House of Representatives
1 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. IX Scholes) took the chair at10 a.m., andreadprayers.

page 1487

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

School Cadet Corps

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

That the Army Cadet Corps be retained to train the youth of the day to become responsible citizens of tomorrow.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament continue and actively promote the school cadet movement.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett and Mr Millar.

Petitions received.

School Cadet Corps

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

That we the undersigned strongly petition and protest against the disbursement of the School Cadet Corps which it is generally felt serves to fulfill a basic need for Australian youth today in developing character, discipline, qualities of leadership, citizenship and patriotism and to encourage by association to continue some form of service (community or otherwise) after leaving school.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this present Government rescind their current policy on the disbandment of the Australian School Cadet Corps.

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

Petition received.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drury and Mr Howard.

Petitions received.

Increased Postal Charges

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

Thatwewishtoprotestmostvigorouslyattheincreasesin postal charges, especially with regard to religious, non-profit making magazines in Category A. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are, and provide special rates for such magazines.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drury and Mr King.

Petitions received.

Telephone Concessions for Pensioners

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government-

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reynolds and Mr Sullivan.

Petitions received.

Hansard: Subscription Rate

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 increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard subscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

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

Petition received.

Television: Pornographic Material

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

That we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Programme Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Increased Postal Charges

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

That we are strongly opposed to severe increases in postal charges particularly related to registered publications.

This new rate will threaten the continued existence of those publications used to disseminate information from religious and charitable service bodies, and indirectly strike a blow to the free flow of information.

Additional charges will seriously affect the employment prospects of those printers, artists and journalists employed by the 45-member publications of the Australian Religious Press Association.

For the sake of the free flow of information, the jobs of staff and the viability of this important service industry, we call on the Postmaster-General to increase the subsidy to the religious, charitable and trade union press, so that these publications which rely heavily on the personal subscription by mail can continue to provide a valuable community service.

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

Petition received.

Home Ownership

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

That implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs:

That many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership:

That the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services:

That the proposals are more concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received.

National Health and Medical Research Council

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 work of the National Health and Medical Research Council has a vital role to play in the future welfare of the whole community;

That the funds made available to the Council do not reflect the significance of medical research to the community;

That the proposed reduction of funds is unlikely to play a significant part in the government’s anti-inflation drive, whereas it will have disastrous effects upon the work of the Council.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take immediate steps to reassess the needs of the community and allocate the funds sought by the Council.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. that we, citizens of Australia, see our country as a responsible nation that does not encourage nuclear warfare.
  2. that nuclear energy presents the possibility of environmental and genetic catastrophe. Technology has not eliminated that damage.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray;

  1. that the Government will immediately suspend sales of uranium to any country engaged in violent conflict or where common sense tells us that the manufacture of nuclear weapons could be the ultimate purpose to which our uranium is put. It should be a matter of inflexible policy not to consider such sales in the future.
  2. that until technology can prove that the hazards of nuclear energy have been overcome, no Australian uranium should be mined except for medical purposes.
  3. that the Government should actively and immediately encourage the search for safer energy sources by making grants to appropriate institutes for the research and feasibility studies into solar and other alternative sources of energy.

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

Petition received.

page 1489

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1489

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

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

-Yes; and because of its immediate relevance.

page 1489

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to suggestions that householders who already pay rates to local government authorities should be required to pay a local government income tax as well? Is he aware of any suggestion that rates should be reduced by an amount corresponding to this new form of double taxation?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– This is a clear implication of what has been proposed by the Opposition in its suggested financial relations with the States. There would be no concession allowed for people who made this sort of contribution in terms of the rate burden which they would have to meet. It is increasingly clear as we analyse the proposals which have been put forward by the Opposition that they are a device aimed at reducing the responsibility and liability of a Federal Government which cared to take up such a program and putting a much greater impost for revenue raising on State governments and on local governments. It is equally clear that the less prosperous areas of State government and local government would have to raise a greater burden of revenue because of the nature of this proposed system of financial arrangements that the Opposition is trying to sell to the public.

page 1489

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister satisfied that complete justice has been done to the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the finding of the Royal Commission on Petroleum that the ACTU deliberately deceived the Government about the price it was paying for crude oil?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Yes, I am.

page 1489

QUESTION

PREMIERS CONFERENCE AND LOAN COUNCIL MEETINGS

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Government considered alternatives to the annual meetings of the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council? Can he say what would be the nature and the cost of the alternative administrative structures involved?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Yes, we have considered alternatives. In fact, we have given special consideration to the alternative which has been put forward by the Opposition. It is not possible to cost accurately the proposal it is putting forward, but it is quite clear that the proposal would clog the system up with more bureaucratic interference in the affairs of the nation. It is a rather curious situation that the Opposition, which is seeking to establish a case in opposition to what it terms big government, in fact has come forward with proposals which would multiply the number of government agencies which would have to function to make its new tax proposals work. For instance, there would be 6 State grants commissions- six times the number that we have at the present time- to do the job that has been adequately done by the present Grants Commission. The present Grants Commission distributes money to State governments which are entitled to receive it under the appropriate legislation. It distributes money to local government on the basis of need. In this Budget $79m has been distributed to local government throughout the Commonwealth. This is a 40 per cent increase on last year and that money is distributed on the basis of need. Many metropolitan areas have received this assistance, but so too have many country areas.

The alternative of the Opposition, of course, is to have a flat basic allocation to all local authorities and some sort of topping up which has been undefined. That means that a given level of money does not go as far for individual councils in relation to their needs than the proposal we have in operation. The Opposition is to set up a council for intergovernment relations, whatever that is going to mean. The Opposition has a proposal for some administrative arrangement of Ministers for federal affairs, federalism and intergovernment relations. It is proposing a strengthening and presumably an expansion of the existing councils of Ministers and consultative bodies. All of this represents added bureaucratic structures; added costs to maintain their operation. I think it is rather curious that an Opposition which proposes to campaign on the proposition that it will cut back outlays has, in fact, a shadow Ministry of 31. Not only has it a shadow Ministry of 3 1 but also I know of at least 3 members on the Opposition back benches who additionally believe that they have promises to be Ministers if ever there is a Liberal-Country

Party Government. They are Messrs Viner, Macphee and Staley. Now let us ask the Leader of the Opposition to come clean. How big is the Ministry going to be?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will answer the question he has been asked. He is not doing so at the moment.

Mr HAYDEN:

-There would be fewer out of the Ministry than in the Ministry. The Opposition is the Party with the philosophy of big government when it is all boiled down.

page 1490

QUESTION

PRONUNCIATION OF ‘KILOMETRE

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Did the Prime Minister complain personally to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission when he heard a word on a news bulletin the pronunciation of which he does not like? As the result did the Australian Broadcasting Commission remove the news item from its bulletins? Was the word in contention ‘kilometre’? Is the Prime Minister out of step on its pronunciation not only with the ABC and the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs who is responsible for metric conversion, but also with his former teacher, Mr Enoch Powell?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I want to make it quite plain that Mr Enoch Powell M.P. might have been my teacher but I was never his disciple. That has been left to very recent converts. I was in touch with Professor Downing. I found I had caused him some domestic discord. Professor Downing who is an economist did pronounce the word KILL-o-MEtre, that being the nearest he could get to the French pronunciation. But his wife, a lady of great cultivation, charm, wide reading and culture, pronounces the word kil-OM-eter At his suggestion I gave Professor Downing a copy of the correspondence which yesterday was incorporated in Hansard.

page 1490

QUESTION

VICTORIAN HOUSING COMMISSION: RENTAL INCREASES

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the savage increase in rents for Housing Commission homes proposed by the Victorian Housing Minister? Is he also aware that the Victorian Minister has said that the cutback by this Government in housing funds has meant that Victoria is unable to subsidise the rent increase? Will the Minister inform the House of the moneys made available to Victoria for housing programs?

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

– I have seen the statement by the Victorian Minister of Housing, Mr Dickie. It is unfair and it is based on a false premise. The Victorian Government this year will receive the same total amount of funds for welfare housing as it received last year. That figure is $98. lm. I contrast that with the $36.5m which was handed over to it in 1 97 1 -72- the last full year of the Lib- - eral Country -Party Government -Y-et-the-.fact_ that Mr Dickie has received for welfare housing in Victoria an increase of $6 1.6m in comparison with 1971-72 apparently eludes him. The other fact that he ungraciously overlooks is that the Victorian Housing Commission itself will keep for its own purpose this year an additional $6.9m over what it had last year. This is because the Victorian Housing Minister asked me to approve a breakup of the funds to give the Housing Commission a greater proportion this year- a sum of 80 per cent of the total funds- as against the amount paid last year. So Mr Dickie’s criticism of this Government is ill-founded and unfair. I believe that if he is relying on that factor alone to increase rents he is relying on a very shaky base indeed. He may well have cost increases; I expect that he would. There may be some justification for an increase in the rent. It is quite ludicrous for Mr Dickie to suggest that he has to make such a savage increase in rents because he is getting less money from the Australian Government when in fact he is getting more.

page 1491

QUESTION

TAX ON HOME OWNERS

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– My question is also directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I ask: Is it the intention of the Government to implement additional taxation on home owners as recommended by its Priorities Review Staff? Is it true that such action would make home ownership more difficult for the average Australian?

Mr RIORDAN:
ALP

-The Priorities Review Staff did not recommend a tax on home owners. I suggest that the honourable member read its report up to at least page 18. I know it is a very long report. His colleague, the honourable member for Boothby, apparently could not get that far, or if he did he did not understand it. If the honourable member for Deakin reads that far he will see arguments against such a proposition by the Priorities Review Staff which are more convincing than those the Opposition spokesmen have put forward so far.. The PRS points out that it would be politically infeasible and administratively complex to have such a tax. It is certainly canvassed in the PRS report in some detail. It is a matter there, I suppose, for interested persons to consider and to think about, and I suppose it also gives the opening for those who wish to make mischief to go busily about their activities. But the statements made by Opposition spokesmen on this matter are false. I have said so before and

I will continue to say so. I ask them to read the report up to page 18 if they do not want to go further. They will see there set out the arguments against the proposal.

page 1491

QUESTION

TAXA1TON ~

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer received any messages from the State Premiers about proposals for a new system of double taxation which would disadvantage the smaller States? Will he affirm to the House the Government’s commitment to equality of living standards and opportunities for all Australians irrespective of the States in which they make their homes?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-Yes, I would give such a firm affirmation. Defective as the present system of financial remuneration to the States may be, it is superior to the alternatives which have been put forward, especially the alternative of the Opposition. It is quite clear that if the Opposition’s proposals were to be applied the smaller States would be disadvantaged. Honourable members opposite will hear a lot more about this subject over the next few weeks, believe me. It is quite clear that this is a scheme which has been designed largely by the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, who are more concerned about swelling their coffers than they are about even the fiscal position of the people who live in their States. The result of the proposals which have been put forward by the Opposition would be that people in Australia would be taxed at least twice. They would suffer double taxation. One level of taxation would be applied by a Federal government and a second level, erractically imposed with uneven rates between the States, would be applied by the State governments. Putting to one side the very serious undermining of economic policy which could follow from such a disparate system of revenue raising, the fact is that this would lead to unequal treatment between the States. It would lead to disadvantages for the smaller States, the less populous ones and the less prosperous ones, as against the larger ones. This is a scheme for shirking responsibility.

A succession of Liberal-Country Party governments to 1972 rejected principles similar to these which are now being put forward by the Opposition. Clearly the Opposition has not thought the program through. Even the Premier of New South Wales said: ‘You cannot talk with any precision about what is being put forward. We will have to wait until Malcolm gets into government to find out what it is all about’. I am warning the community now what it is all about. Australians would be taxed twice. They would suffer double taxation. The people in the States of Queensland,

South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania per head of population would be paying more tax than people in the larger States. For instance, a levy of $1 per taxpayer in New South Wales would raise about $1.8m. To raise about the same amount of money in South Australia would require a levy of about $3.80 per taxpayer and in Tasmania about $12 per taxpayer. That is the sort of equity that the Opposition proposes.

page 1492

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum will ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd continue to get allocations of Australian crude oil?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Acting Minister for Minerals and Energy will answer the question.

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

-The answer is no.

page 1492

QUESTION

ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Services and Property: Is there any restriction under the Electoral Act on the amount that may be collected for election campaign expenses by political parties, organisations or individuals?

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

– There is no restriction on the amount of money that can be collected by political parties or individuals for use in election campaigns. There is, however, a limit on expenditure by individuals with respect to elections. Very few members of this house or another place ever obey the law in this regard and attempts to alter that law have been opposed by those opposite, who are the major spenders of political- funds. Evidence indicates that our political opponents are raising campaign funds in huge amounts. I understand that the National Country Party in Queensland has just raised $lm from people-So the $25,000 the enemy got last time per se’at in Queensland might increase to $50,000 next time. The Liberal Party is holding $50 a head dinners all over the country. Fancy people going to them! The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Moreton are writing for the Press. As they do not do it for nothing it must be for campaign funds. I have here a letter from the Office of the Central Finance Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, dated 28 July. It is attached to a letter written by one, Malcolm Fraser. His letter states:

As you know, we in the Federal Parliamentary Party rely entirely on the State Divisions to maintain the lighting strength of the organisation, particularly in the key marginal seats.

The enclosed letter says:

But elections are not won solely on election day - they are won by constant campaigning. ‘You cannot fatten a pig on market day’.

Then it says:

Malcolm Fraser has impressed upon us the importance of our organisational task in the enclosed copy of letter to Liberal State President John Atwill.

To be realistic, therefore, we are asking you if you could subscribe to the extent of $10 per employee towards our fighting fund.

Mr Whitlam:

– This is bigger than the payroll tax.

Mr DALY:

– Yes. There are 6 million employees in Australia so it means in effect that if this $10 per employee is paid, $60m will go into the Liberal-National Country Party funds and that represents half a million dollars per electorate. Yet they can spend only $500 legally. One asks for a lot of things in life and one gets a lot of knockbacks. That is how the Liberals are going. But they have a few victories now and again. So if they only get 10 per cent of that amount they will get $6m. These men that they are appealing to to give $10 per employee go into the Arbitration Court every day of the week and oppose every rise and every request for wages. The best thing they could do with this $10 would be to give it to the Labor Party where they know they will get justice and equity and good legislation.

I thank the honourable member for a quite unexpected question. I just want to say this to him: No wonder those opposite opposed the legislation for the disclosure of funds. No wonder they did not want us to know the donors of the $60m they are trying to get. No wonder they did not want us to know where’ the National Country Party will get $50,000 per member per electorate in Queensland at the next election. The honourable member knows full well there is no restriction on the amount one can raise. There should be. The Labor Party brought in legislation to impose a restriction. Today we see the reason why the Liberal and National Country Parties will not support such legislation in this Parliament. It is because they have too many skeletons in their cupboard which they are now trying to cover up with another $6m or $10.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– May I ask the Minister to have incorporated-in Hansard the copy of the letter that I wrote to Mr Atwill, and which he read.

Mr DALY:

– I do not mind. Which one?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– My letter to Mr Atwill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister asking for leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard)

Mr Cope:

– No he is trying to sell his pigs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that as long as it is pigs and not cows it will be all right.

Mr DALY:

– I have no objection to incorporating the letter as the Leader of the Opposition suggests:———–

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Leader of the Opposition

Dear John

I would like to confirm the substance of our discussions on the state of organisational preparedness in New South Wales.

As you know, we in the Federal Parliamentary Party rely entirely on the State Divisions to maintain the fighting strength of the organisation, particularly in the key marginal seats.

I fully understand the destructive effect of wage inflation on our professional organisation in each of the States.

However, I believe it would be dangerous in the extreme for us to reduce our organisational effectiveness, and hence our electoral readiness, by making further cuts in our professional staff. We need to be geared for an election at any time.

It is clear that the result of the next election will decide whether Australia remains a genuine free enterprise economy in which the interests of each person is advanced or moves irretrievably towards the precipice of government control now faced by the United Kingdom.

I am sure that all who subscribe to our philosophy will recognise this danger, and I therefore urge you and your Division to enlist the widest possible support.

Sincere regards,

MALCOLM FRASER

Mr M. J. N. Atwill

State President,

The Liberal Party of Australia,

N.S.W. Division,

Sydney, N.S.W.

