975

Children’s Commission Bill 1975

Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Bill 1975

Curriculum Development Centre Bill 1975

Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Bill 1975

Darwin Reconstruction Bill 1975

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1975

Family Law Bill 1975

Fisheries Bill 1975

Homes Savings Grant Bill 1975

Loans (Australian Shipping Commission) Bill 1975

National Health (No. 2) Bill 1975

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1975

Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1 975

Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1975

Pig Industry Research Bill 1975

Pig Meat Promotion Bill 1975

Postal Services Bill 1975

Postal and Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975

Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1975

Racial Discrimination Bill 1975

Refrigeration Compressors Bounty Bill 1975

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1975

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1975

Road Safety and Standards Authority Bill 1975

Sales Tax(No. 1 ) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 2) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 3) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 4) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 5)Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 6) Bill 1975

SalesTax(No.7)Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 8) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (No. 9) Bill 1975

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1 975

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Bill 1 97 5

Social Services Bill 1975

Supply (No. 1 ) Bill 1975

Supply(No.2)Bill 1975

Tasman Bridge Restoration Bill 1975

Technical and Further Education Commission Bill 1 975

Telecommunications Bill 1975

Trade Union Training Authority Bill 1 975

Appendix 2

29TH PARLIAMENT 1974-75

page 3457

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Bills Rejected, Unacceptably Amended or Deferred

Budget Sittings 1974 (from S December 1974)

Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1 974 [No. 2]

Second reading negatived 1 1 December 1974 Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 [No. 2]

Second reading negatived 1 1 December 1974 Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 [No. 2]

Second reading negatived 1 1 December 1974 Northern Territory ( Stabilization of Land Prices ) Bill 1 974

Motion for Second Reading amended on 10 December 1 974 by inserting ‘ the Senate opposes this Bill and is of the opinion that it should be referred to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory. ‘

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1974

Bill introduced in the Senate unacceptably amended on 3 December 1974; House amendments disagreed toon 1 1 December 1974.

Autumn Sittings 197$

Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1 975

Second Reading negatived 25 February 1 975 Electoral Bill 1975

Second Reading negatived 25 February 1975 Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1 975

Second Reading negatived 25 February 1975 Superior Court of Australia Bill 1 974 [No. 2]

Second Reading negatived 26 February 1975 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Second Reading negatived 26 February 1975 Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Second Reading negatived 26 February 1975 National Health Bill 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Second Reading negatived 27 February 1975 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1 974 [No. 2] ( 1 975 )

Second Reading negatived 4 March 1975 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Second Reading negatived 4 March 1975

Motion to restore first Bill’s Second Reading to Senate Notice Paper negatived 3 June 1975.

National Investment Fund Bill 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Second Reading negatived 4 March 1975

Motion to restore Second Reading to Senate Notice Paper negatived on 23 May 1975.

National Health Bill (No. 3) 1975

Second Reading negatived 8 April 1 975 Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1975

Referred 10 April 1975 to Senate Committee for Report by 1 September 1975

Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974 [No. 2] ( 1 975)

Amendments made by Senate 14 May 1975 referred to House of Representatives; disagreed to by House on 26 May 1975; Amendments insisted upon by Senate 29 May 1975; Senate amendments unacceptable and laid aside by House of Representatives on 3 June 1975.

Inter-State Commission Bill 1975

Consideration deferred on 22 May 1975 until the first day of Sitting after 1 August 1975.

Purchasing Commission Bill 1975

Consideration deferred on 28 May 1975 until the first day of Sitting after 1 August 1975.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill 1975 Consideration deferred on 3 June until the first day of Sitting after 1 August 1975.

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation Bill 1 975

Consideration deferred on 3 June until the first day of Sitting after 1 August 1975.

Appendix 3

29TH PARLIAMENT

page 3458

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

(to 4 June 1975)

Other Bills Introduced, Debate Not Concluded (It is expected that Bills marked * will be concluded before the end of the Sittings).

Before the House of Representatives

*Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 197 5 -passed both Houses but awaiting consideration of Senate amendments.

Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1975 (awaiting introduction)

Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1975 (awaiting introduction)

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill 1975 (awaiting introduction)

Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill 1 975

Australian National University Bill 1975

Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1975

Crimes Bill 1975

*Defence Force Ombudsman Bill 1975

Defence Force Re-organization Bill 1975

Electoral Bill 1975

Foreign Takeovers Bill 1975

*Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill 1975

Health Insurance (No. 2) Bill 1 975

Industries Assistance Commission Bill 1974

Legal Aid Bill 1975 (awaiting introduction)

Long Service Leave (Government Employees) Bill 1975

National Health (No. 3) Bill 1975 [No. 2]

*Ombudsman Bill 1975

Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1975 [No.2]

Public Service Bill 1975

Travel Agents Bill 1975

Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill 1975

United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Bill 1975 -passed by Senate

Before the Senate

*Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975 (returned from House of Representatives, Senate amendments disagreed to and compromise amendments proposed)

*Australian Heritage Commission Bill 1975

Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1 974 [No. 2] ( 1 975 )

*Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1975

Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1975 [No.2]

*Customs BUI 1975

*Customs Tariff( Anti-Dumping) Bill 1975

*Customs TarifrValidation Bill 1975

Dairy Produce Bill 1975

Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill 1975

*Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill 1975

*Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1975

*Dried Fruits Levy Bill 1975

*Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 1975

*Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975

*Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975

*Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975

*Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1 975

*Grants Commission Bill 1975 (returned from House of Representatives with Senate amendments disagreed to)

*Health Insurance Bill 1975

*Income Tax Assessment Bill 1 975

*Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1975

*National Capital Development Commission Bill 1975

National Compensation Bill 1975

*National Gallery Bill 1975

*Northern Territory Supreme CourtBill 1 975

*Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975 (returned from House of Representatives with Senate amendments disagreed to)

*Railways (South Australia) Bill 1975

*Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975

*Ship Construction Bounty Bill 1975

*States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1975

*States Grants (Beef Industry) Bill 1975t

*States Grants (Universities) Bill 1975

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1974

*Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1975

*Superannuation Bill 1975

*Superannuation Act Amendment Bill 1975

*Superior Court of Australia Bill 1974 [No. 2] ( 1975)

*Tasmania Grant (Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited) Bill 1975

*Telecommunications Bill (No. 2) 1975

Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1 974 [No. 2] ( 1 975 )

Trade Practices Bill 1975

*Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1975

*Victoria Grant (Seymour Flood Mitigation) Bill 1 975

*Wool Tax Bills (Nos 1 to5) 1975t t Awaiting introduction from House of Representatives.

Appendix 4a

29TH PARLIAMENT 1974-75

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Bills Amended by the Senate (not by Government Initiative)

Budget Sittings 1974

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1974

Autumn Sittings 1975

Darwin Reconstruction Bill 1975

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1975

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975

Postal Services Bill 1975

Telecommunications Bill 1975

Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional

Provisions) Bill 1975

Children’s Commission Bill 1975

Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975

Grants Commission Bill 1975

Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975

Racial Discrimination Bill 1975

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975

Note:

Amended Bills are included in the Appendices relating to Bills Passed Both Houses’ or ‘Other Bills Introduced, Debate Not Concluded’, as appropriate.

Nature of amendments and action taken are outlined in Appendix 4b.

Appendix 4b

29TH PARLIAMENT 1974-75

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Action on Bills Amended by Senate (Not by Government Initiative)

Budget Sittings 1974

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974

Bill, introduced in the Senate, amended on 10 December by deleting provisions which would have made it unnecessary for an Aboriginal or Islander to obtain a permit to enter and be on a Queensland Reserve and which would have prevented an Aboriginal or Islander from being removed from a Reserve if his conduct was not unreasonable. Clause deleted by House of Representatives and new Clause added on 9 April 1975. Agreed to by Senate with further new Clause inserted on 29 May 1 975. Agreed to by House of Representatives on 2 June 1 975.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1974

Amended on 11 December to prevent acquisition of land reserved under a law of a State without the consent of the State, removing provision for ministerial approval of mining operations carried on in a park or reserve, providing that a concurrent State law is not limited, removing provision for international agreements relating to the protection or conservation of wildlife, and limiting the regulation of trade and commerce in connection with wildlife. House of Representatives agreed to all amendments excepting one relating to International Agreements on 13 February 1975. Senate did not insist on this amendment and agreed to new House of Representatives amendment on 5 March 1975.

Autumn Sittings 1975

Darwin Reconstruction Bill 1975

Amendments on 12-19 February, concerning the definition of the Darwin Area; the composition of the Commission, its staffing, powers and policies. Amended by the House of Representatives on 25 February to delete certain Senate amendments, and to amend the Bill further; agreed to by Senate on 25 February 1 975.

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1975

Amendments on 5 March to insert new Part and new Schedules to restore the Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance to the Public Service Act; disagreed to by the House of Representatives on 16 April 1975; Senate did not insist on amendments on 2 1 May 1975.

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975

Amendments on 8 April limiting the functions of the Corporation. Agreed to by House of Representatives on 10 April.

Postal Services Bill 1975

Amended on 20 May 1975, mainly to cover the terms for the provision of services by the Commission; agreed to by House of Representatives on 28 May 1975.

Telecommunications Bill 1975

Amended on 20 May 1975 to remove Overseas Telecommunications Commission from proposed Telecommunications Commission; agreed to by House of Representatives on 28 May 1975.

Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975.

Children’s Commission Bill 1975

Amendments on 28 May 1975 to provide for the Minister to make grants on such terms and conditions as the Commission determines, and for consultations with departments of States and Territories; disagreed to by House of Representatives on 29 May 1975. Not insisted upon by Senate on 4 June 1975.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975

Amendment on 29 May 1975 to provide for each new proposal for the collection and compilation of information to be laid before each House before implementation. Disagreed to by House of Representatives on 3 June 1975 and new Clause inserted.

Grants Commission Bill 1975

Amendment on 29 May 1975 to provide for a Judge appointed as Chairman of the Commission to have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the A.C.T.; disagreed to by House of Representatives on 3 June 1975.

Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975

Amendment on 29 May 1975 to provide for the availability of two professional Staff to draft Laws, amendments and instruments at the request of Members of Parliament in priority to Services for Ministers; disagreed to by House of Representatives on 3 June 1975.

Racial Discrimination Bill 1975

Amendments on 28 and 29 May 1975 relating to Clauses dealing with inciting to unlawful acts and liability of principles and employers and deletion of Clause providing for prescribed authority. Agreed to by House of Representatives on 3 June 1975.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975

Various amendments by Senate on 4 June 1975; to be considered by House of Representatives.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has given a sober and humble report of modest achievements over the last 6 months. He could have given a report concerning the chapter of accidents and misfortunes that have befallen his own Party, the Government and the Australian people over the last 6 months. I think that the Prime Minister himself has indicated quite plainly - (Honourable members interjecting).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister was heard in almost complete silence. I suggest that honourable members on the Government side give the same courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I believe that the Prime Minister has given the first marks of a decaying and dying Government. In the first part of his speech he sought to blame the campaign of denigration from the Press for the difficulties of the Government. I would have thought that no single person in this Parliament has had a better run or better support from the Press over a continuous period than the present Prime Minister. But now we find, because there is some criticism on some issues, that the Press is said to be running’ a campaign of denigration. That is a mark of decay within his own Government and himself.

I am afraid that the Prime Minister was not even accurate in some of the things that he said and that he contradicted himself. As is his wont, he accused the Opposition of obstruction, but then he cited the large number of .Bills that have been passed through both Houses of Parliament I would have thought that that was a mark of constructive co-operation in measures which are in the interests of the average Australian. In those areas we have assisted the Government in the passage of its legislative program. The Prime Minister made other contradictions. He suggested that his Government was the first national government that had made any progress in a national program for railways. I think he forgets the rail standardisation programs that would never have been introduced if it were not for the persistence of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). But it would be beyond the generosity of the Prime Minister to give credit where credit was properly due.

Then the Prime Minister said, with a charm which must be pleasing to his colleagues, that the Government asserts the principle of free, fair and open competition. But what about the Australian Government Insurance Corporation, where a Minister at the stroke of a pen can take measures that can send any insurance company in Australia out of business? What about the Australian Purchasing Commission, where another Minister at the stroke of another pen can put any company in Australia out of business? Where is the fair competition in that? It is a strange way of establishing a government monopoly; but that, of course, is what the present Prime Minister really means by free and fair competition.

The statement was a sad document because it avoided the major issues which are concerning Australia- at the present time. If the Government is as good as the Prime Minister, from his own statement, seems to believe, why all the problems and difficulties of the last week, why the need to restructure the Government tonight or tomorrow; why the need, as we are told by the Press, to sack yet another Treasurer, who the Prime Minister said 6 months ago was the best man for the job? What has happened? What are the reasons for this? What did go on between the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister when the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) was away, which caused the Treasurer to return to Australia so rapidly? I wish that the Treasurer felt sufficiently free to tell this House fairly and openly what occurred in those matters. There is internecine warfare in this Government when it should be concerned with the real issues before Australians concerning individuals and families.

The Government has established a number of records, but they are not records that the Prime Minister sought to mention. In its first year it established record unemployment, record inflation, record interest rates and record industrial unrest. In its second year it broke each of its own records. In its third year it is likely to break its records again. The Prime Minister blames a number of things for these matters but never blames the real causes- the mad expenditure policies of the Government; the unreasonable across-the-board tariff cuts which have led to great unemployment in a number of areas, in towns such as Launceston where 2000 people are out of work; revaluation policies; and the complete lack of business confidence that has flowed from Government policies.

Let us look at this record in more detail. We have the highest inflation rate in Australia’s history, at over 17 per cent. Treasury experts themselves and advisers of the Government- Mr Brogan and Professor Gruen- say that it is likely to go to 30 per cent under present policies. This could hardly be imported, since in the United States of America, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland inflation has been brought rapidly under control. When the Prime Minister was overseas on recent occasions, did he bother to consult with United States Treasury officials to see how they had brought their inflation under control, or was he concerned only with the more political foreign affairs issues, with the ideological struggle with which he is so concernedand with one side of that struggle? If he had shown a greater concern for the economic problems of Australia and if he had spent as much time in Australia devoted to those problems as he has devoted to other areas around the world, maybe his Government would be in less disarray than it is now.

Also we have the highest unemployment rate since the depression. In April 1972 there were 92 000 unemployed. In April 1975 there were 281 000 unemployed, plus 63 000 hidden unemployed, as the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) was good enough to advise us today. The figure of 63 000 needs to be added to the actual figure because those people are hidden in the Regional Employment Development program and other programs of assistance and special retraining programs that would not have been in operation if there had been a normal healthy economy. As I have mentioned already, interest rates are at their highest and there is the likelihood under the present policies of those rates going higher. There were 6 million man days lost due to industrial unrest last year and a record deficit of $2000m. The most important item on the Government’s agenda probably is importing another printing press to keep up with next year’s Budget. The housing industry has been brought to its knees. The cost of housing is getting beyond the reach of the average Australian. The private sector is on its knees. Profits are down even below the levels which the Prime Minister himself regards as reasonable.

None of these problems received a mention in the Prime Minister’s speech. He seeks to avoid responsibility. He has sought to do so by a number of means: He said that our problems were overseas caused. On one occasion he blamed statistics; he did not receive them early enough. On another occasion he blamed the Treasury and then the Treasurer; and then he sacked that Treasurer. Then he blamed excessive profits, and he had not read the statistics again. Then he blamed excessive wages. Then he blamed an obstructive Opposition, but in his own speech he showed how constructive and helpful we have been to him in getting his legislation through. Now he is blaming another Treasurer. How can he blame another Treasurer when he made it quite plain this morning that he has supported every economic decision that has been taken by the present Treasurer and by the present Government? So how can the Prime Minister avoid responsibility and try to put himself above the storm and say: ‘All these are murky things that the Treasurer, the former Treasurer and other people are responsible for. I had no part of it’. Is he not meant to be the head of the Government? Does he not carry some responsibility? Is there not a Cabinet decision? He said he agreed with all the decisions of the Treasurer, but is the Treasurer going to be hung tomorrow? Has the Treasurer been framed by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden)? There have been some interesting things revealed today and we ought to be able to know the truth. But in this most secret of all secretive governments anywhere we will never understand what goes on behind the closed doors of this Government because it is not prepared to tell the Australian people really what its concerns are.

The Prime Minister seeks a scapegoat; he seeks alibis. What does he say in his speech today? The last 6 months have not been easy. Government has not been easy. Government is never easy. Is government too hard for him? If government is too hard for him, then let him stand aside and make way for somebody for whom it is not too hard. What is the truth about Labor’s achievements? What did he talk about as the great achievements in this uneasy situation? He talked about the reconstruction of Darwin. What the Government has done or failed to do has been marked by inefficiency and discontent, people leaving the town and not enough houses being built. He talked about the Tasman Bridge and how promptly decisions had been made. Decisions had been made but they were lawyers’ decisions. You make the decision but then you never carry it through; that is left for somebody else to do. So while the bridge is going to be rebuilt nobody yet knows how it is going to be rebuilt. There is a Bailey bridge there. Nobody has started to assemble the Bailey bridge to provide a crossing during the many months and years that it will take to reconstruct the main bridge. Under these circumstances there is discontent and dismay in Tasmania again because of the inefficiency, the inability of this Government to carry through a policy decision that was made a very long while ago. It is easy to pass legislation and to say that money is available, but to put that money to some useful purpose is what above all else this Government has failed to do because it has wasted dollar after dollar, thousands and millions of dollars of taxpayers funds.

The Prime Minister said in his speech that private investment in significant areas is rising. That again was a gentle misleading of the Australian people because in constant seasonally adjusted figures in the last quarter for which statistics are available private investment fell by $100m, as it has fallen for each of the last 5 quarters in real terms. It might have been rising in the inflated Whitlam dollars of the present Government, but not if it is put in constant dollars in real terms. So that was misleading the Australian people. Then he said that the Australian people have never been better off. There are a few people in Gippsland who remember the Prime Minister saying that farmers have never had it so good. What about the 160 000 businesses which the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia said were facing the prospect of not being able to continue over the course of the next 12 months? No doubt members of the Ministry and no doubt the Prime Minister himself have never had it so good, but what about the average Australian? What about showing some concern for people who have been harmed and prejudiced every day by the policies of this Government? Then the Prime Minister claimed that indexation and the reintroduction of quarterly adjustments are great achievements. He said that with reason and goodwill these things will bring sense into the economy. Has the Prime Minister said anything about reason and goodwill to the 400 000 metal workers who will be on strike on Monday? Is that the kind of response that he believes that decision ought to attract? If not, let him speak against the 400 000 metal workers, but I believe he will not do that.

He said something about the allegation of obstruction by the Opposition. He has already said that a great majority of the Government Bills have been passed with the co-operation of the Opposition. The Prime Minister ought to be accurate in his facts. We have been constructive and the Senate in particular has protected the interests of Australians from some of the rapacious powers sought by a power hungry and centralised government. The Australian Government Insurance Corporation, as I have indicated, through the public interest provisions in the Bill will enable the Minister responsible to destroy any insurance office by directing that a certain area should be subject to the public interest provisions and then the Government office could offer conditions which could not be matched by any private concern. The Purchasing Commission legislation gives the same authoritarian powers to another Minister. If that Minister does not like the labour policies of a company, does not like the worker participation policies of a company, the pricing policies or other so-called social objectives of a company, the Purchasing Commission can be directed under the present legislation not to buy from that company. This is the Prime Minister’s assertion of free and fair competition.

We know the Prime Minister’s attitude to federalism. He said the States are obstructive, but the States are struggling for survival. We know quite well that the Prime Minister does not want them to survive. We know his regional proposals are designed to cut off their feet at the bottom while his actions at the top are designed to cut off their heads just as he is going to do tomorrow to one or two of his Ministers. Is it any wonder that the States object to that? Is it any wonder that they object to the duplication of” services, the growing complexity of government that results from it and the growing expense of government that results from his approach to State powers?

So in all these things we have a situation in which the Prime Minsiter has ignored the major problems in front of the people of Australia and has talked about issues which for certain groups and sections of the Australian community can certainly be important, but they are not in the mainstream of concern in Australia at the present time. I refer to inflation; unemployment; housing; interest rates; the Government deficit; the private sector of the economy on its knees; industrial unrest; the ad hocery of the Budget- 4 budgets in one year; two or three Treasurersanother excuse for the Prime Minister; the lack of credibility; the incompetence; the $2,000m loan- the full story about which has still not been told; the difficulties over the wool price arrangements; the lack of support for Greenvale- the great nickel project which has been brought to its knees because of policies of this Government; and today, last week, this week and probably next week, the Ministry in chaos. Yet the Prime Minister talks about achievements, talks about the Government’s success, talks about the Government’s service to Australia. The best service that the Prime Minister could do would be to get in his car and drive out to Government House.

The Prime Minister’s speech is a smokescreen. He has avoided the real issues- the issues of concern. He has also sought over a continuous period of time to evade responsibilities by putting responsibilities for the errors of government onto particular Ministers and then destroying them, and that process is not finished. He is in the middle of that objective at the present time and it would be to Australia’s advantage if the Ministers concerned defended themselves when they are being unjustly accused and maligned.

page 3463

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

– In relation to the matter raised this morning by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), I have considered the relevant precedents including the case involving the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) as referred to by the honourable member for New England. I have concluded that the matter raised does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. The matter which was raised is more in the nature of a matter of security and on that basis I have ruled that no prima facie case exists on the evidence which is contained in the newspaper article.

Dr J F Cairns:
Treasurer · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The matter that was raised this morning by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is one with which I am very much concerned. I do not think it necessary that there should be any inquiry by the Privileges Committee or in any other way because I think I can inform the House of the facts and I think the House can make up its mind. This matter arose because of the circumstances following the increase in the price of oil when money estimated by various people at from $30,000m to $60,000m had changed hands and was lying in new parts of the world, not yet under the control of the New York and Swiss banking houses and available for investment sometimes on long term favourable conditions much better than those obtained from these institutions. This situation was considered by the Government and we decided that it was wise to investigate the possibilies there were in the new areas of the oil exporting countries to arrange suitable long term loans for Australia. We found that there were many individuals who came forward saying that they knew the location of funds. We were aware that the Saudi-Arabian Monetary Agency was a significant potential lender and we considered that it was desirable that these matters should be properly explored outside the conventional channels. So a number of individuals were interviewed, many of them- most of them, almost all of them- were found very quickly to be worthless; but some appeared to be somewhat different. In March a Mr George Harris who was well known to me, to the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, and to at least one or two members of the front bench today, told me he was going to Europe and that while there he might be able to make some inquiries and give me information that might be useful. I considered that Mr Harris was trustworthy and therefore I furnished him with 3 notes, one dated 10 March 1 975 which read:

The Australian Government is willing to borrow funds from lenders overseas on terms and conditions suitable to us.

Signed J. F. Cairns

On 15 April I gave him another note addressed ‘To Whom it may Concern’ which read:

Recently I have been concerned that persons in Europe and elsewhere claim to represent the Australian Government in negotiating loans. No such authority exists. The Australian Government is interested in borrowing on favourable conditions and should any person be able to assist us, we would be glad to hear from him. I am providing Mr George Harris, holder of Australian Passport No. G740206, and whose signature appears in the margin, with this letter so that he may make inquiries for me. If it is felt necessary to confirm the authenticity of this letter, then with the consent of Mr Harris this may be done by contact with Sir John Bunting, -

To whom Mr Harris was personally known- the High Commissioner in London or the Australian Ambassador in Switzerland in Berne, or direct with me by Telex. Parliament House, Canberra, Australia. In the event that he recommends that any funds are available and I am satisfied with the authenticity of such availability and the terms and conditions for lending are acceptable to me, and the funds are in amounts sufficient for our needs, I would be pleased to take the matter up.

On the same day I gave Mr Harris a letter, addressed to him, which read:.

Dear Mr Harris,

In the event that the Australian Government or its representatives or nominees successfully negotiates the borrowings of overseas funds introduced or arranged by you. an appropriate commission would be paid to you or your nominees.

Yours faithfully,

That is to say, the normal appropriate commission that would be paid in any circumstances to a person who had in fact assisted in the successful conclusion of a loan. I made clear to Mr Harris orally that this created no legal relationship between the two of us, no agency of any sort; it merely authorised him to make inquiries and should he be able to advise the Government in the matter so that a loan resulted from it, then Mr Harris would be entitled to proper compensation for it, but until that point no relationship of any kind could be assumed to exist. This to me was a matter that required no further attention at all and the letters to which I have just referred were filed away in my office. When I returned from overseas recently I found that the letters were not in my office; they were missing. I also found in an official Treasury file No. 75/038 a note, written on the notepaper of the Office of the Treasurer. It is written to the Secretary of the Treasury and reads:

I attach for your information a copy of a letter dated IS April which was on file in this office. I understand you have already seen a copy of a letter of the same date headed ‘To Whom it may Concern’.

It is signed ‘Ed. Shann’ and the date is 6 May. Also in the same file is a note to the Secretary which reads:

I understand you have discussed this matter with the Treasurer. This letter was passed out to me for filing and in the circumstances I think you should be aware of it. While the letter is not stamped as having been signed by the Treasurer, the imprint of his signature is visible on the file copy and can be faintly seen on the photocopy. Do you wish me to take any follow-up action of any sort?

Signed Ed. Shann 13.4.75

At no point did anyone in the Treasury notify me of any interest in this matter, and at no time did anyone have consent from me to photocopy any letters or to remove them from my office. On return from a conference at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development I received a communication from the Secretary of the Treasurer which contained a letter the Secretary informed me he had received from Mr Harders, the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, which shows that Mr Harders had been sent two letters for his opinion as to the legal relationship, if any, that they might have established. I noticed immediately on looking at letter A, which was addressed ‘To Whom it may Concern’, that letter A was not a photostat copy of the original letter but was a typed version of it and had 3 paragraphs instead of four. The 3 paragraphs in the letter did not contain the first paragraph which I have already read to the House which said that I had been concerned at the fact that I knew that a number of people overseas were saying that they had the authority of the Australian Government and no such authority existed. That paragraph was not in the letter that apparently had been sent to Mr Harders. There were some changes in the words of this letter. It was not an exact copy; the words were not significant, but I think the first paragraph was. It seems to me that in a matter where the legal relationship between Mr Harris and myself was said to be of some importance, this paragraph would surely be important.

Recently I have been concerned that persons in Europe and elsewhere claim to represent the Australian Government in negotiating loans. No such authority exists.

Mr Harris understood that no authority existed between him and me and he was authorised merely to make inquiries and report to me accordingly. After my return to Australia, the Prime Mimister informed me of this matter and said that he had received advice that an agency relationship did exist between me and Mr Harris and that he thought that was very unwise, and, as a consequence, he considered that I should not remain as Treasurer. I informed him that I considered there was not an agency relationship, that this had been made very clear to Mr Harris and had been accepted by him. He was merely authorised to make inquiries. The Prime Minister said: ‘You had better see Harders about that’. I did so. I told Mr Harders of the circumstances that I have already described to the House and pointed out that the original reference of the matter to the Attorney-General’s Department appeared to have some area of uncertainty which I thought he and I could clear up. As evidence of that uncertainty I mentioned to the House that in this file there is a memorandum signed ‘I. Hay’, who was a senior officer of the Treasury, dated 9 May 1975, which records that Mr Menzies, of the Attorney-General’s Department, had said:

The Attorney-General’s Department are reluctant to give advice without all the background information.

He, Mr Menzies, stressed that the letters were vague and they implied some oral contract. The Department was reluctant to give advice in the circumstances and said that the letters implied some oral contract. However, I was not informed that that was the position of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. I was not asked by the Treasury whether there was any oral communication or background and I informed Mr Harders there was. I told him that the oral background was that Mr Harris understood clearly that all he was authorised to do was to make inquiries, to report to me, and, if a satisfactory arrangement did ever eventuate, then and only then would some kind of legal relationship come into existence. Mr Harris understood this.

On being informed of this, Mr Harders told me that this made the situation different and, in his opinion, there was now no agency between Mr Harris and myself. The Prime Minister had taken the view, however, that there was an error on my part because I had, in fact, dealt with Mr Harris contrary to the advice of the Department. I did disagree with that and said so, but after consideration of the matter for the rest of that day I decided that the fair and proper thing to do was to accept the decision of the Prime Minister in the matter, and I so informed the Parliamentary Labor Party on Tuesday morning. I have now given the House all the facts on this matter as I know them to be. I do not think there is any necessity for any inquiry at all. It is a matter of judgment and, if I have made a mistake in judgment, I accept the consequences.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Opposition obviously has not had an opportunity to consider the implications contained in the statement just made to this chamber by the Treasurer. It obviously canvasses a number of grounds which are distinct from those which I raised this morning with you, Mr Speaker, in the suggested reference to the Privileges Committee. I think that it is necessary, however, to indicate that there is a number of areas in relation to parliamentary practices and procedures with which we on this side of the House would still be concerned.

There seem to be elements regarding the disappearance of letters from the Treasurer’s file. There are suggestions that a paragraph has been omitted from one of those letters in a copy that was dispatched to Mr Harders. Therefore, there are obviously matters within the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee about which we would be concerned. We understand the nature of the ruling you have given, Mr Speaker. We appreciate that the Treasurer has canvassed the whole of the ambit of his assessment of the matter, but on behalf of the Opposition I express my concern that there still seem to be unanswered significant issues pertaining to the matters of fact.

With respect to the dealings themselves, they obviously open an extraordinarily wide range of matters of ministerial and parliamentary responsibility. Those are matters which I believe need to be considered very carefully by this chamber and by the Australian people. I do not propose to canvass them further at this stage, but I indicate to the House that they are matters which we do not believe can be left alone and to be concluded by the statement made by the Treasurer.

page 3465

QUESTION

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP
  1. That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.
  2. That the Committee shall reconsider and, as necessary, amend the recommendations of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House contained in its report dated March 1970, which when revised shall be used as the basis of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.
  3. That the Committee shall also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section S of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it-

    1. by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973 or
    1. by resolution of either House of Parliament.
    2. That the Committee consist of:

    3. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
    4. The Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973;
    5. Six Members of the House of Representatives, three of whom shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and three by the Leader of the Opposition, and
    6. Six Senators, three of whom shall be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and three by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  4. That the President of the Senate and the Speaker or the House of Representatives be Joint Chairmen of the Committee.
  5. That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  6. That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Standing Committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.
  7. That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the Committee is empowered to inquire into.
  8. That the Committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.
  9. 10) That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  10. That seven members of the Committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the Committee and a majority of the members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  11. That in matters of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman occupying the Chair has a casting vote.
  12. That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote.
  13. That the Committee and sub-committees be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  14. That the Committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it.
  15. 16) That the Committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new and permanent Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the National Capital Development Commission as the Authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.
  16. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
  17. 1 8 ) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

I seek to have this Joint Standing Committee appointed to give effect to the intentions expressed in the Parliament Act 1974. Honourable members will recall that the Parliament Bill passed late last year contained 2 important sections which, when implemented, will fulfil a long-held intention of the Parliament. In brief, these are to build a new and permanent Parliament House and to ensure parliamentary control of the environment surrounding it. I do not want to rehearse here the arguments for a new Parliament House. It is sufficient to say that the consensus of honourable members is that the present building can no longer support the needs of the Parliament and those who work within it.

The Act provides that the new and permanent Parliament House shall be constructed on the site of Capital Hill. It is necessary that a Joint Committee be established to act for the Parliament in constructing the building envisaged in the legislation. The Committee will take up the task commenced by the previous Joint Select Committee which submitted its report in March 1970. Clauses 1 and 2 of the resolution I have moved set down the terms of reference for the proposed joint committee. I have proposed that the Joint Committee be a standing committee since the design and construction of the building will clearly take many years.

Section 5 ( 1 ) of the Parliament Act provides that ‘no building or other work is to be erected on land within the parliamentary zone unless the Minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposal has been approved with resolution of each House of Parliament.’ Clause 3 of the resolution, the third term of reference for the committee, provides machinery for establishing the Parliament’s responsibility in accordance with that section. Since the concept of a parliamentary zone controlled by Parliament has been linked in the legislation with the construction of the new Parliament House, I consider it is proper that one committee deal with this matter.

Clause 3 of the motion gives each house the opportunity to refer proposals concerning the parliamentary zone to the Standing Committee for detailed consideration. I propose that this should be the case with the complex proposals likely to arise under section 5 of the Act. In the first instance the onus would be on the Minister responsible for the National Capital Development Commission Act to propose such a referral because of his responsibility for obtaining funds and Government approval for development works in Canberra and in the national area particularly. The resolution would make referral to the proposed Joint Standing Committee discretionary, since I hope that questions concerning straightforward and simple works would be resolved directly by each House on the resolution of the responsible Minister.