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

page 1493

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I address a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the appointment of the new Australian ambassador to South Vietnam or, in reality, to the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam. Has the Government established the credentials of the receiving PRG authorities to act as an independent de facto government of South Vietnam? Will he give details of this? Is the Government aware that Pham Hung, No. 3 or No. 4 in the North Vietnamese Politburo, is acknowledged around the world as the real ruler of South Vietnam? In other words, what action has the Government taken to ensure that it has not sent an ambassador to a non-existent government in the guise of an effective military occupation force?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have answered questions as the Acting Foreign Minister, and the Foreign

Minister himself has answered questions on this—— matter very recently, giving all the references to international bodies at which the governments of North and South Vietnam are considered as separate bodies. The Government is proposing to appoint an ambassador but I shall not name him because I am not sure whether the communications have reached the receiving government. Perhaps the honourable gentleman would put on notice any question concerning who will be the ambassador to the Provisional Revolutionary Government in Saigon.

page 1493

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Under a system of double taxation what complications would be involved for companies and individuals who earn income in various States?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-There would be enormous complexities as far as individuals are concerned. One does not need much imagination to appreciate the problems of, for instance, an intinerant worker who might work in three or four States in the course of a year and be subjected to different rates of taxation in each State and required to compile a taxation return in each State. There has been no suggestion from the Opposition as to how that sort of problem would be overcome. The defect in the Opposition’s proposal- the only one that I have heard lately because no one else has had the lack of wisdom to put forward such a proposition- is, firstly that the Oppositon has not indicated what would be the proportion of total personal tax collections that would go to the States. Secondly, the Opposition has not addressed itself to the fact that the rate of growth in personal tax revenue is not fixed but can be rather erratic. It can depend on tax measures applied in the course of a year, fiscal management or unfortunate seasonal factors which may cause farm income to slump during a certain period. In these circumstances a certain fixed proportion of the total tax take would not guarantee the consistent rate of growth in income which the States would expect, and indeed need, to ensure the sort of basic development they want to carry out. Accordingly, the rate of personal tax which the States would have to apply would, one would expect, vary from year to year in the light of these sorts of experiences. This is a terribly complex problem to thrust on the general public. Administratively it would be a nightmare. One wonders why the Liberal and National Country Parties want to revert to a totally discredited situation which the succession of Liberal-Country Party governments from 1949 to 1972 were glad to have done with. They were glad to accept and improve the system of uniform taxation throughout the country. I am not aware of any proposals applying to company tax.

page 1494

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS FUND

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I preface it by informing the Minister that in May of this year in answer to a query the former Minister for Defence said- I believe that he was referring to the ‘no detriment’ clause in the Jess Committee report- that amending legislation to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act of 1973 would be introduced, allowing serving members of the forces who had previously frozen their contributions to buy back those frozen contributions. I ask the Minister: When can we expect this amending legislation to be introduced?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to the Islands of the Pacific · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not quite sure what the honourable member is driving at. Does his question concern commutations?

Mr Bonnett:

– No.

Mr MORRISON:

-Is it buying back? I am sorry; I did not understand the question. It is very difficult to hear the honourable member from this position.

Mr Bonnett:

– I referred to those members who had to freeze their contributions.

Mr MORRISON:

-As the honourable member will be aware, the whole question of defence force retirement benefits has been dependent upon the progress through this Parliament of the Commonwealth superannuation legislation, with which it was closely associated. The Oppositionthe Liberal Party and the National Country Party- defeated this legislation in the Senate. Therefore, we have had to reconsider the whole question of the DFRB scheme. When the Opposition changes its attitude to the Commonwealth superannuation legislation, we will be in a position to take action on the DFRB scheme.

page 1494

QUESTION

CRITICISM OF OFFICERS OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware of allegations that two senior officers of his Department have been criticised by the Hearing Aid Council of Australia for misleading him and failing to inform him adequately of matters concerning Government policy? Can the Minister indicate what action he has taken or intends to take as a result of these allegations?

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

– Serious allegations have been made by the president of the Hearing Aid Council of Australia, Mr A. S. Carr, concerning the actions of two senior officers of my Department, Mr Piesse and Dr De Souza, who are responsible for implementing Government policy on the provision of hearing aids. It was alleged that these officers had misled me and failed to inform me of developments. There is no substance in the allegations. I have been kept fully informed at all stages of the project, including the progress of talks with hearing aid distributors. I personally studied all written proposals made by the Hearing Aid Council of Australia and met some of its spokesmen. I respect the integrity, the propriety and the fairmindedness of my officers in all of their dealings with free enterprise. They have had high praise from other commercial interests in the course of negotiations for the supply of other medical and surgical aids and appliances for all who need them.

Only the most agressively militant pushers of expensive hearing aids on to pensioners and children, such as the firm for which Mr Carr works, have used such intemperate abuse as he has. I therefore believe that this action is being taken as a last resort to delay implementing the longstanding and worthwhile Government policy. Of all the advisers with whom it has been my pleasure to work in my Department or elsewhere, I have found no person more anxious to ensure completely fairminded and evenhanded dealings with all concerned than the man who has been most viciously attacked, Dr De Souza.

page 1494

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr ANTHONY:

– I direct my question to the Minister acting on behalf of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Can the Minister explain why the Minister for Minerals and Energy gave tacit approval to a contract between the Australian Gas Light Company and Allied Petrochemicals Ltd for the purchase of Australian crude oil at approximately $3 above the official price? As this agreement was similar to that between ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and Allied Petro-chemicals Ltd, is it not extraordinary that the Minister for Minerals and Energy knew about one contract but not about the other? Is it not extraordinary also that the contract approved by the Minister between ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and Allied Petro-chemicals

Ltd involved the same oil as that which the Australian Gas Light Company was seeking to obtain? Is he aware that the commercial -

Mr Keating:

– I rise to take a point of order. ——— -The first contract fell through. That is misleading information.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is no basis for a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Is the Minister aware that the commercial result was that Sydney gas consumers have had to pay much higher rates for their gas while ACTU-Solo has derived a considerable windfall profit?

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

-Let me make the position clear. The right honourable member would understand the position if he had read the report of the royal commission which was tabled yesterday. We should bear in mind that that report was prepared at the request of the Minister concerned. He asked for this report. It was tabled yesterday. The Minister asked for this report as a matter of urgency. Mr Liddell, counsel representing the Australian Government at that commission, asked that the report be so treated. Paragraph 16.4 of that report clearly indicates the attitude of the Minister to what is deemed to be the AGL transaction. In that paragraph the Minister’s words are quoted as follows:

I point out to you that the proposed price is in excess of that operating in respect of indigenous crude.

There was no approval at all; it was purely a matter of the Minister himself indicating that the proposed price was in excess of that applying to indigenous crude.

Mr Anthony:

– It says that they had to await his advice.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, paragraph 16.4 clearly states the Minister’s attitude. As was pointed out in a point of order which was taken, that transaction did not proceed. Of course, it may be the subject of argument whether the Minister had any right to refuse or otherwise on the basis of an interstate commercial transaction. But let us put the position clearly: As a result, I think, of Mobil raising the matter in the course of the Commission’s hearings as to whether there was any other transaction relating to this crude and as a result of summonses that were issued and the production of documents following the issue of the summonses, it was shown clearly that the Minister was deceived in respect of the second transaction. The Minister said that in this House. It was as a result of that deception that this recommendation of the Royal Commission has now been brought forward as a matter of urgency, and the Government has acted accordingly.

_______ WOOL

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware of last week’s statement by Mr D. C. Urquhart, President of the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers, that private wool selling is threatening the whole fabric of the auction system as evidenced in recent sales in Brisbane, Adelaide and Albany where the Australian Wool Corporation was forced to buy in 38 per cent of wool offered, costing $7m. Is the Minister aware that unofficial figures show that private buyers obtained 106.7 million kilograms of wool last year out of a total production of about 521.2 kilos, or 20 per cent, and that this privately bought wool is being sold overseas below the auction price? Finally, is any action available to the Government to prevent this deliberate sabotage of the auction system and the reserve floor price plan by certain conservative and selfish wool growers?

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

-The short answer to the question is that this matter of private wool buyers has always been a bone of contention in the auction system. This particular matter is being studied by the Minister for Agriculture.

page 1495

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT MONETARY POLICY

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Bearing in mind the present extremely liquid state of the banking system, how can the Treasurer claim that the recent expansion of the money supply at an annual rate of 24 per cent is in accordance with the Government’s supposedly anti-inflationary monetary policy? Will the Government’s current attitude result in a repetition of the earlier situation when its stated policy through 1973 of gradually tightening the money supply was completely ineffectual during the inflationary boom until too late when it suddenly culminated in the severe credit squeeze of 1974?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– It is my impression that the figure was closer to 22 per cent than 24 per cent, but I am not going to quibble about that.

Mr McMahon:

– You are mixed up between Ml and M2.

Mr HAYDEN:

– If the right honourable and formerly undistinguished Treasurer of Australia will restrain himself for a while I will explain to him that in fact an initial increase in the level of deficit and an initial situation where the money supply appears to be increasing at a rate faster than that at which we had indicated we wished it to increase can be and, as we analyse the situation now, is an indication that we are being even more successful in containing -

Mr Kelly:
Mr HAYDEN:

-Wait a moment; do not display your economic ignorance. We are being more successful than had been anticipated in restraining a number of the indices or a number of the factors that work in the economy which push at inflation. If honourable members care to look at Statement 2 of the Budget Papers they will find the following paragraph on page 2 1 :

There is a possibility, along the lines noted earlier, that if inflationary expectations are being revised downwards the performance of wages and prices will reflect what would now appear an optimistic assessment. In this case the tendency would be for the Budget deficit to be greater in the outcome because tax receipts would probably be reduced by more than expenditures, though it is not possible to quantify this precisely in terms of so much increase in the deficit for each one per cent reduction in the rate of increase in prices. Of course, a greater deficit in those circumstances (i.e. one resulting from a greater than anticipated decline in inflationary pressures) would not carry the same policy implications as it would in other circumstances.

As we see the situation, there has been a greater abatement in the increase in wage claims than we had expected when we put the Budget together. There has been an easing in cost pressures. I would like to see a much greater easing. If one is able to understand this- the ‘one’ referring to honourable members on the Opposition side- one understands that we are having even greater success than we had hoped for when we put the Budget together. That calls for more adaptability in the measures that we use in economic management and in turn points to the sheer stupidity and the total economic ignorance of the Opposition and especially its so-called spokesman on economic affairs who for a few weeks in this Parliament has been trying to badger us, and particularly myself, to state precisely the way in which the deficit would be financed.

As I pointed out, there are a number of variable factors at work in the economy and the whole context of economic management can change quite dramatically, sometimes in a short period. The evidence at this point is that it is changing and changing for the better in the sense of getting on top of the cost pressures which have been pushing up in the economy. It is still too early to make firm conclusions and to assert dogmatically what the final outcome will be. But the indications are encouraging. I repeat that this situation, on top of the silly sorts of questions which have been put to me in a badgering fashion by the economic spokesman for the Opposition, exposes the almost total economic illiteracy of the man that the Opposition proposes should be in charge of the economic affairs of this country.

page 1496

QUESTION

APPRENTICESHIP LIVING AWAY FROM HOME ALLOWANCES

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to the increased assistance for apprentices as advertised in a brochure issued by the Department of Labor and Immigration. I point out that notices have been served in relation to applications for the living away from home allowance. They state that as from 19 August 1975 payments will continue until completion of whatever year the apprentices are doing at present, that applications lodged after 20 August 1975 are not to be approved, that the prospective applicants are to be advised that the scheme is under review at present and that new applications are not to be approved. Does the Minister agree that this action by the Government will deter young people from entering apprenticeships, particularly in country areas?

Mr RIORDAN:
ALP

– I am not aware of the administrative detail of that scheme, but I will obtain the information and supply the honourable member with it at the earliest opportunity. Let me say this to him in passing: It is a little ludicrous really for members of the Opposition, who for 23 years gave no assistance for the training of apprentices in Australia and no assistance to young people to train, to speak this way. Their only attempt was the setting up of a pathetic imitation of a training council in the later years of their administration. The fact is that this subsidy to apprentices is part of a Government scheme to ensure that adequate skilled labour is trained for the future development of the Australian economy. When honourable members opposite stand and say, ‘Isn’t it bad that this may be curtailed’ or ‘Isn’t it bad that it does not go far enough’, they ought to think back and ask themselves what they did. They should not be surprised when they find that the answer is nothing.

page 1496

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT MONETARY POLICY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Does his answer to the last question directed to him mean that the Government now expects the deficit to exceed $2.8 billion very considerably? If so, by how much will it be exceeded?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– This question is as intelligent as the questions which were being put following the statement of financial transactions for the Commonwealth after July, when Opposition spokesmen- I think the Leader of the Opposition was one- multiplied the deficit by twelve to get a _____ - phenomenal-figure-aad-theR -after-August-multi- plied it by six to get still quite a high figure, but a declining figure. As I pointed out before and on previous occasions in this House, managing the economy is subject to a number of variable factors which feed into the economy, many of them exogenously. (Opposition members interjecting)

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry that that is a new word for the former Treasurer, the right honourable member for Lowe. Just as he has to ring up the Treasury to get a detailed and simplified account of what Treasury Bills are after being Treasurer for a multiple of years, he does not know a simple tool of trade for treasurers or economists- exogenous factors. I will write out the meaning of the word with a simple explanation and send it to him in the post. As I was pointing out, the movement in the economy in the first half of the financial year is different from the movement in the second half of the financial year. It is absolute nonsense to start predicting in concrete terms what is or is not going to happen. That can come only from an economic illiterate.

page 1497

QUESTION

RELIGIOUS BROADCASTS

Mr DUTHIE:

– Can the Minister for the Media give an assurance that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s splendidly produced and much appreciated religious programs will not be scrapped or curtailed?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to make it quite clear that I cannot give a specific assurance because I cannot tell the Australian Broadcasting Commission to do something about the programs one way or the other. The ABC is a statutory authority and, as honourable members on the other side will recall, when they were in power and sought to give a positive direction like that, quite reasonably, the ABC thumbed its nose at them. No doubt it would do the same to us. The ABC reassesses at regular intervals the value, the effect, and the acceptance of its programs by the community. It has .done so recently with regard to its science program. I have received lots of protests from people claiming that the ABC was curtailing the science program. We now find that 2 separate programs have been amalgamated into a larger and what the ABC hopes will be a more effective and informative- and, I regret to say, a more expensive- program. However, that is the ABC’s right. I regret this step only in the sense that we have to find more money for the program. I do not regret that the ABC should think it worth while spending more money on such a program. It is seeking to reassess the religious broadcasts. I have been informed that there has been no

ujgestion-that the-ABG wilicutthese-broadcasts—— “ out. In fact, it has been hinted that there will be a change in quality which it is hoped will be better received by more people in the community than the very small group who now feel that such broadcasts are worthwhile. It is thought that religion, like sex and politics, is all important and ought to be discussed.

page 1497

TREASURY BILLS

Mr McMAHON:

– The Treasurer will know that there has been an alarming increase in the money supply due to the way in which the Goverment is fiddling around and running down its balance with the Reserve Bank from $ 1,680 to about $400m. It cannot go very much further together with the tremendous build up in the amount of money out on treasury notes and at the same time completely changing the definition of the words ‘treasury notes’ and ‘treasury bills’. Once upon a time a treasury bill was something that the Government -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman should be asking his question and not giving a recitation.

Mr McMAHON:

- Sir, the question is why there should be this unbelievable act of deceit. The Government now wishes to introduce internal Treasury bills at 1 per cent interest on Treasury Bills which means that the Reserve Bank is discounting the fiduciary currency- the deficit currency of the Australian Government, which is an unbelievably dirty trick.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– If it is an unbelievably dirty trick, it is one which we have learned well from previous Liberal-Country Party governments. Indeed, while the right honourable member for Lowe was Treasurer, he resorted to the use of treasury bills on more than one occasion. I do not wish to draw out question time. I shall produce the figures to show how cash balances were run down. It seems that the right honourable member conceived cash balances as equivalent to his own little savings bank account. I can assure him that managing the economy is a totally different conceptual exercise from that. If you wish, drop me a note and I will give you full details of how you resorted to running down cash balances and using treasury bills, and I will also explain why it becomes necessary and why in its own right it is a reflection of the success of our monetary policy that in fact we have been able to moderate the level of activity in the short end of the money market, encourage greater activity in the medium and longer end of the money market and accordingly resort to treasury bills- a very fundamental exercise.

page 1498

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER REPORT

Mr HAYDEN(OxleyTreasurer)Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, 1 present the first annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the period ended 30 June 1975.

page 1498

SUPERANNUATION BOARD: ANNUAL REPORT

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

-Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1974, I present the annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1498

LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: ANNUAL REPORT

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

-Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1973, I present the twenty-ninth annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 3 1 December 1974.

page 1498

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Australia · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971,1 present the fourth annual report of the Dried Fruits Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1498

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Australia · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 15 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924-1975, 1 present the interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1498

SCHOOLS COMMISSION REPORT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 59 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-1974, I present a statement on financial assistance granted to each State through Schools Commission programs during the 1974 calendar year.

I would mention that in relation to the inservice education program it has not been possible for all States to provide the information about all individual courses which is stipulated in section 59( 1 )(u). Nevertheless, this report overall is remarkably comprehensive and is a significant contribution to the provision of comprehensive information on educational programs for public use.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, in view of the nature of that statement I ask the Leader of the House to move that the House take note of the paper.

Motion ( by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1498

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– (Dawson - Minister for Northern Australia) - For the information of honourable members, I present the interim annual report of the Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 1498

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
ALP

-(Kingsford-Smith - Minister for Manufacturing Industry)- Pursuant to section 35 (2) of the Prices Justification Act 1973-74, I present the second annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 1975. Due to the limited numbers available at this time reference copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and with the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives. Normal distribution of the report will be made as soon as printed copies are available.

page 1498

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

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

– (Reid - Minister for Urban and Regional Development)- Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1975, I present the annual report of the National Capital Development Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1498

AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS ACTIVITIES

Mr ENDERBY:
AttorneyGeneral · Canberra · ALP

For the information of honourable members I present a review of Australian Customs activities for 1974-75.

page 1499

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 147 of the De- fenceAct1903-1970,Ipreseattheannualreport of the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 1 February 1974 to 31 January 1975.

page 1499

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1499

SECOND MEETING OF NATURE CONSERVATION MINISTERS

Mr BERINSON:
Minister for Environment · Perth · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a summary record of proceedings of the second meeting of the Nature Conservation Ministers held in Adelaide on 12 July 1974.

page 1499

CANBERRA HOSPITAL: REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Extension to the Podium of Canberra Hospital- Stage I Australian Capital Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1499

CADET SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to recognise the importance of the cadet system to Australia.

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

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-The Government has taken a decision to dismantle the Army cadet system in Australia and is in the process of taking a decision to dismantle the Air Training Corps and the naval reserve cadets system. I say to this House and I hope to the country, without any trace of ambiguity: A LiberalNational Country Party government will restore the cadet system and will restore it with proper improvements and modifications. I hope there is no doubt in any person’s mind as to where we stand on that issue. Of course, the business of dis- mantlingis aprocess that comesinstinctivelyto the present Government. It is a government which moves in the direction of pulling things down readily and it would appear with a zest. This is a government which is given over to the whole process of dismantling, destruction and the creation of despair to reason and to the rationality of the world.

What are the arguments which have been advanced? One is bound to say that there has been a paucity of argument. The only argument that has been advanced has come from the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) who issued a Press statement on this matter. Now mark that: He issued a Press statement. I would have thought that a decision of this kind would have justified parliamentary debate but of course this is the way in which this Government treats the Parliament.

Mr Daly:

– Break it down Jim.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is all very fine for the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) to interject and enjoin me to break it down. On the contrary, no person treats this Parliament with a greater sense of contempt than does the Minister who interjected.

What is the principal argument that was advanced by the Minister for Defence? He fell back on what is shortly described as the Millar report which was drawn up by a committee of inquiry into the Army Cadet Corps. Before I turn to the argument advanced there, may I say something about the Millar report and the way in which the Government has treated it. This report was made available in June 1974. But not one effort has been made by the Government to promote a debate in this Parliament on the Millar Committee’s report on cadets. I would have thought that if a government was minded to take a decision of this character it would at least have done Parliament the courtesy to have said: ‘Well, we will give over a few hours for you to consider the report and then to consider prospectively our decision’. But no, the Government has done nothing at all. This, of course, is to be found illustrated time and time again. Reports of the utmost significance to the whole fabric of our society are presented to Parliament and that is the last we hear of them in terms of parliamentary discussion.

I turn to the argument that the Minister presented based on the Millar Committee’s report.

Let me remind honourable members what the honourable gentleman had to say. He took this extract from the Millar Committee ‘s report: … the military value of cadets is small and does not of itself justify the present annual allocation of funds and Regular Army manpower.

A person listening to that would conclude that the Millar committee has reported adversely against the whole system of cadets and that is the end of the matter. What is the primary recommendation made by the Millar Committee? The principal recommendation is that the present Army cadet system be retained, with modifications, and on a totally voluntary basis during peace time. If ever there was a classic illustration of a false suggestion and the suppression of the truth it is in the Minister’s Press statement. At least the Minister has the decency to blush with shame.

Mr Morrison:

– Oh, no.

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable gentleman says: ‘Oh, no’. If the honourable gentleman is not blushing with shame his face is defamatory. Let me go a little further into the Millar Committee’s report as this recommendation is the principal argument of the honourable gentleman. The other recommendations, all of them, taken in the singular or in the totality, argue the case for the retention of the system.

The honourable gentleman summons as his next witness the views of military advisers. I take a very old fashioned and somewhat orthodox view on falling back as a basis of argument on the advice given by Service officers or by public servants. Ministers answer to Parliament and the responsibility is the Minister’s. I ask the Minister: Was this decision to disband the Army cadet system his decision alone or was it the decision of the Government? The purport of the honourable gentleman’s argument is that the cadet system has no military value. The distinguished Chairman of the Millar Committee said at paragraph 3.5 on page 9 of the report:

The school cadet system could be said to have military value if it makes young men more interested in serving in the armed forces, either on a full-time or pan-time basis. We had been led to believe that this was not the case, but in fact it has been demonstrated.

Dr Millar goes on to refer to the evidence put before the Committee in regard to the Citizen Military Forces. He concludes with this finding:

As the number of cadets at any one time is probably no more than about S per cent of the total number of youths of the relevant age group in Australia, the Citizen Forces would seem to benefit from the cadet system.

Why is it as a matter of judgment that the honourable gentleman is prepared to approbate part of the Millar Committe’s report and then to reprobate - to toss to one side, to rebuke, to dismiss - the substantial findings of the Millar Committee’s report? Beyond that, why is the honourable gentleman not prepared to facilitate a parliamentary debate on the Millar Committee’s report on the substantive inquiry into the whole system, but has a preference for falling back on what he describes as Service advisers? I would have thought that common sense plainly would have dictated that he should have turned his mind to the substantial inquiry and made a judgment value on it.

The Minister’s next witness who gave evidence in support of the Government’s decision or his decision - we do not know which - was none other than the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I question the honourable gentleman’s expertise in this field. I am not saying this with any disrespect to my distinguished friend, but would he hold himself out as an expert in the field of Army cadets? Would he, for example, say that he has greater authority in this field than the Millar Committee singly or corporately?

Mr Stewart:

– Yes, he would.

Mr KILLEN:

-With a modesty which would stun the country into silence, he says that he has. We now turn to another authority- a survey conducted by the National Youth Council of Australia. Where is the survey?

Mr Morrison:

– Here. Do you want a copy?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted. There it is. The honourable gentleman would know that I could not read it in a moment or two. I have had no opportunity to read the survey. No opportunity has been given for the House to consider the survey. But would those who compiled the survey say that they had more expertise in this field than the Millar Committee? No opportunity has been made available for any of us to test the credentials of those who compiled the survey, to crossexamine them and to ask them the nature of the acquisition of their experience or authority in this field, none whatsoever. What does the honourable gentleman say to the fact that there has been what I would describe only as a spontaneous expression of hostility to the Government’s decision throughout the country? Were the 36 000 cadets who signed a petition which was presented to this Parliament by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) expressing selfishness on their part? Was the behaviour of the Minister in Western Australia an expression of respect for the young men who give of their time freely and willingly? I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would behave with a greater sense of courtesy than that.

Mr Chipp:

-What did he do?

Mr KILLEN:

– The Minister received with great discourtesy a deputation from young men who did him the honour of donning their uniforms. He ticked them off because they were in uniform. Was it something to be ashamed of for school cadets to wear the cadet uniform of the school with which they were associated? I wish the Minister had been with me last Sunday afternoon when I had the great honour of taking a passing out parade of the Air Training Corps in Brisbane to sense the reaction. I wish he had been present the Sunday before that when the distinguished Governor of Queensland took the passing out parade of cadets of a school that was celebrating its centenary to sense the reaction of the cadets, the parents, the friends and the community in its corporate sense.

The Minister is not merely wrong in saying this decision is sound; he is but dead wrong. Unfortunately the Minister has sought to support an argument based entirely on the military aspects of the cadet system. Does the building of character, the stimulation of initiative, the cultivation of those robust qualities that commend themselves to all people of maturity and sense not have some significance to this country in this day and age? Our submission is that it has. We believe that where the system may merit adjustments, the adjustments can be made. But I doubt that one could think of a more curious argument coming from a Government concerned about costs than that it must get rid of the system on the basis of cost The most profligate government in the history of this country is concerned about cost. The simple truth is that this Government wants an Australia that stands for nothing, believes in nothing, cares for nothing, and which will do nothing save indulge its own wilful will. That is precisely what this Government has done during its period of office. When the electorate gets the opportunity to pay attention to this Government it will treat the Government in a fashion that it thoroughly deserves.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

-The illogicality of the Opposition almost reaches the height of humbug. The Liberal and National Country parties have been calling for restraint and the reduction of government expenditure- never of course to improve the effectiveness of government expenditure but just the cutting of government expenditure. Yet today when a sum of $10m in the defence vote- in fact it is $ 11.5m when navy and air cadets are added- is part of the consideration not one reference is made to funds, not one reference is made to the effective utilisation of funds.

The honourable member for Moreton (Mi Killen) has brought forward the Millar report. I trust that he has read the Millar report. I want to quote from it at length so that the honourable gentleman will not have the excuse that 1 am selectively quoting or, as he might even suggest, misquoting. I direct the attention of the honourable gentleman and the House to section 3 of the Millar Committee report on the military aspects of school cadets. We are talking about a defence vote, about the effectiveness of the way the taxpayers’ money is utilised for the basic purpose of defence, the defence preparedness of Australia. The report states:

The total military value of Cadet training at any one time could be measured by testing the proficiency of Cadets in particular military skills and understanding. The cost of making such an evaluation would be considerable. Cadet units vary widely. The great majority of cadets leave in or at the end of their second year in the Corps. We would estimate that, for all but a few cadets, the level of achievement reached at the end of their Cadet experience is at about the standard reached in 2-3 weeks of full-time training in a Regular Army recruit training system.

Two to three weeks, effective training at a cost of $ 10m. I go on:

The Regular Army recruit is in a continuous course of training potentially leading directly to operational experience. The cadets’ military activities cease on discharge, and only a small proportion of them ever go into the full-time or reserve armed forces.

School cadets who subsequently attend the Royal Military College, Duntroon, or the Officer Cadet School, Portsea, tend to find that their military knowledge gives them a certain advantage at the beginning of the course, but only briefly.

Again, $ 10m. The report continues:

Before long, all students are on much the same footing.

I repeat that on these grounds the military value of school cadets is quite small and disproportionately expensive. I will continue to quote from that same section. At page 1 1 it states:

It is evident that the military value of Cadets is small and does not of itself justify the present annual allocation of funds and Regular Army manpower.

It is very clear that the funds spent on cadets could be spent in ways which would add more to Australia’s present defence capacity. These are the essential features that any Minister for Defence has to take into calculation in allocating the resources that are available to him. We are not talking of a small sum. We are talking about $10m, or $llm when we add the Air Force cadets and the Naval Reserve cadets. In the course of the last 10 years during which the honourable member for Moreton served for a short time as the Minister for the Navy, that amount of money spent on cadets each year would have allowed the buying and operation of a squadron of Hercules aircraft. These aircraft are utilised in a whole number of humanitarian jobs, in Darwin and throughout Australia, in times of distress. We have to calculate, and any responsible government has to calculate, the net advantage within the defence vote of the expenditure of not just every million dollars but of every dollar. We have a defence vote this year, a very sizeable defence vote, of $ 1.800m. We have sought to get rid of the superfluous expenditure within that vote so that every taxpayer’s dollar spent on defence is used for the primary purpose of any defence budget- the defence preparedness of Australia.

I have quoted from the Millar report. One of the extraordinary features of the Millar report is that it reaches a conclusion that is at complete variance with the evidence that is contained in that report. There are other sections that I can quote but I think those I have quoted give the sentiment, the understanding, of the Millar Committee in approaching this question.

Mr Duthie:

– Who set the Committee up?

Mr MORRISON:

-I think the Millar Commitee was set up by my predecessor, Mr Lance Barnard, to resolve these sorts of problems. They are problems that had never been even approached, never even been tackled, by the former Liberal-Country Party Government. These facts, these arguments, about the military value of the cadets, I believe are conclusive. The Committee has stated very clearly, very concisely, that the funds spent on cadets could be spent in ways which would add more to Australia’s present defence capacity, and that is what concerns this Government. I understand it does not concern the Liberal-Country Party Opposition because the only comments that the shadow Minister for Defence seems to have made in the last few months are not on defence but just on cadets. He might well be referred to as the shadow Minister for cadets. He has said that he is going to restore the cadets. I will be interested to see whether the Opposition, if at any time it has that opportunity, will do so.

Surely the important question is how taxpayers’ funds- we are talking about taxpayers’ funds and how they are utilised for the defence preparedness of Australia- can be most efficiently utilised. I do not have to quote public servants here, I can quote from one of the major bodies that have served all governments with advice on defence matters. The most important of these, in the context of personnel management, is the Defence Force Development Committee. This is the most authoritative source of advice for any Minister for Defence. That Committee advised that ‘the abolition of the school cadets would have no adverse effects on capabilities but would release service manpower for other purposes’. In fact it will release about 330 Regular Army soldiers, officers and men, for much more productive work within the Regular Army. When we are talking about battalion strengths of the order of 570, the fact that 330 Regular Army Officers and men will be released for more effective use within the armed forces is important. Yet quite obviously the LiberalCountry Party Opposition believes it is irrelevant.

In the Army the chief advisers are the Chief of the General Staff and the Military Board. The Minister happens to be the President of the Military Board, and the advice that came to me as President following consideration by the Military Board of this question was as follows:

The cost and effectiveness of cadet training cannot be justified from the viewpoint of its contribution to the defence of Australia.

That is the point that we are debating this morning. The Millar Committee was set up to examine this question. The Opposition has had the Committee’s report in its hands since June 1974, but there was not one murmur from honourable members opposite and not one question from them on the subject until the last week or so. For one year they have had that report but they have made no attempt to raise the matter in debate. We tabled it. They could have moved for the House to take note of the paper; they could have sought a debate at any stage on this matter. But, no, no one asked that question. What they are more concerned about is orchestrating, manipulating, trying to exploit the cadets.

The honourable member for Moreton raised the episode that occurred in Western Australia. I arrived in Perth from a visit to North West Cape. I had a series of meetings with naval personnel on the night I arrived. I was informed that a demonstration had occurred that afternoon involving cadets in uniform, carrying banners, one of which read: ‘Morrison come out to talk’. The honourable member mentioned discourtesy. At no stage had any cadets, not even their public relations officer - I will mention him later - contacted me or contacted my office to say that they wished to discuss their views with me. So they took to the streets in uniform carrying banners. I am sure that those members here who were previously in the forces would not describe this as an appropriate way of wearing the Queen’s uniform - whilst carrying these banners. They made no effort to contact me, no effort at all. They did, I understand, seek to make certain challenges on Western Australian television of which I was unaware as I was on the east coast, then up at North West Cape which does not receive television. I was certainly not aware. So they sought to create a confrontation without the courtesy of seeking to contact me.

When I heard that they wanted to have a talk to me I said: ‘Fine, I will see a delegation of five, and I will see them at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning, which is the only time I have available. ‘ I put the viewpoint of the Government to them. It did not take very long because the viewpoint is well known. I read out the statement I had made and that was the end of that discussion. However, afterwards they got together with a public relations agent. The public relations agent is Mr Danny Varney. One of the odd things about the demonstration in Western Australia was that the police knew about it. Obviously they had been informed and they attended the demonstration - a well orchestrated demonstration, I might say - by 60 cadets with some 16 police. Yet on another occasion when there was perhaps a more excitable demonstration, when 500 excited fans turned up at the same hotel to besiege a pop group called Sherbert, only 2 police were provided. I must say that I am flattered that the Government of Western Australia seems to care so deeply for my welfare that it provides 16 police for this sort of demonstration. But I deeply regret that the members of the cadet corps have been manipulated, have been orchestrated for very narrow political purposes.