I will now briefly expand on some of the more important clauses in the resolution. Clause 4 sets down the membership of the Committee. I consider its make-up provides an equitable distribution of representation between House and Senate and Government and Opposition. The President and Speaker and the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act are included because of their importance in the management of the Parliament and their direct responsibility for its development. Clause 5 provides for the President and the Speaker to be joint chairmen of the Committee. This reflects the essential need for a close working relationship between the two Houses. It would be for the Presiding Officers to determine the occupancy of the chair at any meeting.

Clause 8 and 9 providing for the establishment of sub-committees, are most important. Since there will be a great deal of complex and technical work in determining the requirements of a parliament house and in supervising its design and construction, small groups of members and senators will need to become closely involved in this task. I expect that much reliance would be placed on the advice of experts in many fields in the design and construction stages. Of particular importance will be the role of the National Capital Development Commission, whose responsibility is to plan, design and construct Canberra as the national capital. Undoubtedly this would give it a strong and legitimate interest in the new and permanent parliament house.

When the detailed work of establishing the new parliament house gets under way, there will be a need for a continual liaison between the Joint Standing Committee and the Commission. Clause 16 is designed to ensure that this liaison is carried out effectively and efficiently, given that the Commission and the Committee form a sound working relationship from the beginning. This Joint Standing Committee will guide the establishment of the most important building work in Australia. It should be given every support. The advice it receives must be of the highest technical standard. The people appointed to it must be prepared to work hard and long to ensure that the impetus gained in establishing the site for the new house is not lost, and that the Australian nation can look forward to a building which reflects its national pride and the paramount importance we attach to the role and traditions of parliamentary democracy.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The Opposition is concerned at this time when inflation is rife, when the economy is in a very serious situation, when the Parliament is about to adjourn and the Budget is about to be prepared, that the members of the Parliament should embark on an exercise which the community might feel will lead to the immediate expenditure of large sums of money to replace this building known as Parliament House. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) indicated and as many other members of this chamber have indicated on other occasions, a building opened in 1 927 for a number of members considerably fewer than the present membership, for circumstances quite different to those prevailing in 1975, gives reason for a change to be introduced.

All of us who have been elected to this chamber are conscious of the inadequacies of members’ accommodation and the failures of the facilities associated with the House to meet even the reasonable needs of any person required to meet the increasing responsibilities of parliamentarians. For that reason there is much m the resolution which must have the sympathy of every honourable member. However, the nature of this resolution, we feel, needs to be seen in the light of a continuing and long-term commitment. To the extent that there is that long-term commitment, the Opposition supports the proposal. However, we see that it is necessary that everything be done within the capabilities of the present structure to enable some improvement of members’ facilities to the degree to which that might be accommodated.

Of course there are ways that this can be done, even beyond what has already been achieved. All honourable members are conscious of the extensions to the existing building that were added on both the eastern and western wings to enable the provision of additional accommodation, principally for parliamentarians. Yet even with that additional accommodation the space available to private members of this chamber particularly is totally inadequate. For any member to have more than 2 visitors in his office at a time is physically impossible. If a delegation of four or five persons comes to visit a member they cannot be accommodated in that member’s office. As each member of this Parliament- particularly those from the more populous States- is required to cater for some 120 000 persons, or approximately 60 000 to 70 000 electors, it is extraordinarily difficult for a member to carry out his parliamentary functions.

For that reason, the Opposition feels that the motion might well be extended so that this Joint Standing Committee might look not only at the long term needs of replacing this building but also at the immediate needs of inquiring into whether within the present accommodation additional facilities could be made available to parliamentarians. We believe that it is necessary that an additional frame of responsibility be added to the charge of the Committee and we hope that the Government might concur in the suggestion. On behalf of the Opposition I move:

The reason for this proposed addition to the terms of reference of the Committee is to ensure that within the existing facilities parliamentarians are enabled to carry out their existing responsibilities. We all know that there is a necessity for a large number of services to be provided. However, one wonders whether all the present services are strictly necessary and whether perhaps some of them could be accommodatedas indeed some persons associated with the Parliament are- in what used to be known as the ‘Hotel Canberra’. I believe that there is reason to inquire whether within the existing facilities parliamentarians can be given some space additional to that which they now occupy. We see this Committee as a suitable vehicle by which that could be investigated. I believe that if such an addition to the terms of reference is accepted it is possible that the present members of the Parliament may enjoy some improved capabilities to exercise their functions while they remain members of Parliament

We on this side of the House, being opposed to significant new expenditure on this building at this time, believe that this is a way in which within a reasonable budget that additional accommodation might be provided. We see that this is a means by which the members of this place might possibly get additional space and their secretarial and legislative staff might be similarly accommodated. Perhaps there needs to be some enlarging of the terms of reference to look at the personnel who are now employed within Parliament House, that is the building that surrounds this chamber. It seems to me that predominantly Parliament House should be designed around the functioning of the responsibilities of parliamentarians. If members of Par.liament are inadequately housed it is necessary for us to see whether there is a way by which their accommodation can be improved within the existing space available.

I submit that my proposed addition to the terms of reference is a fairly reasonable way to accommodate that need. I personally should like to see whether all those who are employed here are necessarily employed within the Parliament itself. I know this question hes within the responsibility of the Speaker and the President, but perhaps this Committee might check to see whether there can be some reduction in personnel actually housed in the Parliament House. If that were possible, the accommodation available for individual members might well be enhanced and our function then made more adequate.

Let me say, finally, that my concern and the concern of members of the Opposition is that this motion should not be a vehicle for the immediate expenditure of large sums of money to replace this Parliament House. We recognise that it is a long term project, but we believe that the critical financial needs of the community are such- this is particularly so with respect to the Budget that is to come forward within the next couple of months- that a large sum of money should not be spent now in replacing this building. We see this motion and our support for it in its general form rather as a basis for continuing forward programming. We would be concerned if there were any large allocation of moneys in the short term, for we see that as being unnecessary in relation to the overall community needs. Having said that it is unnecessary at present, our acceptance of the general term of inquiry indicates that we do believe that the present accommodation is inadequate and that long term planning involves present decisions. For that reason, with the one exception that we believe that in order to ensure that present members are adequately housed there should be an inquiry extending beyond the present ambit, we believe that the motion should be agreed to. The membership and the proposed reference back to the Parliament seem to us to be reasonable.

There is one aspect with respect to the reference-back provision that does give me some concern. This is in paragraph ( 10) of the motion which proposes that the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. One would hope that it would be a regular reporting basis and not one which might mean that the Committee would report on the occasions when the Committee itself felt it necessary to do so. I see it as being necessary that this Committee reports to the Par.liament at least annually for not to do so is to deny those who have constituted the Committee, those who are members of the Parliament but not members of the Committee, any opportunity to know what progress the Committee has made.

I trust that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who is at the table, and the Government will accept the amendment that I have moved. We believe that it will reasonably help to meet the needs of present members so that the Committee, pursuing its other function, may embark on its longer term task of trying to ensure that eventually we have a parliament house that more adequately meets the needs of the future legislators of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Keith Johnson) Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Peacock:

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

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

– I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). I do not wish to delay the House. Many of the things said by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who has moved an amendment, are arguable. There is in many respects bad accommodation, particularly for private members. We, now on this side of the House, suffered that problem for many long, weary years. We understand that problem and also the situation facing Cabinet Ministers, because the standard of accommodation is poor, even for them.

I think that other proposals should be looked at. I do not think that the consideration of such alternatives is the role of this proposed Committee. I give the honourable member for New England an undertaking that we will consider those aspects and report to the Parliament on them. Therefore, I ask the House to support the Prime Minister’s motion which was introduced because we really wish to get moving on the work connected with the new and permanent parliament house. A great deal of thought has been put into this matter. Wherever possible, we have tried to maintain a balance between the needs of the 2 Houses. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been greatly interested in this subject for it was you, as the honourable member for Burke, who moved the original . motion to get this proposal under way. I hope that all honourable members will support the Prime Minister’s motion. I indicate that, even though we reject the amendment, we will look into the arguments put forward by the honourable member for New England.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I compliment the Government for having taken the bold step of getting on with the job of building a new and permanent parliament house. To the Australian public, this may appear to be a waste of money; but, as one who has been in this place for nigh on 9 years, I can assure the public that this Parliament House would be the most inefficient building in Australia. Not only is this building one which, with the passing of time, has become inefficient; but also it is a building which has seen better days. If members of the Australian public saw the number of buckets which are placed throughout this building during heavy rain to collect the water that leaks in, they would have greater understanding of what I am saying. They are not aware that on frequent occasions after heavy rain the entire kitchen area at the rear of the building has to be mopped up because of the water that has poured in- a lot of water.

I do not believe that there would be many unions in Australia that would tolerate workers carrying out their duties in offices such as the offices which members of this Parliament occupy. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) and I share an office without any windows. It is known affectionately as the ‘Black Hole’. I do not think that similar conditions would be found anywhere else in this country.

Mr Ruddock:

– Any employer would be prosecuted for providing such accommodation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Parramatta reminds me that any employer who expected people to work in an office without windows would be prosecuted; that is quite correct. But such things go on here in Canberra. I refer also to the rooms set aside for the Press- those little holes up on the top floor of the building. The television studio there is so small that one can hardly move in it. I mention also the inadequacy of the committee rooms which, with the growth of the work of committees, are far distant from this chamber. I remind the House of how much time is spent in simply walking from place to place inside this building.

If members of the Australian public were to see these things, they would realise the need for a new and permanent parliament house. Although it may cost a number of millions of dollars, when that new building is constructed we will be well on the way to saving money. It will be a number of years before that building is finished. For 7 years now, we have debated whether that building should be by the lake, on Camp Hill or on Capital Hill. If it has taken 7 years to reach a decision on that matter, I am frightened to think of the time that might pass before the new parliament house is completed. At long last we are to get on with the job. I suggest this compromise to those people who believe that the present Parliament House should not be pulled down: If the main front area of this building which contains the chambers were to be saved, the cost of restoring and preserving that part of this building would not be too great. But, if we were to embark upon the exercise of preserving the entire building for the future, an unjustified expenditure of money would be involved. I support the proposals put before the House. They are most welcome.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affimative.

page 3470

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to impose a levy on bearing areas of apple and pear trees to provide the source of finance for the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The Corporation, which commenced operations in September 1974, has been financed to the present by the export charge collected under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973, which was the source of income of the Corporation’s predecessor, the Australian Apple and Pear Board.

When the Bill to establish the Corporation was introduced in the House in November 1973, however, it was made clear that financing through the export charge was an interim measure only. That interim measure was to be replaced by a broader financial base for the Corporation through a levy on all apples and pears, not simply on export fruit, since the activities of the Corporation could be expected to produce benefits for all sectors of the industry. It was indicated at that time that studies were being undertaken, in consultation with the industry, to devise the most practicable method of imposing and collecting a levy on all apples and pears produced and sold. After a detailed investigation, however, it was concluded that a levy on this basis would present great difficulties in the policing of payments. There is a high percentage of fruit disposed of through undocumented or cash sales in some of the major producing States. These sales would lend themselves to easy evasion of the levy and require a disproportionate effort in policing.

Following consideration of other bases for imposing the levy, including a levy based on the number of bearing trees, the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association has recommended that the levy be based on bearing area. Such a basis would not militate against the introduction of improved husbandry techniques, such as the closer planting of trees, which are designed for more efficient production and cost savings. The Association’s recommendation has, however, been opposed by the Queensland sector of the industry on the ground that a levy on this basis will bear disproportionately on them because of the relatively low yields of fruit per hectare in that State. The Government nevertheless accepts the Association’s view that an areabased levy is the most desirable method, and proposes to meet the circumstances of individual growers in Queensland or elsewhere who experience, on the average, low yields per hectare by a system of partial remissions where individuals can demonstrate the need for such a remission. This system of remission will also be applied in cases where a grower can demonstrate that he has suffered significant crop damage in a particular year through natural disaster.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. The Bill imposes a levy at a rate not exceeding $3 for every 0. 1 hectare of land on which productive trees are growing. Productive trees are defined as apple trees not less than 5 years old and pear trees not less than 8 years old. The area of land subject to the levy is calculated by multiplying the number of such trees planted in a regular fashion in orchard plots by the distance between trees in a row and by the distance between rows. The area of productive land for individual trees not planted in this fashion will be calculated on the basis of 0.004 hectare per tree. In calculating leviable area beyond 0.5 hectare any fraction of 0.1 hectare is to be treated as 0.1 hectare (see Clause 6 (3) of the Bill). Liability to pay the levy rests with the holder of the land, that is, the person in possession of the land at 1 January in any year.

The rninimum area which will attract the levy is 0.1 hectare or land on which more than 25 productive trees are growing, but once this liability has been established the minimum amount of levy payable will be the amount applicable to 0.5 hectare. The reason for this minimum levy is the high relative cost of collecting and checking the levy from small areas. It is also necessary to take into account the cost which would be incurred by the Corporation in servicing growers of these small allotments with apple and pear publicity material, pricing information, market reports and other material. Since such growers will benefit from the activities of the Corporation it is equitable that they should contribute a reasonable amount towards its finances.

As I indicated earlier, the Bill is designed to give a firm financial base to the Corporation, which in the short time since its establishment has shown vigour and determination in its approach to the formidable problems of this industry. The Corporation has embarked on a far reaching program of export market diversification, product research, marketing surveys and intensified domestic promotion. It is imperative, however, that its financial position be strengthened if this initial impetus is to be maintained.

I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 3471

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for collection of the apple and pear levy which is the subject of the Apple and Pear Levy BUI that I have just introduced. The Bill provides for payment of an amount of the levy not later than 3 1 July in any year, subject to variation that may be made by regulations. Regulations will be necessary for example to establish an appropriate payment date for the 1975 year. It is also intended that the regulations will permit payment of the annual levy in two equal instalments throughout the year at the option of the levy payer.

Clause 5 of the Bill is designed to allow the deduction from the amount of levy payable by growers who send pears to a cannery of an amount which would represent the portion of levy referable to those pears. The formula for calculating the amount of the deduction is set out in sub-clause (1) of clause 5 of the Bill. Subclause (2) of this clause also provides for a deduction in respect of any charge in the first year of the levy which may have been paid on export apples and pears under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973. The remission clause of the Bill, clause 6, is designed to meet the circumstances to which I have already referred in my speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill.

The Bill provides penalties for non-payment of levy by the due date with a power to remit such penalties in appropriate circumstances, and also provides for recovery of amounts of levy or penalty due. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with the powers of an authorized person to enter premises to exercise his functions of search, examination and measurement in relation to what might be leviable land. The authorized person may enter with the consent of the occupier or may apply to a Justice of the Peace for a warrant authorizing entry. The Bill also provides for a penalty for failure or neglect to comply with the requirements of the regulations relating to the submitting of returns and information. Detailed administrative procedures relating to collection of the levy and the submission of the requisite returns and information will be set out in regulations under the Act. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 3471

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 to take account of changes in the income source of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, which will be brought into effect by the Apple and Pear Levy Bill and the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill, which have just been introduced. The Bill also repeals the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973 as from the date that the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1975 comes into operation. Since under the new levy revenue will flow to the Corporation on a calendar year basis, rather than a financial year, the Bill provides for amendment of the principal Act to permit the annual report and financial statements of the Corporation to be submitted on such a basis.

The Bill also amends the principal Act to extend the permit power to borrow in the exercise of any of its powers under the Act. This is presently confined to borrowing only for the exercise of its power to engage in trade. It has become evident that the Corporation will need to have a greater flexibility in respect of the purposes for which it may borrow, particularly in the initiatory period of the new levy. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 3471

LEGAL AID BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Ready and equal access to the law and the legal process is the birthright of every Australian. The Government believes that if this is to become a reality under our federal system, State systems of legal aid have to be complemented by an Australia-wide system of legal aid.

The Bill gives legislative form to the Australian Legal Aid Office as a legal service independent of government to provide legal aid in the Federal area through lawyers in the Australian Legal Aid Office and also in private practice. The Bill assumes that a large proportion of the work of the Australian Legal Aid Office will be referred to the private profession and provides accordingly. The Bill also provides for a better and more rational approach to the need for Federal grants to assist legal aid schemes conducted by State governments, legal professional bodies in the States and voluntary bodies. It establishes an Australian Legal Aid Commission to advise the Government upon legal aid, and provides for consultation at State and local community level with the legal profession and others.

Action to make legal advice and assistance available to Australians on a nationwide basis was one of the earliest initiatives of this Government. On 30 April 1973 my predecessor announced Government approval of a grant of $2m- the first ever grant by an Australian government- as an interim measure to supplement the existing State legal aid schemes. On 23 July 1973 he announced the establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office and the formation of the Legal Aid Review Committee under the chairmanship of Mr R. F. Turner to examine the whole question of legal aid in Australia. The first Australian Legal Aid Offices were soon established.

The Government has had the benefit of 2 reports from the Legal Aid Review Committee, tabled on 3 April 1974 and 21 May 1975 respectively, and a discussion paper entitled ‘Legal Aid in Australia’ prepared by Professor R. Sackville of the Australian Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. These papers together with submissions from and discussions with representatives of the Law Council of Australia and legal professional bodies in the States and Territories provide a sound basis for this Bill.

The Australian Legal Aid Office, created in 1973, is now well established with branch offices in all State capitals, Canberra and Darwin and 21 regional offices throughout Australia. The shop-front approach has been adapted to the problem of legal aid. Some 100 000 interviews have been conducted by lawyers operating from the 29 offices. The dedication of lawyers in the Office and acceptance of the Office by the public have justified the Government’s view that the Australian Legal Aid Office is the best way to provide effective legal assistance to persons in need- particularly the socially disadvantaged. The hope that my predecessor expressed in his statement in the Senate that the lawyer with a social conscience would be attracted to join the Office has also been realised.

The Government’s belief in the need to present a new image of the law and the lawyer has been more than justified in the success of the ‘shop-front’ offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office that are taking the law to the people. They are attracting people who tend to be distrustful perhaps wrongly, of the law and of lawyers, who are inarticulate, who have language difficulties, who sometimes do not even recognise their problems are legal ones.

The Bill makes the Australian Legal Aid Office an independent statutory body to give effect to the Government’s view that lawyers in the Office should be independent- and be seen to be independent- of the Government. It makes it clear that a relationship of solicitor and client exists between the lawyers of the Office and their clients and that the rules of professional conduct and the ethical standards that apply to lawyers in private practice apply equally to lawyers in the Office. It expressly requires that the Office should be conducted so as to ensure that its activities do not prejudice the independence of the legal profession.

The area within which the Office will provide legal aid is the area within which the Australian Parliament is empowered to make laws under the Constitution. In general terms this means matters arising under Federal or Territory law or in Federal courts and matters on behalf of persons for whom the Australian Government has a special responsibility, including persons on social services, newcomers to Australia, servicemen and ex-servicemen, Aborigines and students. A special area of relevance is environmental protection matters of national concern. Provision is made in the Bill for the ‘means and needs’ test of the Office, contributions by assisted persons and review of decisions by reference to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

The Bill reflects the Government’s expectation not only that the Office will provide legal aid in significant cases affecting the rights of people in need but that it will also contribute to community awareness on matters of rights and obligations, community education and assist the process of law reform. The general direction of the Office is given to a Board of Management of 3 members. The Chairman will be a judge or former judge or a private legal practitioner of high standing in the profession. The Director of the Office will be a member and the other member will be appointed after consultation with the Law Council of Australia. The provision for the Board will ensure that the Office benefits from the presence on it of persons learned and experienced in the private profession.

The Bill provides for consultative committees to assist the Australian Legal Aid Office in the provision of legal assistance. The purpose of these committees is to ensure that there is liaison and consultation at State and local community level between the legal profession and others interested in the provision of legal aid and the lawyers in the Australian Legal Aid Office. This is the level at which aid is actually provided and involvement at this level is essential for the success of the Office in meeting the need for legal assistance in different States and different communities within States.

In addition to establishing the Australian Legal Aid Office to provide legal aid, the BUI provides for an Australian Legal Aid Commission to carry out wide-ranging research and to give policy advice to the Australian Government and also to State governments and other bodies. The Commission has been established as a separate body from the Office on the view that the function of research and policy advising is quite distinct from the function of providing legal aid; that only a separate advisory body can give independent and objective advice to the Australian Government upon the roles of respective services and Federal grants to them; that the advisory body would be m a conflict of interest situation if it also administered the Australian Legal Aid Office; and that the wide role of the Commission as adviser to State governments and other bodies and as a body endeavouring to coordinate legal aid schemes throughout Australia requires demonstrable independence.

The membership of the Commission will be drawn from all sections of the community so that the widest range of views and expertise are avail.able. I agree generally with the recommendation of the Legal Aid Review Committee in its second report concerning the initial composition of the

Commission’s membership. I propose to make appointments as follows: A Chairman, being a person of high standing in the profession; 1 member to represent the Attorney-General; 2 lawyers from private practice; 1 from a Law Society legal aid scheme; 1 from the Australian Legal Aid Office; 1 from a State salaried legal aid service; 1 from the Australian Council of Social Services; 3 from other organisations or persons interested in the provision of legal aid; and 1 person with expertise in law reform. The provisions of this BUI should be welcomed by the legal profession and by other bodies that are interested in the provision of legal aid to the citizen. One has only to compare the provisions of this Bill with legislation providing for State Government services to see how far the Australian Government has gone to involve the profession and the community in this Australia wide system.

I am introducing the Bill now at the end of the present sittings so that reactions and comments of members of the Parliament, the legal profession, interested organisations and members of the public can be made known. All comments will be gladly received and studied. I hope that they will be made by the beginning of August so that the debate can be resumed in this House during the Budget session. I have already had the benefit of useful discussions and consultations with legal professional bodies. I intend to have further consultations with them and with other interested organisations and individuals. I hope that all interested persons will now take this opportunity to study the Bill and make their comments on it to the Government. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 3473

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: APPROVAL OF WORK

Australian Government Centre, Parramatta

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Minister for Housing and Construction) (4.57)- I move:

The proposal involves the construction of a modern office complex with a view to accommodating 5000 Australian Government office users. The development will make provision for civic, community and staff amenity facilities and for retail purposes. The office accommodation will be concrete frame structures designed so as to provide flexible general purpose office areas for Australian Government usage. The complex will be designed for minimum maintenance with floors being carpeted in office areas. Acoustic treatment will be provided to reduce the general noise level. The buildings will be air conditioned and fire protection will be installed. Provision will be made for basement parking for official vehicles. The estimated cost of the proposed work at the time of the Committee’s investigation was:

  1. 2 stage development, $46m;
  2. b) single stage development, $45 m.

The Committee concluded that there was a need for additional Australian Government owned office accommodation in the Sydney area; that this proposal will contribute to satisfying the need; that Parramatta offers an opportunity to decentralise; and that this decentralisation will benefit the Government and its employees, the local population, business, and city council. The Committee saw a need for the community facilities proposed to help meet the existing shortcomings, and to provide some retail facilities in the centre to meet, in part, the requirements of employees and the general public. The Committee concluded that the community facilities should be financially self supporting and that the retail facilities should be profitable to the Government.

The Committee endorsed the provision for car parking proposed; concluded that the site selected was suitable; and recommended the construction of the work in the reference, preferably, for reasons of economy, as one continuing project rather than in two stages. The sponsoring Department has undertaken to arrange for construction as one continuing project. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I should like to thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) for his remarks and to welcome this important proposal. I want also to thank the Public Works Committee for the most thoughtful and courteous hearings it conducted in Parramatta in relation to this most important public work. This work is going to involve a great deal of Commonwealth Government, expenditure. I think this report indicates the need for such works to be carefully scrutinised and for particular matters to be considered in detail. I should like to thank the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for the way in which he courteously dealt with the Mayor of the City of Parramatta, with other distinguished personages of the city and, in particular, with Mr Murray of Murray Brothers, who is here today to listen to this short debate.

A number of matters dealt with in the report concern me a great deal. On page 14 reference was made to local government rates. I think the matter of parking ought to be considered in association with this matter. The Committee said in its observations that, in accordance with accepted Australian Government practice, limited ex gratia payments will be made to the Parramatta City Council. Undoubtedly that has been the practice. The report goes on to indicate that those payments would be made in relation to those parts of the centre that generate income for the Commonwealth. In other words, the small part of the centre that has retail aspects associated with it would pay rates but the rest of the centre would not. I believe that the development as proposed- and as the report has recommendedwill mean in fact the death knell of Parramatta as a major commercial centre, a commercial centre that will have retail facilities and a centre that will have in it the sort of activities that are important to a major city. I believe that the development will mean the death of the city of Parramatta and it will become a city very similar to the city of Sydney- tall office blocks, canyons, and very little in the way of commercial activity.

Mr Howard:

– Shameful.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I believe it is shameful. I am not blaming the Committee. I believe the Committee had before it a great deal of information, but it was placed in a difficult position. It had to look at the question of car parking which was canvassed by the representatives of the Parramatta City Council and by the representatives of the Planning and Environment Commission, and it had to look at past policies. I do not exempt previous Liberal Governments from the comments I am about to make because I believe it is time for a fundamental change in the way in which governments approach the question of parking in important developments like this.

In this report we see a situation where 600 cars at the moment can be parked on the Meggitt site in Parramatta as arranged with the permission of the Minister. After the development takes place, 345 cars will be able to be parked on that site: 305 official cars and 40 temporary visitor cars. That is the provision that is being made in this development. In addition we will probably see, with the provision of access to the site, the diminution of a further 50 car parking spaces that are presently made available by Murray Brothers in that area of the site that is to be acquired. So, with the development of a site that will accommodate 5000 public servants, we will see a net loss in terms of parking provision in the City of Parramatta of some 305 spaces.

In the report and in evidence given by Mr Clark on behalf of the Department of Services and Property, we saw a rather naive statement that indicated that it was Mr Clark’s expectation that public servants would use public transport to get to and from the centre when it is completed. If some positive direction could be issued to the public servants I probably would not be complaining. But nobody is going to suggest to me that some positive direction is going to be given to the people working in this centre that they should not travel to and from the centre by their own vehicles, that they should not take advantage of the limited number of parking spaces available for commercial purposes provided at the expense of the ratepayers at Parramatta and choke up those parking spaces for the day if they want to. No suggestion has been made that the Government will organise the erection of barriers to ensure that public servants do not bring their vehicles into the city. Yet I submit that this is the sort of thing that would have to be done if we were to take this suggestion seriously.

At the moment there are very limited transport faculties to and from the city of Parramatta. I know that it was acknowledged by the Committee. It was acknowledged by the New South Wales Government, which over many years has had difficulty in getting the funds necesary to solve these important problems. The city of Parramatta is served by one railway line that comes from the east and another that comes from the west. Development is thick to the north and the south of the city. Yet neither of those communities is connected directly by rail with the city itself. The reason why I make and emphasise this point is that it becomes clear that we cannot expect the railways to bring the vast majority of public servants into the city of Parramatta. Most of them will still have to use private transport, whether it is our wish to bring them by public transport or otherwise. It was clear in the submissions that were put before the Committee that this was the case.

I want to make these important points: We see a lot being done for local government by this Government. The Government has established such things as the area improvement plan, the

Grants Commission and so on. It has set up expensive administrative procedures which involve a large number of public servants in their administration; yet it refuses to pay rates on the properties which it owns. If the Government was prepared to pay rates on properties such as the one in Paramatta that we are now consideringthis applies to the New South Wales State Government as well- I submit that there would be no need for the vast and expensive programs that we have seen developed. It would be much easier to provide the facilities that are needed. In fact Senator Poyser, one of the members of the Committee, suggested that in order to solve the problems that Parramatta has in relation to parking the city ought to go before the Grants Commission. He said: ‘Do not look at us; do not expect the Public Works Committee to deal with it. Go before the Grants Commission or some other authority which will be able to come up with a solution to the problem ‘.

The city of Parramatta is not able to collect rates from the Government to enable it to try to solve the problem of parking itself. The following comment is made on page 4 of the report of the Public Works Committee, under the heading ‘Economics of Australian Government Office Construction’:

Apart from the physical advantages to the Government in owning its office accommodation, recent studies have demonstrated that it is generally more economical to own office accommodation than to lease equivalent privately owned space.

I’ll say it is! There are considerable savings to be made, and the reason why those savings are to be made is that the people of Parramatta will have to provide, out of rate revenue or other income that might be available to them by way of loans and so on, the other facilities that the Government will not provide. In other words, the city will have to try to solve its parking problems itself. The report goes on to state:

The costs of building and operating the proposed office complex compare favourably with the cost of leasing equivalent accommodation constructed under similar economic conditions.

They are a darned sight better because the Government does not have to provide for parking at all.

I put this to the Committee when I appeared before it: If the Government was renting office accommodation from a private developer, such as accommodation in IAC House or Macarthur House in the city of Parramatta, it would pay a commercial rent and in that commercial rent would be an amortised cost for providing parking for that development and an amortised cost for rates that the developer had to pay. There is the saving that we as a Commonwealth Government are able to make. We make it by a rip-off from local government, a rip-off from the city of Parramatta and a rip-off, I would submit, from every other municipal authority that will have in its area a development such as those foreshadowed for Albury-Wodonga, BathurstOrange and Geelong. Some members of this House might wonder when they get these developments in their electorates what sort of approach will be taken. I can assure them that it will not be the sort of approach that is taken here in the national capital, where an abundance of parking is readily provided and associated with every development. It will be the approach that we have in the city of Parramatta, where we are told: ‘You will get only a minus figure- minus 305 car parking spaces in the city’.

It appears to me that the Government has had second thoughts on this question. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) on 4 December, said:

We will be able to make available an area for car parking of from 500 to 1000 cars.

Mr Clark of the Department of Services and Property said:

During talks a few months ago with the State Planning and Environment Commission they indicated that in the light of further studies they would prefer a maximum of 1000 cars. We made recommendations along these lines.

Then he said:

We were not happy about 1000, we thought it was too much for the site but we said preferably 500 cars would be suitable.

Apparently the Government had second thoughts again. Perhaps it would be a little naive to suggest that this may be related to the attitudes of one Minister who, I know, believes that there should be no provision for cars to be brought into any city and that we ought to deal only with public transport in terms of funding. But Little does he realise the effect, the devastating effect, that this development will have on the city of Parramatta and its commercial development.

The Committee had before it clear evidence from the Parramatta City Council that in accordance with all its codes 2400 car parking spaces ought to be provided. The Parramatta City Council agreed that it ought to compromise, as it did on other matters when it agreed to give up the site for its baby health centre in a swap for road widening work that was being undertaken. That was a swap that would not be made with any other developer where the Council has provisions to require money to be -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! I remind the honourable member that that is not the matter before the House. The matter before the House is clearly set out. We are considering whether approval for this work should be given, and any diversion from that project I shall rule out of order.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the matters to which I am referring are associated with the project before the Chair. I am referring to the O’Connell Street frontage. It was necessary for the baby health centre site to be acquired for this project.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As long as the matter to which the honourable member refers relates to the project at Parramatta he will be in order.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I certainly would not transgress. I would not want to waste my time speaking about any other development that was not as important to me. It is quite clear that the Parramatta City Council has gone a long way towards meeting the requirements of the Government and that it has endeavoured to co-operate in every way. The Parramatta City Council said that it would accept 1200 car parking spaces. The New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission, in giving evidence before the CommitteeI could go through it- said that this number of spaces would be necessary for this sort of development in the city of Parramatta. I can appreciate the problem that faced the Public Works Committee. I believe that it felt that it had to accept the policy, or it felt constrained to accept the policy- I do not think it had to accept it -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It does not operate that way.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– Yes, it may well have been derived from the former Government policy. I can tell you, Sir -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not say that. I said that it does not operate that way, I can assure you.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I appreciate that. I appreciate that in many other respects it was somewhat critical, but I did not want to go through the critical aspects. I thought that might do a disservice to the Government. But I did want to make it clear that the interdepartmental policy on parking is one that the Public Works Committee felt constrained to accept because it has applied to many other developments in many other communities.

In view of the matters that I have raised and in view of the devastating effect that this development in its present form will have on the city of Parramatta, I ask the Minister to review this matter and to ask the interdepartmental committee to consider the important matters that I have raised and the effect that this indirect taxing is having on communities in which government developments are taking place. The Government is trying to compensate for needs in this area by its other policies. Substantial savings could be made if local government were paid rates and if contributions were made for parking in cases in which proper submissions were made- in this case I submit that very proper submissions were made- on the expenditure that was necessary for the viability of a project. I submit that if this policy were changed every member would support it, because ultimately it will have an effect on every community. Every community is affected by the degree of subsidy that is necessary at a local level.