What we are discussing today is not manipulation, not orchestration, but the defence of Australia. Any government has only limited funds to devote to any of the Budget items which require expenditure. The Liberal and National Country Parties are saying that they will slash public expenditure, and yet in an area which the Millar Committee, which was set up to report on this, and the Government’s defence advisers found was not effective they are going to reintroduce the cadet corps. Are they going to take that $10m from more effective use towards the defence preparedness of Australia? If they are let them stand up and say so, or are they going to go on a mad spending spree. This is a humbug of the Opposition, of the Liberal and National Country Parties. Are they going to say: ‘OK that $l0m will come out of other areas’? Are they going to follow the advice of their military boards or of the commander of the defence forces? Are they going to say. ‘Well, for political purposes, because we have orchestrated protests over the cadets, because we have become politically involved, we are going to take that $10m out of more effective programs for the defence preparedness of Australia’? That is what the Opposition is saying.

In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is part of the humbug of the Opposition. The members of the Opposition are not concerned about the effective defence of Australia; all they are really concerned about is gimmicks- gimmicks, gimmicks and gimmicks. This Government is not involved in seeking short-term political advantages or for gimmicks. We made the decision- the Cabinet made the decision, the Government enacted the decision- on my recommendation, that in terms of the defence preparedness of Australia we could not afford the luxury of the cadet corps, that we could not afford the expenditure of funds on cadets when there was a much more effective defence use for those funds. We have made that decision. We recognised that in certain areas it would be unpopular, but a government that is responsible has to make decisions on behalf of the Australian people, on behalf of the taxpayers. That is the reason why we reached that decision; that is the reason why we will maintain that decision.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-Mr Deputy Speaker, for the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) to speak about humbug and political advantage or gimmickry is almost hypocrisy in the utter definition of the word. It was this Minister who, on the arrival of the orphans from Vietnam, cried in front of the public of Australia to try to win cheap votes. And he talks about gimmickry. Unfortunately he has missed the point of this debate. The subject, if I can spell it out to him again, is the failure of the Government to recognise the importance of the cadet system to Australia. He has tried to narrow this debate purely into a defence argument of whether $10m spent on cadets from a defence vote is getting cost effectiveness in the defence vote itself. That, of course, is not the argument here today, The money does not come only from the defence vote. I think the Minister misses the point that this money comes from the taxpayer. It is a question of how the taxpayer wants his money to be spent, not a question of how the Minister for Defence sees fit to divide up the money given in the defence vote itself.

It was suggested that the reason for abandoning the cadet corps was based on economic grounds. How can this Government stand up and profess with any validity to pursue that particular argument? With a deficit of at least $2,800m for this financial year the Minister for Defence starts to argue a trifling point about $10m, as if the Treasurer said: ‘Bill, it is up to you to find $10m because the electorate will accept $2,800m deficit but it will not accept $2,8 10m.’ What absolute humbug. The Minister has not done his sums. He stands up in this House and expects us to believe that his reason for abandoning the cadet corps is economic. It will not wash. The Minister may suggest that this action was taken in response to the mass of public opinion, that the electorate at large said to the Minister: ‘We want to get rid of the cadet corps’. Can he produce one scintilla of evidence to support that argument? Of course he cannot.

Perhaps there is a deeper, more sinister reason, a political reason, why the cadets have been abandoned in Australia. We can go back first of all to December 1972, post a couple of weeks. I happened to be in the Service at that time and I was receiving officer for a delegation from this Government around the Army camps in Australia. One of the first questions put to me over luncheon by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Coates) from this House was: ‘Do you think that the cadets should be abandoned?’ This was in 1972. The Minister stated in a statement just recently:

Well I’ve been Minister for Defence for the last 2 months. IVe had to make a number of critical decisions on how we expend the taxpayers’ money and this is one of the decisions I had to make.

The decision was taken long ago and the planning was made long ago to get rid of the cadets from this country. In 1973, if my memory serves me correctly, it was this Government that said to those schools with cadet units which had compulsory involvement in cadet training that financial commitments to those schools would be withdrawn if the compulsory commitment were not removed. That was a clear indication of what the intention of this Government was as far as the cadet units were concerned. Let there be no doubt about it. It was only then, when parental approval was given to those cadets to undertake such training, that the Government realised it was beaten on that point and it had to change its policy.

Now through a back door method, using the excuse of financial trickery in the defence vote itself, the Government has found a reason to disband the cadet corps. The Minister has put forward fallacious arguments, has quoted very senior people within this country out of context and has not given the whole picture. The Department of the Army stated the value to the Army of the cadets. Among other things it said:

It allows the Army to keep in touch with current educational standards and the youth of the country.

The main advantages to the nation in the Army being involved in the Cadet Corps are subjective in nature.

Cadet training assists in developing better citizens.

Cadets develop skills in a structured environment supported by the authority of the school and fostered by the Army.

When quoted against some of the things the Minister has stated in this House these statements make his argument appear very fallacious.

The Millar Committee report had this to say:

The current role of the school cadet system is to develop in the school cadet the qualities of leadership, citizenship and self-reliance in a disciplined environment. The Cadet Corps appears to be insulated from the community and only rarely does it appear to become involved in community affairs when compared to other youth organisations. It is not in the long-term interest of the nation or the Army to be involved in an activity that appears to be selfish. In this era of social consciousness steps should be taken to bridge the gap between the cadet scheme and the community.

There is a suggestion that steps should be taken, but no suggestion that the Cadet Corps should be abandoned. In relation to cadets as a youth activity the report stated:

The accumulated weight of evidence submitted to the Committee claims the following assets for Cadet training:

It teaches discipline- the capacity to accept and to give commands, and the first must precede the second. It fosters self-discipline.

I think it was some obscure Frenchman who once said that freedom is the luxury of the disciplined. If one removes the discipline, axiomatically one destroys freedom. Unfortunately there seems to be a move now by those pseudo intellectual halfwits who trot around the corridors of this House giving advice to the Australian Labor Party to destroy such things as discipline, authority and responsibility. The Minister, who seeks to interject, is long of tongue and short of brain.

The report continues:

  1. It teaches leadership and encourages initiative; it makes the boys think their way through situations where they are responsible for others. About one cadet in three eventually has a leadership position of some kind.
  2. It teaches boys to work as a team, and to sublimate personal considerations in a common objective and shared experience.

In these days when our youth take a selfish approach and do their own thing there is a real need to communicate this message to the youth of this country. The report goes on to say:

  1. d) It fosters comradeship among the boys, crossing class or educational barriers.
  2. It fosters loyalty to one’s country, to the school, and to the group.

I ask: Are these bad things in the Cadet Corps? Of course they are not, and the Minister should recognise that. The report continues:

  1. It teaches self-reliance and self-confidence, enabling boys to cope with situations they would otherwise find difficult or impossible.

There are many other assets listed. The Millar Committee spelt out its recommendations clearly to the Minister. It suggested:

That the present Army Cadets system be retained, with modifications, and on a totally voluntary basis during peace time.

That is the first recommendation but the Minister cites the report out of context.

A gentleman who prepared a thesis on the Australian Cadet Corps and who is a postgraduate student of the University of Sydney said this:

The function of the corps is not military training. It doesn’t train boys how to kill people. Indeed the Army sees no military relevance in the corps at all -

This is a point that the Minister stresses- many Army officers are opposed to the corps entirely and see it as a non-profitable drain on Army resources. The Millar Committee reported that a boy’s career in the corps was equivalent to 2 weeks of recruit training. Instead of drawing conclusions from this about its non-military role, too many people immediately jump to the conclusion that it is a waste of the Army’s time.

The Minister has jumped to that conclusion. The gentleman concerned went on to say.

The corps is a youth educational organisation, with a military flavour. Who but the Army can provide the logistical and administrative back-up for a youth organisation of this kind and can provide skilled instructors?

Virtually all the submissions speak of the corps developing qualities such as leadership, discipline, self-reliance, responsibility and knowledge of ‘self through the medium of activities such as map reading and navigation, search and rescue, adventure activities, camping, hygiene, first aid, bushcraft, bivouacs and camps.

It provides a multitude of activities for the young men of this country which are not readily available through any other equivalent source at that age level and in that form. He concludes by saying:

Will the Government really be blinded by political expediency and influence from an Army solely concerned with its minimal defence budget? The cadets are too important a youth organisation to be abandoned in the name of saving money, what will the extra money buy for the Army? Ten more tanks? How can this Government, so avowedly concerned for the environment and getting people to enjoy it, disband an organisation that fosters enjoyment of it? And educationally, this Government has expressed its concern for the youth of Australia. What a contradiction.

The Government stands condemned because it has come out with an arrangement to disband the Cadet Corps of this country when the population of the country is quite clearly against that decision.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– The subject of the matter of public importance is:

The failure of the Government to recognise the importance of the cadet system to Australia.

We have heard the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) speak in this debate. Neither of them put forward any arguments to point up the importance of the cadet system to Australia. I am prepared to admit that there is some value in the cadet system. The honourable member for Riverina spoke about leadership, discipline, responsible citizenship, adventure and experience. I admit that some of those things are achieved through the cadet system. But I ask all honourable members: Is it worth $1 lm a year to provide that type of training for 33 000 out of 630 000 eligible youths? Is it worth while spending $llm to provide that service for 5 per cent of our youth? Is it worth while spending $1 lm to provide that facility in only 16 percent of schools?

Mr Sullivan:

-If you give $100,000 to Germaine Greer, yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member for Riverina has had his say in this debate. I warn the honourable member for Riverina. He will remain silent.

Mr STEWART:

-Continuously, day after day, in this House and outside members of the Opposition complain about the Government’s extravagance, about its using money and not getting value for it. If honourable members opposite talk about the importance of the cadet system to Australia they should also talk about the value we are getting out of it. Can any honourable member on the Opposition side show me a country comparable to Australia that has such a paramilitary system in operation? Why has the cadet system in Australia become the be-all and end-all of youth activities? Why is it that the honourable member for Moreton and, I dare say, the honourable member for Riverina have not even bothered to see what 1258 young people in Australia from the age of 12 to 20 had to say about their recreational priorities? The report was prepared at my request by -

Mr Lusher:

– How many of them were in the cadets?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting.

Mr STEWART:

-The report was prepared by a Mr Michael Norman, B.A., B.Ed., B.D., who is 40 years of age, married with 3 children, two of whom are teenagers. He was formerly principal of Kingswood College, Box Hill from 1964 to 1971. He became principal of St Paul’s School ‘Woodleigh’ in Frankston in September 1974. That is a new co-educational secondary school based largely on recent researches into community life, adolescent needs, value education and curriculum design. I come back to the interjection and say that the survey covered ethnic groups, students, people from areas of poverty and people from rural areas* The 1258 young people who were interviewed were a cross section of the community.

Mr Lusher:

– How many of them were in the cadets?

Mr STEWART:

– It is not a matter of how many were members of the cadets, it is a matter that they were selected. This report contains various tables. The survey revealed that in the age group 12 years to 14 years, ‘uniformed groups’ attracted the lowest priority of all proposals. They achieved a score of nine out of a possible maximum score of 246. In the 15 years to 17 years age group, out of a possible maximum score of 222, a level of nil was recorded. In the age group 1 8 years to 20 years, the score was one out of a possible 282. The survey revealed that ‘uniformed groups’ are not desired by the youth of our community.

I turn to another table which appears in the document. In respect of ‘uniformed groups’ 56 per cent of males surveyed and 65 per cent of females surveyed answered ‘I would never choose’. That was the result in the 12 years to 14 years age group. Turning to the age group 15 years to 17 years, we find that in respect of ‘uniformed groups’ 72 per cent of males and 75 per cent of females answered ‘I would never choose ‘. I come now to the age group 1 8 years to 20 years, of which 69 per cent of males and 76 per cent of females answered ‘I would never choose ‘ with respect to ‘uniformed groups’.

Let me deal now with the youth workers’ assessment study of recreation preferences of those in the 12 years to 14 years age group. ‘Uniformed groups’ were ranked No. 15 out of a priority order of 16 items. In the 15 years to 17 years age group, that category achieved the lowest ranking of priority, that is, No. 16. That lowest ranking for ‘uniformed groups’ was also the result in the priorities as expressed by those in the age group 1 8 years to 20 years.

When honourable members opposite talk about analysing and extravagance, I ask them please to do some analysing themselves before they introduce for discussion a matter such as has been proposed today. I point out that 5 per cent of eligible males are in the cadet system. We have been trying to assess the needs of young people in our community. We have not adopted the attitude that has been adopted by members of the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. We do not believe that father still knows best. We believe that the young people of Australia have the right to choose and that it is the responsibility of this Government to provide them with the facilities that they desire.

In the couple of minutes remaining to me, let me quote what this Government has done for the young people of Australia in 1974-75. We have taken this action through some of the youth organisations, not at a cost of $ 1 lm but rather at a cost of $249,419. A grant of $40,034 was made to the YMCA. The Girls Brigade received a grant of $10,000. The Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme was granted $9,000. The Girl Guides received a grant of $40,000. The Scouts organisation was granted $50,300 while the YWCA received $25,350. A grant of $56,960 was made to the National Youth Council of Australia. The Joint Board of Christian Education received a grant of $17,775. We have assisted the Youth Involvement Program throughout Australia. In 1974-75 the following sums were granted: New South Wales, $9,600; Victoria, $8,770; Queensland, $7,650; South Australia, $8,260; Western Australia, $9,527; Tasmania, $6,900; and the Australian Capital Territory, $7,700. Those funds were provided for youth involvement programs. Honourable members will note that the Northern Territory is not mentioned. That was because of the effects of cyclone Tracy, as a result of which the Northern Territory did not have the opportunity to take advantage of the scheme. I wish all honourable members to recognise that approximately 50 per cent -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The Minister’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 1507

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTER-CHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is similar in purpose, though a little different in form, to the Bill that I introduced on 5 March last year. At present the Constitution makes provision- in section 51 (xxxvii)- for references of powers by the States to the Australian Parliament. This provision has been little used, largely because of the doubts that have been held by the States as to whether a reference once given could be revoked and whether a reference could be given for a term of years only or on conditions. The proposed Constitution alteration before the House will remedy this position by making it quite clear that a reference given by the States will be revocable, that it may be given subject to conditions, including conditions regulating the kinds of laws that may be passed in pursuance of it, and may be made for a limited period of time. It will also make it clear that the reference of a matter by a State will not prevent the State from passing laws with respect to that matter.

The other important thing that the proposed Constitution alteration will do is to make the powers of reference mutual: That is to say, it will authorise references, which for technical reasons are described in the Bill as ‘designations’, of powers by the Australian Government to the States. Such references are only to be made on the basis that they are available to all States and not just to chosen States. This was a matter that Standing Committee ‘B’ of the Australian Constitutional Convention asked should be made clear. We have done that. Designations by the Australian Parliament will be subject to exactly the same provisions as those to which I have referred in the case of references by the States so far as revocability, imposition of conditions and the like are concerned.

Honourable members who were delegates at the first meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention, which was held in Sydney in September 1973, will recall that the proposal arose from formal submissions made by New South Wales and Victoria.

The New South Wales submission was in the following terms:

At present, uncertainties exist as to the manner in which placitum (xxxvii) of section 51- the ‘reference power’operates. ‘The limited use made of the power in. the past is no doubt attributable in large measure to such uncertainties.

It is considered that, by constitutional amendment, these uncertainties should be removed by providing, for example, that references of legislative power by States to the Commonwealth may be made for limited terms and that repeal of a reference act has constitutional efficacy, and also that the Commonwealth Parliament might refer to the States any legislative power of the Commonwealth.

The Victorian submission was along broadly similar lines. It read:

It is submitted that this provision should be amended to remove uncertainties that presently exist- to ensure that a reference-

is not irrevocable;

may be for a fixed or determinable period; and

may be subject to terms and conditions.

On 6 September 1973 I announced to the Convention that heads of government delegations, except for the Queensland delegation, had met and agreed on the principle of references of power either way and with removing existing doubts about operation of the present power. I also announced our intention that in any interchange of powers, whether from the Australian Parliament to the parliaments of the States or from the State parliaments to the Australian Parliament, the same provisions should be applicable as to duration, revocability and the power to apply terms and conditions.