Notwithstanding the comments I have made in respect of the parking aspect of the project, I again thank the Public Works Committee for the most courteous hearing that it gave to me and the distinguished citizens of the city of Parramatta who appeared before it Notwithstanding our disagreement on the parking aspect of the project, I hope that a change of policy will occur, if not in relation to Parramatta- Parramatta may suffer- then in relation to every other major development that takes place in the future. I make this comment for the benefit of my colleagues on this side of the House: I hope that when we go into government there will be a clear change of policy on our part because I think it is absolutely essential that this happen.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) raised quite a number of questions. I am sure that he did not mean to convey the impression that the people of Parramatta do not want this project in their city. I make 2 points: The first one is that the Joint Committee on Public Works is a bi-partisan Committee. The Public Works Committee Act gives the opportunity to any member of the Committee to have his views included in a report of the Committee. So because there is no contrary view expressed in the report submitted to the House it must be accepted that the members of the Public Works Committee- Government supporters and those members who are not on the Government sidewere unanimous in their views as expressed in the report.

As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) outlined when he moved the expediency motion for the acceptance of this report the project provides not only a tower block to accommodate 5000 public servants but also quite a number of community facilities, to wit, a 750-seat theatre and a 200-seat theatre for use by community groups. I would have thought that the priorities of the Parramatta City Council were such that that august body would never allocate funds to build such facilities. So unless they are included in this project, the citizens of Parramatta will be without these cultural facilities and they are certainly needed.

I would like to correct a misconception that the honourable member for Parramatta may have left with us when he talked about the Government not paying rates on government buildings. This is certainly a contentious issue. I would not say that there was unanimity amongst the Committee members on this question. But it is not a matter which concerns the Committee. However, I point out that paragraph 5 1 of the report states that an ex-gratia payment will be made equal to the rates that would have been paid for the commercial part of the building if it were not Australian Government owned. But the city of Parramatta is not giving the Australian Government anything at all. The report goes on to state:

Payments will also be made for any services rendered by a _ rating authority such as the supply of water, sewerage, * electricity or the collection of garbage.

The services that the City provides to the complex will be paid for. It will be paid rates for the area that is being used for commercial purposes -for revenue-bringing purposes. I fail to see- the honourable member for Parramatta did not convince me on this matter- where the City of Parramatta is missing out, unless its officials are like cash registers wanting more money. I do not think that that is the case, having spoken to the Mayor and his officers. I do not think that they are that sort of people. I think that they are far wiser than that. We should not be left with the misconception that just because this will be an Australian Government building and because the Australian Government does not pay rates all the cost will be borne by the people of Parramatta. That is not true.

The honourable member also told us- the report states this- that there will be car parking space for 305 cars in the basement area and for 40 cars along the colonnade frontages, that is offstreet parking. Then he told us that 600 cars could be parked on the old Meggitt site. I did not have time to count the motor cars the day I saw them. But I do not doubt the honourable member’s word. He is a very truthful and honourable man. I take his word that 600 motor cars can be parked on the old Meggitt site. But what is the history of that site? It was purchased only in 1973. In 1974 the building that stood on the site was demolished. It is now 1975. Nobody could answer my question when I asked where the 600 cars were parked before the building was demolished and the land was made available as a parking site. Where did the motor cars park? Somebody said that they parked in the streets. I had a look in the streets and they still had cars parked in them. To me, that justifies the action taken by the Committee in recommending that there be no increase in the car parking facilities.

There are a number of reasons why the Committee did this. The Committee felt that all of the reasons were good reasons. It is true that it is the Australian Government’s policy to encourage people to use public transport. But that in itself did not influence the Committee. The Committee was appalled at the volume of traffic on the roads in Parramatta at the times when we were there, and we saw the position for most of the day. We could not be convinced that to provide another 1200 car parking spaces would be a good idea because another 1200 cars could not be carried by the road system in the area. The Australian Government has a practice of providing offstreet parking space for official vehicles. It also has a policy of fostering the use of public transport. Evidence given by the Department of Transport at the hearing was that the recommendations of the Sydney Area Transportation Study incorporated the objective that major government investment be made in the Parramatta area to provide a major public transport system to cater for the expanded workforce expected to utilise the planned Parramatta central business district.

The Australian Government in 1974- this is well worth noting- offered to construct and operate without cost- I emphasise that- to the New South Wales Government a railway system radiating from Parramatta to Hoxton Park in the south-west, Castle Hill in the north-west and through Carlingford to Epping in the north-east. In subsequent consultations between the Australian and New South Wales Governments regarding this offer it was agreed that a transport study be undertaken for the Parramatta area and a comparative study of alternative long-term public transport systems for the Parramatta subregion be completed by June 1975. The study will cover the general issues of car parking, road widenings and public transport improvements.

We would therefore compromise the long-term transportation objectives of the Australian Government if additional car parking spaces were to be recommended by the Public Works Committee.

Some other considerations were involved. They included the high cost of providing extra car parking spaces. It was estimated that to provide 1200 car parking spaces and to take the basement down another floor would cost in the order of $12,000 per car parking space. The main factor influencing that high cost is the water-charged nature of the site which presents waterproofing and drainage problems and the pinning of the basement to prevent notation problems. Other high cost factors included excavation, ventilation and the provision of lift services. Our advice from the Department of Housing and Construction indicated that the cost of providing a multi-storey car parking station is around $2,400 to $2,700 per car.

There is only one other point that I wish to make in relation to transport. I think that the honourable member for Parramatta had his wires crossed and that he attacked the wrong government. He should have talked about the New South Wales Government and not about the Australian Government which is doing its damnedest to make Parramatta a better place for those very charming people who live there. But when the honourable member for Parramatta spoke he left the impression with this House and with the people listening to the debate that the Australian Government does very little or nothing in regard to car parking. A question was asked at the hearing in Parramatta to which a reply was given by the Department of Urban and Regional Development. It was that the Australian Government has already spent $60,000 in that area- given freely to the City of Parramatta to purchase car parking space. We ought to be a little fair in relation to this matter. The Aus.tralian Government has played its part. It has already given $60,000 through the Grants Commission. I know that other funds are going to the City. The Australian Government is providing to the City at no capital cost 2 theatres, an elderly citizens’ club, a gymnasium, and a number of other facilities that would be beyond the financial capacity of the City itself to provide. This is because its priorities he in other areas. It is concerned about its road system; I think that the City has its priorities right there. As I say, these facilities are being provided to the community at no cost. I would have thought that the people of Parramatta would welcome this. In fact, I have a rather sneaking suspicion that those people in

Parramatta who spoke in opposition to the proposal were not truly reflecting the views of the people of Parramatta. I am confirmed in my mind that the people of Parramatta will regard this building with some pride when it is erected on the frontage of O’Connell and George Streets.

Mr Cadman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 50

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr RUDDOCK (Parramatta) -Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I do. In the debate that has just taken place the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), who is the chairman of the Public Works Committee, indicated that I was not in favour of the development of the Australian Government Centre at Parramatta. He indicated that quite clearly and said that he was of the view that other citizens of Parramatta did welcome the development. I want to make it clear- I said so in my opening remarks- that I welcome the development. It is only the parking provisions and the inadequacy of them about which I have reservations.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Road Safety and Standards Authority Facilities at Albury-Wodonga

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969- 1 974, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of Road Safety and Standards Authority facilities at Albury-Wodonga.

The proposal is for facilities to house the Road Safety and Standards Authority, which is to be the focal point for more direct Australian Government involvement and for more vigorous and better co-ordinated action at the national level on road safety generally, and on emissions and consumer protection in relation to motor vehicles.

The complex will consist of an administrative building to accommodate 200 people as well as facilities for outdoor and indoor testing of motor vehicles, including a test circuit, skid pan, emissions laboratory and a tyre testing building. The estimated cost of the proposal was $9m at February 1975 prices. The Committee concluded that there was a need for the facility, the site selected was suitable and should not prejudice the site for any proposed aerodrome to serve the Albury-Wodonga area, and that work should proceed to construction. It is recommended that the House concur with the Committee’s report allowing planning to proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has given a brief run-down of the reasons that the Road Safety and Standards Authority facilities have been recommended. But I believe that it is worth pointing out why, in the first instance, this Parliament organised an investigation into this particular problem. It is worth putting into Hansard that in 1974 close to 4000 Australians lost their lives in road accidents, and in the 10 years up to and including 1973, 400 000 people were killed and 850 000 people were injured on Australian roads. The road toll reached a peak in 1970 when almost 4000 people were killed and 91 000 were injured. Fortunately this upward trend was reversed during 1971 and 1972 but further increases occurred in 1973 when 3679 people -

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 51

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3480

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING, DEAKIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of proposed Telephone Exchange Building- Deakin, Australian Capital Territory.

The proposal is for the construction of a building comprising a basement, ground and two upper floors, designed to accommodate telecommunications equipment for the Australian Post Office. The building is planned to house local and trunk network telecommunication facilities, and provide other special services for Canberra until the year 2000. The building will be constructed of reinforced concrete and will be airconditioned, with lifts, fire protection, emergency power, and other engineering installations. The estimated cost of the proposal at April 1975 prices is $12.75m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3480

OMBUDSMAN BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 June.

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

Clause 3.

Mr ENDERBY:
AttorneyGeneral · Canberra · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I seek the leave of the Committee to move 4 amendments to clause 3 at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I move-

In sub-clause (1) omit the definition of “prescribed authority”, substitute the following definition:- “ ‘prescribed authority ‘ means-

a body corporate, or an unincorporated body, established for a public purpose by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment, other than-

an incorporated company or association;

a body that has the power to take evidence on oath or affirmation and is constituted by, or includes among its members, a person who is a Justice or Judge of a court established by a law of Australia or a person who has, by virtue of an Act, the same status as a Justice or Judge of such a court; and

a body that under sub-section (2) or the regulations is not to be taken to be a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act;

any other body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, declared by the regulations to be a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act, being-

a body established by the Governor-General or by a Minister; or

an incorporated company in which Australia has a controlling interest;

the person holding, or performing the duties of, an office established by an enactment, other than such a person who under sub-section (2A) or the regulations is not to be taken to be a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act; or

the person performing the duties of an appointment declared by the regulations to be an appointment the holder of which is a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act, being an appointment made by the Governor-General, or by a Minister, otherwise than under an enactment; “.

In sub-clause (1) in the definition of ‘principal officer’ omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraph: - “(c) in relation to a prescribed authority-

if the regulations declare an office to be the principal office in respect of the authority- the person holding, or performing the duties of, that office; or

in any other case- the person who constitutes, or is acting as the person who constitutes, that authority or, if the authority is constituted by 2 or more persons, the person who is entitled to preside at any meeting of the authority at which he is present;”.

In sub-clause (1), in the definition of ‘responsible Minister’, omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraphs:- “(c) if a prescribed authority referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘prescribed authority’ is responsible for dealing with a matter- the Minister administering the enactment by which, or in accordance with the provisions of which, the prescribed authority is established;

if a prescribed authority referred to in paragraph (c) of that definition is responsible for dealing with the matter- the Minister administering the enactment by which the office is established; or

if any other prescribed authority is responsible for dealing with the matter- the Minister declared by the regulations to be the responsible Minister in respect of that authority,”.

Omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following subclauses: “(2) An unincorporated body, being a board, council, committee, sub-committee or other body established by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment for the purpose of assisting, or performing functions connected with, a prescribed authority shall not be taken to be a prescribed authority for the purpose of this Act, but action taken by the body, or by a person on its behalf, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to have been taken by that prescribed authority. “(2A) A person shall not be taken to be a prescribed authority by virtue of his holding, or performing the duties of-

an office the duties of which he performs as duties of his employment as an officer or employee of a Department or as a member of the staff of a prescribed authority;

b ) an office of member of a body; or

an office established by an enactment for the purposes of a prescribed authority, but any action taken by or on behalf of such a person in his capacity as the person holding or performing the duties of the office concerned shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been taken by the Department, body or prescribed authority, as the case may be. “(2B) Where -

action is taken by a person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a function conferred by or under an enactment;

the person does not exercise the power or perform the function by virtue of holding, or performing the duties of, an office established by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment;

the person is not an officer of a Department or of a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act; and

the person is not authorized to exercise the power or perform the function by reason of his being a Judge of a court of, or a magistrate of, a State or Territory, the action shall be deemed to have been taken, for the purposes of this Act, by the Department responsible for dealing with the matter in connexion with which the action is taken.”.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) was kind enough to supply to me some explanatory notes regarding these amendments. The Opposition agrees with the Government’s amendments to the definition of ‘prescribed authority’ contained in clause 3. As the Attorney-General’s explanatory memorandum points out, the definition as it previously stood in the Bill did not distinguish sufficiently between the holders of statutory offices, such as the Commissioner of Taxation with whom the ombudsman ought to deal directly, and the holders of statutory offices such as the Commissioner of Patents, who are officers of a department and in relation to whom the ombudsman should deal with the Permanent Head of the relevant department.

Further on in the explanatory notes the Attorney-General drew attention to the position of the Australian National University. The University was established under an Act of this Par.liament. The Act which established the university also created a series of bodies associated with the operation of the universities, such as the Institute of Advanced Studies, the School of General Studies and so forth. Obviously a definition of ‘prescribed authority’ should be sufficiently broad and precise so that a reference to an appeal under the Act, which establishes a variety of bodies, can be taken to include appeals in respect of decisions of any of the individual bodies which have been established under the Act. The effect of the amendment is that unless the regulations provide otherwise it shall be assumed that a reference to the bodies established under the Act shall mean all of the bodies established under the Act, such as, in the case of the Australian National University, the bodies that I have mentioned. It is a very desirable amendment and the Opposition welcomes it as it will do a great deal to clarify the Bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5.

  1. The Ombudsman is not authorized to investigate-

    1. action taken by a Minister;
    2. action taken by a Justice or Judge of a court established by a law of Australia;
    3. action taken by a magistrate or coroner for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;
    4. action taken by any body or person with respect to persons employed in the Australian Public Service, the Public Service of the Northern Territory or the service of a prescribed authority, being action taken in relation to that employment, including action taken with respect to the promotion, termination of appointment or discipline of a person so employed or the payment of remuneration to such a person;
    5. action that the Defence Force Ombudsman is authorized to investigate; or (0 action taken by a Department or by a prescribed authority with respect to the appointment of a person to an office established by or under an enactment, not being an office in the Australian Public Service or an office in the Service of a prescribed authority.
  2. Paragraph (2) (d) does not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating action taken by a member of a Police Force referred to in sub-section 3 (8), or by any other person, with respect to a complaint made to a member of that Police Force concerning action taken by another member of that Police Force.
  3. Where, at any time during an investigation under this Act into action taken by a Department or prescribed authority, the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion-

    1. that the action was taken in the course of giving effect to a decision of the Cabinet, of a Committee of the Cabinet or of a Minister; or
    2. that the action was taken in the course of giving effect to a decision of the Administrator in Council of the Northern Territory, and that the Department or prescribed authority did not act improperly in the course of giving effect to that decision, the Ombudsman shall not investigate the action further.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move amendments Nos 5 and 6 circulated in my name together with the explanatory memorandum.

Mr CHAIRMAN:
Mr Berinson

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I move:

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (0, after ‘Public Service’ insert ‘, an office in the Public Service of the Northern Territory’.

Omit sub-clause (4).

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7.

A complaint under this Act shall be made to the Ombudsman in writing.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Add at the end of the clause the following sub-clauses: ‘(2) A person who is detained in custody is entitled, upon making a request to the person in whose custody he is detained or to another person performing duties in connexion with his detention-

to be provided with facilities for preparing a complaint under this Act and for enclosing the complaint m a sealed envelope; and

to have forwarded to the Ombudsman, without undue delay, a sealed envelope delivered by him to the person and addressed to the Ombudsman. ‘(3) Where a sealed envelope is delivered to a person under sub-section (2) for forwarding to the Ombudsman, neither the person in whose custody he is detained nor any person performing duties in connexion with his detention is entitled to open the envelope or inspect any document enclosed in the envelope. ‘.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition does have some difficulty with this amendment. We appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any person who is detained in custody is entitled, notwithstanding the fact that he is detained in custody, to have access to the Ombudsman. For that purpose he is to be provided with facilities for preparing a complaint under this Act and for enclosing the complaint in a sealed envelope to ensure that the envelope is sent to the Ombudsman. Provision is made in the amendment for penalties if any person who has the custody of the person making the complaint does not ensure that the envelope is delivered. On first reaction that is a very reasonable amendment. The problem that the Opposition has is that in no way does the amendment categorise the circumstances in which a person might be taken into custody. It raises in the Opposition’s mind the problem of a possible conflict with State laws so far as they relate to the conditions under which people shall be held in custody.

Honourable members will be aware that matters dealing with the detention of persons in respect of the States is a matter entirely for the States. It may well be that present regulations in the various States provide that in certain circumstances correspondence shall not be sent from a person in custody to a person outside the gaol or other institution in which that person may be held, without that mail being inspected by a prison or other official. I hope that perhaps in the course of any future review of this legislation the Government will take into account the point which is raised by the Opposition. It is not raised frivolously; it is an important point. Whilst the Opposition will not oppose the main principle which is embodied in this amendment, that is, to ensure that a person in custody is not denied access to the Ombudsman, the Opposition does voice a concern as to the impact it may have so far as it may conflict with State laws regulating the conditions on which persons are detained in custody.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Reconsideration of Clause 5.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Chairman, I seek leave to say something about clause 5.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I abstained from the second reading debate on this matter so that this debate might go through quickly. I wish to say something about clause 5 (2) (a) which states:

  1. The Ombudsman is not authorized to investigate-

    1. Action taken by a Minister;

Even though an amendment has not been proposed I want to suggest to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) that, having in mind the history of discretions under Commonwealth law and the fact that many administrative discretions are given to Ministers, there is a strong case for doing one of two things: Either including amongst those discretions which the ombudsman can look at, certain of the discretions of Ministers that are administrative, or alternatively, carrying out a thorough investigation of the Commonwealth law in order to sort out from the discretions of Ministers those which are matters of policy and those which are matters of administration

Unfortunately, I think this Parliament fell into . the habit over a large number of years of giving administrative discretions to Ministers- discretions which could just as well have been given to officials. At the same time, of course, many discretions which are matters of policy have been given to Ministers. As the Kerr Committee and the Bland Committee pointed out, Ministerial discretions which relate to policy ought not, in the ordinary course, be the subject of either administrative review or Ombudsman review, nor for that matter unlikely to be, except in narrow cases, matters of judicial review. I should like to instance this by referring the Attorney-General to the Schedules to the Bland Committee report.

In Appendix 2 to that report there are some discretions which total I think over one hundred and forty. These are administrative discretions under statutes and regulations without any provision for review for which a review process should be considered. We considered these in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill which this day it is hoped will pass through this House. But, in the course of that consideration, some of those discretions were taken out for the purpose of making them the subject of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of those mentioned by the Bland Committee- as I say, there were over one hundred and forty -at least sixty-one as I counted them are discretions vested in Ministers. Therefore they are appropriate for administrative review. I suggest that they are also appropriate for review by an ombudsman.

If we are to do complete justice to the ombudsman process, as well as the administrative appeal process, and if we are to make the ombudsman a person who is established for the specific purpose of being the representative of the public in looking at discretions of a particular quality or character, then those discretions which are vested in Ministers and are administrative in nature ought also to be subject to consideration by an ombudsman. Otherwise there is no reason to make the decision in justice. The ordinary member of the public would not be able to understand the distinction. Of course the best thing to do is to take these discretions away from Ministers and give them to officials. But if the Government will not do that, I suggest that at least it ought to bring in an amendment at some stage, having considered this point, which would have the effect of putting in a schedule the particular discretions and making them subject to consideration by the ombudsman.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I wish to respond very briefly; so I also seek leave to speak to clause 5.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will not take very much time, because we are pressed for it. Let me say that I listened with considerable interest to the contribution by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) on clause 5. He raises a matter that, of course, has concerned many people. I refer to the role of an Ombudsman as it relates to a Minister’s discretion or area of activity. The honourable gentleman will know that in one of my amendments we are taking out subclause (4) of clause 5, which will strengthen the Ombudsman’s role very considerably in an area related to what the honourable gentleman spoke about. However, we certainly will keep the matter under review. I just put it to the honourable gentleman that this measure and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill, which as he has pointed out is to be considered tonight, represents enormous leaps forward for Australia. I think it was the honourable gentleman who said that when they become law Australia will have perhaps the best system of administrative law in the Western world. They are such great leaps that there is a point at which one has to give very close consideration to the matter; otherwise one leaps a little too far.

Proposed new clause 7 A.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

After clause 7 insert the following new clause: ‘(7a) The Ombudsman may conduct an investigation in respect of an action taken before the coming into operation of this Act if in all the circumstances the Ombudsman considers it proper to do so. ‘.

The purpose of this amendment is, I think, selfevident. It aims at a situation in which the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation in respect of some event or action which occurred or was taken before the Act came into operation. If in all the circumstances the Ombudsman considers it proper, that course of action may be taken. I do hot think honourable members would need any explanation from me of the circumstances in which this might be appropriate. It is self-apparent. Of course, the fact that we have brought in the Ombudsman Bill means that there is a wide area in which administrative discretions ought to be the subject of investigation. Cases are occurring every day, and we think that the scope of operation of the Ombudsman should be as wide as possible.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government opposes the amendment, not out of any sense of being difficult but because we trunk it restricts the power or the capacity of the Ombudsman. As I explained to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Bill has been drafted on the basis that the Ombudsman can go back in time. Indeed, if the honourable gentleman looks at clause 6, he will see that that clause is drafted on the assumption that the Ombudsman can go back in time, and there is reference to a discretion that relates to the Ombudsman not making the decision if he is satisfied that the complainant became aware of the action more than 12 months before the complaint was made to the Ombudsman. It would seem to us that, if the amendment were carried, a situation in which the Ombudsman has a duty, so to speak, to go back in time would be replaced by a discretion as to whether he goes back in time. We would have thought that that was not what the honourable gentleman seeks to achieve. It certainly is not what the Government wants to achieve. For that reason we oppose the amendment.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

  1. Where a Minister furnishes to the Ombudsman a certificate certifying that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter (including the furnishing of information in answer to a question) or the disclosure of the contents of any documents or records would be contrary to the public interest-

    1. by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia;
    2. by reason that it would prejudice relations between the Australian Government and the Government of a State;
    3. by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet; or
    4. by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Administrator’s Council established under section 4ZA of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1974, the Ombudsman is not entitled to require a person to furnish any information concerning the matter, to answer questions concerning the matter or to produce those documents or records to the Ombudsman.
  2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a person is not excused from furnishing information, producing a document or other record or answering a question when required to do so under this Act on the ground that the furnishing of the information, the production of the document or record or the answer to the question would contravene the provisions of any other Act, would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty, but his answer to any such question is not admissable in evidence against him in proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against section 35.
  3. A person is not liable to any penalty under the provisions of any other enactment by reason of his furnishing information, producing a document or other record or answering a question when required to do so under this Act.
  4. Subject to this Act, a person attending before the Ombudsman has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Act, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

In sub-clause (3) omit ‘a Minister’, substitute ‘the AttorneyGeneral’.

This amendment was the subject of discussion during the second reading stage. A similar amendment was moved during the debate on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill. The Opposition feels that the excluding criteria in clause 9 are so important, that the discretion available to the Minister is so important and that the circumstances in which a Minister may not wish an investigation to proceed could potentially be so important that the discretion should not rest with the Minister; that the Minister should not, so to speak, be a judge in his own case. We feel that the proper person to make the decision as to whether the circumstances fit the excluding criteria is the principal law officer of the Government, the Attorney-General. I appreciate that this could, in many circumstances, place the Attorney-General in a very difficult situation.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HOWARD:

-When the House rose for dinner I had moved amendment No. 2 standing in my name. The purpose of this amendment was referred to during the second reading debate, that is, to give to the Attorney-General the sole authority to determine whether or not the excluding criteria of clause 9 operate in respect of the circumstances of a particular matter. For the reasons which I think have been fairly fully canvassed during the second reading debate, the Opposition believes that this is a proper amendment. It will pay proper regard to the concept of an ombudsman being able to carry out an untrammelled investigation in respect of a complaint lodged with him and will remove the possibility of a Minister who may not welcome an investigation of a particular complaint being able to abuse the discretion which is conferred on the Minister by the existing provisions of clause 9 of the Bill. I hope the suggestion of the Opposition meets a favourable response from the Government.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I want to make one or two comments and it might be suitable to make them at this stage because the clause suggests a delegation of authority. I should like to make reference to the deputy ombudsmen, particularly the one who will be operating in the Northern Territory. I suppose we people who hold parliamentary office or public office in areas as remote as the Northern Territory are in ourselves sort of ombudsmen. Through you, Mr Chairman, I direct my remarks to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). Could the Deputy Ombudsman for the Northern Territorywhen we get down to the greater detail of this office- have his authority extended to other parts of adjacent areas of northern Australia? There will be a major ombudsman and two deputy ombudsmen, one in the Northern Territory and one in the Australian Capital Territory. Could the organisation be such that the delegation of authority could go across the frontier part of the nation, in other words, the northern areas of Western Australia? For instance, there are matters affecting Aborigines and there are domestic matters which come within an area somewhere in between the authority of the member of Parliament or the official statutory authority and the ombudsman. An ombudsman would not adjudicate but he would advise. People who have spent their entire lives in the remote areas are much more comfortable going to a man who has the office of an ombudsman. I shall conclude on this note: There is an even greater need to select a suitable person to be a deputy ombudsman. We might not look for the blue blooded status of some great identity but we would want someone with a particularly compassionate understanding of people who live and have been bred in that part of the world. We are a race apart.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I should like to ask the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) a question relating to this clause, bearing in mind that the debate was truncated last night and quite a few of us who were scheduled to speak forewent our privilege so that the Bill would pass quickly. I ask the Minister how he sees the Deputy Ombudsman in relation to the Northern Territory Administrator’s Council. Bearing in mind that the Darwin Reconstruction Commission has the authority to override the Northern Territory law, I should like the Minister to explain to me how the Deputy Ombudsman fits into this situation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, I want to -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 49

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I ask for leave to move together amendments Nos 8 and 9 circulated in my name together with amendment 1 (a) also circulated in my name.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the amendments be taken together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr ENDERBY:

- Mr Chairman, I move:

In sub-clause (3) omit paragraph (b), substitute the following paragraph: ‘(b) by reason that it would involve the disclosure of communications between a Minister and a Minister of a State, being a disclosure that would prejudice relations between the Australian Government and the Government of a State; ‘.

Leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following subclause: ‘(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment, a person is not excused from furnishing any information, producing a document or other record or answering a question when required to do so under this Act on the ground that the furnishing of the information, the production of the document or record or the answer to the question-

would contravene the provisions of any other Act, would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty; or

would disclose legal advice furnished to a Minister, a Department or a prescribed authority, but his answer to any such question is not admissible in evidence against him in proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against section 36. ‘.

Leave out sub-clause (6).

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition will not oppose the amendments moved by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). The Minister will be aware that amendment No. 3 circulated in my name sought the deletion completely of paragraph (b) of sub-clause (3) of clause 9. We were concerned that the exclusion contained in that paragraph would have the effect of taking away from examination by the ombudsman a great number of acts carried out by State and Federal Government officials, which arise out of arrangements which had been made between the Australian Government and the government of a State. The Committee will be aware that the network or arrangements that exist between State governments and the Federal Government is such that is would be very easy to conceive of circumstances whereby it could be alleged that any complaint against something done by a State official could be said to prejudice relations between the Australian Government and the government of a State. The Opposition therefore originally intended to delete paragraph (b) of sub-clause (3) of clause 9 completely.

I turn to the amendment moved by the Attorney-General additional to the amendments originally circulated by him. So that the Committee may understand this aspect, I think that I ought to read it. The amendment states: . . . by reason that it would involve the disclosure of communications between a Minister -

That is a Minister of the Australian Government: . . . and a Minister of a State, being a disclosure that would prejudice relations between the Australian Government and the Government of a State.

It is quite apparent from that that the original ambit of paragraph (b) has been greatly restricted. If that amendment is accepted by the Committee, the only matters which can be excluded are those connected with communications between Ministers of the 2 governments, with the further condition that disclosure of that communication would prejudice relations. The Opposition compliments the Attorney-General on producing an extremely sensible compromise. I think that my honourable friend has recognised the point that we were making. The compromise that has been produced by the Attorney-General is, if I may say so, very intelligent. It meets with the full approval of the Opposition.

Progress reported.

page 3487

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

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

In Committee

Senate’s amendments-

No. 1- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 2- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 3- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 4- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 5- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 6- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 7- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 8- In clause 7, sub-clause (2), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 9- In clause 9, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 10- In clause 9, sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 1 1- In clause 9, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 12- In clause 9, sub-clause (4), paragraph (b), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 13- In clause 9, sub-clause (5), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.

No. 14- In clause 56, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 15- In clause 57, sub-clauses (1) and (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: (l)Where-

a ) a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and

his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary’.

No. 16- In clause 59, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 17- In clause 59, sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 18- In clause 59, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 19- In clause 59, sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.

No. 20- In clause 6 1 , leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.

No. 21- In clause 61, leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert 65th anniversary’.

No. 22- In clause 62, sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.

No. 23- In clause 62, sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary’.

No. 24- In clause 62, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert’65th anniversary’.

No. 25- In clause 62, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 26- In clause 67, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 27- In clause 67, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 28- In clause 67, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 29- In clause 68, sub-clause (2), leave out the subclause.

No. 30- In clause 69, sub-clause (3), leave out the subclause.

No. 31- In clause 75, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 32- In clause 77, sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 33- In clause 79, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 34- clause 86, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 35- In clause 86, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 36- In clause 86, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out’ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 6 5 years ‘.

No. 37- In clause 98, sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 38- In clause 99, sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

No. 39- clause 100, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 40- clause 101, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 41- clause 102, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 42- clause 103, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 43- clause 103, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out’60years’,insert’65years’.

No. 44- clause 104, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out’60years’,insert’65years’.

No. 45- clause 104, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 46- clause 105, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.

No. 47- clause 105, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out’ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 48- clause 143, sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 49- clause 143, sub-clause (6), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 50- clause 144, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 51- clause 145, sub-clause (1), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 52- clause 149, sub-clause (9), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

No. 53- clause 149, sub-clause (10), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

No. 54- clause 151, sub-clause (1), after ‘pension’ (second occurring), insert ‘ , additional age retirement pension by virtue of section 58, additional early retirement pension by virtue of section 62, or spouse’s additional pension by virtue of section 84’.

No. 55- clause 153, leave out the clause.

No. 56- after clause 1 85, insert the following new clause: 185a. (1) Any eligible employee referred to in the last preceding section who immediately preceding the commencement day would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon his retirement on attaining the age of either 60 or 65 years may elect to continue his contributions under that Act and to receive benefits in accordance with the provisions thereof.

The contributions of any eligible employee making an election under sub-section ( 1 ) who would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 65 years shall be increased to the level of contributions applicable to persons who have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 60 years.

An election under sub-section (1) shall be made by notice in writing served on the Commissioner within such period as is prescribed.

An eligible employee who makes an election pursuant to this section and who complies with the requirements of that Act shall be entitled to receive benefits under the superseded Act and the superseded Act shall continue in force and apply in relation to such requirements and entitlements as if this Act and the Superannuation Act Amendment Act 1975 had not been passed. ‘.

No. 57- Schedule 1 , leave out the Schedule.

No. 58- Schedule 3, leave out the Schedule.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition will not agree to the motion moved by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). The Government and the Minister will be aware of the reasons which have been given by the Opposition for the amendments which were made when this Bill came before the Senate. The Opposition remains determined that the stand it has taken on this Bill is a responsible stand having regard to the economic circumstances of this country. In no sense has the Opposition taken the decision that it took on this Bill without proper regard to the need to preserve equity between superannuation benefits received by employees in the public sector and like benefits received by those in the private sector. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who led for the Opposition when this Bill was first before the House, canvassed in great detail the consequences of this scheme in the present economic circumstances of this country.

The amendments that have been inserted by the Senate are responsible amendments. I remind the Committee that they have been so described by Senator Hall from South Australia who does not always agree with the stand taken by the Opposition either in this place or another place. They are amendments which I think will be accepted by the great majority of the Aus.tralian people as appropriate to the present economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Minister was not concerned in his speech to describe the nature of the amendments, but I remind the House that the amendments that have been made by the Senate have a threefold effect. Firstly, they substitute the retiring age of 65 years for the retiring age of 60 years, as originally proposed in the legislation. Secondly, they limit the application of the consumer price index provisions of the Bill to the Government funded portion of benefits to be received under the legislation. Thirdly, they eliminate the provision which originally existed in the Bill that where an eligible employee had served more than 30 years he would be entitled to an additional one-half of 1 per cent for each additional year of service beyond 30 years up to a maximum of 40 years. The Opposition does not believe that these amendments leave any present member of the existing superannuation scheme at any disadvantage in relation to the position that he now enjoys.

I remind the Committee and those who are interested in this legislation that the Opposition strongly supports, as we have said on earlier occasions in this House and in the Senate, the significant advances which have been made by this legislation. The Opposition totally agrees with the proposition put by the Government that the existing scheme has very considerable defects, one being the size of the contributions which are required to be paid by members of the scheme in their later years of service. The Opposition believes that the Bill will remove a great number of these deficiencies in the existing scheme. The maximum compulsory contribution will be 5 per cent of salary. There will be the option of contributing an additional 5 per cent. The provisions relating to all the anomalies which the Bill seeks to remove from the present scheme remain untouched. Perhaps it is a pity that so much of the debate on this Bill has centred on the alterations which have been proposed by the Opposition because the essential reforms and the essential thrust of the Bill remain unaltered by the amendments made by the Opposition.

The amendments show a responsible reaction by the Opposition to wage justice between the public and private sectors. They show a responsible reaction by the Opposition to the paramount duty of any Australian Government at present to pay regard to our economic circumstances. Nothing that can be said or that has been said by the Government in respect of the action of the Opposition in regard to this Bill can alter the fact that, on the question of responsible reaction to this piece of legislation, it is the Opposition which has provided the responsible reaction, both here and in the other place. In the other place it secured the support of a Senator who is not renowned for his support of the Opposition. So the Opposition greatly regrets that the Government has adopted an attitude which could prejudice the coming into operation of these provisions on 1 July. I do not think it should escape the attention of the Committee that if this scheme does not come into operation on 1 July it will be because of the action taken by the Government.

The Government will be responsible for the scheme not coming into operation on 1 July. I think that the attitude it has taken is essentially a negative and a destructive attitude in the face of the wholly responsible and wholly consistent amendments made to the Bill. The Government has adopted an irresponsible attitude; it has adopted an attitude of confrontation. Members of the Government Party talked at great length about their commitment to the essential reforms in this legislation but the essential reforms have been untouched by the Opposition’s amendments. It is the action of the Whitlam Government which will prevent these reforms coming into operation on 1 July. This Bill was introduced in an atmosphere where both Government and Opposition agreed that there were anomalies in the existing superannuation scheme. The essential anomalies of this scheme have been removed by the Bill and their removal has not in any way been opposed or disturbed by the Opposition’s amendments which we believe are a responsible reaction to the situation.

What is the reaction of the Government? It is to embark on a course of action which could prejudice the coming into operation of this scheme on 1 July. The Government knows this and I think all members of the community who are interested in this legislation also ought to know it If this scheme does not come into operation on 1 July it will not be the fault of the Opposition. We have facilitated debate on this legislation. We have made responsible amendments and if it does not come into operation on 1 July it will be on the head of the Government of which the Attorney-General and honourable member for Canberra (Mr Enderby) is a member. It will be on the head of all other members of the Governmrent Party who have sponsored this reaction to the Opposition’s very responsible amendments. I hope that those who take a great interest in this matter will understand that it is the Government’s behaviour which could prejudice this scheme coming into operation on 1 July.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Mr Chairman -

Morion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 49

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

In Division:

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-Order! I think it would be appropriate to raise that matter after the division. The point of order does not relate to the division. We will deal with it later.

Mr Garland:

– If the Government gives me the right to speak, then I will delay raising the matter.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 49

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

-I move:

That Mr Enderby, Mr Mathews and the mover be appointed a Committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Labor Government has just voted to prevent-

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr GARLAND:

-The Labor Government has just voted to prevent this Bill from being put into operation on 1 July.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Curtin will resume his seat.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 48

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. (Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows):

Because the superannuation arrangements for Australian Government employees that would result from the amendments proposed would be detrimental to many existing contributors to the present superannuation pension scheme; would compare unfavourably with the superannuation schemes maintained by many of the State governments for their employees; and would result in complex and difficult administrative arrangements.

Mr Garland:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those reasons are quite spurious.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

That the Committee ‘s reasons be adopted.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 48

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3492

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 19 August next at IS minutes past 2 o’clock p.m. unless Mr Speaker shall by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House fix an earlier day of meeting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the motion be agreed to ‘.

Motion ( by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I want to move for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the question be now put ‘. Those of that opinion -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to honourable gentlemen that every member in the chamber could rise but that does not mean that he is entitled to speak.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Firstly, the Minister was on his feet -

Mr Sinclair:

– So was the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest you shut up and mind your own business. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will not have members talking back to me when I am standing on my feet addressing the chamber. I apologise to the honourable member for the remark that I have just made. But I would think that if honourable members behaved themselves it would be easier for me also to be tolerant. The Minister was on his feet and he moved a motion. He moved that the question be put, a motion which I am required by the Standing Orders to put. I could not, if I wished, call another member under those circumstances. I think that all members in the chamber are aware of that. The question is: ‘That the question be now put’.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have not given a ruling. The question is: ‘That the question be now put’.

Question put:

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 49

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 50

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3494

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. (A division having been called for, and the bells being rung).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that honourable gentlemen come to order. They may have enjoyed themselves this evening, but I suggest that they now behave as members of the Parliament. That applies to both sides of the House.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3495

OVERSEAS LOANS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from calling on the Government to set up a royal commission into the Government ‘s overseas raising of loans.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to move his motion, and he had done so. The motion ‘that the honourable member be not further heard’ can be moved at any time thereafter.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

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

– I wish to second the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders-

Motion ( by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the Leader of the National Country Party be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is: That the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders -

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Just a moment. I suggest that both honourable gentlemen not be in such a hurry and resume their seats. The question is: That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; the contrary no.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Just one moment. Are your rising to speak?

Mr Sinclair:

– I am seeking the call to speak on the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker, I believe that this is one of the more serious motions that can be put in this place.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the honourable member be not further heard. Those of that opinion say aye; the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Speaker, this matter plainly calls for very close attention -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Just one minute. I have just put the question and I have declared for the ayes.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye; the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of order There is a time period within which the question can now be put.

Dr Klugman:

– It expired about 5 minutes ago.

Mr Sinclair:

– No, actually it has not. There is a period of 25 minutes within which the question must be put and it is for the Speaker’s determination, not yours or mine.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is a time limit on the total length of debate on a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. The question that the question be now put can and has on many occasions been put at any time after the motion is read from the Chair. The question now is: That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; -

Mr Sinclair:

– No, it is that the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question that the question be now put has been disposed of.

Mr Sinclair:

– No, I am sorry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The other question had not been disposed of.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The other question was put. The honourable gentleman knows -

Mr Sinclair:

– There was a motion that the question be now put, I then raised a point of order before -

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is correct. I had put the question and declared for the ayes. The question now is:

That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.

Question put.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 60

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3497

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the House do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 19 August, at IS minutes past 2 p.m. unless the Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an earlier day of meeting.

House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.

page 3499

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

.The following answers to questions were circulated

Colleges of Advanced Education: Enrolments (Question No. 2032)

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

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

I draw the right honourable member’s attention to my answer to question No. 565 on page 2820 of Hansard for 26 May 1975.

Community Centres (Question No. 2144)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 456 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 6 July 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 456 appeared in Hansard (page 3275) on 3 June 1975.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 2151)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1600 which first appeared on the Nonce Paper on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1600 appeared in Hansard (page 3279) on 3 June 1975.

Sports: Subsidies (Question No. 2156)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1769 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1769 appeared in Hansard (page 3280) on 3 June 1975.

Darwin Cyclone: Relief (Question No. 2226)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he information as to what sum is held by the Salvation Army, the Australian Red Cross Society, St Vincent de Paul Society and other major voluntary organisations for the relief and assistance of persons affected by the Darwin cyclone.
  2. If this information is not currently available, will he endeavour to obtain it.
  3. What sum from voluntary donations is held by the Australian Government to assist victims of the Darwin cyclone.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No information is held of the amounts of moneys held by the Salvation Army, Australian Red Cross Society, St Vincent de Paul Society and major voluntary organisations for the relief and assistance of persons affected by the Darwin cyclone.
  2. Steps will be taken to obtain information as to the amounts of money held by the above organisations.
  3. No funds are held by the Australian Government but the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund, which is an organisation on which the Australian Government is represented, has received $6,395,654 in donations for use to assist the victims of the Darwin cyclone.

Tourism (Question No. 2232)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 1301 placed on the Notice Paper on 15 October 1974.

Mr STEWART-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

My answer to Question No. 1301 appeared in Hansard, page 3276, on 3 June 1975.

Aborigines: Health and Nutrition (Question No. 2336)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 his attention also been drawn to indexed item 25-Report of the 1969 Workshop on Health and Nutrition of Aborigines.
  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 pubicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I refer the honourable member to part (3) of the Prime Minister’s answer to question 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198). The report of the Workshop on

Health and Nutrition of Aborigines which was held in 1969 is a Departmental summary of proceedings and was distributed to the participants and other interested persons. A limited number of copies of the report are held in my Department and can be made available to any person with an interest in this field.

Miss Erica Enright (Question No. 2431)

Mr Hunt:

asked the* Minister for Labor and Immigration the following questions, upon notice:

  1. Did the former Attorney-General have an American citizen on his personal Ministerial staff.
  2. If so, what was her name.
  3. ) Did she have a visitor’s visa.
  4. If so, was it extended recently.
  5. Is she still being employed in Australia while holding a visitor’s visa.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Erica Enright. .
  3. Yes. Miss Enright arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 22 October 1974 and was granted authority to remain in Australia for six months. On 31 October 1974 her status was varied to enable her to undertake employment whilst in Australia.
  4. and (5) Miss Enright departed from Australia on 29 January 197S. She re-entered Australia as a visitor on 13 February 1975 and was granted a temporary entry permit for six months stay. Her present whereabouts are not known.

Isolated Children’s Allowance Scheme (Question No. 2455)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What is the anticipated expenditure on the Isolated Children’s Allowance Scheme during 1974-75.
  2. In view of the rural recession that he mentioned in reply to a question in the House on 21 April 1975, will the Government increase the annual allowance as a matter of urgency to at least compensate parents for the inflation that has occurred since December 1972.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. $9,580,000.
  2. Since the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme was introduced in 1973, the level of benefits provided have been kept under regular review. As a result of an increase in the maximum Special Supplementary Allowance in 1975 from $304 to $450 the maximum level of assistance now available under the Scheme is $1150 per child. In addition to the increase in actual benefits the means test applicable to the Additional Boarding Allowance and Special Supplementary Allowance components of the Scheme have been progressively relaxed each year of the Scheme ‘s operation so that all or part of the benefits under these allowances are now available at much higher levels of family income than in the past.

A further easing of the means tests may be obtained from a recent provision under which parents may choose to have their means-tested entitlements assessed on the average of their income for the past five years provided their tax liability has been so assessed.

Melba Health Centre: Pharmacy (Question No. 2479)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has he studied the 8 points put forward by Mr Brian Ell who has resigned as the pharmacist at Melba Health Centre.
  2. If so, will he arrange for an ordinary pharmacy to be established adjacent to the Centre rather than continue the present arrangement.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Neither I nor the Chairman of the Interim Committee of the Capital Territory Health Commission have received a copy of Mr Brian Ell ‘s paper in which the eight points referred to are listed. I have, however, seen the summaries of his eight points which appeared in recent issues of the Bulletin and Pharmacy Journal of Australia, and I have now obtained a copy of what I believe to be a draft of the paper submitted to the Pharmacy Journal of Australia.

The points made in the draft paper are personal impressions. They do no coincide with the general views of the current pharmacist, the other professional staff, or the Community Representatives on the Management Committee at the Melba Health Centre. Furthermore, I query Mr Ell’s assertion that ‘The pharmacy is a failure’ (a statement which precedes his eight points) when on his own figures (in an earlier section of the paper) more than 90 per cent of the residents in some suburbs served by the Melba Health Centre use the pharmacy for advice or purchase of a prescription or other item. Some 36 000 prescriptions have been filled at Melba and the Pharmacist who replaced Mr Ell counsels every recipient of a drug on its purpose, storage, use, possible side effects, etc. and continually monitors and advises staff of adverse reactions reported by patients. The staff and patients welcome this service, which is not generally available at commercial pharmacies.

  1. The pharmacy service at Melba is an important and in many respects unique aspect of community health care. I believe it has been most successful and I will not therefore, discontinue the present arrangement. Nor is it within my power to establish an ordinary (presumably private) pharmacy adjacent to the Centre.

However, there is probably need for at least one more pharmacy in the five suburbs served by the Melba Health Centre. In this regard informal discussions have been held with the President of the local Branch of the Pharmacy Guild about the possibility of encouraging a private pharmacist into the Melba area.

No permanent accommodation is at present available in the area, but I understand the local community group and the Pharmacy Guild are considering the possibility of seeking a temporary building for a private pharmacist. This would enable the residents of North-east Belconnen to choose between private pharmacy services (with associated non-professional retail facilities) and the strictly professional service (with its emphasis on patient advice, drug monitoring, etc.) at the Health Centre.

Huntington’s Disease (Question No. 2540)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What research is being conducted into Huntington’s Disease in Australia.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

No research into Huntington’s Disease is currently being supported by Australian Government funds available through the National Health and Medical Research Council.

I have no information on whether such research is being supported by other sources available to Universities, Research Institutes or individual research workers.

Commemorative Stamp: Settlement at Albany (Question No. 2559)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. Has consideration been given to the production of a stamp in 1976 to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of European settlement at Albany in Western Australia.
  2. If so, what is the decision, and what are the reasons for it.
  3. If not, will the Postmaster-General examine the suggestion.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Post Office has on a number of occasions been requested to issue a stamp for the 150th Anniversary of Albany.
  2. and (3) These requests have not been granted because of the precedent that such an issue would establish. If a stamp were to be produced for the sesquicentenary of Albany, requests would be received from other towns and cities for similar recognition. It would not be practicable to grant all these requests and because of the unfairness of honouring some towns and cities in this way, and not others, the Post Office prefers to avoid such issues.

Commemorative Stamp: Settlement in Perth-Fremantle Area (Question No. 2560)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. Has consideration been given to the production of a stamp in 1979 to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of European settlement in the Perth-Fremantle area of Western Australia.
  2. If not, will the Postmaster-General examine the suggestion.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. I am not aware of representations having been received by the Post Office for a stamp issue for this particular anniversary.
  2. Every town and city in Australia has, or will at a future date, celebrate a notable anniversary of its foundation and early history. Because of the large numbers involved and the obvious inequalities of selecting some and rejecting others, the Post Office generally prefers not to produce stamps for anniversaries of this nature and there are no plans for the issue of a stamp to mark the 1 50th Anniversary of the PerthFremantle area.

Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 2584)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has a joint working party of the pharmaceutical industry and the Department been established to consider increased prices for pharmaceutical benefit items because of increased costs since prices were fixed.
  2. If so, who are the member of the committee, and how often has it met.
  3. Has an indexation arrangement been considered to move with inflation after the price of a drug has been set.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Two meetings between representatives of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and officers of the Department of Health have been held with a view to arriving at mutually acceptable means of reviewing prices of pharmaceutical benefit items.

The first meeting was a preliminary meeting only, attended by two representatives of the APMA and four departmental officers, and at this meeting it was agreed that the Association would prepare an approach to this subject for discussion at subsequent meetings. At the second meeting three representatives of the APMA and three departmental officers were present and discussions commenced.

  1. This is a matter which was raised by the APMA represenatives, at the second meeting, for consideration. Future meetings are planned to discuss the Association’s proposal when it has been further developed.

Handicapped Persons: Rehabilitation (Question No. 2615)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. In what way does the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped co-ordinate the rehabilitation work of the Departments involved in this field, and allocate priorities of expenditure.
  2. How many people are employed by the Council, and where are they housed.
  3. What role does the Rehabilitation Division in his Department and the Standing Committee on Rehabilitation play in co-ordinatioin and allocation of priorities.
  4. How many people are employed in this Division, and who are the members of the Committee.
  5. If there is overall co-ordination, which Departments have been allocated which responsibilities.
  6. Who is responsible for safety, and what progress has been made.
Mr Bowen:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 3 ) The National Advisory Council for the Handicapped is co-ordinating the rehabilitation work of the Departments involved in this field by establishing close liaison with them through the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR). With the assistance of my Department, and drawing on the Report of the Woodhouse Committee of Inquiry on Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia, the Council has identified a number of priority proposals in the rehabilitation field on which it will be recommending expenditure in 1975-76. The costing and detailed working-out of these proposals is being undertaken by the Departments represented on SIDCOR whose role is to co-ordinate information and advice on rehabilitation proposals generally to the Council, and to serve as an instrument in co-ordinating the implementation of the Government ‘s programs.
  2. The Council does not employ its own staff. It is serviced by my Department. See (4) below.
  3. A formal staffing structure dealing with rehabilitation matters has not yet been established in my Department. Pending its establishment, eight officers in my Departmentmainly support staff and officers seconded from other departments- are currently engaged on rehabilitation matters. The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR) comprises representative from the Departments of the Special Minister of State (chair), Education, Health, Labor and Immigration, Repatriation and Compensation, Social Security and the Treasury, and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and the Social Welfare Commission.
  4. 5 ) Departmental responsibilities for aspects of rehabilitation remain the same, except that my Department has a coordinating role in (a) the Budget process by helping to develop Australian Rehabilitation services funding priorities across Departmental lines, and (b) the analysis and development of comprehensive rehabilitation policies, in conjunction with the States and other authorities, to meet the needs of Australia.
  5. A number of my colleagues are responsible for specific aspects of safety. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation is responsible for co-ordinating Government action needed to put into effect the recommendations of the Woodhouse Committee as to the general aspects of safety. I am informed that his Department is in discussion with other Departments and that proposals are being developed for consideration by the Government.

Canberra Hospitals (Question No. 2440)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) public and (c) private ward beds are there at present in each hospital in the A.C.T., and what is the estimated population of the A.C.T. at this time.
  2. How many additional beds, and of what type, will be provided when the Woden Valley Hospital is fully operative, and what will be the estimated population at that time.
  3. How many additional beds, and of what type, will be provided by the Calvary Hospital.
  4. When- will the Calvary Hospital commence operation and what will be the estimated population of the A.C.T. at that time.

Prazosin (Question No. 2629)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was prazosin first released in Australia for clinical trials for the treatment of hypertension.
  2. Has an application been made for approval to market and for listing as a pharmaceutical benefit; if so, when.
  3. Is the work of Dr Kincaid-Smith with the use of prazosin on 29S patients, as reported in the IS March 1975 edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, considered significant in the evaluation of this drug.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. February 1972.
  2. An application for permission to market prazosin was received by the Department on 7 March 1974. This application is currently being evaluated. No application has been received for its listing as a pharmaceutical benefit.
  3. Yes.

Beclomethasone Dipropionate (Question No. 2481)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the interval of time between the date of lodgement of applications with the Department for approval to market Beclomethasone Dipropionate and the date approval was granted.
  2. What was the interval of time between the date of application for listing this product as a pharmaceutical benefit and the date it was listed.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the” honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2)

  1. What other hospitals are proposed for the A.C.T., how many additional beds will they provide, when will they be constructed, and what will be the estimated population of the A.C.T. at that time.
  2. If no estimates of population are available, what is the basis of hospital planning in the A.C.T.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Beds in the three public hospitals in the A.C.T. are classified as General or Private. A general bed is one in a ward of up to six beds with a charge equivalent to N.S.W. public ward charge; a private bed is one in a single room with a charge equivalent to N.S.W. private ward charge. Private beds are made available to patients at public ward charge, when this is medically desirable.

The total number of beds by type in each hospital as at May 1975 is as follows:

The population of the A.C.T. at the present time is estimated to be 195 000.

  1. Woden Valley Hospital will have 553 general ward beds and 67 single bed wards, when fully operational in 1977. It is estimated that the A.C.T. population at that date will be 233 000.
  2. Calvary Hospital will have 258 general ward beds and 45 private bed wards when fully operational in 1 979.
  3. Calvary Hospital is expected to commence operation in late- 1977 with 60 beds and build up to 200 beds during 1978 and to 303 beds during 1979. It is estimated that the population of the A.C.T. in June 1977 will be 223 000, in June 1978, 254 000 and June 1979 277 000.
  4. The Belconnen Health Complex is planned to commence operation in 1982 with 50 beds. Beds will be made available in stages. Current plans for the opening of beds are as follows:

Poverty Report (Question No. 2448)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government failed to act on the recommendations of the Interim Poverty Report which was released several months ago and which recommended substantial increases in child endowment for example; if so, why.
  2. Will he ensure that the Government takes more urgent notice of the reports released recently by Professor Henderson so that an immediate start can be made on alleviating the problems outlined.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Since the Labor Government came to office it has substantially increased all pensions and benefits. The following table compares the rates of pensions/benefits that were payable when Labor came to office and the current rates. The actual and percentage increases are shown:

During the period December Quarter 1972 to March Quarter 1975 (the latest quarter for which the Consumer Price Index is available) the Consumer Price Index for the six State capital cities increased by 36.3 per cent. The percentage increases in pensions/benefits have been very much greater than the percentage increase in the cost of living.

In addition, low income earners have benefited from the two restructurings of the personal income tax rate scale in 1974-75 and the Government’s decision to bring in a special rebate of tax for low income families.

As a result of the increases in pensions/benefits and changes in the income tax structure there has been a considerable real distribution of purchasing power to the poorer sections of the community.

Professor Henderson’s Interim Report proposal in relation to child endowment was to abolish taxation deductions for dependent children and to use the money saved to increase weekly child endowment rates. This proposal is receiving further study and consideration.

Youth Say Project (Question No. 1768)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action has the Government taken as a result of the findings of the Youth Say project.
  2. What other action will the Government take on matters relating to youth.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. The Youth Say Report is an important social document and my Department has therefore encouraged widespread discussion of the report and its implications for the public at large, voluntary organisations, and all levels of Government in Australia.

The Youth Say Report presents a national overview of young peoples’ needs. It is in no sense a blueprint for youth programs which can be picked up and applied by a particular community, or youth organisation. Local governments, youth organisations and other community groups are using the report as the basis for more specific and localised investigations of youth needs.

The findings of the report are extremely diverse. The findings are summarised below, together with an indication as to all actions so far taken by my Department.

  1. A very strong interest in team sports exists among boys between 12 and 14 years of age but not for young men of older age levels or girls and young women of any age.

Young people benefit from my Department’s assistance with travel to sporting championships and assistance to surf life saving clubs.

  1. Young people seek informal, loosely-structured, social pastimes, individual non-competitive sports, outdoor activities, and creative cultural pursuits all largely under their own control.

Through the pilot Innovative Recreation Program grant-in-aid scheme, my Department provides assistance to unstructured youth and other groups to develop innovative and experimental recreation programs to meet community needs.

  1. Music and the opportunity to participate in musicmaking are major pre-occupations and aspirations.

Through the pilot Innovation Recreation Program grant-in-aid scheme, assistance has been provided to a program which includes the establishment of specialised facilities for playing music and a lending library of traditional instruments. Various types of financial support are also available through the Australia Council.

Young people benefit from financial assistance made available to artistic and cultural facilities, provided under my Department’s program of Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities.

  1. d ) They prize most highly of all the chance to have some space or places which they can make their own.

The IDC on Australian Government Land Use is taking youth needs into consideration when reassessing uses of Australian Government holdings.

Again, young people benefit from assistance in establishing facilities under the Department’s Program of Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities.

  1. They want to belong to a ‘community’ and feel some responsibility for shaping the life of that community.

The Youth Involvement Program aims to provide young people with opportunities for creative involvement in their communities. In the 1974-75 Budget $75,000 was provided to enable national testing of these programs.

  1. The help of adult youth workers is needed and valued when given in a spirit of responsible partnership.

My Department has stimulated a comprehensive program of educational opportunities for full-time recreation workers in institutions across the country. In addition, the Department has launched a program aimed at improving the training opportunities available to voluntary leaders in the youth/recreation field.

  1. They want better information services about available recreational resources and easier access to these resources through better transport services and lower fares and entry charges.

My Department’s Advisory Service has been established to put the community, voluntary leaders, planners, researchers and local government in touch with new ideas on leisure programs and provides guidance on where relevant information can be found. It is essentially a recreation information exchange centre.

As transport services and fares are State responsibilities, the Australian Government is unable to consider positive action,.

  1. They often complain about their schools and other formal institutions, about legal constraints and traditional patterns of adult control.

Mr Michael Norman, Project Director of the Youth Say Report, has made an appraisal of the Youth Say Project in terms of its relevance to formal schooling, for the Schools Commission.

  1. In addition to the Australian Government’s specific actions, as a result of Youth Say, indicated in ( 1 ) my Department is involved in the following activities:

    1. My Department provides grants to national secretariats of youth organisations to enable them to undertake a range of developmental programs aimed at establishing ways by which they might better relate to young Australians m the 1970s. $250,000 was provided in this financial year.
    2. Prime responsibility for the operation of the Commonwealth Youth Program in Australia is carried by my Department.
    3. An International Youth Exchange program is planned within the framework of existing cultural agreements administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
    4. The development of low cost hostel accommodation for young travellers.

My Department will continue to take initiatives in matters relating to young people to encourage the development in Australia of a wide range of recreational opportunities for young people. It will continue to generate opportunities whereby young people may be creatively involved in their community.

Department of Health: Program (Question No. 2090)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1565 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to Question No. 1S6S in the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 9 May 1 975 at pages 2465-8.

Sporting Bodies: Grants (Question No. 2149)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1335 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 16 October 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1335 appeared in Hansard (page 3386) on 4 June 1975.

Community Groups: Grants (Question No. 2150)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1571 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1571 appeared in Hansard (page 3387) on 4 June 1975.

Recreation Officers (Question No. 2153)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1766 which first appeared on the Notice Papier on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1766 appeared in Hansard (page 3387) on 4 June 1975.

Medical Fees (Question No. 2273)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763) has his 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 his attention also been drawn to indexed item 39- Department of Health surveys of medical fees.
  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.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) The Department of Health conducted ad hoc surveys of the fees commonly charged by doctors on the basis of information of medical benefits claims paid by the registered health benefits organisations in seeking reimbursement of the amounts of Commonwealth benefits paid during the years 1955, 1957, 1959, 1963, 1966, 1967 and 1 968. A very simple method of clerical analysis was used in these ad hoc surveys as it had not been practicable to use data processing and computer facilities. There is no restriction on the results of these surveys, though they would largely now be only of historical interest. Information of the results of the 1968 survey was given to representatives of the registered health benefits organisations and the AMA at the meeting of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Council on 27-28 November 1968. Detailed information for surveys prior to 1 968 is not available.

The data of fees commonly charged, which were used to determine the fees on which medical benefits introduced in July 1 970 were based, partly belongs to the AMA and mostly to the health benefits organisations participating in the surveys. It was made available to the Department only for the specific purpose of establishing the most common fee at that particular time.

I have no objection to any interested organisation or person approaching the AMA and the health benefits organisations to seek access to the information.

The information mentioned above is assembled in a complex form, and the type of analysis which has been sought on this information would involve specialist officers of a senior level in my Department being diverted from other high priority work- I am not prepared to agree to this.

However, if any organisation or person gets the agreement of the AMA and the health funds concerned to study the information, arrangements will be made for any of the information held in my Department to be available for examination at the relevant office of the Department.

In the latter part of 1970 a continuing survey commencing with claims for the September quarter of 1 970 provides for a wide range of analyses to be made, including the fees charged. The continuing survey also provides information needed by the Department for estimating the costs of individual medical services. Information of the observance of common or Scheduled fees is published in the annual reports of the Director-General of Social Security from 1972-73, and in those of the Director-General of Health prior to 1972-73. The information is restricted only where it may breach the confidentiality of the activities of the individual health benefits organisations currently supplying the information in a form which facilitates computer processing. The information available can also be examined at the relevant office of the Department.

Health Costs (Question No. 2274)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1 974, page 4763 ), has his 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 his attention also been drawn to indexed item 40- Departmental calculations of an index of health costs.
  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 Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) In his book Mr Spigelman quoted the DirectorGeneral of Health, in his Annual Report for 1968-69, when referring to the compilation of estimates of total health expenditure in Australia as saying ‘It is hoped to produce a series of similar estimates, thus providing the basis for an index of health costs’. Estimates for 1969-70 were subsequently prepared and published in the 1972-73 Report of the Director-General of Health along with previous estimates for 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1966-67. These were the only years for which estimates have been prepared. The Commonwealth Statistician is now publishing annual estimates of health expenditure thus obviating the need for the preparation of estimates by my Department.

As stated, these estimates could provide the basis for an index of health costs. However no such index has been prepared by my Department

Nursing Homes and Care of the Aged (Question No. 2276)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 his attention also been drawn to indexed item 42- Report on Nursing Homes and Care of the Aged.
  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.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. On 27 March 1973 I wrote to the then Leader of the Opposition and the present Leader of the National Country Party seeking their concurrence to the release of the report ‘Nursing Homes and Care of the Aged’. The present Leader of the National Country Party gave his approval to the release of the report subject to the concurrence of the then Leader of the Opposition. However, as far as my records show, the then Leader of the Opposition did not reply and I shall renew my request for permission to release the document to the present Leader of the Opposition.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 2277)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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.

  1. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 43- Three 1967 reports entitled Nursing Homes.
  2. 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.
  3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; I have no knowledge of the reports entitled ‘Nursing Homes’ prepared in 1967. However, it has been drawn to my attention that a report entitled ‘Nursing Homes ‘ was prepared at the request of a Committee of Cabinet which met on 22 May and 23 May 1972. The report was considered by the Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on 30 May 1972.
  3. No.
  4. On 27 March 1973 I wrote to the then Leader of the Opposition and the present Leader of the National Country Party seeking their concurrence to the release of the report ‘Nursing Homes ‘. The present Leader of the National Country Party gave his approval to the release of the report subject to the concurrence of the then Leader of the Opposition. However, as far as my records show, the then Leader of the Opposition did not reply and I shall renew my request, for permission to release the document, to the present Leader of the Opposition.

National Superannuation (Question No. 2280)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 17 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 72- Interdepartmental report on national superannuation.
  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.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; it is assumed that the honourable member is referring to the report ‘National Superannuation for the Aged’.
  3. No.
  4. Information has been received from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the report was prepared in December 197 1 on the instruction of the then Prime Minister as a ‘Personal Paper’ and was not intended necessarily to represent the view of the then Government or the view of any Australian Government Department. I am informed that the report was classified ‘Top Secret’ by the then Prime Minister.

Although it is not specifically my area of responsibility, I should suggest that if the honourable member is interested he should take the matter up with the Leader of the Opposition.

Public Service: Wastage of Graduates (Question No. 2344)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Matters Relating to the Public Service, upon notice:

Further to the answer to my question No. 1 667 which indicated very high wastage rates for graduates recruited to base grade positions in the third division of the Public Service, what action is proposed to arrest this position.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

The Public Service Board has advised me that comparable information in relation to wastage experienced by other employers of graduates is not available. Thus the relative level of the wastage rates is not known.

In order to foster improved management of recruits, to increase job satisfaction, career interest and the development and effectiveness of recruits and to minimise recruit wastage, the Board has advised me that it is taking a number of positive steps. A brief outline of some of these is contained in the following items in the Board’s 1974 Annual Report to Parliament:

New Entrant Training- page 7 1 .

Review of Graduate Recruitment- page 77.

Job Satisfaction- pages 77-8.

Survey of Recruits- page 78.

Consultation with departments- pages 78-9.

Petro-Chemical Plants (Question No. 2369)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister of Environment, upon notice:

Further to question No. 785 concerning safety regulations governing the establishment of petro-chemical plants within Australia, has he had discussions with the States relating to the design of uniform emission and effluent standards; if so, when, and with what result; if not, does he intend to have discussions in the near future.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

The Australian Government consults with the State Governments on uniform emission and effluent standards through the Australian Environmental Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The Australian Environmental Council has taken the view that it might be possible to establish Australia-wide ambient standards as a minimum standard on a national basis, but individual States might wish to impose more restrictive standards under some circumstances. I expect that discussions in this forum will continue.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended national emission standards for a wide range of air pollutants.