The then premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin said that he believed the proposal was a step in the right direction and should be supported. The premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, said that he welcomed the proposal as a distinct improvement on the situation and one which would make the Constitution itself a great deal more flexible and responsive than it has been in the past. The Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, said that if there was to be an adjustment of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, the proposed measure was essential to any progress and that he was sure that it would be welcomed. The then Premier of Western Australia, Mr Tonkin, expressed his pleasure at the complete reciprocity between the Commonwealth and the States. He thought it gave emphasis to the central idea of the Australian Constitutional Convention, namely, that it would be possible for representatives of the States and the Commonwealth to meet for the purpose of reaching agreement on the reference of certain powers. The leader of the Tasmanian delegation, Mr Everett, Q.C., expressed his confidence that the Tasmanian delegation would strongly support the proposal and that he believed the Commonwealth’s offer was a landmark in the reconception of the Constitution and that history would applaud it. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, said in his concluding remarks: . . . We do appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister made the proposal, and we look forward to being able to make a closer examination of it.

I now recount shortly the history of the proposal since it was raised and so widely supported at the Sydney Convention. A bill to give effect to the changes sought was considered in detail over several months and its form was settled in consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel of the States. An earlier draft of the proposals was considered by standing committee ‘B’ of the Australian constitutional convention early in 1974 and the bill subsequently revised to reflect the principal concern of the Committee, which was that there should be no discrimination between States in any designation by the Commonwealth. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 6 March 1974 but was defeated in the Senate on 1 9 March 1 974 when it resolved that:

The Bill be deferred until after consideration has been given to its proposals by all State Governments and by the Australian Constitutional Convention.

Standing Committee B subsequently resolved to recommend to the Convention that the Constitution be altered in the manner proposed by the Bill as passed by the House of Representatives.

When the planned Adelaide meeting of the Convention was cancelled last year, it had already become clear in correspondence with the States that New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania agreed in principle with the Bill and it had already become clear in correspondence between the Premier of Victoria and me that that State also agreed in principle, subject to any matters which might be raised at the Convention itself when the proposals were considered. At the time the Adelaide meeting of the Convention was cancelled, Western Australia had not given a definite reply to the letter I had sent and Queensland had given no indication at all of its position. After the cancellation I wrote again to the Premiers of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. The Premiers of Victoria and Western Australia indicated they were firmly of the view that the proposals should be dealt with at another meeting of the Convention. Queensland sent a formal acknowledgement of my letter.

On 1 1 June this year at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Convention-a meeting attended by, amongst others, the Premier of Victoria, the Premier of Queensland and the Premier of Tasmania, the Chairman of the Sydney Convention, Sir Eric Willis, M.L.A., and Mr Sinclair, representing the Opposition parties in the Australian Parliament, and me- it was resolved, on the motion of Mr Hamer, that those items which had received unanimous support, and accordingly would have the best prospects of acceptance, should be listed first on the agenda for the next plenary meeting of the Convention. This item on interchange of powers was, by. unanimous agreement, placed first on the list of substantive items. The Executive Committee decided to hold the next plenary meeting of the Convention in Melbourne on 24, 25 and 26 September.

At its meeting on 1 3 August this year Standing Committee A agreed to the alteration of this item to take account of some drafting alterations that had been suggested by Parliamentary Counsel in the intervening period. Following advice that Queensland and Western Australia would not attend the September meeting of the Convention, I telexed the Premiers of those 2 States seeking their views so that I could make them known to the meeting. When subsequently Victoria also withdrew, I wrote to the Premier of Victoria. No reply has been received from Western Australia. The Premiers of Queensland and Victoria indicated in reply that they were not prepared to give their views for the purposes of the September meeting of the Convention.

Mr Speaker, it is clear that the proposal embodied in this proposed Constitution alteration has a very wide measure of support. No opposition to it has been expressed by any elected person at all and as far as I am aware no criticism of it has been made by any writers or speakers on the subject. It would be indeed surprising if the principle of the Bill were to be opposed because in itself it will effect no transfer of power either way. Of course its effectiveness will depend completely on the goodwill of Federal and State governments. If that goodwill is forthcoming, it should make a significant contribution to the further development of co-operative federalism in Australia

The terms of the Constitution alteration now before the House received the unanimous support of those who attended the Melbourne Convention last week. The honourable and learned member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who I apprehend will move for the adjournment of the debate will note, with his fine sense of history and the proprieties, that the Convention met in the Hotel Windsor which, when it was known as the

Hotel Grand, was the scene of many of the meetings of delegates to the original conventions around 1890.

Mr Killen:

– It is still a convivial place.

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It has been cleaned up a bit. The structure is identifiable from the photographs of the time. The Convention passed several resolutions on matters that can be achieved if this Bill is approved by the people at a referendum. First, the Convention agreed on the voices that the matter of defamation should be the subject of uniform references of power by all States to the Australian Parliament subject only to any power so referred not extending to the making of laws with respect to the privileges of State Parliaments or State courts. I need hardly remind honourable members of the absurd situation that obtains in Australia at the present time when there are no less than 8 different sets of laws relating to defamation as well as some limited provisions in legislation of this Parliament. With the rapid development of modern communications, the concept of different defamation laws in each State and Territory is nonsensical.

Honourable members will recall that one of my predecessors took defamation actions against various media for statements that were printed and broadcast on both sides of the Murray, and the success which attended his suits varied according to where the newspapers circulated or the radio stations were heard. The Constitution alteration now proposed will allow this matter to be taken up with the States and Territories so that a single, sensible, acceptable law of defamation will apply throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Again, the Convention unanimously recommended that matters relating to legitimacy, including family inheritance as it affects children legitimised by legislation of this Parliament, adoption and maintenance, other than in divorce proceedings, should be the subject of references of power by the States to the Australian Parliament. These matters would complement the powers already conferred by the Constitution on the Australian Parliament with respect of marriage under section 5 1 (xxi) of the Constitution, and under section 5 1 (xxii) with respect to divorce and matrimonial causes and, in relation thereto, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants. It is absurd that fragments of the general powers to legislate with respect to what in essence is family law should be retained by the States while the substance of the subject matter is reposed in the Australian Parliament. This Parliament can legislate with respect to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants only where the infants were born in wedlock and the parents are in dispute. Australians will benefit by having the one legislative authority and the one administration for all these matters which together constitute a homogeneous subject matter for a homogeneous nation.

I emphasise that the Bill provides for reciprocity. As an example and first instance in the reference of powers from this Parliament to the State parliaments, the Convention unanimously resolved that the matter of the law to apply in what have become known as ‘Commonwealth places’, for example, airports, post offices, military establishments, might be dealt with by an appropriate referral of powers by this Parliament to the States in the event of the inter-change of powers proposal being approved at a referendum. And, on the basis that the seas and submerged lands legislation is valid, it would suit the Commonwealth as well as the States to refer to the States the power to make laws with respect to such matters as jetties, marinas, moorings and water sports.

The Convention last week unanimously agreed that there should be a further meeting of the Convention between October and December next year, and that it should be held in Hobart. It is important that some results in the way of constitutional alteration should be seen before that meeting is held. I am therefore asking the Parliament to approve this measure in the near future so that it will be able to be put to the people at an early referendum. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. I hope it will be given unanimous support in the Parliament as it was in the Convention.

Debate (on motion by Mr Killen) adjourned.

page 1509

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING, DEAKIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Approval of Work- Public Works Committee Act

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the Minister, I draw the attention of the House to an error that occurred in the printing of the Notice Paper. The words ‘Constitution of the Telephone Exchange Building in Deakin’ should read ‘Construction of the Telephone Exchange Building in Deakin’. I call the Minister.

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, 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 a telephone exchange building, Deakin, Australian Capital Territory.

The proposal is for the construction of a new building to cope with the growth and demand for telecommunication facilities in the southern sector of the Canberra local network. Construction will be of reinforced concrete, with a basement, ground and 2 upper floors. The building will be air-conditioned. The estimated cost of the proposed work when referred to the Committee was $13.5m. The Committee made the following recommendations and conclusions:

  1. the existing facilities are approaching full utilisation.
  2. The proposals of the Australian Telecommunications Commission to provide for the long term needs of the expanding networks are soundly based.
  3. The construction of a new telephone building at Deakin is appropriate to meet these needs.
  4. The site is suitable but consideration should be given to portion of the land being handed back to the National Capital Development Commission.
  5. The Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference.

Investigations are currently being conducted by the Australian Telecommunications Commission regarding the dimensions of the land to be handed back to the National Capital Development Commission. Accordingly, it is recommended that the House concur with the Committee ‘s report thus allowing planning to proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1510

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION BILLS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Mouse making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills:

Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 1975 [No. 2]

Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975 [No. 2] Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975 [No. 2] Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975 [No. 2] Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1975 [No. 2].

I do not wish to delay the debate that will take place on these Bills by making a lengthy speech at this stage. I mention briefly that this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to discuss these Bills is being moved because of the urgent nature of the proposed legislation. One thing that is necessary in this country is to correct the electoral injustice existing under present electoral boundaries in all States of Australia, in many cases State and Federal boundaries. Consequently, this legislation and these proposals have been drawn up by Distribution Commissioners whose integrity has not been challenged. The redistributions have been described as the fairest ever presented to an Australian parliament. We believe in the interests of democracy in this country that they should be given effect by law. Today we are bringing forward the Bills on the second occasion in this Parliament in order that honourable members might vote on the principle of one vote one value, which today I understand will be introduced by way of similar legislation into the South Australian Parliament. That legislation will pass through that Parliament because there are people there, even some opposed to Labor, who believe in electoral justice. Therefore, this legislation is extremely important.

The legislation- I make only passing reference to it- is designed to prevent the type of situation that has occurred in Queensland. In that State there is a Premier whose party receives about 20 per cent of the votes. In Western Australia, a gerrymander is in the process of being drawn up at the behest of the Liberal-National Country Party Government. In that case, the Parliament itself has drawn the boundaries and will not reveal the sources or the names of those who have drawn up the boundaries. This legislation is designed to prevent that state of affairs. For that and other reasons the legislation is very important.

To stress again how important it is for Australia to have an equitable voting and electoral system, let me cite what happened at the 1974 House of Representatives election. The average enrolment of 66 seats -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that the Minister is going beyond the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr DALY:

- Mr Speaker, I am just making passing reference.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister is taking a long time to pass.

Mr DALY:

– I am making passing reference to the fact that the legislation is important because of the electoral injustices and the disparity between the number of votes required to elect members to the Parliament. I have no desire to proceed further at this stage. I will deal with the matter further in the course of the discussion on the allotment of time for the debate. No legislation introduced into this Parliament is more important than the legislation we are discussing at this moment. No electoral boundaries are more unjust at the present time not only to the Australian Labor Party but also to other people who believe in democracy. There are so many disparities that legislation of this kind must go through the Parliament. Another 2 years delay will inevitably mean that the electoral boundaries will be much more out of kilter than they are at the present time. I do not wish to hold up the House at this stage but stress again the urgency of the legislation. I shall move accordingly that the Bills be declared urgent Bills.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The Opposition opposes this motion. The speech just given by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) purporting to advance the cause of democracy ill relates to the substance of the matter for which he seeks to suspend Standing Orders. The Standing Orders set out procedures available to the House to enable the expeditious consideration of matters in relation to which there is a genuine urgency. This group of Bills is now coming before the Parliament- in a slightly different form, it is true- for the third time. We first of all considered them as one Bill, then we considered them as a group of several Bills and now we are reconsidering them. To suggest therefore that it is a matter of urgency and that Standing Orders need to be suspended for the debate is utter nonsense. To extend that and to say that it is a matter of advancing the cause of democracy is even more nonsensical. These Bills are designed to weaken significantly the voice of country areas and to change significantly the balance of electoral boundaries within Australia, not to the advantage of democracy but to the advantage of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Young:

– And the Liberal Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-It is interesting to note from the interjection the suggestion that there could be a direct advantage to one or other party. I think the honourable member might find, if he checks the redistribution, that it is not to the advantage of the Liberal Party. It is very specifically to the advantage of the Australian Labor Party. The admission which has just been made demonstrates that there is no suggestion of a democratic reason for the suspension of Standing Orders but specifically an intention to change the legislation to the electoral advantage of the Labor Party.

Let no one in Australia be in any way deluded. This is not a genuine motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. These Bills are not being introduced to advance the cause of democracy. They are not being introduced to try to better the electoral distribution. Our Constitution requires that after there has been a census of the Australian people there be an electoral redistribution. We all know that next year there will be a census. We know that as a result of that census there will be a necessary redistribution. Why is not the Government prepared to wait? Why must it suspend Standing Orders to rush through this legislation? I suspect it is because the Government realises that the electoral climate has swung very much against it and that the number of people in Australia who, given a fair and equitable distribution of boundaries, would support the Government is minimal. The Government wants the voting system and the electoral boundaries so rigged that it might be able to hang on to power a ‘little longer. That is no basis for the suspension of Standing Orders. The whole of the premise that the Leader of the House has advanced is totally fallacious and the Opposition opposes it. There is no reason for the suspension of Standing Orders and for that reason we will not accept that the legislation be introduced on that basis.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Daly’s) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 197S [No. 2].

Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975[No. 2].

Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975[No. 2].

Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975 [No. 2].

Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1975 [No. 2].

Question put:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

  1. Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 1975 [No. 2]-

    1. a) For the second reading, until 3.00 p.m. this day.
    2. For the committee stage, until 3.10 p.m. this day.
    3. For the remaining stages, until 3.20 p.m. this day.

  2. Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975 [No. 2]-

    1. a) For the second reading, until 3.30 p.m. this day.
    2. For the committee stage, until 3.40 p.m. this day.
    3. For the remaining stages, until 3.50 p.m. this day.

  3. Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975 [No. 2]-

    1. a) For the second reading, until 4.00 p.m. this day.
    2. For the committee stage, until 4. 10 p.m. this day.
    3. For the remaining stages, until 4.20 p.m. this day.

  4. Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975 [No. 2]-

    1. a) For the second reading, until 4.30 p.m. this day.
    2. For the committee stage, until 4.40 p.m. this day.
    3. For the remaining stages, until 4.50 p.m. this day.

  5. Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1975 [No. 2]-

    1. For the second reading, until 5.00 p.m. this day.
    2. For the committee stage, until 5. 10 p.m. this day.
    3. For the remaining stages, until 5.20 p.m. this day.

These Bills have been declared urgent because in our view they have been adequately debated on several occasions by the House and the Senate. The reports of the Distribution Commissioners regarding South Australia were tabled in this House on 15 April 1975; regarding Queensland and Tasmania on 17 April 1975; and regarding New South Wales and Victoria on 13 May 1975. Motions for the approval of the redistributions in Tasmania and in South Australia were debated and passed by the House of Representatives on 21 May 1975 and on 22 May 1975 for New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Motions were debated in the Senate but defeated on 22 May 1975 on redistributions in South Australia and Tasmania, and on 27 May 1975 for New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Separate Bills for each State were presented to the House on 28 May 1975 and were debated and passed by the House on 29 May 1975. The redistribution Bills were presented to the Senate on 3 June 1975 but were debated on 10 June 1975.

Adequate time has been spent debating these measures. A total of 17 hours 18 minutes has been spent debating the redistribution reports and Bills. The debate on the motion for the approval of the redistributions occupied 8 hours 16 minutes in the House of Representatives and 4 hours 43 minutes in the Senate. The redistribution Bills were debated for 3 hours 29 minutes in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for 50 minutes, which proves there has been ample time for discussion on these measures and all honourable members are conversant with their details. In addition, the Opposition Parties are determined to oppose the redistribution proposals no matter how long the debate may continue, even though to correct injustices and inequities there are certain changes necessary in the system. In other words, a redistribution is urgently required because of the demands of democracy in this country.

I do not intend to go over the full range of the disparities that exist in electorates but honourable member know that in some States some electorates are twice the size of others and thereby give disproportionate representation in every possible way. I might also mention that the proposed time allotment on these Bills will give adequate time for honourable members to express again, if they will, the comments they have made on previous occasions. There can be no purpose in delaying these measures for an unlimited time to allow a filibuster by honourable members opposite who are determined to stop the legislation irrespective of the justice of it all. I repeat that a total of almost 1 8 hours has already been spent in debating these measures and the proposed allotment of time should be adequate to allow further discussion on these measures.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The introduction and application of the guillotine in a House of Parliament is a totally reprehensible procedure. There is no validity whatsoever in the nonsensical comments of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) suggesting that because we have already had a debate we should not therefore have another debate. If we accept that sort of argument we will preclude all debate on all subjects at all times. The Leader of the House said that he knows the attitude we are going to take. Of course he does. He admits that this legislation is repugnant to us. If the legislation were fair and equitable, if it were accepted by honest and fair men in the community, this proposal would be understandable but the whole basis of the time allocations that are now under consideration is to preclude all opportunity for members of this Parliament- not just members of the Opposition but Government members too- to speak. In looking at the details let me advert to the proposed time allocation to consider the Bill for the electoral redistribution for the most populous State in Australia- New South Wales. For the second reading debate we are going to be allowed from 4.50 p.m. until 5 p.m.- a whole 10 minutes for proposals which affect nearly 5 million people. For the Committee stage another 10 minutes is to be allowed. Goodness gracious me, for the remaining stages we will have the luxury of a final 10-minute burst until 5.20 this day. If the proposed time for debate on these measures reflects, as I suspect it does, the consideration given to the electoral redistribution, the redistribution proposals deserve to be condemned on that ground alone. Any move which precludes debate deserves contempt. The Government itself, which introduces these measures, which introduces this allotment of time on such a nonsensical basis, deserves contempt.