Nursing Home Subsidy (Question No. 2445)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In respect of how many patients was the nursing home subsidy paid in (a) Australia and (b) Western Australia at the latest date for which figures are available.
  2. In respect of (a) Australia and (b) Western Australia, how many nursing home patients were accommodated in (i) private nursing homes and (ii) non-profit nursing homes eligible for deficit financing.
  3. What is the average cost to the Australian Government of subsidising patients in (a) private nursing homes and (b) non-profit nursing homes in (i) Australia and (ii) Western Australia.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The average numbers of nursing home patients in respect of whom nursing home benefits were paid under the National Health Act each day in the period 1 July 1 974 to 3 1 March 1975 were

    1. Australia……. 47 962
    2. Western Australia …. 4774
  2. The average numbers of nursing home patients accommodated in nursing homes conducted for private gain and accommodated in those homes conducted on a nonprofit basis in respect of whom nursing home benefits were paid under the National Health Act each day in the period 1 July 1 974 to 3 1 March 1 975 were:

    1. Australia
    1. Private gain nursing homes . 26 174
    2. Non-profit nursing homes 11 944

    3. Western Australia
    1. Private gain nursing homes . . 2 452
    2. Non-profit nursing homes . . 978

These figures are based on the average number of beds approved in each category during the period and assume that each type of nursing home has the same percentage occupancy.

  1. It is not possible to accurately dissect Australian Government nursing home benefit payments into the categories of (a) private gain nursing homes and (b) nonprofit nursing homes. The average daily amounts paid under the National Health Act by way of Australian Government nursing home benefits in the period 1 July 1974 to 3 1 March 1975 in respect of each patient in participating (non-State) nursing homes were:

    1. Australia…….. $8.32 per day
    2. Western Australia …. $7.90 per day

In addition to the daily benefits paid to nursing home patients under the National Health Act the Australian Government meets the deficits incurred by religious and charitable nursing homes who have entered into agreements under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. Further financial assistance is provided to nursing home patients by means of pensions and supplementary assistance. The amount that will be paid through these avenues in the current financial year is estimated to be $247 million for Australia of which Western Australia will receive $15 million. The figures above do not take into account patients for whom benefits are paid by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation or any patient who has received or established his right to receive a payment by way of compensation or damages under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

Cancer (Question No. 2456)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What research is being undertaken in Australia into cancer inducing chemicals being used in food processing and preservation.
  2. Will he ensure that any such research undertaken in Australia is co-ordinated with similar work being carried out in the United States of America.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No food additives currently recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council and used in Australia for food processing and preservation have been demonstrated to induce cancer at their recommended levels of use. In the assessment of chemicals for use as food additives all toxic effects are taken into consideration not only cancer inducing effects. Also, in the calculation of an acceptable daily intake of a food additive a one hundred fold safety factor is applied from the minimum level of additive showing indication of toxicity in feeding studies.

Research undertaken in Australia into the toxicity of chemicals used in food processing and preservation is not as extensive as that carried out overseas. However, all available information from overseas is considered when assessing food additives for use in Australia. The data required by the Food Additives Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to assess the safety of a proposed food additive, include acute, short-term and long-term (chronic) toxicity studies and these require highly sophisticated techniques over a considerable period of time.

Very few food additives currently in use in Australia have been approved as a result of toxicity trials carried out locally. In general, food additive protocols contain toxicological data derived from studies carried out in the United States of America or the United Kingdom.

All data are critically assessed by the Food Additives Subcommittee as to the technological need of the additive, and, if that is justified, then on the toxicological status of the additive.

The number of food additives approved for use in Australia is substantially less than the number approved in the United States of America.

  1. It is not practicable to directly co-ordinate all research into the toxicology of food additives in Australia with that carried out in the United States of America. However, duplication of research is avoided wherever possible, and attention is focused particularly on related studies in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. This is achieved by maintaining a continuous surveillance on the current status of food additives in use overseas. All additives approved in Australia are under continual review in the light of all information coming forward.

For the assessment of a food additive, all available data are compiled on such aspects as manufacture, proposed use, current status overseas, contaminants, toxicology, acceptable daily intake and use in other foods. Where data are questioned or incomplete, research may be carried out in Australia.

Entry of Vietnamese into Australia (Question No. 2500)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Vietnamese refugees have applied to come to Australia since Saigon fell to the Communists.
  2. What skills have these applicants to offer Australia.
  3. How many applicants have relatives, by blood or marriage, presently within Australia.
  4. What faculties are available to facilitate application.
  5. What indication have potential applicants been given of Australian willingness to accept some refugees.
  6. Has the entry of any refugees been approved; if so, how many.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Up to 30 May 197S, 786 Vietnamese are known to have applied for entry into Australia since the change of government in Saigon.
  2. ) Their stated occupations cover a wide range.
  3. 214 are known to claim relatives either by blood or by marriage.
  4. Application may be made to Australian missions overseas, through international agencies or through sponsorship by relatives in Australia.
  5. Those approved for entry into Australia are being informed immediately. Also, Australian immigration officers visited Guam and are now in Hong Kong.
  6. Up to 30 May 197S, the entry into Australia of 128 Vietnamese has been approved since the change of government.

Alleged Retribution Killings in South Vietnam (Question No. 2513)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What action has the Government taken to verify reports of retribution killings in South Vietnam, particularly the reported slaughter of mixed-race children.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

There were reports of retribution killing and of killing of mixed race children which appeared prior to the surrender of Saigon. We were not able to confirm them at that time. Newsmen in Saigon at the time were unable to track down eyewitnesses to the alleged killings. We have no means at present of verifying or disproving the allegations. .

The Government hopes that the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam will treat all its opponents, whatever part they played in the tragic events in Vietnam, with magnanimity and that reprisals and retribution will find no part in their policies. I have written to the Foreign Ministers of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam in these terms.

It is relevant to the particular reports the honourable member refers to that the ten-point statement issued by the PRG on 1 April 1975 unequivocally supported equality of status for all minority groups. In the last few days a great number of correspondents who have been in South Vietnam since the change of government have left the country and, without exception, have reported that there has been no bloodbath, no holocaust, whatever. It is clear from the reports of all these correspondents- many of them very well known and highly regarded correspondents- that the changeover has been peaceful and effective.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 886)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Department of Tourism and Recreation

    1. Many officers of the Department of Tourism and Recreation are involved in research and development programs in relation to tourism, community recreation, sport and youth services.

In general, work directly or indirectly related to research and development forms only a pan, sometimes significant sometimes small, of the duties of some 22 officers.

  1. All such officers are located in Canberra.
  2. (a) Research into recreation travel habits and needs of Australians in Australia.

    1. Opportunities for Youth- Pilot Studies.
    2. National Sports Institute- Feasibility Study.
    3. Community Recreation- Leadership Development.
    4. Community Recreation- Development Studies.
    5. f) Physical Recreation Development.
  3. It is not possible to assess the proportion of officers’ salaries which is directly and indirectly attributable to research and development without a considerable amount of research which I am not prepared to authorise in view of more pressing tasks facing the relatively small staff resources of my Department.

Expenditure on research and development programs in 1974-75 by way of payments to universities, colleges of advanced education and consultants, is estimated at around $500,000.

  1. On the basis of consultation with industry, organisations, local government and State departments, my Department recommends the nature and scope of research and development programs and submits them to me for approval.

    1. B ) Australian Tourist Commission
  2. The Commission has 12 officers and employees engaged on research and development work.
  3. Australian Tourist Commission Headquarters, Melbourne.
  4. Research into tourism marketing and development.
  5. Total expenditure in 1974-75 will be $195,000.
  6. The program of marketing research is prepared by the staff of the Commission and submitted to the Commissioners for approval.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 1123)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. What applications have been received by his Department from any group or organisation in the Electoral Division of Wannon, in relation to sport and recreation.
  2. What projects in the Division are being supported by his Department.
  3. What is the total sum involved for these projects.
  4. What funds have been made available through his Department to any group or organisation in the Division.
  5. What applications from any group or organisation in the City of Greater Melbourne are currently before his Department in relation to sport and recreation.
  6. How many have been approved, and what sum is involved.
  7. What applications from any group or organisation are currently before his Department in this regard.
  8. When will decisions be made concerning them.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Under the capital assistance program for recreation facilities administered by my Department, applications should be referred to the State recreation authorities. All applications are examined and accorded a State priority rating before being referred to my Department for the determination of national priorities. Any group or organisation which applies directly to my Department is advised to refer its application, in the first instance, to the appropriate State Department. Applications have been received by my Department and re-directed to the Victorian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation in respect of the following projects within the Electoral Division of Wannon:

Bridgewater Lakes- Camp accommodation for primary and secondary school pupils at Bridgewater Lakes.

Heywood- Assembly Hall- Gymnasium at Heywood High School.

Community Complex.

Hamilton- Extension to indoor recreation complex.

Mount Rouse- Swimming pool and wading pool construction.

Portland- Sporting Complex, Swimming Complex. Henty Park- Swimming pool complex. Darlington- Joint Community High School Library.

  1. to (4) All applications under the 1975-76 program are currently being examined at the State level. They will be referred to my Department for assessment in the context of the 1975-76 Budget allocations. The decision as to which projects will be supported will be made at that stage and announced as soon as possible thereafter.
  2. to (8) In relation to Greater Melbourne, as the honourable member would realise, because of the greater population concentration and the larger number of sporting and community organisations which exist many proposals have been received directly by my Department or by referral from the State Government Department.

Thus, to provide the honourable member with this information would be unreasonably time-consuming given my Department’s limited man-power resources. Additionally, the volume of information is great and I would suggest that if the honourable member has any specific queries I would be pleased to provide him with the information

I might add that projects which have been funded are included in the Department of Tourism and Recreation publication ‘Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’ and in subsequent news releases of 19 November 1974, 26 January 1975, 23 March 1975 and 3 June 1975.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 1455)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Inquiries have been received from a number of voluntary groups as to the possibility of funds being available for the establishment or maintenance of a federal (or State) headquarters under the Government’s program of capital assistance for recreation facilities.

They have been advised of the criteria and application procedures of the program and it has been pointed out that funding covers capital expenditure not maintenance costs.

  1. Each inquirer has been advised that under the program applications should be directed in the first instance to the appropriate State Government recreation authority. Projects for funding in 1975-76 are currently under consideration.

The possible provision of federal headquarters for national sporting organisations is also being considered within the study into the establishment of an Australian Sports Institute currently being undertaken.

I should point out that grants are made under other programs administered by my Department to assist with the administrative expenses of national life saving associations, youth organisations and sports associations.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 1465)

Dr Forbes:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What applications have been received by his Department, from any group or organisation in the Electoral Division of Barker, in relation to sport and recreation.
  2. What projects in the Division are being supported by his Department.
  3. What is the total sum involved for these projects.
  4. What funds have been made available through his Department to any group or organisation in the Division.
  5. What applications from any group or organisation in the City of Adelaide are currently before his Department in relation to sport and recreation.
  6. How many have been approved, and what sum is involved.
  7. What applications from any group or organisation are currently before his Department in this regard.
  8. When will decisions be made concerning them.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the capital assistance program for recreation facilities administered by my Department, applications should be referred to the State recreation authorities. All applications are examined and accorded a State priority rating before being referred to my Department for the determination of national priorities. Any group or organisation which applies directly to my Department is advised to refer its application, in the first instance, to the appropriate State Department. Applications have been received by my Department and re-directed to the South Australian Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport in respect of the following projects within the Electoral Division of Barker:

Re-grading of land for a reserve- Goolwa

Sporting complex- Millicent Golf Club

Blue Lakes sports park- Mount Gambier

Recreation reserve- Noarlunga

Community Hall- Willunga

Recreation and community facilities- Tailem Bend

Netball courts- - Jaensch Park- Tailem Bend.

  1. to (4) All applications under the 1975-76 program are currently being examined at the State level. They will be referred to my Department for assessment in the context of the 1975-76 Budget allocations. The decision as to which projects will be supported will be made at that stage and announced as soon as possible thereafter.
  2. to (8) In relation to Adelaide, as the honourable member would realise, because of the great population concentration and the larger number of sporting and community organisations which exist many proposals have been received directly by my Department or by referral from the State Government Department.

Thus, to provide the honourable member with this information would be unreasonably time-consuming given my Department’s limited man-power resources. Additionally, the volume of information is great and I would suggest that if the honourable member has any. specific queries I would be pleased to provide him with the information.

I might add that projects which have been funded are included in the Department of Tourism and Recreation publication ‘Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’ and in subsequent news releases of 19 November 1974, 26 January 1975 and23 March 1975.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 2003)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1546 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

I direct the right honourable member’s attention to the reply provided above.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 2526)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the present procedure for admission of patients to nursing homes is cumbersome and unnecessary.
  2. Is it also a fact that the current system, that has applied since January 1973, which was designed to limit the number and type of patients admitted to nursing homes, has resulted in a very small number of patients only in each State being refused admission.
  3. Will the scheme be altered to avoid the unnecessary wastage of time by nursing home staff, medical practitioners and officers of his Department.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The existing procedures for the admission of patients to approved nursing homes arose out of the 1972 amendments to the National Health Act which were framed by the former Liberal-Country Party Government and which came into operation on 1 January 1973. These amendments gave effect to revised nursing home benefit arrangements which also involved the supervision of fees charged in private nursing homes and a control of the growth of nursing home accommodation. It was generally recognised that at that time some 25 per cent of persons accommodated in nursing homes throughout Australia would be more appropriately accommodated in alternative accommodation if this accommodation and necessary supportive services were available. It is understood that, in the light of this position and with increased benefits becoming available under the new arrangements, the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day decided that better control over the admission of patients to nursing homes was necessary.

While some minor modifications have been made to the admission procedures, a review of the policy formulated by the former Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972 has not been undertaken by the present Government.

As an alternative to the present procedures for the admission of patients to nursing homes I would favour a system of assessment which would determine the level of care most appropriate for the treatment of each patient For this reason I support the establishment of a sub-committee of the Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council which will examine, inter alia, guidelines for an appropriate mechanism by which assessment of patients may be undertaken prior to their admission to nursing homes.

  1. It is correct that only a small number of persons have been refused admission to a nursing home under the present procedures. However, the number of rejections for admission is not the full measure of the effectiveness of the procedures. Medical certification that admission to a nursing home is appropriate has always been necessary for the purpose of paying nursing home benefits under the National Health Act. However, despite such certification, admission prior to 1973 had become a mere formality as the procedure at that time allowed nursing homes simply to admit patients and then fulfill the admission procedures later. The existing procedures, whereby both medical certification and Departmental approval must be obtained prior to admission, has emphasised to nursing home proprietors and matrons, the medical profession and potential nursing home patients that accommodation in an approved nursing home should be restricted to those persons who have a real medical need for nursing home care.
  2. While the present procedures will be subject to review in the normal course of events, no special review is intended in the immediate future.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 2527)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a serious position exists in Western Australia with regard to the subsidy payable to patients in nursing homes.
  2. When will the Government fulfil its election promises in regard to the provision of an adequate subsidy for nursing home patients.
  3. Will urgent action be taken to alleviate the severe strain and anxiety being caused to nursing home patients in Western Australia who are in many cases paying up to $40 per fortnight above their pension.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1) (2) and (3) I am aware of the effect of increased costs in nursing homes on the level of Australian Government benefits payable to patients in private profit nursing homes. Government benefits were increased twice during 1974. In Western Australia the two increases in benefits from 1 August 1974 and 15 October 1974 totalled $18.20 per week. Apart from increasing benefits, my Government has, since it came to office, increased pension rates by $16 per week to $36 per week and the supplementary assistance by $ 1 per week to $5 per week.

In all the Australian Government is currently paying some $260 million per annum in pensions, supplementary assistance and benefits to nursing home patients.

As I have said on previous occasions my Government will do all it can to assist patients to meet the cost of nursing home charges by providing as reasonable and as generous a level of bed day subsidies as it can. However, the Government has never stated that it would automatically increase bed day subsidies every time nursing home costs increase in a particular State. There has never been a firm commitment that it is the policy of any Government in Australia to establish nursing home benefits at rates which will continually guarantee the costs of all or most nursing homes.

Medical Bills: Failure to Pay (Question No. 2533)

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

With reference to his message contained in the booklet placed in every letter box in Australia on the subject of Medibank which makes reference to patients being imprisoned for failure to pay medical bills, can he say how many persons have been imprisoned for failure to pay medical bills on actions commenced by (a) doctors and ( b) hospital boards in the last 20 years.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The statement in ‘Medibank and You’ is based upon material presented in the paper ‘The Enforcement of Debts’, which is a Preliminary Draft Report presented to the Poverty Inquiry by Mr David St Leger Kelly, Reader in Law at the University of Adelaide. On page 6 of his report, Mr St Leger Kelly states, in relation to South Australia, that in the event of a failure to respond to a summons for examination or ‘unsatisfied judgment summons’ an order is made for the imprisonment of the debtor for contempt of court which the creditor is permitted to execute at will.

That Report states (at page 14) that ‘preliminary results of the analysis of judgment execution in South Australia . . . indicate that in excess of 40 per cent of all execution orders and summonses are in respect of hospital, medical and allied debts’.

Information in the detail sought by the honourable member is not available to me.

Health Insurance Scheme: Cleft Palate Surgery (Question No. 2534)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. When will cleft palate surgery be included in the Health Insurance Scheme.
  2. What other orthodontic procedures are being considered for inclusion.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Cleft palate surgery performed by medical practitioners is included under both the current Scheme and Medibank. It is also included when performed by an approved dental practitioner in an operating theatre in an approved hospital.
  2. My Department has been directed to make inquiries overseas as to what provision for benefits is made in several countries, in relation to orthodontic treatment of cleft lip or palate. After consideration of the replies, a proposal will be put forward in the usual way within the Government and hopefully we would be able to take steps at some later date to include orthodontic treatment for cleft lip or palate within benefits provisions.

Tourism (Question No. 2582)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to my question No. 1 30 1 of 1 5 October 1974 and my question No. 2232 asking when I may expect an answer to my question No. 1301, does his excessive delay in providing an answer indicate that there are no activities involving the Parramatta River which are examples of innovative use of a resource which reflect the planning of his Department.
  2. If so, who accepts responsibility for misleading information included in Departmental reports to the Parliament.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) My answer to Question No. 130 1 appeared in Hansard (page 3274) on 3 June 1975.

Medical Bills: Failure to Pay (Question No. 2639)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

With reference to his Department’s March 1975 publication entitled ‘Medibank and You’ which states in the last paragraph to the foreword that people can be, and are, brought before courts in Australia, and even jailed, because of inability to pay medical or hospital bills, (a) how many people have been jailed in Australia for non-payment of medical or hospital bills during the last statistical period from which his Department’s information was drawn, (b) what statistical period does the statement cover, (c) what is the State break-down of these jailings and (d) from what source document or documents has the information been gleaned.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The statement in ‘Medibank and You’ is based upon material presented in the paper “The Enforcement of Debts ‘, which is a Preliminary Draft Report presented to the Poverty Inquiry by Mr David St. Leger Kelly, Reader in Law at the University of Adelaide.

Information in the detail sought by the honourable member is not available to me.

Airline Service: Australia To Africa (Question No. 2672)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does he or his Department know of any discussions taking place regarding changes in the Qantas services from Australia to Africa.
  2. If Qantas alters or abandons its present route from Perth to Johannesburg via Mauritius, what substitute route is contemplated for Qantas or any other airline.
  3. Have recent discussions taken place with any other airline regarding a route between Australia and Africa; if so, what is the nature of these discussions.
Mr Charles Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See the answer to ( 1 ).
  3. No.

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Assistance Programs (Question No. 2703)

Mr Lamb:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation the following question, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments, and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. The honourable member’s attention is drawn to my Department’s ‘Review of Activities to 30 June, 1974’ which was circulated to all members and tabled in this House on 24 September 1974. This report outlines the assistance programs administered by my Department. More detailed information on each of the programs has been circulated to honourable members through circulars, news releases and other information handouts compiled by my Department’s Advisory Service. Should the honourable member desire specific information, he should contact either myself or my Department.
  2. Information on assistance available through programs administered by my Department is widely circulated to Governmental bodies at all levels, through the media and to interested national sporting, recreational and community organisations. In addition, my Department handles a great number of inquiries from interested individuals and organisations.
  3. This information is already available in my Department’s ‘Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’. The 1974-75 edition of this report should become available for distribution in September this year. Information in respect of my Department is also in the publication to which the honourable member refers.

Sturt Electoral Division: Funds from Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 2740)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. What applications for financial assistance have been received by his Department from any group, organisation or local government body in the Electoral Division of Stun.
  2. What funds have been made available through his Department to any group, organisation or local government body in the Division.
  3. What projects in the Division are being supported by his Department.
  4. What applications from any group, organisation or local government body received by bis Department have been rejected.
  5. What applications from any group, organisation or local government body are currently before his Department, and when will decisions be made concerning them.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Under the capital assistance program for recreation facilities administered by my Department, applications should be referred to the State recreation authorities. All applications are examined and accorded a State priority rating before being referred to my Department for the determination of national priorities. Any group or organisation which applies directly to my Department is advised to refer its application, in the first instance, to the appropriate State Department.

Applications have been received by my Department and redirected to the South Australian Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport in respect of the following projects within the Electoral Division of Sturt.

Club facilities for the Tea Tree Gully Youth Club.

Recreation and sporting facilities- Campbelltown.

Windsor Gardens Community Centre

Change-rooms for the Burnside Hockey Club.

Recreation facilities- Burnside.

  1. School-Community Activity Complex- Campbelltown, $40,000; ‘Karadinga’ Recreation Complex- Modbury, $75,000.
  2. , (4) and (5) All applications under the 1975-76 program are currently being examined at the State level. They will be referred to my Department for assessment in the context of the 1975-76 Budget allocations. The decision as to which projects will be supported will be made at that stage and announced as soon as possible thereafter.

Department of Foreign Affairs (Question No. 1549)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What programs does the Department of Foreign Affairs or statutory authorities under the Minister’s control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program nave been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last three years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating where the program has been in operation less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program and the means by which applications can be submitted: if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. 14) Is the Minister confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individuals, organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which the Minister or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together may be unwarranted.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Australian Development Assistance Agency administers two programs which enable individual groups in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government.

Financial Assistance to Voluntary Aid Agencies

1 ) Apart from the subvention provided by the Government to the Australian Council for Overseas Aid each year ($40,000 in 1974-75) to help defray its administrative expenses, and the special grant of $50,000 being provided to that body this year to help promote its overseas aid educational activities, the Australian Development Assistance

Agency administers a scheme of financial support for selected development assistance projects carried out overseas by non-Government aid organisations in Australia (such as ‘Community Aid Abroad’, ‘For Those Who Have Less’ and ‘Foster Parents Plan’).

This scheme does not as yet have an official title. It is described in the Budget simply as ‘Financial Assistance to Voluntary Aid Agencies’- see Division 856/08.

The broad purpose of the scheme is to encourage and assist closer involvement by members of the community in the provision of assistance to needy people in developing countries overseas.

To be eligible for assistance, an organisation must be identifiably Australian and have significant community support; have as one of its primary objectives the provision of overseas development assistance; and have a capability, either of its own or through a local organisation in another country, to implement projects in an efficient manner. Such aid projects may include cash grants or gifts of goods and services; must be capable of immediate implementation; have clearly identified objectives which are acceptable to the people and the Government of the recipient country concerned; be developmental in character; and have a reasonable prospect of becoming self-sustaining in the foreseeable future. Assistance is not given for running expenses of the organisations assisted or for activities involving open-ended financial commitments. A significant part of the cost of each project must also be met from Australian sources by the organisation receiving assistance from the Government. Only in the most exceptional cases will the Government be prepared to provide more than 50 per cent of the cost of a project to be assisted.

Funds for the scheme were first provided in the 1974-75 Budget: the scheme is therefore in its initial year.

The legal authority for the financial assistance being provided under this scheme is the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1974-75.

The scheme has been publicised through press releases and by references to it in Parliament. It came into being following a formal submission from the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), which helps to disseminate information about the scheme to its constituent bodies. A handbook of guidelines relating to the scheme is in preparation and will be issued to all interested organisations in future.

8 ) As indicated in ( 5 ) above, this is the first financial year of the scheme’s operation and applications are still coming in. So far 23 organisations have put forward over 100 projects for consideration.

Decisions concerning the size of the grants to be provided to particular organisations are taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the basis of advice from an Assessments Committee comprising persons nominated by ACFOA and from the Australian Development Assistance Agency, which chairs the Committee.

10) No final decisions have yet been taken concerning the allocation of the grants to be provided this financial year.

Only recognised non-Government overseas aid organisations are eligible to receive assistance from the Government under the scheme.

12) ( 13) and ( 14) The various organisations which subscribe to and are served by ACFOA cover a wide crosssection of the community and have many diverse bases of support, both religious and otherwise.

The Government is conscious of the need to be able to account to Parliament for the expenditure of public moneys on this scheme. Accountability will be ensured by requirements for regular progress reports from the voluntary aid organisations concerned and for official access to the projects being assisted. Precise details remain to be worked out but, so far as this is practicable and consistent with the foregoing comments, efforts will be made to avoid unnecessary adminstrative costs or undue interference in the execution of the projects in question lest this tend to undermine the voluntary character and independence of the private organisations undertaking them.

and (17) No payments have yet been made under this scheme. The amount provided for this purpose in the current financial year is $250,000. It is expected that most of this will be expended by 30 June.

18) As this is the only official scheme under which financial assistance can be provided for the above-stated purposes, no problems are envisaged in this regard.

Financial Assistance to Community Associations for the welfare of private and sponsored overseas students in Australia.

The Australian Development Assistance Agency is reponsible for the welfare of private and sponsored overseas students in Australia. The Agency co-ordinates its community welfare arrangements through Co-ordinating Committees comprising representatives of regional community associations and overseas students. These Committees (or their affiliated organisations) may apply for grants to assist them in financing their various activities for or on behalf of overseas students.

The attached Appendix (A) lists the names of these Committees and their affiliated organisations.

The broad purposes of the welfare program, which is an important adjunct to the training of overseas students, are to foster good-will towards Australia and to contribute to the growth of understanding between Australia and the various developing countries concerned. The welfare program includes such activities as the reception and induction of new students; host family schemes; the arrangement of accommodation and hospitality; and the provision of counselling.

Community organisations applying for financial assistance do so through their respective Co-ordinating Committees. They must demonstrate that the particular activity they have planned will be available to a multi-national group of students; that it will be beneficial to the students; and that it will stimulate social interaction between Australians and overseas students. Student associations seeking assistance must have a significant and appropriate membership; objectives compatible with the purposes of the welfare program; and a capability to assist their members.

The Australian Government accepted responsibility for the welfare arrangements for sponsored overseas students with the inception of the technical co-operation program in 195 1 and has since extended this responsibility to all overseas students. The first Co-ordinating Committee was established in Melbourne in 1952.

Since the establishment of the Agency as an autonomous statutory authority, one of its functions has been to look after the welfare arrangements for overseas students in Australia. The legal authority for the financial assistance provided under this program is the Appropriation Act No. 1 , 1974-75. Under Division 256/5-Bilateral Training Programs, provision is made for expenditure on the welfare of overseas students in Australia.

Through the existence of Co-ordinating Committees, on which a wide variety of voluntary organisations are represented, information and guidance on possible Government asssistance for their work is provided by, in most cases, their ex officio Secretary-convenors, who are usually officers of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

Applications for assistance are generally made through the Co-ordinating Committees.

Subject to the availability of funds, the Agency decides which applications for grants should be accepted and these are assessed in terms of the guidelines stated in (3) and (4) above.

Requests to the Agency for assistance are generally successful as they are usually considered initially by the Coordinating Committees, which are aware of the criteria which must be met.

In order that welfare funds may be applied for the benefit of as many overseas students as possible, it has been general policy to make grants to organisations rather than to individuals.

Yes. See answer to (7) above. Each Co-ordinating Committee is affiliated with numerous groups drawn from diverse sections of the community- including business and service organisations, educational institutions, religious groups and community and student associations. In this way, an awareness of the overseas student welfare program is extended to a wide cross-section of the community.

See answers to (4), (7) and (8) above.

14) Yes. See answers to (4) (7) and (8) above.

15) All funds provided to Co-ordinating Committees are accounted for annually to the Agency. An audited statement of account is required from each Committee prior to the Agency extending further grants to it.

The total amounts paid or to be paid to voluntary organisations for the welfare of overseas students over the last three years were $85,236 in 1972-73, $85,736 in 1973-74 and $35,605 in 1974-75.

The total amount allocated to meet the welfare needs of private and sponsored overseas students studying in Australia in 1 974-75 is estimated at $360,000.

The location of the overall responsibility for providing assistance to overseas students with the Australian Development Assistance Agency, and the specific nature of the welfare programs for overseas students, safeguards any possible duplication of expenditures on this purpose. Prior to granting assistance to a new organisation, its other sources of income are examined in detail.

Refuges for Women (Question No. 2366)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants that have been made available in each State to enable groups to establish or continue to operate refuges for women.
  2. What sum has been made available, and where is the refuge located in each case.
  3. What is the name of the organisation operating each refuge, what is the purpose of each centre, and when was each established.
  4. Will he provide a list of all other such centres in each State and Territory.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. The abovementioned centres are the only women’s refuges for which I have approved grants. The funds have been provided under the Community Health Program. I am aware that there are similar centres in other cities but they are not funded by my Department and I do not have detailed information about them. I understand that a refuge does operate in the Australian Capital Territory and that a rent-free house and some funds have been made available by the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Inquiry into Poverty (Question No. 2413)

Mr Hyde:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) By what date is the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty required to report.
  2. Will the report be tabled as soon as practicable in the Parliament
  3. What would be the equivalents of the endowment, pensions and assistance that would have the same purchasing power today as the recommendations based on the value of the Australian Dollar at August 1 973 in the Commission ‘s Interim Report.
  4. What steps has the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Interim Report.
  5. Which recommendations are as yet not fully implemented.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Commission is not required to report by any specific date but it is expected that Professor Henderson’s main report will be published by mid- 1975 and it is expected that the reports of the other Commissioners (Dr Fitzgerald, Professor Gates, Rev. Martin, Professor Sackville) will be published by late 1975/early 1976. Reports of projects undertaken for the Commission are also being published and the following four papers have already been released.
  2. 1 ) Aboriginals and Islanders in Brisbane
  3. ) Poverty in Northern New South Wales
  4. Survey of Young Workers
  5. Resources for poor families: An experimental income supplement Scheme.
  6. Yes.
  7. The table below gives the weekly endowment, pension and assistance rates recommended in the Commission’s Interim Report and shows what these rates would now have to be to have the same purchasing power as in August 1973- the recommended rates as at August 1973 have been updated by the increase in the Consumer Price Index to March quarter 197S. Because Professor Henderson recommended that the rates of pensions, etc, be adjusted in line with movements in average weekly earnings, the table also shows the August 1973 recommended rates updated by movements in seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings to the March quarter 197S. The table also shows the current rates of pensions, etc.
  1. and (5) Page 7 of the Interim Report summarises the 12 recommendations made by Professor Henderson. Since the Interim Report was published, the rates of pension and benefit have been increased on three occasions, additional pension and benefit for children twice and supplementary assistance once. Other action has been taken which would be of special assistance to low income earners. For example, the personal income tax rate scale has been restructured on two occasions in 1974-75, a special rebate of tax has been introduced for low income families and radio and TV licence fees have been abolished.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Scripts (Question No. 2437)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many data processors are employed in each of the offices processing pharmaceutical benefit scripts, and how many additional operators would be needed in each of these offices to overcome the backlog.
  2. How many trainee operators are there in each of the offices, and are there enough of these not only to replace those who leave but also to overcome any shortage of trained operators.
  3. If there is a shortage of suitable personnel for training in the cities where offices are established, has he investigated the possibility of decentralised offices in large regional cities where there is significant female unemployment.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

(D-(3)

Processing of claims is on schedule in all States except New South Wales. Adequate numbers of data processing staff are currently available and are working to eliminate the backlog in New South Wales. Any additional recruitment would result in staff surplus to requirements.

There is no shortage of suitable personnel for training in the cities and there are sufficient operators in training to counteract any shortage of trained operators.

Social Security: Intensive Care Benefits (Question No. 2525)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Was the subsidy payable to intensive care patients, when first introduced, SO per cent greater then the ordinary care subsidy.
  2. Is the present subsidy now considered to be quite inadequate to cover the additional cost of caring for intensive care patients.
  3. Is it proposed to increase the subsidy payable to these patients.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The supplementary intensive nursing home care benefit was introduced on 1 January 1969 at the rate of $3 a day, the rate of ordinary nursing home care benefit at that time was $2 a day.
  2. The purpose of the introduction of a separate benefit for intensive nursing home care patients was to correct a trend that had developed prior to 1969 whereby nursing homes were reluctant to admit patients who required a high level of nursing care and attention. The supplementary benefit of $3 a day was designed, amongst other things, to provide an incentive towards the admission of that type of patient. The fact that some 48 per cent of nursing home patients are now receiving the intensive care supplementary benefit indicates that the benefit is fulfilling the purpose for which it was introduced.

The proportion of patients who have received the intensive care supplementary benefit has increased each year since its introduction as is indicated by the figures below.

  1. In approving increases in fees for private nursing homes the Department has regard to the fact that increases in costs have been incurred for all patients and the approved fees for both ordinary care patients and intensive care patients are adjusted by the same amount. In reviewing rates of nursing home benefits regard is had to movements in fees and it has been the practice to increase these benefits which are paid to all patients.

The National Standing Committee of Nursing Homes which represents private nursing homes throughout Australia has not sought an increase in the rate of supplementary intensive care benefit and an increase in this benefit is not under consideration at the present time.

Department of Social Security: Grants (Question No. 1546)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What programs does his Department or statutory authorities under his control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. What is the name of each program.
  3. What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been m operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. Is he confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by bis Department or authorities under his control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which he or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2)-

  1. Aged or Disabled Persons’ Welfare Program which provides assistance to

    1. Aged or Disabled Persons ‘ Homes
    2. Aged Persons’ Hostels
    3. Home Care Services
    4. Delivered Meals Service
  2. Homeless Persons Program
  3. Welfare Rights (Pilot Program)
  4. Community Information Centres
  5. Grants to National Welfare Organisations (0 Financial Assistance for Community Welfare Agencies
  6. g) Australian Assistance Plan
  7. Handicapped Persons Assistance
  8. Grants to Community Agencies Scheme

    1. (a)-
    1. To encourage the provision of suitable accommodation in which aged or disabled persons may reside in conditions approaching as nearly as possible normal domestic life.
    2. A special three year program to provide hostel type accommodation for needy frail aged people who are no longer able to care for themselves properly.
    3. To assist State and Local Government bodies to provide supportive welfare services which will enable aged persons to continue to reside in their own homes.
    4. To assist frail aged persons to continue to live independently by delivering meals to their homes and to encourage the expansion and improvement of Meals-on-Wheels Services.
  9. To assist eligible organisations providing accommodation and services for homeless persons.
  10. To make grants to eligible organisations providing welfare advice and information to minority groups.
  11. To make grants to eligible organisations to assist in establishing and maintaining community information centres or citizens advice bureaux.
  12. To make grants to eligible national welfare organisations to assist in their operations.
  13. f) To make grants to eligible organisations which provide a community service and who are in serious financial difficulties.
  14. The purpose of the Australian Assistance Plan (A.A.P.) is to establish Regional Councils for Social Development whose function is to stimulate interest and activity in the broad field of social development, to give added impetus to initiatives within the region, to provide a wider range of welfare services and to test innovative programmes for service delivery.
  15. To assist eligible organisations to meet the cost of providing and operating, for handicapped children and adults, the following services-
  16. training
  17. activity therapy
  18. sheltered employment
  19. residential accommodation
  20. holiday accommodation
  21. recreational facilities
  22. rehabilitation facilities
  23. To extend direct migrant welfare services to areas of need within the community which could not readily be covered by the Department’s resources.

    1. (a)-
  24. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes

Grants are approved on a $4 for $1 basis towards the capital cost of approved group homes for aged or disabled persons being established by eligible religious and non-profit organisations including local governing bodies.

  1. Aged Persons Hostels

The Australian Government meets the full cost, within prescribed limits, of providing hostel accommodation for needy frail aged persons. Grants are based on accommodation provided for aged persons by eligible religious and non-profit organisations prior to the introduction of the $2 for $1 subsidy under the Aged Persons Homes Act in 1937. Accommodation must be allocated strictly on the basis of need.

  1. Home Care Services

The Australian Government reimburses two-thirds of State and/or Local Government expenditure on:

  1. the provision of home care services such as home help or emergency housekeeping;
  2. the cost of establishing approved senior citizens centres; and
  3. ) the salaries of welfare officers of Senior Citizens ‘ Centres employed wholly or mainly in caring for the aged.
  4. Delivered Meals Services

A subsidy of 25 cents is paid for each meal delivered to aged or invalid persons by approved Meals-on-Wheels organisations. A further 5 cents is paid for meals served with a suitable vitamin ‘C supplement.

  1. As set out in the Homeless Persons Assistance Act grants and subsidies are payable to approved non-profit, local government non-profit organisations and government bodies providing approved services (meals, accommodation and social welfare services), at a centre wholly or mainly devoted to homeless persons.
  2. Grants have been made available under a pilot program to five organisations in Sydney and five organisations in Melbourne for the appointment of a welfare rights officer to provide ethnic and other disadvantaged groups with information, referral and advisory services.
  3. Grants are payable to community based welfare organisations to assist in the establishment of 12 new community information centres.
  4. Three organisations (ACOSS, ACROD, and ACOTA) have been funded to support their national co-ordinating role and other functions.
  5. Financial assistance is available to community welfare agencies in financial need due to increased administrative costs or decreased revenue from other sources.
  6. Under the AAP, Capitation Grants (at the annual rate of up to $2 per head of population in the region) are available to twelve Regional Councils to fund approved social welfare projects in their respective regions. Projects proposed by individual groups or people in the community are required to be of a social welfare nature and to be recommended for my approval by the relevant Regional Council.
  7. Voluntary, religious and similar organisations that provide an approved service for handicapped children or adults are eligible to apply for assistance. It is necessary for an organisation to demonstrate that there is a need for the services it proposes to supply.
  8. Requirements for eligibility are that an agency should be-
  9. already engaged in migrant welfare or prepared to undertake this work;
  10. geographically situated to provide a service in areas with a reasonably heavy proportion of migrants in the population;
  11. unable to extend otherwise its welfare service because of existing financial limitations;
  12. able to provide suitable office accommodation and other facilities to enable the appointed social worker to work in circumstances appropriate to the task.

An agency which might be unable to meet all of these conditions may nevertheless be considered for a grant if other special circumstances exist

  1. (a)-

    1. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes 16.12.1954
    2. Aged Persons Hostels 27.9.1972
    3. Home Care Services 14.6.1969
    4. Delivered Meals Services 15.4.1970
    1. The Homeless Persons Assistance Act received Royal Assent on 1 3 December 1974.
    2. September 1974.
    3. The pilot program for the establishment of twelve centres was approved in July 1 974.
    4. 1965-66. (0 December 1974.
    5. October 1973.
    6. Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act commenced in 1967 (now repealed).

The Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act commenced in 1970 (now repealed).

Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, commenced in 1974 and incorporated the provisions of the two preceding Acts.

  1. 1 July 1968.

    1. (a)-
    1. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954-1974.
    2. Aged Persons Hostels-Act 1972-1974.
    3. States Grants (Home Care) Act 1 969- 1 973.
    4. Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1 970- 1 974.
  2. Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974.
  3. Government Decision.
  4. Government Decision.
  5. Government Decision.
  6. Government Decision.
  7. The AAP was proposed by the Social Welfare Commission as a Discussion Paper ‘pilot’ program, funds for which were included in Appropriation Bills No. 1 for 1973-74 and 1974-75.
  8. Handicapped Persons Assistance Act
  9. On 23 May 1968. The Scheme was approved by the then Minister for Immigration, the Right Hon. B. M. Snedden with the concurrence of the then Treasurer, the Right Hon. W. McMahon.

    1. (a) The Aged Persons Welfare Program is widely publicised by way of information booklets, brochures, various other governmental publications and promotional drives by Departmental officers, backed in some cases with publicity films.
  10. By public announcements where appropriate and advice to eligible organisations.
  11. Same as (b).
  12. Same as (b).
  13. Same as (b).
  14. Same as (b) .
  15. I tabled in the Parliament the Social Welfare Commission’s Discussion Paper No. 1 on the AAP in August 1973. Since then the AAP has been publicised by a further Discussion Paper and progress report, press, radio, television, film, leaflets, newsletters, posters, addresses at public meetings, seminars, conferences, direct contact with voluntary organisations. Local organisations and groups are advised of their entitlement to apply for grants by departmental officers and Regional Councils.
  16. National bodies catering for handicapped people are informed of the eligibility requirements for grants under these programs. Most eligible organisations are affiliated with relevant national bodies. Booklets containing information on the programs and procedures for seeking approval of the various projects are prepared and made available through these and Departmental sources. New innovations are widely publicised.
  17. Regular consultation has been maintained between the migrant welfare staff of the State Offices and voluntary agencies active in providing a welfare service to the migrant community. Ministerial and official statements from time to time have helped publicise the scheme. Migrant welfare staff in the normal course of liaison work with ethnic groups have made known the provisions of the scheme.

    1. (a) Applications lodged under the Aged for Disabled Persons Welfare Program are as follows:
  1. Since 13 December 1974 when the Homeless Persons Assistance Act commenced to operate approximately 50 applications have been received.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Not available.
  5. Three.
  6. There were 197 applications for capitation grants under the AAP in 1973-1974.
  7. Handicapped Persons Assistance
  1. (a) All applications for assistance under the Aged Persons Welfare Program are accepted. The power to approve an application is vested in the Director-General of Social Security.

    1. b ) The Minister or his delegate.
    2. The Minister or his delegate.
    3. The Minister or his delegate.
    4. The Minister or his delegate.
    5. f) The Minister and the Treasurer.
    6. The Minister.
    7. All applications are accepted, but approval of an application is determined by the Minister for Social Security or his delegate.
    8. The Minister for Social Security approves all grants.
  2. 10) (a) An application under the Aged Persons Welfare Program which does not meet the usual criteria of eligibility becomes the subject of negotiations with the sponsoring organisation in order to bring about modifications making the project eligible for subsidy purposes. As a result of this only two applications for assistance have failed to gain approval over the last three years.

    1. It is too early in the life of the program to provide an answer to this question. Most of the applications are still under consideration.
    2. Not applicable- A pilot program comprising ten grants is operating.
    3. Proposals under consideration.
    4. Not applicable- Three organisations funded.
    5. f) No grants made yet.
    6. 63 per cent.
    7. Because of the wide range of major and minor forms of assistance, specific details are unavailable of programs funded under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. Organisations generally discuss projects with Departmental officers prior to submitting formal applications for approval. As a result, the percentage of approvals for all forms of grants available under the legislation would be in excess of 90 per cent.
    8. Per cent approved

1971- 72 28

1972- 73 25

1973-74

13*

  1. 1 1 ) (a) Grants under the Aged or Disabled Persons Welfare Program may only be made to organisations and not to individuals.

  2. (a) The previous Government adopted a policy of non-interference in the affairs of organisations conducting welfare programs for the aged or the disabled. As a result little attempt was made to assess the community’s awareness of the programs or their effectiveness. However, the Australian Government is now encouraging consumer participation in welfare programs and is intensifying publicity campaigns to create a greater public awareness of the assistance available under the various schemes.

In addition the Government instigated a detailed inquiry into all aspects of the Aged Persons Welfare Program. Evidence has been received from a wide range of organisations, consumer groups, individual residents of homes and specialists in various fields of aged persons welfare. The findings of this inquiry are expected to be available shortly.

  1. to (f) Programs are for grants to organisations and agencies and Departmental Officers maintain a close liaison with these bodies.
  2. A sum of $100,000 has been used by the Department in the current financial year to publicise the AAP as indicated in (7) above and it is proposed to substantially increase this sum in 1975-76. In addition, Regional Councils themselves generate a considerable amount of publicity within their regions. Community interest in and reaction to the AAP has been steadily increasing; for example, the demand for loans of the ten copies of the AAP film, ‘A Say in Your Community’, has been overwhelming in all States and the Territories and a further fifteen copies are to be distributed soon. Daily requests for information are received by my Department from a wide cross section of individuals and groups, including church and welfare organisations, local authorities, schools, universities, welfare consumer groups and migrant organisations. Some publicity material is being translated into eight languages. An experienced officer has been recruited to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department’s information services in reaching the general public concerning all programs administered by the Department, including the AAP.
  3. Specific studies assessing the community’s awareness of programs for handicapped persons have not been undertaken. However, grants are made to voluntary organisations, and these bodies have a wide knowledge of the Australian Government’s programs, in this field and the appropriate application procedures.
  4. The scheme provides funds for the sole purpose of enabling eligible community welfare agencies to appoint a qualified social worker to work among migrants. The special nature of the scheme means that its provisions are relevant only to established agencies already actively involved in providing a welfare service to the migrant community.

Surveys and community work (as outlined in the reply to part (7) (j) have enabled the Department to make appropriate agencies aware of the special assistance which is available under the Grants to Community Agencies scheme.

  1. 13) (a) Before a project or service is approved under the Aged or Disabled Persons Welfare Program the sponsoring organisation must demonstrate that there is a need for the particular service in the area concerned. In some cases the question of ‘need’ is examined by Federal/State Coordinating Committees set up for this purpose.

    1. to (f) No specific checks are made. However, there is a close liaison between Departmental Officers and relevant organisations and agencies and feedback indicates a wide awareness of the programs.
    2. At present it is not possible, from the applications received by my Department, to assess precisely the effectiveness of AAP publicity and attempts by the Department and Regional Councils AAP widen knowledge of access to funds. Applications for the support of community welfare projects are received and assessed by Regional Councils when they submit a final list of recommended projects to the Department for payment. However, the number of applications received by the Department and the contents of the proposed projects indicate wide knowledge of the program in the relevant regions.
    3. No specific checks are made. However, from discussions with representatives of voluntary organisations at conferences and other meetings it is apparent that knowledge of the programs for handicapped persons, and appropriate application procedures, is widespread.
    4. Not applicable for the reasons outlined in reply to part 12 (i).
  2. (a) The provisions of the Aged or Disabled Persons Welfare Program are known to a wide cross-section of the community. This is due partly to the length of time the program has been operating and the number of people it serves. However, there is considerable room for improvement and a new series of consumer-oriented pamphlets is being prepared. In addition the work of the Departmental ‘Community Liaison Sections’ is being expanded and public relations activities increased.

    1. to (0 All possible efforts are being made to ensure that organisations and agencies are kept informed of the provisions of these programs.
    2. See (12) (f) and ( 13) (f) above. The AAP is a new program and a priority is being given to publicity in established regions.
    3. Yes.
    4. Yes, on the basis that the scheme is directed to assisting the migrant component of the community.
  3. 15) (a) Before an instalment of a grant is paid under the Aged or Disabled Persons’ Welfare Programme the organisation involved must produce an audited statement of account to ensure that the expenditure for which reimbursement is sought is in fact eligible for subsidy. As a further safeguard subsidised homes and services are visited periodically by senior Departmental officers to see that they are operating within the terms under which the subsidies were approved.

    1. to (0 Programs have or will have a monitoring and evaluation procedure operation.
    2. Before quarterly grants are made to Regional Councils a signed statement of expenditure of Government funds received to date is required. In addition, Regional Councils are required to forward audited annual statements to the Department and the auditor is required to certify that Government funds have been utilised for the purposes for which they were given.
    3. The physical evidence of the projects and equipment for which subsidy was granted provides accountability for the money granted. Grants are paid only on production of relevant receipts and audited certificates of expenditure. Registers of subsidised equipment are maintained and organisations are required to clearly mark all such items of equipment. Organisations are also required to enter into agreements with my Department to ensure the continued use of subsidised premises or equipment for or in connection with an approved service. In default of this, the agreement contains a grant repayment clause.
    1. Qualifications and experience of social workers to be employed are checked before appointments can be made, and efficiency is assessed prior to incremental salary increases being approved.
    2. Daily Record Sheets are required to be submitted giving a detailed account of counselling and community development activities undertaken by social workers.
    3. Agencies are required to forward their annual reports and financial statements for scrutiny.
    4. The financial and supporting statements in relation to each agency in receipt of a grant under the scheme are subject to regular Departmental audit inspection.
  4. (a) Expenditure under the Aged or Disabled Persons’ Welfare Program for the past three years is shown in the following table:-

    1. 1971-72 $188,604, 1972-73 $282,000 1973-74 $314,461. Appropriation 1974-75, $397,500-Expenditure to 3 1 January 1975 $30 1,125.
    2. Nil
    3. AAP capitation grants in 1 973-74 totalled $60 1 ,898.
    4. Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act-1971-72 -$4,580,312, 1972-73-55,895,716, 1973-74-$7,588,343.

197 1-72 -$230, 982, 1972-73 -$284, 49 1, 1973-74- $353,728.

  1. 17) (a) to (i) Approximately $256m.
  2. (a) To safeguard against duplication in funding of projects organisations seeking grants under the Aged or Disabled Persons Welfare Program must produce auditors’ certificates certifying that their funds have not been received from a Government source, as Government funds cannot be subsidised.

    1. to (!) Procedures are designed to safeguard against double funding.
    2. Care is taken, both by Regional Councils and my Department, to ensure that projects funded out of capitation grants do not attract grants or subsidies under existing State or Australian Government programs.
    3. Organisations are required, when seeking subsidies under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, to specify any alternative forms of funding that may be available or provided from other sources. While the provision of such alternative funding does not necessarily preclude payment of a further grant, it is taken into account when determining the amount of the grant to ensure that unwarranted grants are not made.
    4. In assessing an application for a grant under the scheme, agency representatives are interviewed and the agency’s resources are examined. The agency’s financial statements are checked for funding from other sources, although special purpose funding received from another source does not necessarily preclude eligibility for assistance under the grant scheme. In addition, reports from State Directors of Social Security are sought on parallel welfare initiatives which could lead to an over-supply of welfare services in the particular area covered by the agency in question.
  1. Appropriation 1974-75. $1.7m- Expenditure to 31 May 1975-nil.
  2. Appropriation 1974-75-$100,000-Expenditure to 3 1 January 1975 $23,113.
  3. Appropriation 1974-75 $42,000-Expenditure to 31 January 1975 $2,500.

Famine: International Assistance (Question No. 1908)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say which countries have experienced famine and have required international assistance since World War II.
  2. If so, in what years have famines occurred in those countries.
  3. What physical impediments are there to the distribution of food aid to each of these countries, e.g. wharves, storage, roads, etc.
  4. What social impediments are there in the type of food aid which it is possible to distribute.
  5. What attention is being given to the storage and distribution problems of countries most prone to famine.
  6. What role does the United Nations play in the problem of famine other than with respect to emergencies.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided me with the following information in answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO) in a list produced in September 1972 specified a total of15 situations described as ‘DroughtFamine’ in the period 1953-1972. The countries designated were Ghana ( 1 ), Somalia (2 ), Togo ( 1 ), Haiti (2 ), Afghanistan (1), India (4), Indonesia (1), Korea (1), Jordan (1), Yeman ( 1 ).

Authoritative sources, covering the detailed information requested by the Honourable Member are rare. The term famine’ was not in common usage, countries much more commonly experiencing ‘food shortages’ in the literature of the period referred to, at least up to 1965.

Perhaps the situations listed below, which have been extracted from Keesing’s Contemporary Archives as ‘food shortages’, will be as accurate a summary as is reasonably available:

  1. and (5) Difficulties in handling increased food shipments are experienced at ports and within developing countries, particularly where a famine occurs in a landlocked country. Inadequate internal transport, roads and infrastructure can also delay effective distribution. Such delays together with a shortage of refrigerated storage and transport often make the distribution of perishable foods impossible. Grains and flour, being more durable, less expensive, more easily handled and of appropriate food value are preferred.

International assistance includes the development of landing facilities in case of emergency as well as the development of infrastructure to improve internal distribution of food in the longer term. For example Landrovers have been given to Ethiopia for use by OXFAM in relief work as well as substantial gifts of food aid, and Australia is also providing assistance to Burma with the erection of silos and India in the development of bakeries.

In the Sahelian situation special projects have been coordinated by committees at the ports of entry to ensure the staging of food shipments and their clearance as quickly as possible. Special road and air transport was also arranged using donated and leased aircraft and trucks to supplement local road, rail and river distribution to affected areas.

One other obstacle to rapid distribution of food aid can be the administrative capacity of the recipient country. Misappropriation of emergency food aid has been known to occur while lack of co-operation between the various levels of government within the recipient country can bring the movement of food aid to a standstill. These problems are largely beyond the control of the donor countries.

  1. and (5) Social impediments to food aid are perhaps the most difficult to overcome of all obstacles to effective relief operations.

Local custom, religion and social stratification must always be studied to determine the impact of aid on the life style of the recipients.

In certain areas custom prevents the consumption of pork or beef meats while in other areas preferences for particular grains have developed because of local staple food crops. Populations in some African countries prefer sorghum and maize while in India lentels and rice are preferred. Grains nevertheless form the bulk of world food aid supplemented by milk products, dried fruits and canned meat. Wheat is generally acceptable as an alternative grain due to its high protein and vitamin content as well as its suitability for transport and storage.

There is often a strong initial resistance to some new foods such as the high protein corn/soya milk powder (CSM). One obvious problem in the introduction of new foods into the diet of any group is the possibility of stomach disorders due to a sudden divergence from normal diet (even where the normal diet is almost non-existent).

Social impediments such as described must be overcome as quickly but carefully as possible if an emergency food aid operation is to be successful.

The United Nations operates several continuing bodies aimed at improving food and health conditions in famine prone countries. The major organizations of this type are listed in the following table which also includes several intergovernmental agencies having formal agreements with the United Nations.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 2581)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many people have been prosecuted in each State for improperly obtaining unemployment benefits during each of the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The number of persons prosecuted for improperly obtaining unemployment benefits are as follows:

Australian Schools Commission (Question No. 2738)

Mr Clayton:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What are the main recommendations of the Australian Schools Commission for the next triennium?

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

The main recommendations of the Schools Commission’s triennial report for 1976-1978 are directed at giving equality of educational opportunity and raising the quality of education in government and non-government schools.

To this end it set targets, created a schools recurrent resource index to determine the level of assistance needed by government systems and non-government schools and recommended funding levels within a framework of six specific programs.

A more detailed summary of the Commission’s major proposals is set out below. This summary is intended to give a quick glimpse at the main features of the Report. It need hardly be said that those who need precise details or a fuller story will have to go to the Report itself.

page 3524

OVERVIEW

In May 1973, the Interim Committee for the Schools Commission published its recommendations for the 1974-75 biennium in the report ‘Schools in Australia’ which the Australian Government adopted. Those recommendations, now being implemented by the Commission, sought to improve the overall quality of schooling within a framework that would reflect the following values: equality diversity devolution of authority community participation reponsiveness to change

These values have been fully endorsed by the Commission.

Themes

The Report for 1976-78 addresses itself to questions of equality and quality. The value of education is re-affirmed in the terms that, without a minimum level of competence a person bears a lifelong disability, not only in the achievement of self-fulfilment but in relation to effective participation in society. Much of the Report is devoted to the question of how to improve the quality of education so that all children can reach at least basic levels of competence. There is also much detailed consideration of the question of equality, interpreted in terms of equal chances for students to benefit from educational experiences. The problems of various groups whose special needs are not being adequately met are given close scrutiny.

Targets

The Commission decided target dates for the achievement of acceptable levels of resource use in primary and secondary schools in the light of many factors, the main ones being:

The Interim Committee set a target date of 1979 for the achievement of an increase of 40 per cent in real resource use in primary schools and 35 per cent in secondary schools. The Commission has endorsed the target levels but has varied the target dates to 1980 for primary schools and 1982 for secondary schools. The most important effects of this variation will be:

page 3525

FUNDING LEVELS

Public spending on schooling in Australia remains lower than in most other highly industrialised countries. Schools in Australia are still often physically spartan places in comparison with business establishments serving a comparable number of people. However the Commission recognises that extra resources may only be justified by improved services to children. The amounts shown in the following tables are arrived at by calculating the proportionate increase in resources that should apply to both sectors of schools in the 1976-78 triennium in order that all schools may reach the target levels by the dates referred to previously. The total of grants recommended for the three year period is $2,070m which constitutes an increase of some $540m over the amount which would be required to maintain the present levels of effort over three years, or $180m a year at 1974 prices.

The recommended grants are distributed among States and sectors in the following way:

The grants are distributed through six Programs as follows:

The funds recommended are those which would flow through the States Grants (Schools) Act 1975, and do not include those associated with running school systems in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory for which the Australian Government bears direct responsibility. The Commission has recommended that these school systems should be provided for at levels comparable with those planned for the States.

Equality

Equal access to occupational and life options through schooling is the notion of equality that the Commission endorses. Not only must schools provide for a greater range of needs than at present, but more children must be enabled to gain the basic competencies that allow them to achieve power over the circumstances of their own lives. Children who do not learn to read or to handle language effectively during their primary years are cut off from the possibility of success at secondary level. In a society where credentials play so important a part, the penalties attached to a failure to gain a level of success in schooling which gives job choice and the possibility of further training and retraining are considerable. It is clear that some children need greater assistance than others to reach a plateau of competence, the attainment of which enables them to become full participants in a democratic society, able both to share in the opportunities it offers and to participate in shaping its future directions. At all levels of schooling some students will need more time and more skilled and affectionate assistance than others to gain competencies necessary in the society. Some schools have larger numbers of children needing sustained support than do others. School authorities will be encouraged to give schools enough power over their own funds to enable them to provide more equitably for these varying needs. The difficulty of achieving more equal outcomes from schooling is pointed up in the Report, in those sections that deal with large groups whose special needs may have gone so long unsatisfied as to lull the community into accepting that their poorer performance is ‘normal’. The children of Aborigines and migrants, children who live in country areas, and girls are four such groups. The Commission strongly rejects the notion that such groups are inherently incapable of educational success, and argues for improvements in educational provision to cater for their special needs. The relative frugality of primary school funding is another serious inequity.

Equity as Between Educational Levels

Education costs per head increase markedly at the higher levels. For every $ 1.0 spent on a primary student, his secondary and tertiary counterparts would attract about $1.70 and $5.00 respectively. Retention rates are poor for children from low socio-economic levels, due to a poorer performance at school and greater pressure to leave early to join the workforce. There is a need to tip the balance in funding towards the levels where all are at school.

Cultural Pluralism

An aspect of equality on which the Commission places considerable emphasis is the recognition in schools of the cultural pluralism existing in Australia. As in all other societies there is a mainstream culture in whose terms economic rewards and status are ranked. It is important that children not raised in this mainstream be able to participate in it on equal terms. It is also important that the school reflect and respect the variety of realities which students bring with them and in which they live. Effective learning is a two-way process which builds on the experience and knowledge the students already have and assists them to fit it into a more generalised and inclusive framework and to extend both experience and framework. It also assists them to understand the variety of structures and value systems within which people organise, use and evaluate knowledge. It is now recognised that limited social perspectives and implied denigration of some social groups are often purveyed in schools through both materials and attitudes.

Experience with the Child Migrant Education Program, financed under the Australian Government’s Immigration powers, has suggested the need for changes. The Program employs teachers to operate withdrawal classes in English for migrant children. However, as a majority of children are now born in Australia their prime need is no longer first level communication skills in English, but sustained support in the development of English language competence across the whole curriculum. This need is closely related to that of a larger number of English-speaking students and is, in any case, not easily provided for in a segregated way. Other special needs of migrant children are for curriculum content which draws upon their experience and interests and for assistance in mediating between school and home. The Commission has recommended that the funds presently legislated through the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, to assist schools in meeting the special needs of children from nonEnglishspeaking homes be transferred to the General Recurrent Grants Program of the Schools Commission to allow more flexible approaches to child migrant education to develop. It recommends that in each State a Migrant Advisory Committee composed of representatives of school systems, ethnic groups and specialists in migrant education should advise systems on the best use of funds.

It has also placed a loading on funds in the Disadvantaged Schools Program to strengthen action in schools of high migrant density in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The Commission will respond to proposals to cater for the unmet needs of children entering Australia in late childhood and early adolescence. In major cities where sufficient numbers of such children are present, proposals to establish multicultural schools open to students of all ages and backgrounds will be examined and a limited number of such schools will be assisted on an experimental basis through the Special Projects Program. Major initiatives in the teaching of migrant languages in schools and consideration of support for ethnic schools will be delayed pending the outcome of current enquiries sponsored by the Australian Department of Education. Funds recommended through Schools Commission Programs should allow pilot developments to take place in the meantime.

The recognition of cultural pluralism is one of many initiatives that address the question of equality. Three other groups which derive less than their full entitlement from educational provision are country children, Aborigines and girls.

Country Children

Country children require improved educational services if they are to have the same life chances as children in large towns and cities. Within the General Recurrent Grants Program, $28m for government and $2m for non-government schools is allocated to improve the quality of educational services in small and remote communities. Although the Commission prefers to bring educational opportunities to students where they live rather than subsidise them to move away from home to get them, it has allowed in the Capital Grants Program for the extension of government hostels and for the upgrading of boarding facilities, both public and private. The Capital Grants Program includes a nominated amount ($20m) for teacher housing in country areas and it is recommended that other forms of incentive be examined on a regional basis to reduce the turnover of teachers in smaller communities and to tempt more experienced teachers to them. An extension of specialist services to country regions is also supported.

Aboriginal Children

Aboriginal children are on every count the most socially and educationally disadvantaged. An Aboriginal Consultative Group whose composition was agreed upon with the National Aboriginal Congress helped the Commission to frame proposals in this area. Commission initiatives will concentrate on the more active participation of Aboriginal people in the education of their children and on promoting a wider understanding of Aboriginal social perspectives, culture and values. The training of Aborigines to enable them to assume leadership roles both among their own people and in schools and systems is vital. This will be supported through Commission funding along with the training and employment of Aboriginal school /community liaison staff. A Standing Committee on Aboriginal Education will be set up to advise the Commission and other Australian and State Government agencies at the policy level. The Commission recommends an enquiry into and action on the health and living conditions of Aboriginal children as a necessary foundation for more effective schooling for them. It also recommends that under the constitutional powers passed to it in 1967 the Australian Government should assume full financial responsibility for predominantly Aboriginal schools where the States desire it and where Aboriginal parents show initiative in attempting to organise their own schools.

The Education of Girls

An enquiry established that the educational disadvantage of girls, considered in the traditional terms of length of schooling and of school achievement, is no longer a pressing problem. Socio-economic factors are more influential than the sex of students in relation to these two outcomes. However, the subject choices and post school educational and occupational experience of males and females are still markedly different. The Commission sees a need for more positive action in schools to remove differences in curricular offerings open to boys and girls and to provide wider opportunities for students of both sexes to make considered choices affecting their lives. No school curriculum would be complete that failed to consider the changing social roles of the sexes. Evidence suggests that girls as a group are less confident than boys and that vocational guidance is often slanted in ways limiting to both sexes. Stereotyped views of sex roles are conveyed through the absence of women in positions of authority in education, through materials used and through the implied view about the appropriate division of functions in the family when it is assumed that mothers should be at home.

Social facts and attitudes conveyed in the wider culture are almost certainly more restrictive and influential than messages deliberately conveyed in schools. The Commission supports the view that schools should positively set out to counter social influences which confine the options of young people of both sexes.

It sees the consolidation at school of competencies which open up rather than foreclose future options as being especially important for girls as a basis for deferred educational opportunities for those choosing to re-enter the workforce after caring for young children as well as for those girls who go straight on to further education. The acknowledgment of this deferred right would be a real expression of the society’s appreciation of the value of child bearing and care. Through its Special Projects Program the Commission will support schemes that reduce curricular distinctions between girls and boys or actions that promote consideration in schools of the social roles of the sexes and the assumptions underlying them. Parents and teachers may study and design action on these matters through the Services and Development Program. The Commission will itself initiate further enquiries and pilot action.

page 3527

QUALITY

Resources

Professional staff/student ratios. Four-fifths of all Australian school children attend government schools and a substantial majority of these children at primary level are still taught in classes of over 30 pupils. While there is movement away from traditional class structures towards more flexible groupings of teachers and students, nevertheless, the amount of individual attention a child may have depends on the numerical relationship between skilled adults and children whatever the organisational arrangements. Resources are an aspect of quality even if they do not guarantee it. The Commission recommends funds which will enable Government systems by 1978 to improve the ration of professional staff to five per hundred primary students and eight per hundred secondary students. Such ratios, given present teaching loads, could eliminate classes of over 30. However, such results will not necessarily be achieved in every State, for both present conditions and future priorities vary. It is clear from submissions to the Commission that some States, for quite acceptable reasons, will prefer to trade off the advantages of smaller classes against such things as increased specialist services for students.

Facilities

Although the Commission has recommended substantial sums for capital purposes ($S78.5m for government schools and $ 116.5m for non-government) improvement in school buildings that can realistically be achieved in the triennium will be less than educationally desirable. Research into and analysis of building techniques are needed if dollars for school faculties are to be increased in effectiveness. Apart from building costs, the capacity of the building industry and the ability of authorities to mount larger programs, there are other inhibiting factors such as population movements. Population movements annually lead to the requirement for many more new places in schools than do increases in enrolments. The pressure to build these places has long delayed the satisfaction of urgent needs in upgrading and replacement.