The whole of the proposition advanced by the Leader of the House is predicated only on the supposition that there has already been a debate in this chamber and that it does not matter what is put forward the Opposition Parties will disagree with it. I understood that the function of debate in this chamber was to consider the merits or otherwise of legislation before it. If there is no time for debate, there is no time for consideration of whatever merits there might be. If we have the typical demonstration, as we have had on other occasions and I suspect again today, by the Leader of the House of his own desire to introduce the legislation irrespective of attitudes or of quality of debate in this place it will demonstrate what little time the Government Party has for democracy, what little time it has for the Parliament. This is the substance of what I really want to say on this motion.

We are running into a period in which the Labor Party is running for cover. Wherever one goes around the electorate of Australia people are beginning to understand the way that this Party treats the Parliament and this motion is typical of its attitude. The people of Australia realise that incompetence is matched by a refusal to permit debate and discussion on the proposals submitted. It is the incompetence of the Ministers; it is the buffoonery; it is the bluster; it is the bravado. This relates to all measures which are conveniently disguised by refusing adequate debate in this Parliament. The reason that the Government Party does not want this legislation debated is not the reason that has been advanced by the Minister. It is simply because there is no substance in the Government’s argument. It seeks to manipulate electoral boundaries to its own advantage. It seeks to ensure that country people in particular are denied the right of having fair and adequate representation in this Parliament.

In particular, the legislation is designed to seek by foul rather than fair means the preservation in power of a party that is rapidly falling into decay. The Party that is represented in government here is no longer the Party represented by that former great Labor man who died earlier this week, a former member of this House, and those who were earlier members of the Labor Party must be very sad to see the decay which it represents. To hang on to power by introducing legislation which cannot adequately be debated in this House is no basis for legislation to be passed at all. The Opposition totally opposes the proposed allotment of time on these measures and intends throughout the whole of the debate on this subject to highlight the inadequacies of the Government proposal in spite of the fact that so little time is to be afforded for us to do it in.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, Henry Lawson would call that speech claptrap, and I think that is an appropriate description of what the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) had to say. It is always interesting that the defence of these issues is always taken up by the Country Party. The lightweights of the Liberals who are supposed to speak on these questions always come second, fourth and sixth. Why the Liberal Party does not stand up on some of these questions is beyond the comprehension of anybody who studies politics in Australia. The Opposition talks about the amount of time it wants to discuss these measures. Let us have a look at the position which existed even before the Bills were introduced. There were public announcements by the Country Party that these Bills were going to be opposed as soon as the commissioners’ reports were presented to Parliament irrespective of their findings. These Bills were opposed before they became part of the parliamentary process, yet the Opposition talks about debate. It was not even prepared to trust the findings of the electoral commissioners in any of the States. If honourable members opposite want to talk about the electoral findings in South Australia, I remind them that the Liberal Party in that State at a meeting after the commissioners brought down their report supported those findings, but it forgot that it had to jump the hurdle of the Country Party in Canberra. So the South Australian commissioners ‘ report was thrown out.

Let us look at the Senate. Do honourable members want to know what people are talking about in Australia? They want to know how people like Senator Field and Senator Bunton find their way into Canberra. They want to know what rights and what conventions are being broken by State Liberal governments in appointing people to the Upper House. They want to know why this is the only Upper House that can keep provoking elections before the time for an election is due. They want to know why the Senate which takes all these political questions so seriously spent 50 minutes in debating the legislation. The Opposition applied the guillotine by will. It had all the time in the world to discuss these measures. Those learned people upstairs whom it relies upon so heavily to throw out Government legislation took 50 minutes to look at these questions because again the Liberal Party members are not allowed to speak on it. They are not allowed to present their own views. If they did the great coalition might fall into disarray and disappear. We would no longer have the parliamentary process as we know it. If the Opposition took 50 minutes in the Senate honourable members opposite should not carry on with all the nonsense in the House of Representatives that they need more time because they were opposed to the proposals before the Commissioners met, they have been opposed to them since the Commissioners brought down their report, and they have been opposed to them right through any debate that has taken place in the Parliament. They applied the guillotine outside the Parliament; they applied the guillotine inside the Parliament. They have not been prepared at any stage to look at any of the issues which have been presented in these . Bills and now they get up and say parliamentary democracy is being threatened. Parliamentary democracy! They do not know what the word means. They should ask their mentor, BjelkePetersen, the Country Party Premier of Queensland, what it means.

Sooner or later the High Court of Australia will have to do exactly the same as the Supreme Court of the United States of America and tell the Australian people what has to happen so that in future we will not have redistributions at the behest of the National Country Party which will favour country people and result in smaller electorates. Why do we need smaller electorates in the country? The National Country Party never asks questions about education, it never asks questions about child care and it never asks questions about poverty. It does not worry about any of the major issues in the country. It is worried only about the major financial gain that can be made by the wheat producers. They are the only people about whom the National Country Party concerns itself. Members of the National Country Party should have larger electorates if they are to ignore the great wants of the country, which is what they have done. So do not let us have all the rubbish that they put up here about why they need more time. They do not need more time at all because the National Country Party reigns supreme in the coalition. While ever the coalition has the lighweights from Bennelong and all these other areas who should speak on these issues but are not allowed to -

Mr Howard:

– You wait.

Mr YOUNG:

– If they do they have to speak second or fourth or sixth. It is always the National Country Party which leads the way in these questions. But now the Opposition says that it needs more time.

Why do honourable members opposite not have a look at the Commissioners’ reports and debate the proposals on the basis of those reports? The Commissioners are not members of the Labor Party; they are people who were appointed by this Parliament to carry out a redistribution on the basis of a 10 per cent discrepancy between urban and rural electorates. And they did their job. In most of the States the Liberal Party supported them. But the Liberal Party capitulated to the National Country Party, stupidly, again as it has done year after year, electoral redistribution after electoral redistribution, and God knows why it ever needed that Party. The case is there to shorten this debate because the situation was a farce even before the Commissioners were appointed.

Question put;

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1515

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill, the Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) BUI, the Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill and the Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 5 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 5 measures?

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

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-At the outset of this cognate debate on the redistribution proposals for 5 Australian States let me say that the Opposition parties will oppose these 5 Bills both in this House and in another place. In so doing we will repeat the attitude that we displayed in the debate on these Bills and during the debate on the motions presented to the House in May of this year. The decision of the Opposition to oppose these Bills was arrived at by the joint Opposition parties. The opposition to this legislation is as strongly felt in the Liberal Party as it is in the National Country Party of Australia. On the third occasion on which this House has the opportunity of debating these measures let me say again that the proposition advanced by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and by other Government speakers during the several debates on these measures this year, to the effect that the Liberal Party had a vested interest in supporting these proposals, is absolute nonsense. In fact if one examines in detail the redistribution proposals for New South Wales, the largest State in Australia, one finds that this is the State in which the Liberal Party would be the most disadvantaged and the Labor Party would be the most advantaged.

As the Leader of the House has reminded us this is the third occasion within a few months on which this House has had the opportunity to debate these measures. To some extent the arguments that will be advanced during the course of the debate this afternoon will be repetitive, but sometimes repetition is necessary to drive home the point. We intend to repeat the arguments that we advanced on the 2 earlier occasions as to why these proposals are unacceptable to us. One of these arguments drew attention to the unusual procedure that the Government has used to deal with these proposals. Honourable members will be aware that it has been the custom of this Parliament- as indicated by the Commonwealth Electoral Act under which the redistribution has been made- not to deal with redistribution proposals in the form of legislation but rather to have motions asking the House to approve the proposals. That is the scheme laid down by the Electoral Act and that is the practice that has been followed on earlier occasions when redistributions have been carried out. Therefore we on this side of the House ask the initial question: Why has the Government decided to put these redistribution proposals in the form of Bills? It does not need terribly much intelligence or genius to work out why. The Government wants to add these 5 Bills to its storehouse of unpassed legislation. Government supporters think that somehow or other these 5 Bills constitute an issue on which they could win a double dissolution election campaign. If they want to send these 5 Bills into the storehouse we are only too happy to facilitate that process and we will be doing so by voting against these proposals this afternoon.

The practice, as I have said, has always been to bring motions forward. That is the scheme laid down by the Electoral Act, and incidentally was the procedure that was followed at the time of the last redistribution carried out by a LiberalCountry Party Government. On that occasion the redistribution proposals for Queensland were rejected in the Senate. Did the Liberal-Country Party of the day in a petulant reaction to the then Opposition, the Labor Party, and the Democratic Labor Party defeating its proposals in the Senate run off and bring the proposals back in the form of legislation and hold a double dissolution threat over the then Opposition? Of course it did not. It did what the Electoral Act requires. It sent the maps for Queensland back to the Distribution Commissioners and asked them to bring up an alternative set of maps. That is the scheme laid down by the Electoral Act and the Opposition, of course, draws attention to the fact that the Government has departed from that procedure. . We have heard a great deal during the debates we have had in this House on redistributions about the integrity of the Distribution Commissioners. In fact one of the principal arguments that has been advanced by the Government in support of its proposals is the fantastic proposition that the Opposition, in criticising the redistribution proposals, is in some way reflecting upon the honour, credit and integrity of the Distribution Commissioners. Time and time again we have been accused of defaming honest men. We even had an incredible speech from the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) who is now the Minister for Housing and Construction, on 22 May. He was speaking on the initial proposals for New South Wales and said:

A subversive speech was made by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia tonight when he attacked the members of the Commission for carrying out the law. The Leader of the National Country Party stood in this Parliament tonight and advocated opposition to a law of Australia.

What the honourable member for Phillip, now the Minister for Housing and Construction, was saying- and what the Leader of the House no doubt will say during the course of this debatewas that to attack these proposals in any way and in any way to call in question their objectivity is to impugn the honesty and integrity of the Distribution Commmissioners. I remind members of the Government, and in particular the honourable member for Phillip and the Leader of the House, that the Electoral Act specifically gives to this Parliament the right to decide whether the proposals of the Distribution Commissioners will be put into effect. If it was never intended by this Parliament that we should have the right to carry out our own objective review of these proposals the Electoral Act would never have given to the Parliament the right to review the proposals of the Commissioners. If one looks at the electoral legislation of some of the States one finds that proposals once made by Distribution Commissioners are not submitted to Parliament for parliamentary approval. The Leader of the House knows that that is the case in New South Wales.

Mr Daly:

– That is a shocking thing.

Mr HOWARD:

-The Leader of the House says that is a shocking thing. On this occasion I happen to agree with him. I believe this Parliament has a right to make its own decision about the electoral boundaries drawn up by Commissioners. I do not think that, in disagreeing with those proposals, it is correct to say that we are impugning the honour, the integrity and the decency of the Distribution Commissioners. In no way have we attacked their honour and decency. We just beg to differ from their conclusions. In doing so we exercise a right which has been given to this Parliament by the Act under which the redistribution has been carried out. So much for the principal argument that has been advanced constantly during these debates by the Government.

Surely the Government does not suggest that the redistribution proposals, once drawn up by the Commissioners, should receive a rubber stamp approval from this Parliament. Or does it really think they should? If the behaviour of many Ministers of this Government during the past few months is any indication, the Government does regard this Parliament as a rubber stamp. Every time the Opposition criticises legislation or responsibly uses its majority in another place it is accused of obstructionism and of frustrating the democratic will of the Australian community. It is accused of being ultraconservative and of being led by the nose by the National Country Party. What absolute nonsense. In expressing our views on these proposals and in using our numbers in another place to defeat them we are exercising a right and a power lawfully given to us by the Electoral Act under which the redistribution proposals were carried out.

Having put to rest that spurious argument advanced by the Government let us turn to the next argument the Government has often relied on- the famous argument of one vote one value. The Leader of the House knows better than most that theoretically you cannot have one vote one value. He knows very well that unless you have a totally static population, a population which grows in equal proportion throughout the entire country, you can never have one vote one value, for as soon as you adjust the electoral boundaries on a basis of numerical equality, within a few months they are by normal population trends out of kilter. So the proposition about one vote one value is a spurious one.

If indeed the Government is so dedicated to one vote one value why does it tolerate a situation whereby Tasmanian divisions have on average 15 000 to 20 000 fewer electors than mainland divisions have? I am not advocatingindeed the Opposition does not advocate- that the situation should be otherwise, but if the Government is so committed to a principle of one vote one value why does it not, to be consistent, initiate some amendment to the Constitution to cover that situation? While I am on the subject of Tasmania, one of the Bills before the House- in fact, the first one to be voted onproposes a redistribution for the State of Tasmania. One wonders why it is necessary to carry out a redistribution in Tasmania. All of the seats in Tasmania are of roughly equivalent enrolment. None of the seats in Tasmania is out of kilter with the permissible variance from the quota, so one asks the question: Why is it necessary to carry out a redistribution in Tasmania? The Government did not deem it necessary to carry out a redistribution in the State of Western Australia, although one of the seats in Western Australia exceeds by many thousands the permissible variation from the quota and yet, strangely enough, it found it necessary to carry out a redistribution in Tasmania. The Government knows, or it ought to know, that unlike the other States a redistribution in Tasmania creates internal State political dislocations because, as honourable members on the Opposition side of the House will know, State electoral divisions are totally geared to Federal electoral divisions in Tasmania under the Hare-Clark system of voting and that if there is an alteration of Federal boundaries in Tasmania it will then be necessary automatically to change the State electoral boundaries in Tasmania.

One wonders why it is necessary to carry out a redistribution in Tasmania. There does not seem to be any overwhelming one vote one value argument. There do not seem to be any overwhelming discrepancies from the permissible variations from the quota. Wicked though members of the Government apparently think it is for members of the Opposition to contend that there might be some political advantage for the Government in carrying out a redistribution in Tasmania, of course it will not escape the attention of members on this side of the House that indeed the Government’s most marginal seat in Tasmania- the seat of Denison- has been strengthened under these proposals.

As we go around the various States we find again and again examples of where these redistribution proposals have failed what I regard and what other members on this side of the House regard as the essential test of any redistribution proposals and that is an essential test of fairness. In this respect and on that test we on this side of the House disagree with the conclusions which have been reached by the Distribution Commissioners and in exercising the right given to us under the Electoral Act we shall be voting against them. Perhaps nowhere can there be found better evidence of how these proposals have failed the test of fairness than in the State of New South Wales. The Minister knows that in the 1972 and in the 1974 Federal elections the Australian Labor Party polled a clear majority of votes in New South Wales and on both of those occasions the Labor Party won a clear majority of seats. At the present time of the 45 New South Wales seats in this Parliament 25 are held by the Australian Labor Party and 20 by the Opposition; rightly so, according to the votes that were cast in May of 1974. What perhaps some members of the House may not know is that if the proposals submitted to the Distribution Commissioners by the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales- this Party which is so committed to democratic government, which is so committed to one vote one value, which is so committed to electoral justice- were accepted by the Commissioners they would, on the same votes cast in May 1 974, give to the Labor Party in New South Wales 29 seats and not 25 seats and would give to the joint Opposition Parties 16 seats and not 20 seats. One also knows, and the Leader of the House knows, that under the proposals presented to this Parliament the proposals that the Government wants us to accept and that we are criticised for opposing, the Australian Labor

Party would on a repetition of the May 1974 vote in New South Wales receive 28 seats to 17 seats to be won by the joint Opposition Parties.

If one looks at the proposals in detail in New South Wales one finds again and again that the seats which are critical in any election, the marginal seats, have been by and large strengthened in favour of the Government and strengthened, I might emphasise, to the distinct disadvantage of the Liberal Party. If one is to have any rational approach to redistribution proposals one must direct one’s attention to the impact to those proposals on marginal seats. It matters not whether the seat of Grayndler held by the Leader of the House is altered so that his majority is 5000 or 10 000 less. He is still going to win it and equally honourable members of this side of the House will know of many seats where the same comment could be made in reference to Opposition members.

What really does matter in redistribution proposals is what they do to the marginal seats. None of the seats of Eden-Monaro, Cook, Macarthur, Barton, Evans, Phillip and St George, the marginal Labor seats in New South Wales, has been weakened for the Government and quite a number of them have been strengthened for the Government, in particular, the seat of Macarthur, where a swing of 5.1 per cent on present boundaries would defeat the sitting member. Under the proposals of the Commissioners a swing of 9.8 per cent would be required to defeat the sitting member.

One thinks of my honourable friend, the member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe). His seat is effectively turned into a Labor seat by these proposals and, whilst I have little doubt that he would be able to retain the seat, the pattern is still there. Again and again these Labor marginals have been strengthened and the Opposition marginals have been weakened. Therefore, these proposals fail the essential test of electoral fairness because there is a manifest imbalance so far as the redistribution of the marginal seats is concerned, particularly in the States of New South Wales and in the State of Victoria.

During the course of this debate and particularly today the Leader of the House and the member for Port Adelaide tried to raise the spectre of division between the Opposition Parties on these proposals. In fact if one looks at these proposals in detail one sees that what the Government really set out to do was to try to kid the Liberal Party into believing that by abolishing the odd country seat here and there and creating the odd new metropolitan seat in some way it was going to advantage the Liberal Party. It hoped that we wOUld look at the redistribution in Victoria and see that nice new seat of DoncasterTemplestowe, that we would look at the redistribution in Sydney and see that nice new seat of Eastwood and say: ‘This is good for the Liberal Party. Let us have it’. Of course, what the Leader of the House did not realise was that we also look at the impact of the redistribution proposals on other seats that we presently hold and on seats that we would win in the event of a Federal election.

I say to the members of the Government and to the Leader of the House that they won the last 2 elections on the present boundaries. Surely they do not argue that those boundaries are rigged against them. If, indeed, the Leader of the House believes, as members on this side of the House believe, that the Distribution Commissioners have done an honest job, why does he not send the maps back to the Distribution Commissioners and say: ‘Have another go; the Parliament disagrees with you’! Why will he not let them have another look at them? Why does he not send these maps back? He cannot really answer that question. He does not want these maps to go back to the Distribution Commissioners because he knows that the proposals as they have been presented are a good thing for the Labor Party and that it is absolutely frantic to have these boundaries. It desperately needs these boundaries. As the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) pointed out, it is running electorally scared and it needs these boundaries to shore up its sagging electoral fortunes and that is the reason why they have been converted into legislation. That is the reason why the maps are not going back to the Distribution Commissioners and that is another reason why we should be opposing this legislation, both here and in another place.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (2.15)- I support the Electoral Re-distribution Bills before the House. I find it difficult to understand the Opposition’s tactics when electoral Bills come before the House. It always seems to complain about the amount of time it has to discuss the Bills and then sets out to waste as much time as possible. Everyone remembers the last occasion when these Bills were before the House. The Opposition kept calling for quorums and for divisions and doing everything to hold up debate on the Bills. Lo and behold, we see the same tactics again today. On a clearly procedural matter put by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) the Opposition set out to spend a lengthy time in debate deliberately to hold up the passage of these Bills. Members of the Opposition complain about not having enough time to discuss these Bills, yet, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said, in the Senate where the Opposition has a majority it applies the gag as quickly as possible to force its objection to these Bills.

The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) informed the House that the Government has no right to bring these Bills back into the House. He said that they should be sent back to the Distribution Commissioners. Would that not be a joke? Has the National Country Party not clearly shown that it does not matter how many times these Bills go before the Commissioners they will never be passed by this Parliament. This is an example of the National Country Party’s old attitude of having two laws, one for the rich and one for the poor; one for the privileged and another one for the unprivileged. It does not want to obey the law. Why are members of the National Country Party opposed to these Bills? Are they not consistent with the requirements of the Electoral Act? Would elections held under these electoral boundaries drawn up by the Distribution Commissionersindependent Commissioners- not reflect the will of the majority in the individual constituencies as well as in the States as a whole? Of course they would. Should these considerations not be the basic and overriding consideration in any redistribution? Of course they should.

There are only two means by which the electors can get electoral justice in Australia. Surely no one wants to go on with the gerrymander under which elections have been held for so long. Some members of the Opposition have asked: ‘Why do we need a redistribution?’ It should be clear to anyone that there is a real need for a redistribution in Australia. Is it not a fact in many electorates there has been a substantial shift in population since the last redistribution in 1968? Is it not also a fact that there has been a marked increase in population in some areas. There has been an alteration to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for voting by 18-year olds. Surely that must affect a lot of electorates in which there is a young population as compared with other areas with older populations. Migrants have been granted the right to obtain citizenship after 3 years of residence in Australia instead of after 5 years. Who would say that has not made a difference to the numbers of electors eligible to vote since 1968? Of course this has made a difference.

If I were concerned about only my own political opportunities I would not want to support these Bills. They do not help me. But it is the law. That should be the overriding consideration. Members of the Opposition should want to obey the law, not for their own advantage. It is a responsibility of all members of this Parliament to give a lead. They should give some respect to the law. Of course many honourable members must know as I do that the number of electors in their electorates would have to be substantially increased to meet the statutory requirements of the Act. Take as an example the electorate of Mitchell and the electorate of Darling, my own electorate. There are 82 864 electors in Mitchell and only 47 806 in Darling- a 75 per cent difference. No one can tell me that that is not gerrymandering. Who can say that there is any semblance of democracy in that kind of difference. No decent honourable member should want to remain in Parliament by finding a way around the law. One should follow the law. One should be prepared to endorse it. We know what members of the Opposition will do. They will knock back every redistribution proposal that comes before the Parliament. The real meaning of democracy must surely be one vote one value, or one vote of one citizen equal to the value of the vote of another citizen.

Mr Corbett:

– Is that applied everywhere?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– It should be applied everywhere. I would not say it applies in Queensland. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 recognised this principle. It set the margin of difference in population of electorates as 10 per cent upwards and 10 per cent downwards. What right has anyone in this Parliament to depart from that democratic principle? The Liberal and National Country Parties are as wide apart on this issue as some of their city residents are from their farms. They live in the city and their farms are miles away. So are those two parties on this issue. The National Country Party and the Liberal Party cannot hide their disunity on this redistribution. The National Country Party has continually said that it wants smaller country electorates. It wants more members elected to Parliament. But what does the Liberal Party do? It put out a map marked map *S’ with my electorate of Darling which everyone says is too big, shown as twice as big as it is now.

These two Parties were telling us this morning how united they are on this issue, whereas the Liberals have indicated by this map that they give little consideration to community of interest. The National Country Party keeps hammering aU the time that there is no community of interest in some country electorates. But what does it mean by community of interest? It has made a reference to country centres and mining centres like Broken Hill and Cobar. What does it mean that it has no community of interest with the people in these areas. It wants these people to buy the meat and contribute to the floor price of the wool of its supporters but it does not want them in the same electorate because those people are different from National Country Party supporters. What a lot of nonsense. I want these people to know, whether they are in country areas or in mining towns, that they have a lot of community of interest with me and I will be doing my best for them in this Parliament

Mr Anthony:

– At Cobar too?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I have been to Cobar and this Government is doing something about Cobar, not like the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) did when Broken Hill was in trouble. What did he do for Broken Hill? He turned his back and went around like an undertaker at a funeral at Broken Hill. But he gave us nothing.

Mr Anthony:

– -Ten us about the RED scheme in Cobar.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I know that big electorates are harder to service. Of course they are. But the solution surely is not to kill democracy because we have to have big electorates. That is ridiculous. We have to provide better facilities. And who has done more about that than the Leader of the House? I am proud to say that the Australian Labor Party has done more for the service of country electorates than the LiberalCountry Parties ever thought of in 23 years of government. Honourable members have received an allowance of $1,000 for plane travel within their electorates. They have received a stamp allowance so that they can communicate with their constituents. They have also received extra staff. Of course, I admit that there is still a long way to go. We should also be given allowances for our secretaries to travel. No one except the Opposition thinks that all the sins of the past can be cured by this Government in a couple of years. That is ridiculous.

The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) referred to a document written by Malcolm Mackerras in which he said:

In overall political terms the 197S redistribution is the fairest set of proposed boundaries ever to be presented to any Australian Parliament in my lifetime.

Mr Howard:

– That was written before the boundaries were presented.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Why would he write it before the boundaries were presented? He went on to say:

The commissioners have bent over backwards to avoid any suggestion of gerrymander. My impression is that they have set out to draw boundaries so patently fair that rejection by the Senate would reflect discredit on the Senate and not on the commissioners.

Yet we hear all this nonsense today. Now I want to refer to some of the submissions that were made to the commissioners opposing the proposed boundaries. One letter came from a person in my electorate. It reads as follows: ‘Alpha’ Collarenebri. 10 March 1975

Dear Sir,

I should like to complain about the size of the suggested alteration of the Gwydir electorate. It is far too big for any member to cover and find out what the electors want. We in this area have only seen our member once since it was last altered; and he never seems to take any notice of what we want in this area.

We have one of the worst mails, if not the worst in the State and nothing has been done about it.

We have had the worst open throated locust plague that has been known. This area is the worst of anywhere, and our member has not had time to come and see us. So if the Gwydir electorate is made bigger, it would be just impossible for any one man to keep in touch with his electors.

I want to point out that I used a large portion of my $1,000 allowance to go up to that area and observe the spur throated locusts. When I returned I spoke in this House about the plague.

The only complaint the people have is that they have never seen their State Country Party member there. They said: ‘His electorate is only half the size of yours but he never comes around to see us. ‘ There is a problem also with the hospital. They said: ‘Look at the terrible hospital we have. ‘ I said: ‘Yes. That is a State matter. ‘ I think that it is shocking that a man like Dr Kalokerinos has to live in that hospital. I told the people that I would see what I could do. I came back here and spoke to the relevant Ministers. I said: ‘There is a large population of Aborigines there. Can you do something about it?’ Now we see that a home is being built for the doctor in that town, although this was neglected by the Liberal-Country Party Federal and State governments. The Liberal and National Country parties are not sincere in their opposition to these Bills. They want to continue these unfair boundaries that have been so advantageous to them. They do not want the electors of this country to get a fair deal. All they are worried about is their own survival. I commend these Bills to the House.

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

– It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick). He is the one member of this House who should recognise the disabilities of having a large electorate. But of course we know that he is really only concerned with the 2 industrial mining cities of Broken Hill and Cobar and that the rest of the State does not matter. He is quite happy to go along with Australian Labor Party policies here. In fact he is very frightened to buck them. He is a captive of the organisation. Country people really do not matter as long as he can look after the bulk votes in Broken Hill and Cobar. At least he tries to do that, although I think that even out there the people are becoming pretty discontented with his Party. I am not making reflections on the honourable member. My remarks are directed at the Australian Labor Party which is losing ground rapidly. The Australian Labor Party group was completely trounced at the last local government election, and the same thing will happen next time there is a federal election.

One would have thought that the honourable member would have got the message now that country people are upset. One of the things about which they are really upset is this redistribution which attempts to take away some of their rights. If the Government was as determined and purposeful in pursuing the solutions to the nation’s economic problems as it is in trying to manipulate the electoral laws of this country, Australia would have a bit more hope for the future. Previous Australian Labor Party governments- I know that there have not been many since Federation- have all accepted the previous criteria of the electoral laws. In fact they have not been changed basically since that time. At the time of Federation the 20 per cent tolerance was written into the law and has been accepted by all governments until the Whitlam Government came forward with a Minister who is absolutely obsessed with the electoral laws and the electoral system and who has tried to change them and manipulate them for his own party political advantage.

In the 2Vi years since the Labor Party has been in office we have seen a multitude of legislation and referendums on these matters. The Government will not take the advice of the Australian people who have rejected referendums seeking to interfere with the electoral laws. The people do not trust the Labor Party in electoral matters. But the Government continues to push ahead with these electoral laws. The reintroduction of these proposals underlines the Government’s complete commitment to doing everything it can to hurt country people. These proposals are designed to reduce the opportunity of country people to enjoy at least some kind of equality of political representation with city people. The Government flies in the face of principles which are accepted in virtually every democratic country. Every democratic country of which I know makes allowances for the special difficulties of providing adequate representation in large, remote, sparsely settled electorates because they know that it is the fair, just and democratic thing to do. But this Government and the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) are not in the least bit concerned about or interested in fairness, justice or real equality of representation. All they are interested in is a system that will disadvantage country Australians and help the Labor Party no matter what violence is done to the real political rights of the people who live outside the capital cities. What the Labor Party does not understand is that Australia is more than Sydney and Melbourne.

This Government claims to have a high regard for convention, yet I wonder how many people in this House and outside it are aware of the fact that the legislation on which these proposals are based is at the moment under challenge in the High Court of Australia. In May this year, the day before the Minister first introduced these proposals, the High Court began hearing challenges to the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) by 3 State governments. I understand that the court has completed hearing the challenge but has yet to bring down a decision. I suggest that it is a matter of the gravest impropriety for this Government to go ahead with its electoral plans while the legality of the law on which they are based is being considered by the High Court. This Government, which claims to observe convention and proper practice, is thumbing its nose at the High Court of Australia just as it has thumbed its nose and trampled under foot so many other institutions, traditions, customs and conventions. It tried to do the same thing with the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. Thank goodness the High Court was there to give a judgment. The Government tried to bluster its way through in that respect only to be reprimanded and pulled into gear by the High Court. The same may happen in respect of the electoral laws which are now being challenged. If the High Court makes a fair decision, it will probably reject those laws. But that is a matter for the High Court to determine.

The Whitlam Government has no more respect for the High Court than it has for any of the other basic institutions in our society; otherwise it would not have treated the High Court with such contempt by bringing this legislation back a second time. It certainly has no real respect for the democratic rights of the Australian people, especially those who live outside the great cities.

We oppose these proposals once again because they are unfair, unjust and discriminatory. They are proposals based on unfair and unjust legislation. They are proposals which the Minister for Services and Property brings into this House, with a mask of democracy, to hide their real face- the face of injustice. No amount of plausible, high sounding argument about the right to equality of votes can hide the fact that the Minister is determined, if he can, to destroy the real right which every elector should enjoy, that is, equality of representation. The Minister will never convince me or any other fair minded Australian that it is possible to achieve equality of representation by having almost the same number of voters in an electorate of less than 4 square miles like his and an electorate like Gwydir, which is of 32 000 square miles, or an electorate such as Kennedy which is of over 280 000 square miles.

Mr Young:

– What about Kalgoorlie?

Mr ANTHONY:

– -Kalgoorlie is even bigger. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), if he had any capacity or gumption, ought to get up and fight too. In that way he would not be a lackey of the organisation as he is as the honourable member for Darling is. It is not just the area that is significant; it is the difficulty of providing proper and adequate representation which such large areas present. That is important. There is no point in my going through all these matters again. They have been debated in this House many times. The Minister knows all about them as well as I do. Yet he is prepared to close his eyes to the unfairness and the injustice of these proposals in his determination to do everything that he can- and he has boasted about this often enough- to disadvantage and to hurt country people and to trample on their rights in the desperate effort and, I must admit, need to try to bolster the position of the Labor Government at the moment.

Mr Hunt:

– Labor is running scared.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Certainly it is running scared, and it has good reason to. That reason is the inept way in which Labor has governed this country in the last 2 years and the way in which its whole reputation has been completely and utterly discredited.

The Minister for Services and Property has said in this House that there can be no doubt whatever that a man is entitled to equal representation whether he lives in the city or in the country. We accept that view, but we deplore the fact that the Minister says one thing and does another. We condemn him for saying one thing and then turning around and doing something that will make that unexceptionable objective utterly impossible to achieve. The Minister is no more interested in achieving equality of representation than he is in maintaining a fair and democratic voting system. When the Minister first brought this matter before the Parliament, he claimed that the Government had a mandate for it.

Mr Daly:

-That is right, too.

Mr ANTHONY:

-We hear very little these days about the Government’s mandate. The elections in Queensland and South Australia, the election in the Northern Territory, the Bass byelection and even local government elections have each resulted in support for the Labor Party being further eroded and depleted, each showing the Government’s mandate becoming more and more fragile to the point where now it is being withdrawn. The Government certainly does not announce this fact in the House because it recognises that that mandate is being withdrawn too. The public opinion polls show that support for the Labor Party is down to 34 per cent. The Prime Minister is approved by only 32 per cent of the people. The simple fact is that the people no longer support or trust this Government. The Government certainly has no mandate to push ahead with this piece of legislation. That is why we no longer hear the claim that the Government has a mandate for the legislation, and rightly so.