Moreover, the standard of comfort in many school buildings is low compared with that of most Australians in their homes and workplaces. Many schools are not fitted with electric lighting, and the standards of toilet, lunch, staff and administration faculties in many old schools are intolerably low. There are few schools in which students may buy a wholesome mid-day meal and eat it in moderately civilised conditions. Bare board floors and cumbersome desks are not conducive to any kind of learning atmosphere except that of authoritarian mass instruction. In some States no form of heating or cooling exists even in areas where temperatures and humidity are inhospitable. Many Australians take such sparten schools for granted. But Australia is no longer a spartan society.

School based decision-making

The contribution which resources of themselves may make to improved quality in schooling needs to be matched by other changes more difficult to effect but which the Commission seeks to assist through funding. The most important of these in the case of school systems is the movement of a greater range of decisions to the school. Because power to make choices between alternative uses of funds is fundamental to real participation in decision-making, the Commission has suggested that systems should soon be able to allocate a minimum of 5 per cent of total operating costs for spending by the school body. It expects that teachers will participate in choosing among and hiring various types of ancillary staff and in balancing these choices against equipment and other uses of funds. Parents and students will also take a significant part in these decisions. The involvement of parents in decision-making is part of the trend towards a closer relationship between the school and the community it serves. At secondary level especially, there needs to be re-examination of the role that schools expect of parents. If the level of participation offered to parents is restricted to trivia, their response is likely to be diffidence, sometimes misinterpreted as apathy. If real devolution of authority is to be achieved, it will be the relationship between school and community that provides an alternative accountably to bureaucratic surveillance for it is when teachers and the community are involved together in making real decisions about educational alternatives that true mutual responsibility will grow. Trends toward student decision-making need to be fostered so that the school community will be a unified and vital one, giving recognition and impetus to social changes which accord higher status to adolescents. In the Special Projects Program, continuing priority in funding will be given to proposals that promote student participation in meeting student needs.

page 3528

NEW STRUCTURES

In the past, both schools themselves and the learning that took place there were seen as being separate from the ‘real world’. But the barriers that shut learning off from living are now crumbling and schools are becoming more vital elements in the community. The Commission believes that if the diverse needs of children and society are to be more adequately catered for, there needs to be an acceleration of the process of ‘opening up’ the school, to make it more flexible, more accessible, more out-going in its preparedness to relate the realities of the community to the task of the school. By its patterns of funding and its co-operation with other authorities, the Commission seeks to stimulate trends which it identifies as important in this area. Special Interest Centres, Unlimited Schools, and Recurrent Education are three examples of such initiatives.

Special Interest Centres

As schools have begun to respond to pressures from a changing society and to developments in educational thought that put more emphasis on catering for a range of student needs, the traditional curriculum has undergone quite radical modification. The Commission has sought to promote the search for more effective ways to cater better for children whose special needs have prevented them from achieving a full development of their capacities. Children with particular talents form one such group. These children, with potential to enrich society in such fields as the visual and performing arts, need early nurture if their talents are to be fully developed. It is proposed that funds be made available through the Special Projects Program to explore various models of Special Interest Centres where gifted children may receive a ‘normal’ education while being given the opportunity, under skilled guidance, to develop their special talents. Several models of such Centres will be funded if acceptable proposals are forthcoming.

Unlimited Schools

The Commission will fund through the Special Projects Program, the establishment of a number of these schools which are intended to increase educational opportunities for the whole community. They would make use of all mediaradio, television, film, video tapes, sound cassettes and offset printing- to provide educational services to all who needed them. Country children, especially those in the remoter high schools where subject offerings are limited, would be obvious beneficiaries, but people not able or willing to attend formal institutions would have a new educational option. Unlimited access would be the key- age, sex, location, time available, previous level of school- none would be a barrier. State Correspondence schools, which are in need of modernisation, would be transformed by the introduction of Unlimited Schools.

Recurrent Education

Although there are many interpretations of what is meant by recurrent education, all have the implication that there is a growing demand for access to educational services extending beyond what were regarded as the normal school years. Two important implications for schools are firstly, the need to reformulate the relationship between the school and the workplace and secondly, the need to explore ways to facilitate re-entry to school. The possibility of re-entry underlines the desirability of ensuring that all students reach a plateau of competence before leaving school, for without this, reentry later is not likely to lead to success. The Commission has formed a study group to explore further the concept of recurrent education. It will also support pilot programs and action-research in this area.

page 3528

PROGRAMS

In the 1976-78 period six Programs will operate to channel funds to schools. They are not separated as discretely as in the 1974-75 period, for two main reasons. The first is a recognition that block funding through educational authorities for purposes agreed to during prior discussion will result in a more effective meeting of carefully defined local needs. The second is that too much of a separation of specialist areas of activity tends to force all schools into equivalent levels of specialist provision, thus negating the principles of school-based decision-making, and provision according to need. A brief description of the six Programs will help put the Commission ‘s role into prespective.

General Recurrent Grants Program

Over $1,1 50m is proposed in this Program, which is intended to cover staffing and other necessary recurrent resources for both government and non-government schools. This money is to be added to State government or nongovernment school funding, which is required to be maintained at levels equivalent to those existing before the advent of direct Australian government funding in 1 974. In order to be able to make valid comparisons of the needs of different types and sizes of schools and systems the Commission has constructed a Schools Recurrent Resources Index (SRRI). This index takes account of such factors as the professional staffing level, the amount of other goods and services used, enrolment levels, sizes and types of school. The level of financial assistance depends on the relative needs of schools and systems. For non-government schoods, standard costs will represent a rising proportion of the average cost of government schools, so as to bring all schools to an equivalent level of resource usage by the target dates of 1980 for primary schools and 1982 for secondary schools, mentioned earlier. A more detailed account of the application of SRRI to non-government schools will be found in an appendix to this summary.

Capital Grants Program

Government schools. Although nearly $700 million has been proposed to refurbish established schools, to provide new places, and to provide assistance for disadvantaged schools, special education, libraries, teacher housing and planning, this amount will only achieve a part of the uplift that many would like to see. The main reason for this is that a mobile and expanding population places undue emphasis on building for new enrolments, thus making it necessary to spread capital resources thinly. The economic realities of the day make rapid improvement impossible. Nevertheless improvements are being achieved, in that school buildings are becoming more flexible and useful. Further improvement will be promoted by the setting up of a research team to study the application of technology to educational needs, and 2 per cent of building funds will be available for planning, to encourage integrated, effective use of school buildings. $4.5 million will be devoted to the community use of school buildings and, as mentioned earlier, there will be a determined effort to improve teacher housing in the country. The application of the funds will vary from State to State according to the submitted plans that each system will make after surveying its needs.

Non-government schools. Building grants recommended for non-government schools amount to more than $116 million. This sum includes over $2 million to meet outstanding claims for secondary school library projects undertaken before 1974, and up to $30 million for the provision of places for new pupil enrolments over the next three years. The remainder of this $1 16 million is intended to provide substantial assistance for upgrading of facilities, especially for disadvantaged schools, for libraries and for residential accommodation for students who have to live away from home in order to receive an adequate education. Recommendations to the Commission concerning the allocation of funds among these pressing needs will be undertaken by the Planning and Finance Committees in the States and Territories.

Disadvantaged Schools Program

This Program continues at much the same level as in 1974-75, but a main source of funds will be from the General Recurrent Grants Program which authorities have agreed to apply in a manner consistent with the aims of the Disadvantaged Schools Program. Emphasis will be on involving the school itself in devising strategies to meet the learning needs of children whose social circumstances make it more difficult for them to achieve at school. Task Forces will continue to assist teachers to develop the skills necesary to work with pupils, parents and community groups to break down barriers to effective learning. A small secretariat may be attached to each State Task Force to facilitate research work. Some extension of the previous program will be undertaken by arranging for some non-systemic schools to receive Disadvantaged Schools Program funding and schools with ‘pockets ‘-of poor or migrant children will be investigated to determine whether special provision should be made for them in the 1979-81 triennium.

Special Education Program

The traditional tendency to categorise certain children as needing ‘special’ education which could not be provided in normal classrooms is coming under critical scrutiny. Segregation of physically or intellectually handicapped children not only places these children in a position where thendevelopment may be jeopardised, but it implies a definition of normality that rejects overt difference. It is now thought to be better to tackle the problem by extending the capacity of the normal classroom to cater for a broader spectrum of human need in an atmosphere where diversity is accepted as the norm. This is not to deny that there is a small percentage of children -perhaps less than one per cent- who could not benefit from inclusion in a normal classroom. For the 1976-78 period, funding will be kept at about the same real level as for 1974-75 in order that provision may be made for the adaptation of schools and classrooms to cater for many handicapped children in normal classes and for the training of specialist staff to assist class teachers to cope with a wide range of need. The education of children in institutions will be financially assisted and funds will be available for the assumption of responsibility by State Education Departments for special schools that elect to be taken over by government authorities.

Services and Development Program

If schools are to respond adequately to the needs of the children and communities they service, they need the support of professional and technical services and teachers need opportunity and encouragement to develop their professional capacities. The Commission has recommended grants of $ 1 3.9m for support services and $48.2m for various tender development activities in the 1 976-78 period.

Services. The approach to provision of specialist support staff varies from State to State as the perception of need differs. Organisational patterns also differ. The Commission proposes that each State set up a joint Services Committee, representative of all types of schools, to administer the Services aspect of this Program consistently with the following principles:

It is proposed that each State set up a joint Services Committee to fund priorities in the provision of services, to assist all schools to benefit from them and to co-ordinate activities with the Development section of the Program. The expansion of services to schools will enable them to increase their ability to cater for a wide range of student needs.

Development. The 1974-75 Teacher Development Program will be consolidated and extended during the triennium. Two basic aims will be, firstly, to provide all those who contribute to the functioning of the school with opportunities to develop their capacities, and secondly to break down isolation- between schools, between systems or between individuals. There is growing recognition that the most productive approach to development is to provide teachers themselves with the opportunity to define their needs and with the means to meet them through seminars, workshops, in-service courses, inter-school visits or by engaging specialist lecturers. Interaction between teachers, parents and community groups is another facet of development experience.

It seems certain that development activities are most productive when they are initiated by the participants and are voluntarily engaged in. Difficulties on such scores as afterhours activities and accreditation for promotion need to be overcome. The Commission questions whether course credits need be geared to promotion rights, especially when preservice training is so extensive. Teachers need to re-appraise their concept of professional status if they are not to limit the scope for staff development.

Joint Development Committees will be set up at State level with a supervisory role over similar bodies set up at regional level. This arrangement will promote a maximum of local organisation.

The Program will also provide: funding for replacement of teachers on in-service courses, support for in-service centres, funds to train Aboriginal teaching aides and continued funding for the establishment and support of locally run Education Centres.

Because library services are now regarded as closely integrated with the rest of the school’s educational services, no separate program for library support has been recommended. Instead, the Commission intends to amalgamate its two Libraries Committees into one committee whose function will be to advise on policy and form guidelines on library standards and use. Funding of various library activities will be via the Services and Development Program, the General Recurrent Grants Program and the Capital Grants Program. Non-government school grants for library bookstock and equipment will be channelled through the State Planning and Finance Committee and funding from the Special Projects Program will enable an Australian Cataloguing Service for school libraries to be set up.

Special Projects Program

The ethos of the ‘Innovations’ aspect of the Program is that change will only be worthwhile if it is initiated by those involved in it. The success of the 1974-75 Program in stimulating the imagination and enthusiasm of teachers, prompts the Commission to continue a school level program at an increased rate of funding. $5m per year will be devoted to worthwhile projects submitted by teachers, parents, pupils or others. Priority in funding will be given to projects that promote developments that are consistent with the aims and principles of the Commission. Thus emphasis in the 1976-78 period should be on projects that aim to: improve learning of basic skills meet the needs of disadvantaged children explore ways to ‘open up ‘ the school involve students in decision-making integrate ‘ special ‘ children into ordinary classes help handicapped children get employment promote cultural pluralism meet the special needs of Aboriginal children compensate for isolation bring school and community closer together promote the feasibility of recurrent education reduce the disadvantage of girls cater for children with special skills

In addition to the school level projects the Commission will fund a number of important national level projects to a total cost of $3m in the tnennium. $1 lm has been allocated for projects at system and regional level, thus continuing and extending this facet of the 1974-7S Program. The Commission, systems, or regional authorities may initiate proposals. Special Interest Centres to cater for the needs of children with special talents and Unlimited Schools, to extend educational services by the use of audio-visual and printedword media are two initiatives already mooted. To continue and develop special areas of action-research, an amount of $7.5m will be provided. Typical areas of activity would be: education of Aborigines country education the school and the community education of migrants recurrent education education of girls

The total value of the Program for the triennium will be $36.Sm, but, as in 1974-75, it is expected that this relatively small amount of funding will stimulate a disproportionately large volume of interest and enthusiasm amongst practising teachers.

page 3530

APPENDIX

page 3530

GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS TO NONGOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Financial assistance to non-government schools through the General Recurrent Grants Program will be allocated according to their assessed needs. These needs are measured by the extent to which the resources available to them in 1974 compared to those available to government schools. Some non-government schools have smaller classes and use a greater amount of other resources than the average government school, but most of them do not. This means that if acceptable standards are to be achieved by specified target dates, most non-government schools will need increasingly greater levels of support from government sources. In order to achieve this objective the Commission has recommended two types of recurrent financial aid for non-government schools.

page 3530

SUBSIDISED SCHOOLS

The first and most general type of assistance is for Subsidised schools. All non-government schools may receive one of eight levels of subsidy according to their current level of resource use. The comparison of non-government with government school costs has been refined considerably to take into account a number of different variables, notably school size and type (i.e. primary, junior secondary and senior secondary). The levels of subsidy are expressed as percentages of non-government school standards costs. Between 1976 and the date of achieving the targets, nongovernment and government school standard costs will gradually become the same. The highest level of subsidy which a Subsidised school may obtain will amount to a payment from government sources (both State and Australian) of 65 per cent of government school standard operating costs, a level to be reached by non-government primary schools in 1980 and by non-government secondary schools in 1982. This amount is the most a school may receive if it desires to retain its powers to select students and to operate without public participation in its governance. Initially only schools needing such a high subvention to raise their standards to prevailing government school levels will be eligible for it. As resources available to any school from its own sources increase, the subsidy available will decrease in units of 5 per cent of standard costs until the base level of assistance, 30 per cent of standard costs, is reached. This is the minimum level of subsidy from State and Australian Governments to which all schools will be entitled. After the target year of1 980 for primary schools and 1 982 for secondary schools it is expected that Australian Government assistance will be directed at schools operating at least at those standards considered acceptable for all schools in Australia. Non-government schools which desire to reduce their fees while continuing to operate close to government standards may apply to move to higher levels of subsidy over time. Except in exceptional circumstances they may, however, only move by one level of subsidy in any one year towards the maximum 65 per cent subsidy; and these schools may only move to a subsidy level above 50 per cent if they can demonstrate that by doing so they are becoming more open to wider sectors of the community.

The percentage basis of the subsidy gives assurance of a predictable income from public sources, and also ensures that the amount of the subsidy will rise in accordance with government school standards and costs. The Commission has related the percentage subsidy for primary schools to 90 per cent of government school standard operating cost in 1976, rising to 100 per cent of such costs in 1980. For secondary schools, the relevant figures are 85 in 1976 rising to 100 per cent in 1982. This escalating base has been used in order to uphold the Australian Government’s undertaking to enable all non-government schools to operate at acceptable standards by a target date. In most cases this also enables a gradual well-balanced build-up of resources. In some respects this arrangement reflects an important principle inherent in the previous Category system, that recurrent grants to non-government schools are related to rising standards in government schools, until government and nongovernment school standards move into a stable relationship with each other in the target year (originally 1979 for both primary and secondary schools). Provided non-government schools are prepared to operate approximately at government standards they may gradually reduce their fees and other compulsory levies, and so provide an increasing opportunity for children of families from a broader income span to attend. Payments under the Subsidy scheme will be arranged so that no school which has maintained its effort will receive less in real terms in 1976 than in 1975 unless its level of resource use has improved markedly in relation to government schools. Most non-government schools will receive considerably larger financial grants. A further advantage of the proposed system is that schools which believe that they have a claim for special consideration such as that based on situation or newness, may present their case to the Planning and Finance Committee in their State or Territory. This Committee, which includes representatives from government and non-government schools may, on the basis of its local and specialised knowledge and within the limits determined by the Commission to ensure fair and equal treatment among States and Territories, make appropriate adjustments to the subsidy level recommended to the Commission.

page 3531

SUPPORTED SCHOOLS

Supplementary general funding is recommended for a limited number of schools- Supported schools- with greatest need. These schools will be able to make compulsory charges equivalent to 5 per cent of standard costs but otherwise will be fully supported from government sources. Within the conditions agreed to by the Commission they will be open to all those seeking to enrol. Their governing bodies will be required to consist of a minority of public nominees as well as representatives of parents and teachers. These governing boards or councils must of their own right be able to enter into legally binding arrangements and must operate their schools within specific standards of resource use that will equate with standards prevailing in government schools. This new option is provided for those schools unable to meet the 35 per cent margin between the most favourable subsidy level and minimum specified standards. Initially the number of Supported schools will be limited either to schools eligible for the maximum subsidy or to new schools established under certain agreed conditions. However in the period beyond the 1976-78 triennium this arrangement provides the possibility of moving to supported status non-government schools willing to operate under conditions set down for this type of funding and wishing to eliminate de facto selection of students on the basis of parental income. Whilst there can be no guarantee that the orientation of schools which choose Supported status will be entirely preserved under conditions of open entry, the composition of the school’s governing body will help to ensure this; also only small numbers of parents are likely to choose for their children a school whose existing view of the world or whose educational philosophy they do not share.

page 3531

DETERMINATION OF SRRI RATINGS FOR NONGOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

The following steps are involved:

The following steps are involved:

Primary Schools only

If enrolment is 1-100 multiply by 1.21

If enrolment is 10 1-200 multiply by 1.14

If enrolment is 20 1 -300 multiply by 1 . 07

If enrolment is 30 1 + multiply by 1 . 00

Secondary Schools only

If enrolment is 1-200 multiply by 1.21

If enrolment is 20 1 -400 multiply by 1 . 1 4

If enrolment is 40 1 -600 multiply by 1 . 07

If enrolment is 60 1 + multiply by 1 . 00

Schools containing both primary and secondary grades

In schools with both primary and secondary enrolments the weighting of the dominant (either primary or secondary) sector is related to the total school enrolment, and the smaller (either primary or secondary) sector is weighted by no more than 1.07.

It should be observed that the above weightings of expenditure are applied in measuring the resources required by a school, while in calculating payments of grants to a school the non-government standard cost per primary and secondary student is used.

The following formula is used:

The SRRI rating therefore represents the calculated percentage of standard resources with which the school operates. An example follows:

D. Calculation of General Recurrent Grants

SRRI ratings provide a general guide to the Planning and Finance Committees in their consideration of subsidy levels, and hence general recurrent grants, for particular schools. It is emphasised that a SRRI rating is not the sole criterion for the determination of general recurrent grants. A detailed illustration of the calculation is set out below. {:#subdebate-85-0} #### Minerals: Export Controls (Question No. 826) {: #subdebate-85-0-s0 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn: asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he state on 10 August 1973 that lack of information was one of the reasons necessitating the introduction of export controls on all minerals. 1. Prior to the introduction of the controls, had any companies refused to supply his Department with information concerning prices or other details of export contracts. 2. If so, what information was sought and refused. 3. What are the names of the companies which have refused to supply information. 4. Was the achievement of reasonable export prices in relation to prices obtained by other countries an objective of the controls. 5. At the time the general controls were introduced, were any Australian minerals being exported at prices below world parity. 6. If so, what minerals and what companies were involved. 7. What were the prices being obtained and what was world parity at the time in each case in part (7). 8. On what basis was world parity calculated or estimated in each case. {: #subdebate-85-0-s1 .speaker-K0O} ##### Mr Connor:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (4) In my speech to the New South Wales Division of the Securities Institute of Australia on 10 August 1 973 1 indicated that a lack of elementary information on Australia's mineral export contracts was one factor which provoked the Australian Government to introduce export controls under the Customs Legislation on all mineral exports. Prior to the introduction of this important measure the Government had access to this vital information on an ad hoc basis for some minerals only. The decision to extend the controls to cover all minerals has resulted in the Australian Government, for the first time, having a full knowledge of Australia's minerals export trade and the terms of its contracts. As a result the Australian Government can provide material assistance and advice to Australian mineral exporters, and co-ordinate their export activities on a national basis. 1. Yes. 2. to (9) At the time export controls were extended to cover all minerals a number of Australian minerals were being exported at below world parity prices. This had resulted from the practice of many key minerals being sold under long term contracts at fixed prices without provision in many cases for escalation of any kind. Firm action has been taken by the Australian Government to remedy this problem by providing full support to Australian companies in negotiating price increases with overseas buyers under existing contracts and by requiring contemporary pricing provisions in new contracts. As a result of this action Australia is obtaining additional export income, in the case of iron ore, under existing contracts, of about $A200m per annum. In the case of coal the 1974 contract tonnage value has risen by in excess of $A250m on 1973 values and is estimated to increase by an additional $A470m in 1975 over the 1974 figures. {:#subdebate-85-1} #### Education: Inquiries (Question No. 982) {: #subdebate-85-1-s0 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What committees, commissions and/or boards of inquiry were appointed by the Australian Government to inquire into educational problems and issues in 1973-74. 1. Which of the bodies so appointed have completed their inquiries, and what expenditure was incurred by each body. {: #subdebate-85-1-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The current status of bodies appointed in the 1 973-74 financial year is set out below. Expenditure incurred on administrative costs is included. {:#subdebate-85-2} #### Katanning Primary School (Question No. 1018) {: #subdebate-85-2-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a decision been made on assistance towards the cost of equipping a new canteen at the Katanning Primary School submitted by the Katanning Community Committee to the Southern Regional Social Development Board under the Australian Assistance Plan, and subsequently referred by the Social Welfare Commission to his Department. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If so, what is the decision. 1. If not, when will a decision be made. {: #subdebate-85-2-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Neither the Department of Education nor the Schools Commission has a record of any request for assistance on this matter. Australian Government funds which are provided through programs administered by the Schools Commission could be used by the Western Australian Education Department to purchase equipment but as with previous Government schemes of assistance there is no legal basis on which the Australian Government may assume detailed administrative control of grants to the State governments. {:#subdebate-85-3} #### Religious Institutions (Question No. 1111) {: #subdebate-85-3-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Which Acts administered by him allow for Government contributions for (a) capital expenditure; and (b) current expenditure to religious institutions. 1. What are the details, including the names of recipient institutions, of these contributions, for each of the last three years. {: #subdebate-85-3-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) A number of the Acts of Parliament which I administer provide for Australian Government financial assistance, both capital and recurrent, to educational institutions. These Acts are: Australian National University Act 1946-1973 Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967-1973 Education Research Act 1970 Immigration (Education) Act 1971-1973 Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1 969 States Grants (Advanced Education) Acts States Grants ( Independent Schools ) Act 1 969- 1 972 States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1972 States Grants ( Schools ) Act 1 972- 1 974 States Grants (Schools) Act 1 973- 1 974 States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971 States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1 97 1 States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1967 States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1 970 States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 States Grants (Technical Training) Act 197 1- 1 973 States Grants (Universities) Acts Universities (Financial Assistance) Acts Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1975 Grants are made to establishments which are accepted as educational institutions. Religious activities as such are not supported, although some of the institutions concerned have religious affiliations. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. See (1) above. {:#subdebate-85-4} #### Port Adelaide: Container Shipping (Question No. 1741) {: #subdebate-85-4-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government under study a proposal to develop Port Adelaide as a major container snipping and freight terminal in Australia. 1. What other sites in Australia are under study with a view to introducing the land-bridge concept of cargo handling. 2. When will a decision be made on the upgrading of the Port Adelaide terminal. {: #subdebate-85-4-s1 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Currently the Bureau of Transport Economics is undertaking a study considering Fremantle, Adelaide and Melbourne as possible terminal ports in a land-bridge concept of cargo handling. 1. If the right honourable member is referring to the container terminal, the South Australian Government has already made its decision and is already constructing a modern terminal for the use of container shipping. Education: Grants to independent Schools (Question No. 1773) {: #subdebate-85-4-s2 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: : asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications have been received by the Schools Commission from independent schools for (a) capital grants and (b) innovation grants, and what is the total value of applications under each scheme. 1. How many grants have already been approved under each scheme, and what is the total value of grants under each scheme. {: #subdebate-85-4-s3 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) (a) A total of 1066 applications for General Buildings Grants have been received from non-government schools. The total value of all requests received was some $ 193.5m. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. 946 applications for innovations grants have been received from non-government schools, amounting to a total value of$10,033,916. 1. (a) Details of the General Building Grants Program are contained in the booklet published by the Schools Commission in December 1974 entitled 'Progress Report on General Building Grants Program'. The relevant details of grants offered to December 1974 to each of the 360 successful applicant non-government schools are given in pages 47 to 69. Details of a further 36 grants which have been approved since were contained in statements which I have previously supplied to each member. Further copies of the statements containing this information are available from the Schools Commission. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In all 227 applications from non-government schools have been successful. Details of the grants which have been approved were contained in statements which I have previously supplied to each Member. Further copies of the schedules containing this information are available from the Schools Commission. {:#subdebate-85-5} #### Catholic Schools: Grants (Question No. 1803) {: #subdebate-85-5-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have building grants for disadvantaged Catholic schools been approved for Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. 1. If so, what are the details. 2. If not, when will they be announced. {: #subdebate-85-5-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Details of building grants to disadvantaged Catholic schools under the Disadvantaged Program are available in the Schools Commission publication, 'Progress Report on Disadvantaged Schools Program ' of December 1 974. Details of grants approved in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania since the publication of that report are as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Not applicable. {:#subdebate-85-6} #### Housing Units (Question No. 1828) {: #subdebate-85-6-s0 .speaker-QF4} ##### Mr Connolly: asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many new housing units does he anticipate will be required to meet the demand for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. 1. How many new housing units does he anticipate will be constructed by State authorities with funds provided under the Housing Agreement Act and similar legislation. {: #subdebate-85-6-s1 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On present indications, 1974-75 will see the completion of about 140 000 dwellings, both private and government, throughout Australia. However at this stage, it is not possible, because of the many variables involved, to provide meaningful estimates of the requirement for dwellings in 1975-76. In future, I will be looking to the Indicative Planning Council for advice on what levels of dwelling construction are socially desirable and economically feasible. As you know, the housing industry has been subject over the years to a great deal of instability , largely because of a lack of any real co-ordination in the housing industry and between industry and governments. The Australian Government has been concerned with this lack of co-ordination. Also the Government believes that it should seek to achieve a better balance between the supply of and demand for housing and to reduce the extent of stop-go activity in housing. This is a prerequisite for a stable and healthy industry. It is with this aim in mind that the Government has embarked on a program of indicative planning for the housing industry. The Indicative Planning Council has held its inaugural meeting and its first working meeting. Inaugural meetings of the Council's South Australian, Tasmanian, Queensland and New South Wales Working Parties have also been held. Inaugural meetings will be held as soon as possible of the Victorian, Western Australian, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Working Parties. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Based on construction programs submitted by the States for the 1974-75 financial year, it is estimated that about 9800 dwellings should be completed in the year from advances being made available under the 1973-74 Housing Agreement. In addition, the State Housing Authorities are expected to complete at least 3000 dwellings in 1974-75 from other funds. It is not practicable at this stage to provide an estimate for 1975-76. {:#subdebate-85-7} #### Education: Grants to Independent Schools (Question No. 1943) {: #subdebate-85-7-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many offers of capital assistance have been made to independent schools which have had to be rejected because the schools cannot afford to raise their proportion of the total amount needed. 1. Which schools have been concerned. 2. 3 ) What sum of money was involved. 3. What were the terms of each grant refused, and to which school or groups of schools did the grants apply. {: #subdebate-85-7-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There have been two offers of capital assistance made to independent schools which have been totally rejected because the schools could not afford to raise their proportion of the total amount needed. 1. Southport School, Southport, Queensland and Loreto Convent, Portland, Victoria. 2. The total value of the offers made was $ 120,000. 3. Southport School, Southport, Queensland, rejected a grant of $70,000 which was offered subject to the school meeting an estimated 50 per cent of the total cost of the project Loreto Convent, Portland, Victoria, rejected the grant of $50,000 which was offered subject to the school meeting an estimated 50 per cent of the total cost of the project. Education: Grants to Schools in Kalgoorlie Electorate (Question No. 1973) {: #subdebate-85-7-s2 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To which (a) government and (b) non-government primary schools within the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie did the Australian Government provide finance through the Schools Commission General Building Grants Program during 1974. 1. What was the actual amount provided to each school during 1974, and what amounts are expected to be provided in each case during 1975. {: #subdebate-85-7-s3 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) The Government primary schools within the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie which are receiving finance through the Schools Commission General Building Grants Program, and the amounts provided in 1974 and estimated to be provided in 1975 are: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The non-government primary schools within the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie which are receiving funds from the Schools Commission General Building Grants Program, and the amounts provided in 1974 and estimated to be expended in 1975 are: 1. The amounts are included in the tables above. NEAT Scheme (Question No. 1989) {: #subdebate-85-7-s4 .speaker-9W4} ##### Mr Hyde: asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many applications has he received for assistance under the NEAT scheme in each State. 1. How many applications have been approved in each State. 2. What are the criteria that determine acceptance or rejection of an application. 3. What types of application are decided at (a) State and (b) Federal level. 4. What is the normal time lapse between lodgement of application and rejection or approval. {: #subdebate-85-7-s5 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I shall be issuing shortly a detailed report to me by my Department on the first three months operation of the National Employment and Training System (NEAT). I think the honourable member will find that the answers to his question will be provided by that report but if, on reading it, he wants further elaboration I shall do what I can to provide it for him. 1. I would invite the honourable member's attention to my answer to part (2) of question number 2 1 79 directed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. 2. Generally speaking, applications for periods of fulltime training in excess of one year at university level are decided by me on the recommendation of officers of my Department and cases involving in-plant training in excess of one year are decided by the Central Office of my Department. Applications decided at State level include all full-time training at below university level, all full-time training for periods of one year or less and all in-plant training of one year or less. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Because of workload this has varied from office to office and according to the type and duration of training. In many cases, applications can be decided at the local office of CES and the normal delay in resolving such cases has been about two weeks. However, applications for training that would involve relatively high levels of expenditure because of their duration, for example, need careful consideration at the Central and Regional Offices of my Department. This often requires further information being sought from CES, the applicant, training institutions and other Government agencies. The normal delay in resolving such cases has been from four to six weeks but cases were taking up to twelve weeks or longer to be decided. As a result of special measures instituted by my Department, generally there is now very little or no delay in the processing of NEAT applications in CES and the time being taken to handle the types of cases I have just referred to is being reduced progressively. Care of the Aged (Question No. 2279) {: #subdebate-85-7-s6 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister's answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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. 1. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 45- Report on Care of the Aged in Australia. 2. ) 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. 3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy. {: #subdebate-85-7-s7 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (4) There is no restriction on the circulation of the material contained in the report in question. However, there are very few copies extant and in any case the material is now considerably dated. Nevertheless, I am arranging for a photocopy of the full report to be provided without delay to the honourable member. Committee Report on Requests for Troops from South Vietnam (Question No. 2300) {: #subdebate-85-7-s8 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 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. 1. Has the Minister's attention also been drawn to indexed item 85- Committee report on requests for troops from South Vietnam. 2. ) 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. 3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy. {: #subdebate-85-7-s9 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. No. 2. I refer the honourable member to the comments in part (3) of the Prime Minister's answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198). The Role of Australian Medical Teams in Vietnam (Question No. 2301) {: #subdebate-85-7-s10 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 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. 1. Has the Minister's attention also been drawn to indexed item 87- Report on the role of Australian medical teams in Vietnam? 2. ) 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. 3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy. {: #subdebate-85-7-s11 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. No. 2. I refer the honourable member to the comments in part (3) of the Prime Minister's answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198). {:#subdebate-85-8} #### Aboriginal Health (Question No. 2335) {: #subdebate-85-8-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to the Prime Minister's answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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. 1. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 24- Systematic survey of Aboriginal health in the Northern Territory. 2. 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. 3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy. {: #subdebate-85-8-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. and (4) The reference to the surveys relates to ongoing Departmental activity which eventually led to the preparation of statistics relating to individual diseases, morbidity, and infant mortality rates. These statistics were made available to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in September 1973. They have since been published in the Northern Territory Medical Services Bulletin. The published statistics date back to 1 965. {:#subdebate-85-9} #### Water Hyacinth (Question No. 2389) {: #subdebate-85-9-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: -asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What research is his Department conducting or sponsoring in relation to the water hyacinth menace. 1. What requests for research have been received from State Government departments or private organisations. {: #subdebate-85-9-s1 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Australian Agricultural Council has referred the general question of aquatic weeds to the Australian Water Resources Council of which I am chairman. Officers of my Department and myself are giving urgent consideration to the problem. The Bureau of Environmental Studies, a division of my Department, is trying to obtain the services of a particular overseas expert to conduct a study of the occurrence of water hyacinth in Australian inland waters and the best methods of water hyacinth control. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Apart from several inquiries from interested organisations and individuals requesting information on the water hyacinth problem or pointing out particular areas of concern, my Department has received only one detailed request for funds to investigate the water hyacinth. This was from Professor W. D. Williams of the Zoology Department, University of Adelaide, and is the study referred to earlier being considered by the Bureau of Environmental Studies. {:#subdebate-85-10} #### Hospitals (Question No. 2421) {: #subdebate-85-10-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons in his department have been engaged in feasibility studies into the construction of Australian Government hospitals. 1. How many are presently so engaged. 2. What has been the cost to his Department of this work, and what fees have been paid to which architectural firms as detailed in the answer to question No. 1786. 3. Are these architectural firms still doing hospital work for the Department. 4. If so, what is the financial arrangement with them. {: #subdebate-85-10-s1 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ( 1 )Twenty-three professional officers of the Department of Housing and Construction have been engaged in feasibility studies into the construction of Australian Government Hospitals in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. None. 1. The total cost to the Department for carrying out the feasibility studies was $174,572 of which the following amounts were paid to consulting architects: Included in the figure of $174,572 is an amount of $7,064 for the services of two overseas specialists in hospital design. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. No. 1. See answer to (4). {:#subdebate-85-11} #### Food Sampling and Testing (Question No. 2442) {: #subdebate-85-11-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the accepted sampling and testing technique for residues in food used and/or recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. 1. What is the recommended number of samples and apportionment of samples in these tests. 2. For the testing of mercury levels in fish, should the samples be raw or cooked. 3. If the maximum permissible level of mercury is0.5 PPM on a raw or wet basis, what is likely to happen if the test is conducted in cooked fish. {: #subdebate-85-11-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The National Health and Medical Research Council has not recommended a general sampling and testing technique for residues in food. The procedure followed depends on the residue to be determined. Samples are selected in such a manner that a uniform distribution pattern of sampling is maintained from the widest possible area. Biased sampling is avoided in general surveys. Individual surveys are coordinated by strict sampling procedures and guidelines drawn up by the Central Statistical Unit of the Department of Health. Testing techniques vary according to the residue to be determined, but are standardised for the duration of each survey. 1. The NH & MRC 1973 Market Basket Survey serves as a good illustration of the sampling procedures employed. This survey was primarily concerned with the determination of pesticide and heavy metal residues, including mercury residues. Sampling was carried out in the six State Capitals and five samples were taken of each of nine food types in randomly selected areas. These five samples were blended together so that a uniform homogeneous sample was analysed. Sampling was repeated four times during the year to assess the seasonal variation in residue levels. In all, 120 samples of each of the food types were purchased for analysis. 2. Strictly, the samples should be representative of the food as consumed which is the cooked product in this case. 3. The level of mercury in cooked fish will most probably be higher than the level in raw fish. This effect is due to loss of water and shrinkage during cooking. VIP Cars (Question No. 2451) {: #subdebate-85-11-s2 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the rates charged for transport by VIP cars in Canberra owned by (a) the Government and (b) private enterprise. 1. What is the average wage of drivers of Government VIP cars, showing the award amounts and average overtime. {: #subdebate-85-11-s3 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) ( a ) Rates charged for transport by VIP cars owned by Department of the Capital Territory in Canberra are $ 1 4.40 per hour plus 10 cents per mile or 6.5 cents per kilometre. These rates are calculated in the following manner: The rate required to cover these charges from (and including the wage rise of) 5 August 1974, was calculated to be $1 3.20 per hour. In April 1975, with further cost increases this figure was estimated to be about $13.80 per hour. A rate of $14.40 was therefore struck in order that as long a time as possible would elapse before the need again arose to increase the rate. Estimates are that the existing rate should cover costs until about December 1975, when a review will again be carried out in conjunction with the quarterly cost statement for the period ending about 6 January 1976 {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Privately owned taxis and hire cars do not normally carry out VIP transport duties. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The average gross wage earned by drivers of Government cars in 1973/74 was $11,300, their average annual basic wage is currently $6,583 and their average annual overtime is currently $4,7 17 (these figures do not include the adjustment of the 1975 National Wage Case decision). {:#subdebate-85-12} #### Proprietary Medicines (Question No. 2453) {: #subdebate-85-12-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister's answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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. 1. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 29- Manual of Composition of Proprietary Medicines. 2. 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. 3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy. {: #subdebate-85-12-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)and (2) Yes. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. My Department does not publish a 'manual of composition of proprietary medicines . If the honourable member can provide further information about the publication to which he refers I will re-examine the matter. 1. See (3). {:#subdebate-85-13} #### Asthma (Question No. 2480) {: #subdebate-85-13-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) What research is being conducted, and by whom and at what cost, into asthma in Australia. 1. How much of this research is supported by Federal or State Government grants. 2. What applications for assistance are at present before the Government. {: #subdebate-85-13-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Asthma research in Australia is funded by a number of bodies such as: 1. The Australian Government (through the National Health and Medical Research Council); {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. State Departments of Health; 1. The Asthma Foundations in each State; 2. Universities; 3. Private funding. 2. No information is available on the total amount of research undertaken in Australia on asthma. The details shown below refer only to research supported by the Australian Government During the calendar year 197S the National Health and Medical Research Council will support various projects related to Asthma totalling $75,000. 3. Applications for research grants are not made direct to the Australian Government Under the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 all medical research supported by the Government is funded through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Applications for 1976 support have recently closed and are at present being processed. The assessing of applications involves personal interviews with a peer group as well as reports from referees and from eminent scientists who work in the particular field and who act as assessors. To disclose details of these applications before the results are finalised would not be appropriate. 'Asphyxiation Bombs' (Question No. 2485) {: #subdebate-85-13-s2 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to press reports which indicate that, in the last days of the war in South Vietnam, a type of bomb was used which operated by asphyxiation. 1. If the Government can confirm the existence of such a weapon, will it consider some initiative to secure a convention banning it on the grounds that its nature is at least analogous to that of poison gas. {: #subdebate-85-13-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Neither my Department nor, I understand, that of the Minister for Defence, has been able to confirm press reports alleging the use of 'asphyxiation bombs' in the last days of the war in South Vietnam. 1. Use of such weapons would be prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the 'use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous and other gasses and of bacteriological methods of warfare'. Australia became a Party to this Protocol on 22 January 1930. 2. On the general question of the limitation of chemical and biological weapons, the honourable member will be aware that the Government is taking steps to ratify the Biological (Bacteriological) Weapons Convention. Since my answer to Question No. 1703 (Hansard, 27 November 1974, page 4220), Parliamentary Counsel has begun preparation of draft legislation to this end. {:#subdebate-85-14} #### School Dental Program (Question No. 2537) {: #subdebate-85-14-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any orthodontic treatment been provided in the school dental program; if so, where, and of what type. 1. Is it intended to provide orthodontic treatment to all school children under the scheme. {: #subdebate-85-14-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) At present the orthodontic treatment that is provided in all States by the School Dental Service is limited to treatment of an interceptive and preventive nature as is usually provided in general dental practice. 1. It is intended that, in the long-term, specialist orthodontic treatment will be provided by the Service. However, the severe shortage of orthodontists in Australia is a limiting factor in the provision of an extensive orthodontic program at present {:#subdebate-85-15} #### School Dental Program (Question No. 2538) {: #subdebate-85-15-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will dentists or dental therapists be used in the school dental program for children over the age of 1 2. 1. If dental therapists are to be used, can he say why New Zealand has decided against them and used dentists for this age group. {: #subdebate-85-15-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Within the Australian School Dental Scheme both dentists and dental therapists treat children under the age of fifteen years; dental therapists of course work under the supervision of dentists. 1. In New Zealand, the School Dental Service uses dental therapists to treat children in the pre-school, primary and intermediate school levels, which include children aged 13 years. I understand the decision to limit the School Dental Service in New Zealand to intermediate school level was an administrative matter. {:#subdebate-85-16} #### Dentists and Orthodontists (Question No. 2539) {: #subdebate-85-16-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What steps are being taken to increase the number of dentists and orthodontists m Australia. {: #subdebate-85-16-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Dentists: Steps are being taken to increase the undergraduate capacity of the dental faculties in Australian universities. The move follows an extensive Government-initiated survey that showed a need for a major increase in the number of graduating dentists. The survey was undertaken by the Universities Commission in close collaboration with my Department and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Some further details of the survey and results were announced jointly by the Minister for Education and the Acting Minister for Health in a media release dated 19 May 197S. > >Orthodontists: Selected officers of the School Dental Service will be trained in the orthodontic field by the Government as it is intended to provide orthodontic treatment, in the long term, under the Australian School Dental Scheme. However, the introduction of this additional service will substantially increase the demand for professionals that are already scarce. The Australian Dental Service Advisory Council has recommended to the Australian Dental Association that the attention of the Deans of Australian dental schools be drawn to this situation and to the need for steps to be taken to provide adequate training. {:#subdebate-85-17} #### Pharmaceutical Benefits: Position of Dentists (Question No. 2542) {: #subdebate-85-17-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Why are dentists not permitted to prescribe appropriate drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 1. What recommendations at what meetings of what bodies have been made on this matter. {: #subdebate-85-17-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Provision does not exist under the National Health Act whereby dentists may prescribe drugs as pharmaceutical benefits. 1. Aspects of the possible prescribing of pharmaceutical benefits by dentists for dental treatment have been discussed jointly by representatives of the Department, the Australian Dental Association and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, but I have not yet received any recommendations on this matter. NEAT Scheme (Question No. 2557) {: #subdebate-85-17-s2 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many applications for training under the NEAT System have been received in Western Australia since inception of the Scheme. 1. How many of these applications were (a) approved, (b) rejected, (c) deferred and (d) are awaiting decision. {: #subdebate-85-17-s3 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am informed that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 2197 applications for training under the NEAT System were received in Western Australia for the 6 months period October 1974 to end March 1975. In addition a number of persons in low priority groups who may have otherwise applied have been advised that their cases could not be considered at the present time. 1. Of the applications, (a) 1 106 were approved, (b) 733 were rejected, (c) none were deferred, and (d) 330 were awaiting decision. In addition, 28 applicants withdrew thenapplications before approval. NEAT Scheme (Question No. 2558) {: #subdebate-85-17-s4 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications for training by married women in Western Australia have been approved under the NEAT System. 1. What is the intended training and length of the training for each approval. {: #subdebate-85-17-s5 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am informed that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 2.5.75, 590 female persons were in training under the NEAT System in Western Australia. Of these trainees, approximately 40 per cent are married. 1. Of the female persons in training in Western Australia at 2.5.75, 74 per cent were in full-time training, 1 8 per cent in in-plant training, 7 per cent in part-time training and 1 per cent undertaking correspondence courses. The type of training being undertaken is most diverse. However, the majority of training programs being undertaken by female trainees falls into 2 main categories: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Clerical and secretarial and 1. b ) Professional, e.g. teacher, social worker, librarian. The length of training for female trainees in Western Australia is broadly as follows: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. 1-6 months- 55 per cent. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. 6-12 months- 10 per cent, (in) 1-3 years- 3 5 percent. {:#subdebate-85-18} #### Indonesian Fishermen (Question No. 2565) {: #subdebate-85-18-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the procedures adopted by his Department to substantiate or disprove reported landings of Indonesian fishermen on the north-west coast of Western Australia or adjacent islands. 1. Are all reports investigated; if not, which reports are not investigated, and why. {: #subdebate-85-18-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. My Department participates in a surveillance operation off the north-west coast of Australia in co-operation with the Australian Government Departments of Defence, Agriculture, Police and Customs, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, and the Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna. Aerial surveillance by the RAAF reports the movement of all fishing vessels, including Indonesian vessels, towards and within the area of Australian fishing grounds on the northwest coast. Short-range aircraft based on Broome follow up these reports and investigate all vessels fishing in areas on or near off-shore reefs and near islands under Australian sovereignty and the mainland. Surface patrol craft of the RAN and, as appropriate, of the Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna proceed to the scene of any landings or approaches reported by aerial surveillance. These vessels have on board fisheries officers of the Australian Department of Agriculture and the Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna who are also gazetted Quarantine Officers. Wherever possible interpreters familiar with Indonesian dialects are included in the investigating teams. All reported landings on inshore islands or on the mainland are also investigated by Quarantine Officers of my Department using light aircraft, helicopters or surface vehicles to reach the scene of a landing as quickly as possible. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. {:#subdebate-85-19} #### National Parks and Wildlife Service (Question No. 2574) {: #subdebate-85-19-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What national parks, reserves and wildlife sanctuaries have been taken over by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. 1. Which areas is the Service now planning to take over from existing Services and reserve boards. 2. What stage have discussions reached with the Northern Territory Reserves Board regarding its future and the future of its members and employees. {: #subdebate-85-19-s1 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. None. 1. In accordance with Cabinet's Decision of 17 September 1973 the areas which it is proposed to vest in the Director are Simpsons Gap, Finke Gorge and Katherine Gorge National Parks currently controlled by the Northern Territory Reserves Board. Kakadu National Park, based largely on the Alligator Rivers Wildlife Sanctuary now under the control of the Department of Northern Territory, will also be vested in the Director. At a later stage other areas of national significance such as Ayers Rock/Mount Olga National Park and Coburg and Tanami Desert Wildlife Sanctuaries may also be vested in the Director, or managed under an appropriate agreement with the Aboriginal people in accordance with Section 18 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, as the case may be, dependent upon further consideration of, and action to implement, the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. 2. Discussions have been had between my officers and the Northern Territory Reserves Board. I have also had discussions with the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, **Dr Letts.** The Reserves Board has indicated to us its concern for the fragmentation of its organisation and suggested we should take over all its areas and staff rather than the nationally significant areas only. **Dr Letts** indicated his concern not to have the Reserves Board disbanded, as he was anxious to retain a viable Northern Territory body to administer reserves of local significance. In a press release dated 26 May 1975 the Board has stated as follows: 'The Board still insists that it either be left to continue to function in the manner which it has successfully done for the past eighteen years or else surrender all its reserves, assets and staff to the Commonwealth Organisation.' I have indicated that the question of a body to control locally-significant, as distinct from nationally-significant areas, is a matter for the Northern Territory authorities themselves. It is up to them to decide what they want to do, and while I will do all I can to assist them, I cannot be diverted from the primary task of assuming responsibility for the nationally-significant areas. I have given instructions that preliminary action towards the vesting of these areas in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is to proceed, in keeping with Cabinet's decision of 1 7 September 1 973. {:#subdebate-85-20} #### Staffing Levels: National Parks and Wildlife Service (Question 2575) {: #subdebate-85-20-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the anticipated staff ceiling for the National Parks and Wildlife Service for the years ending 30 June 1975,1976 and 1977. 1. Will he provide details of the positions being established in respect of the Service. {: #subdebate-85-20-s1 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The question of staff ceilings and approved positions for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service are currently under consideration by the Public Service Board. 1. I hope to be able to give the honourable member details in the near future. {:#subdebate-85-21} #### Priorities Review Staff: Membership (Question No. 2665) {: #subdebate-85-21-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: : asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons make up the Priorities Review Staff. 1. Who are they, and what are the names of those who have constituted it since its formation was announced by the then Special Minister of State on 19 August 1973. 2. What are their respective salaries; qualifications and backgrounds. 3. Why was the Priorities Review Staff appointed. {: #subdebate-85-21-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Priorities Review Staff comprises a Director and five Advisers. It is supported by the Priorities Branch of my Department. As the need arises from time to time, consultants are also employed. 1. Since its inception the Director of the Priorities Review Staff has been **Mr A.** S. Holmes. The Advisers have been: **Dr M.G.Porter,** **Dr D.A.Evans;** DrS. P.Polomka; Prof. C. A. Hughes; Prof. R. A. Snape. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. -- **Mr Holmes** Adviser and Chief Manager of the Research Department of the Reserve Bank. Educated Universities of Western Australia and Cambridge (U.K.) RAAF 1943-46; Lecturer, University of Queensland 1952-57; Commonwealth Bank 1957-59; Senior Lecturer, University of N.S.W. 1959-60; Research Economist, Reserve Bank 1960-66. **Dr Porter** Appointments at various universities and Research Economist, International Monetary Fund. Educated Universities of Adelaide and Stanford (U.S.A.). **Dr Evans** Engineer and systems analyst. Consultant, W. D. Scott & Co. Educated Universities of New South Wales and Stanford (U.S.A.). Various positions overseas as management consultant. **Dr Polomka** Educated Universities of Adelaide and Melbourne. Editorial positions for Australian and SouthEast Asian newspapers, including Managing Editor, Bangkok Post, Thailand ( 1964-5); 1969-74 Research in the Department of Political Science, University of Melbourne and International Institute of Strategic Studies, London. Research Fellow, Institute of South-East Asian Studies, Singapore. Professor Hughes- Professorial Fellow in Political Science, Australian National University formerly Professor of Government, University of Queensland. Barrister Educated Universities of George Washington, Columbia and London. Fellow, A.N.U. 1961-65. Professor Snape- Professor of Economics, Monash University. Educated University of Melbourne and London School of Economics. Has held various consulting and temporary appointments. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. See the statement by the then Special Minister of State, **Senator Willesee,** on 19 August 1973 (Australia Government Digest, Vol. 1 . No. 3 p. 123 1 ). {:#subdebate-85-22} #### Priorities Review Staff: References (Question No. 2666) {: #subdebate-85-22-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Since the inception of the Priorities Review Staff, what matters have been referred to it for report. {: #subdebate-85-22-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following matters have been referred to the Priorities Review Staff for reportEarly Childhood Services (22 January 1 974) All aspects of the allocation of FM and AM channels (20 May 1974) > >A review of policies impinging on housing (see my press statement No. 472 of 23 March 1 975) > >An assessment of Government programs directed towards income maintenance etc. (see my press statement No. 488of7 April 1975) > >An examination of the implications of the first report of the National Population Inquiry for Government programs. {:#subdebate-85-23} #### Priorities Review Staff: National Compensation (Question No. 2667) {: #subdebate-85-23-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Priorities Review Staff had national compensation referred to it for report with particular reference to review the Woodhouse scheme. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. 5 ) What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-23-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) to (9) The Priorities Review Staff has not had national compensation (specifically the Woodhouse Scheme), nor the Government's role in insurance nor education policy referred to it for report. It is, however, contributing to discussion of the Government's social welfare policies and no doubt this contribution could touch on any of the above topics. {:#subdebate-85-24} #### Priorities Review Staff: Insurance (Question No. 2668) {: #subdebate-85-24-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Priorities Review Staff had insurance referred to it for report with particular reference to the Government's role in insurance. 1. ) If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-24-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 2667. {:#subdebate-85-25} #### Priorities Review Staff: Broadcasting (Question No. 2669) {: #subdebate-85-25-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Priorities Review Staff had broadcasting referred to it for report with particular reference to its transfer from the Department of the Media to other departments. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-25-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Priorities Review Staff was asked to report on all aspects of the allocation of FM and AM channels following the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting. 1. The report of the Royal Commission. 2. to (9) A report was made on aspects of radio broadcasting with particular emphasis on public access and community stations. The report is under consideration by relevant Ministers. {:#subdebate-85-26} #### Priorities Review Staff: Education (Question No. 2670) {: #subdebate-85-26-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Priorities Review Staff had education referred to it for report with particular reference to the policy as a whole. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. 8 ) Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-26-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 2667. {:#subdebate-85-27} #### Priorities Review Staff: Structural Assistance (Question No. 2671) {: #subdebate-85-27-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Priorities Review Staff had industry assistance referred to it for report with particular reference to structural assistance income and maintenance. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-27-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. See my press statement No. 488 of 7 April 1973. 2. to (9) The Report is not yet complete. Priorities Review Staff: Early Childhood {:#subdebate-85-28} #### Services (Question No. 2673) {: #subdebate-85-28-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Priorities Review Staff had kindergartens referred to it for report with particular reference to any conflicts between the Department of Education and the Departments of Health and Social Security. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. 5 ) What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-28-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) On 22 January 1 974 the Government asked the Priorities Review Staff to comment on the pre-school and child care programs. 1. The terms of reference offered the Priorities Review Staff the opportunity to develop further the thoughts on programs for pre-schools and child care outlined in its interim report 'Goals and Strategies'. (December 1973.) 2. Reports from the Pre -School Committee and the Social Welfare Commission were examined. 3. to (9) See the Report entitled Early Childhood Services tabled by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on 30 July 1974. {:#subdebate-85-29} #### Priorities Review Staff: Urban and Regional Development (Question No. 2674) {: #subdebate-85-29-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Priorities Review Staff had housing policy referred to it for report with particular reference to the policies originated by the Department of Urban and Regional Development. 1. If so, what were the terms of reference. 2. What reports, programs and Government activities were considered by the Priorities Review Staff. 3. What was its assessment. 4. What recommendations has it made. 5. Has a report been produced. 6. 7) If so, to whom has it been made available. 7. Has it been publicly published; if not, why not. 8. Is it intended to table the report in the Parliament; if so, when. {: #subdebate-85-29-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) See my press statement of 23 March 1975 (No. 472). 1. to (9) The Report is not yet complete. {:#subdebate-85-30} #### Dandenong Technical College (Question No. 2727) {: #subdebate-85-30-s0 .speaker-KM8} ##### Mr Oldmeadow:
HOLT, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has application been made by the Victorian Government for a middle level college at Dandenong Technical College over the last 5 years; if so, what was Dandenong 's position on the list of priorities put forward by the Victorian Government. 1. Did he approve expenditure for a middle level college at Dandenong in January 1975; if so, what position did this project have on the Victorian list of priorities. 2. Did the Victorian Government present a new list of priorities in March 1975; if so, what was the priority of the Dandenong Technical College, and were funds made available for this project. 3. What money has been made available for capital expenditure at Dandenong Technical College since 1970. {: #subdebate-85-30-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question on notice is as follows: >The answer to this question involves programs and funding under the States Grants (Technical Training) Act 196S, States Grants (Technical Training) Act 1971 and in some instances funding has been continued under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974. > >1 ) Yes. Under the States Grants (Technical Training) Act 1971 approval for programs was not given in any priority order. In its original submission under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 the Victorian Government accorded developments at Moorabbin and Dandenong Technical Colleges equal top priority in its capital works program. > >Yes. > >Yes. It was ranked fifth in the list of projects submitted. The Victorian Education Department advised that no funds were required in 1 974-75. > >Under the States Grants (Technical Training) Act 1971, $238,000 was advanced to the Victorian Government for development at the Dandenong Technical College. > >No capital funds have been advanced for this Technical College under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974. {:#subdebate-85-31} #### Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Charter Cost of Aircraft (Question No. 2734) {: #subdebate-85-31-s0 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >When the final charter cost of the Boeing 707 used for the Commonwealth Heads of State Conference is available, will he forward the figures to me at my Orbost office. {: #subdebate-85-31-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. {:#subdebate-85-32} #### Department of Tourism and Recreation: Staff Duties (Question No. 2147) {: #subdebate-85-32-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation upon notice: >When will he answer my question No. 886 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 2 August 1974. {: #subdebate-85-32-s1 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: >I have today provided an answer to question No. 886. Youth SAY Project (Question No. 2155) {: #subdebate-85-32-s2 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: >When will he answer my question No. 1768 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974. {: #subdebate-85-32-s3 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: >I have today provided an answer to question No. 1 768. {:#subdebate-85-33} #### Government Reports: Publication (Question No. 2586) {: #subdebate-85-33-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972. 1. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does he expect them to be published. {: #subdebate-85-33-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I refer the honourable member to my statements on 31 May 1973 (Hansard at page 3003), 13 December 1973 (at page 4736), 2 August 1974 (at page 1054), 5 December 1974 (at page 4680) and today (at page 3448) in which I provided details of reports of committees, commissions, task forces etc, which have been tabled in Parliament. I also draw the honourable member's attention to the answer given by the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard page 4590) in which he pointed out that publications of Australian Government Departments are listed in the National Library serial "Australian Government Publications". I understand that the quarterly issue for January to March 1975 will be issued shortly. In my reply to the then Leader of the Opposition on 5 December 1974 (Hansard page 4794), I provided details of reports of interdepartmental committees which had been made public The following reports of interdepartmental committees have been made public since then in the manner indicated: Financial Assistance for Soil Conservation- published by A.G.P.S., February 1975. A Review of Australia's Customs Valuation System- tabled on 25 February 1975 (Hansard page 638). Establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Office-tabled on 23 April 1975 (Hansard page 2019). Review of Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Export Hardwood Woodchip Industry- tabled on 13 May 1975 (Hansard page 2 128). Review of Customs By-Law Policy- tabled on 2 June 1975 (Hansard page 3102). {:#subdebate-85-34} #### Fraser Island: Mineral Exports (Question No. 2640) {: #subdebate-85-34-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >WW he table: > >the letters that were written by his Department on 2 1 November 1974 to the Department of the Environment seeking that Department's views on sand mining on Fraser Island; > >the Department of the Environment's reply dated 22 November 1974; > >the letters that were exchanged between the Minister for Minerals and Energy and himself relating to Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals' application to negotiate overseas contracts for minerals mined on Fraser Island; and > >the letter the Minister for Minerals and Energy wrote to Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals on 13 December 1974 approving the contracts; if not, does he support the principle of open government. {: #subdebate-85-34-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (d) No. I refer the honourable member to the comments in part (3) of my answer on 13 May 1975 (Hansard, p. 2 198). {: type="a" start="c"} 0. See my answer on 21 April 1975 (Hansard, p. 1916). It is beyond the present constitutional and statutory authority of the Australian Government to stop sand-mining within the boundaries of any of the Australian States. If the honourable member wishes to have sand-mining stopped on Fraser Island, he should approach the Premier of Queensland, who belongs to the honourable member's own political party and who issued the mining leases. {:#subdebate-85-35} #### Ermolenko (Question No. 2654) {: #subdebate-85-35-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to his answer to my question No. 1 9 1 4, what did the Government pay to Parmelia Hotel, Perth, for accommodation of any public servants or others who stayed there during the course of the Ermolenko affair. 1. ) Who were the persons. 2. What were the details of amounts paid, and what was the total amount paid. 3. Were there any amounts at that period paid to anyone such as security agents; if so, what were the amounts paid and the services provided. {: #subdebate-85-35-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Government paid a total of $130.49 to the Parmelia Hotel for room and meals for two people- **Mr H.** Gilchrist, First Assistant Secretary, Consular and Legal Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, for 3 nights ($95.35) and **Mr K.** Henne, Foreign Affairs Officer, Perth, fori night ($35.14). {: type="1" start="4"} 0. No amounts were paid to any other person. {:#subdebate-85-36} #### Rudolph Hess (Question No. 2656) {: #subdebate-85-36-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Will he add his support to that of the British and American Governments and many prominent persons concerned in proceedings at the Nuremburg Trials to try to have released from captivity Rudolph Hess, who has now been in prison 34 years, and for the last 9 years sole inmate of Spandau Prison, Germany; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-85-36-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The question of the release of Rudolph Hess is primarily a matter for the Four Powers represented on the Allied Control Council in Berlin. In this respect, as the honourable member would be aware, the Western powers on the Council have for some years believed that Hess should be released. The British and United States Governments have on many occasions unsuccessfully urged the Government of the Soviet Union to agree to his release. Successive Australian Governments have therefore taken the view that any representations which they themselves might make would not be likely to be effective. {:#subdebate-85-37} #### Fraser Island: Mineral Exports (Question No. 2729) {: #subdebate-85-37-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Will he provide an immediate answer to Question No. 2640; ifnot, why not {: #subdebate-85-37-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have today provided an answer to this question. {:#subdebate-85-38} #### Department of Tourism and Recreation: Grants (Question No. 2788) {: #subdebate-85-38-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to question No. 2703 of the Member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and during 1974-75 to date. 1. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned. {: #subdebate-85-38-s1 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2)1 refer the honourable member to the reply I have provided today to Question No. 2703 for the honourable Member for La Trobe. The details in respect of cost and organisations receiving grants are contained in the Department of Tourism and Recreation publication 'Review of Activities to 30 June 1974' and subsequent news releases. The 1 974-75 edition of the ' Review of Activities ' should become available for distribution in September this year. {:#subdebate-85-39} #### Government Reports: Cost (Question No. 2789) {: #subdebate-85-39-s0 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to question No. 2586 of the Member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972. 1. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2586. {: #subdebate-85-39-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) Costs of the kind referred to are provided for in the annual appropriations for the Department or authority concerned. I am not prepared to authorise the time and expense which would be involved in attempting to extract the information in the detail sought by the honourable member. {:#subdebate-85-40} #### Australian Security Intelligence Organisation: Mr Peter Coleman, M.L.A. (Question No. 2391) {: #subdebate-85-40-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the statutory declaration by **Mr Robert** Mayne in 'The National Times' of 10 March 1975 that early in 1972 or late in 1971 he had been given 8 or 9 folders with ASIO material on individual citizens by **Mr Peter** Coleman, Liberal MLA and editor of 'Quadrant', and **Mr Ernest** O. Redford of ASIO for use in a forthcoming magazine for which **Mr Coleman** had registered the name "The Analysis '. 1. Did **Mr Coleman,** former editor of 'The Bulletin', receive any of the ASIO documents of which 'The Bulletin' published portions in June and July 1974 and of which the Prime Minister released the titles and dates on 2 July 1974. 2. Was **Mr Redford** the author of those documents. 3. Has the Australian Government rendered, or learned of, other assistance to **Mr Coleman** in his work for 'The Bulletin ',' Quadrant ', or ' The Analysis '. {: #subdebate-85-40-s1 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. 1 cannot say with certainty whether **Mr Coleman** did or did not receive them, but they were received by persons on the staff of 'The Bulletin' at the time they were written. 2. No; he was formally in charge of the section which produced the documents. I refer the honourable member to my predecessor's answer to him on 13 December 1973 (Hansard, page 4823). 3. The Prime Minister has informed me that the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the Australia Council's Literature Board have made grants to 'Quadrant' during **Mr Coleman** 's editorship as follows: The magazine is currently receiving support at the rate of $1,600 for each issue. The Australian Government's knowledge of other financial assistance to 'Quadrant' comes from a report by Price Waterhouse & Co. to the Commonwealth Literary Fund on 30 April 1 969. Relevant extracts are: ' "Quadrant" is published by **Mr H.** R. Krygier on behalf of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom and has received its major financial support from the Association's parent body, the International Association for Cultural Freedom, in Paris. The International Association's contribution to the Australian Association for the 1968 calendar year was US$14,000 of which US$6,000 ($A5,400) was allocated by the Australian Association to "Quadrant". We understand that owing to shortage of funds, the International Association's contribution to the Australian Association has been reduced to US$7,000 for 1969. **Mr Krygier** has informed us that the Australian Association of which he is secretary feels it is unable to allocate any of the reduced amount received from its parent body to "Quadrant" for the 1969 calendar year. 'The relationship of "Quadrant" with the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom is close and it is difficult to assess the real value in financial terms of the financial assistance given to "Quadrant" . . . Apart from the direct grant given by the International Association to "Quadrant", the indirect financial benefit received by "Quadrant" from the Australian Association could be, say, $ 1 ,000 per annum. 'Most advertisements are offered through advertising agencies who receive a 10 per cent commission. An exception to the above is Pan American Airways who have regular annual contracts with the Australian Association for advertising in "Quadrant". This amounted to $600 for the year ended 30 June 1 968. Commission of 1 5 per cent is paid by "Quadrant" to the advertising agents, J. Walter Thompson, but payment to "Quadrant is effected by means of Pan American air travel vouchers to the value of the contracted advertising. These vouchers must be utilized in the same annual period and in the current year were used by **Mr Coleman** for a trip to Fiji with his family. No entries are made in the books for the Pan American advertising (except for the recording of the payment of commission to the advertising agents) and the use of the travel vouchers can be regarded as additional remuneration or allowances to the editor. ' It is understood that in 1974 'Quadrant' received a grant of $1,000 from the New South Wales Government. The Australian Government has not rendered or learned of other assistance to **Mr Coleman** in his work for 'The Bulletin', 'Quadrant' or ' The Analysis'.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750605_reps_29_hor95/>.