We have been through this argument time and time again because of the Minister’s stubborn attachment to his objective of damaging to the maximum extent possible the rights and opportunities of country people. There is no point in continuing to go through the argument again. We know how the Minister feels. We know that he has almost an obsession about this aspect. I have pointed out before the reasons why a redistribution is not required at present to correct inequalities between the States; these inequalities simply do not exist. There is no justification for this abnormal redistribution which the Government is trying to bring forward. The results of a further redistribution now will need to be undone by another redistribution following the census which is due fairly soon- in fact, next year. We oppose these proposals because they are unfair and unjust and have no place in a country which claims to have any real interest in the rights of all of its citizens, including the nonmetropolitan citizens.

We believe that every Australian should have the greatest possible degree of equality of political representation, no matter where he or she lives. That equality cannot be achieved in a country such as Australia unless some account is taken of the very significant and undeniable differences which exist among our electorates, some of them tiny, and others enormous. The objective of the Labor Party is quite clear. It is to thrust this legislation through purely and simply for blatant Party political purposes, giving to the Labor Party a contrived advantage and, at the same time, venting its continuing contempt for country people. If the Labor Party cannot beat the country people, it will try to abolish them. Well, the Labor Party will fail because it is the country people of Australia who are taking the lead in ridding this nation of a bad Government; and I hope that they will do that before not too long.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wondered why so many members of the National Country Party had not come in to listen to their Leader (Mr Anthony). I understand why only two members of the Liberal Party came in to listen. That is because this is one of those matters on which they have had to bow to the whims of the National Country Party in order to carry out National Country Party policy. The speech of the Leader of the National Country Party exposes the stupidity of the move earlier in the day when the Opposition objected to the short time that may be given over to this debate. On no fewer than 3 occasions he said: ‘There is no point in going through this debate again’. Earlier in the day his Deputy (Mr Sinclair), again on the instructions of his own Party, was objecting that we were not giving them more time.

What is the reality of electoral reform in Australia? Someone once said, and it has been repeated in this Parliament time and time again and is worth repeating again: ‘The National Country Party talking about electoral reform is like a backyard abortionist talking about motherhood’. Members of the National Country Party should not talk about what they stand for and what they do not stand for because it is not as though there are barriers around the cities and Government members have nothing to do with the country. Many members of the Government spend a great deal of time in the country; they have great relations with many people who live in the country. Two of the people who represent the largest electorates in this House, the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) on this side, get up and support the Government’s legislation. There seems to be some great contradiction in the attitude adopted by members of the National Country Party. They are the only ones showing any interest in this debate. The Liberal Party has the little fellow from Bennelong (Mr Howard) sitting here. The National Country Party has told the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser): ‘Do not put any of your strong front benchers up on this debate. We will remain in charge of this. There is to be no opposition to our views on these questions because our existence is at stake. We are going to keep people on the land even if it is uneconomic; we are going to keep people in country towns in spite of what poverty may result. Do not interfere with this because our existence is involved. If you want the coalition to continue’this great grant coalition as it sometimes described- ‘you will do what you are told on this question’. The former Prime Minister- I refer to the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton)- who is now in the House knows only too well the influence that is wielded by the National Country Party on these questions. What a joke members of the National Country Party make of the debate when it comes before the House. What an absolute farce that we are supposed to be having some sort of serious debate on this question.

We have heard from the Leader of the National Country Party. That is the new name of the Party to which those honourable members to whom I am speaking belong. Their Party has been called various names from year to year, but at the moment it is called the National Country Party of Australia. Its members are held in the sort of esteem in which they have been held since they formed themselves into a party, but they have changed the name of the Party. Before the Commissioners brought in their report the Leader of the National Country Party was espousing coalition policy and was never contradicted by the Liberal Party. I do not blame the National Country Party but rather I congratulate it on the influence that it has. It receives 8 per cent of the Australian vote but its representation in this House is double that, and it is able to tell its major partner to keep off its heels, that it is going to run this issue. The same thing applies in regard to the question of devaluation, as the former Prime Minister, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), found out. We all know what happened on that occasion, and the National Country Party is doing exactly the same sort of thing on this occasion.

The Liberal Party knows, in spite of the stupid arguments its members put forward, that the principle of one vote one value or the principle of a 10 per cent variation in the quota is acceptable to the people of Australia. Members of the National Country Party say: ‘Look, you are putting the axe to country people’. What a stupid argument. It is not worth answering. They say: ‘We have 40 000 electors in our electorates and we have to cover 100 000 square miles’. What nonsense! Half of the honourable members in the National Country Party live in Surfers Paradise. They do not even service their electorates. They never ask questions and never rise to speak in debates concerned with major issues that affect their electorates, but when debates affect the existence of the National Country Party, the grand old mare of the coalition, they are there in possum corner. Who do they allow from the Liberal Party to come into the House? They allow no one else but the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns); everybody else keeps out.

Why does not the Leader of the Opposition speak in this debate? The Leader of the National Country Party and the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party have done so. Where are the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party? They are outside the House attending to their political wounds. Honourable members opposite should not worry about all these polls and the performance of this Government about which they talk. The jury is still very much considering its verdict on the performance of their leaders, and it will be a long time before the jury comes back. Members of the National Country Party talk about electoral reform. The Leader of the National Country Party- it is not even his shadow portfolio- is telling the Opposition and telling the people of Australia that the policy of the Opposition is that the findings of the Commissioners, irrespective of what they are, will be objected to, and he is doing that before the Commissioners ‘ report hits the Parliament. So we should not look upon the Parliament as being the law-making body of the land at aU, because the National Country Party has said what will happen even before the report comes in.

Honourable members opposite talk about a mandate. Which government during the last 20 years, besides this Government, has faced 2 elections in 1 8 months? Which other government has won 2 elections in 18 months and used electoral reform as one of the principal issues at those elections? Do honourable members opposite mink that it is any easier to look after an electorate of 80 000 or 90 000 in the urban areas, as members of the Labor Party and members of the Liberal Party have to do? Those people in the country whom I know vote for us say that they never see the elected representatives of the National Country Party in the electorate. They want to know where they are hiding and they want to know why they do not represent some of the issues which really affect country people.

Now all members of the National Country Party are going on about issues. They have been yelling and screaming for months about superphosphate. Last week a delegation from a plant which makes superphosphate and is located in my electorate came to see me. Its spokesman said: ‘What is your attitude to the bounty on superphosphate?’ I said: ‘I am opposed to it’. The reply was: ‘That is all right because we were going to tell you to oppose it. That $30m, some of which may have been spent validly on the small landholder but which basically is going to the wealthy landholder, should be spent to overcome some of the social problems in our community and not given to the rich landholders.’

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I suggest that the honourable member for Port Adelaide might address the Chair instead of commenting to members of the National Country Party, and I would suggest that members of the National Country Party might listen to the honourable member in silence. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:

– I was being provoked, I must say. I want to draw the link between those of us who serve urban electorates but who may have spent their working lives in country electorates, and our responsibilities to the country people. Our responsibility may be to see that industries carry out their duties so that people in country areas can carry out their duties for the benefit of the people who live in the urban areas. But our responsibility is not to follow that line slavishly to the exent of giving country people a vote which has 1 Vi times or twice the value of the vote of a person who lives in the city. Our responsibility, in terms of population, is to the thousands of migrants who have been brought into this country, who are not naturalised and who are not on the electoral roll. Those people represent one of the greatest headaches to a member of Parliament. They do not live in country electorates; they live in our urban electorates. Those people have to be serviced by a member of Parliament.

In representing the people of this country there are things with which honourable members opposite do not concern themselves. Let no one tell me that honourable members opposite, either Liberal or National Country Party, get into their cars and drive thousands and thousands of miles. If they do all the things they say they do in servicing those areas, why did they not pressure the Government, when they were in power before 1972, to provide some of the facilities that have since been provided by the present Minister? No one asked the previous Minister for some of the facilities which have since been provided, such as additional staff, charter aircraft and the postage allowance. Those things have been given to honourable members opposite by the present Minister so that they can service their electorates. Those things were not asked for previously because honourable members opposite do not service their electorates.

As I say, sooner or later the High Court of Australia is going to have to determine this question of electoral redistribution, because while the National Country Party wields the axe over the Liberal Party there is no chance of its being determined. While it is possible to get the sort of result which was achieved in 1974 in the Senate, which was in contradiction of the popular election of a Labor government in this Houseaggravated by the appointment of 2 independent people to the Senate in Senator Bunton and Senator Field- we are going to have to look outside the Parliament for someone to determine what democracy is all about. The National Country Party is putting up arguments which are unacceptable both to this House and to the people of Australia. It is doing the Australian people a great injustice. If we have a look at the situation in the various electorates and the size of the various electorates we can see quite simply why it is putting up this argument. The reason is that every large electorate is either a Labor electorate or a Liberal electorate. The Liberals are too weak to say anything. We have to carry the baton for them.

As we can see, there are practically no Liberal members in the House to take part in the discussion on this matter. An hour ago they were complaining that they did not get enough time to discuss issues; now they are all outside licking their wounds because the National Country Party has won again. I point to such large electorates as Banks and Barton. My friend the honourable member for Bennelong represents a large electorate but he has to bend his knee to the National Country Party. There are 68 000 people on the electoral roll in Bennelong; probably the number is 70 000 by now. The honourable member for Bennelong has to service that number of people as against the 45 000 or 50 000 people on the rolls in some of the country electorates. But he has to accept that situation if the coalition is to survive. That is the situation right throughout the electorates in New South Wales. What will happen in South Australia in the electorates of Bonython, Kingston and Sturt if the Commissioners’ report is not put into effect? Let us look at what will happen in South Australia at the next election in 1 977.

National Country Party members- Ha, ha!

Mr YOUNG:

– I was looking for that response when I mentioned 1977. Members of the National Country Party laugh because they know what they are up to. They do not worry about the Constitution. They do not worry about democracy. They do not worry about who is the popularly elected Government in this country. They worry about whether they have got the numbers in the Senate. They are going to be extremely sorry for the way in which they are going to attempt to use the Senate.

Mr Corbett:

– Why did you not win the Senate election?

Mr YOUNG:

– Because of the system. We won the election for this House. I will tell the honourable member why we did not win the election for the Senate. It is a very interesting exercise and I shall try to explain it to him in detail. In New South Wales a group that bows to the Liberal Party found out that for every candidate it runs in the Senate election the informal vote grows by one-eighth of one per cent, and it knew that the vast majority of that informal vote as it grows is really a Labor vote. In real terms there were 40 nominations for the Senate election in 1974 and there were an additional 33 independent candidates in New South Wales. So we had 73 candidates for the Senate election. In some of the Labor electorates in New South Wales, such as Grayndler and Hunter, the informal vote was 20 per cent. The average informal vote in New South Wales was 12 per cent. There are people who adhere to the policies of busting the Constitution, of breaking down the democratic processes as they apply to this country, so that 12 per cent of the people of New South Wales did not have an effective vote. That is the way in which honourable members opposite manipulate the result.

Mr Corbett:

– What about the situation in Queensland?

Mr YOUNG:

-Let us have a look at the situation in Queensland. What happened when Senator Bert Milliner passed away? The honourable member, as he sits there rubbing his glasses, should tell us who took his place. The friend of members opposite, the great democrat who governs in Queensland with 19 per cent of the vote- Mr Bjelke-Petersen- put someone called Senator Field in the place of Bert Milliner. He does the process a great injustice. But let us have a look at the situation in South Australia because it is interesting. In South Australia -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that honourable members come to order and cease interjecting. I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide again that judging on his earlier comment it might be a fairly close points decision on who was provoking whom. But I suggest that interjections cease. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I am not interested in the trophies- just the argument. In South Australia where the National Country Party hardly functions at all- this is a good thing- it is a straight out contest, or it was, between ourselves and the Liberal Country League, socalled. Now we have had the emergence of a Liberal Movement. What has happened is that even those people in the Liberal Party who supported electoral reform in South Australia found it necessary to go outside the traditional partythe Liberal Party- to bring about electoral reform. Today, the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, is introducing a BUI of electoral reform for one vote, one value in the State House of Assembly. We have already completely democratised the Upper House for the first time since its establishment early in the 19th century. So we found that at the last election for the Legislative Council the Australian Labor Party won six of the 1 1 positions contested although we used to get beaten overall sixteen to four in that chamber.

What Will happen in South Australia where this question was looked at quite seriously? By 1977- the next election- the electorate of Bonython which is represented by my colleague, Mr Nicholls, will have 90 000 electors on the roll. The electorate of Kingston which is represented by my colleague, Dr Gun, Will have 78 000 electors on the roll. The electorate of Sturt, represented by one of the Liberal Party members, will have 72 000 electors on the roll. Wakefield, which is represented by another Liberal Party member, Will have approximately 46 000 electors on the roll. Yet Opposition members stand up on behalf of the coalition Opposition Parties and say what they would do to introduce and consolidate democracy in Australia. It has to be a sham. Tommy Smith would not believe it. It does not matter what State we look at. The Distribution Commissioners did their job on the Bills passed by the joint sitting of the Parliament. The appointment of these people was not objected to. There was no objection to the commissioners when they were appointed. We did not hear the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) or the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser) talking about the inadequacies of the commissioners who were appointed. They all accepted the people who were appointed.

What they did not accept, even before the commissioners did the job, were the reports of the commissioners because they interfered with the existence of the National Country Party. How can that Party survive? What a shambles. What a shock the people of this country will receive if they ever put this rat bag group back into government in Australia- the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. It has absolutely nothing to offer. Its new policies are to give all back to the States; not to generate uniform policies in Australia; to dismantle Medibank and dismantle legal aid. I say to honourable members opposite: Go and tell your electors that. Go and tell the working people and the country that your policies are correct in regard to electoral reforms. It does not matter what Opposition members say. Our voice is reinforced by the fact that people in our party who represent major electorates in area- the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick), the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard)- are the speakers on our list. They are the people most forthright in their support for our policies. This must be an indication to honourable members opposite that they feel seriously about the matter.

The Leader of the National Country Party talked about the South Australian election coming as some sort of a shock to the Labor Party. I suppose the fact that our vote was down to about 52 per cent of the total vote does come as some sort of shock to a party that is used to getting 56 per cent of the total vote. But under the Thomas Playford regime that existed in South Australia from 1933 to 1965, we have received up to 57 per cent of the vote and been defeated. What Opposition members are doing is following the old line. They are going back into the 1950s, the 1940s, the 1930s and the 1920s, to the areas in which Opposition members thought they could exist on these policies. It is not on today. They are talking to a new electorate which will not accept it. If the National Country Party and the Liberal Party continue in their operations in regard to the Constitution and in their opposition to electoral reform and in the manner they have conducted themselves over the last year there is a fair chance that the processes of democracy in Australia as we know them in this Parliament will not survive. A new system will have to be devised.

In my electorate in South Australia in the last State elections, our vote went up. It did not go down. But there was no great disruption in the voting pattern in the city of Adelaide at the last State election. Don Dunstan has won his fourth election and I believe that if he wants to stand for another 10 elections he will win them. The National Country Party is just emerging to challenge the Liberal Movement and the Liberal Party. I just cannot follow the parties that the Opposition keeps coming up with. Honourable members opposite are geniuses. They always have a different party to represent them. Irrespective of the number of parties that are formed -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

– I think that most honourable members will have heard about the matter of electoral redistribution often enough. But I believe it is an important issue and that it is right and proper that we continue to bring these Bills before the Parliament and before the people of Australia. A redistribution of boundaries of each State is long overdue. Many voters are disfranchised under the present borders. If we look at the electorates in Victoria, we see that the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) represents 49 700 voters, but that my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb) supposedly represents 85 000 voters. If one were to take a real count of the electorate of the honourable member for La Trobe, it would be found that he represents something like 95 000 voters in an area that is partly urban, partly rural and an extremely large area to boot. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) represents only 54 000 voters while my colleague, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) has something like 90 000 voters in his electorate. While I endorse the idea that my colleagues on this side of the chamber are better equipped to cope with the extra voters and still give better service, I submit that the voter is entitled to have the value of his vote equal to that of every other voter.

I recognise the difficulty of members representing country electorates, but I agree with my colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who pointed out that those honourable members do not really service their areas to the extent that we with city electorates do. They really do not take the same responsibility for policies and for debate in this chamber outside the areas of beef, wheat, wool and other similar subjects. I am not decrying their importance but I am yet to hear any member of the National Country Party rise to his feet and take an interest in technical education, immigration or social welfare.

Mr Lloyd:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to order. I take an interest in and speak more on that subject than on any other.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Order! The honourable member has not raised a point of order. If those sorts of remarks are repeated, I shall take action. The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is, ‘That the Bill be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-My friend, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), in the course of his remarks during the second reading stage of the debate, amongst other things spent a great deal of time talking about electoral arrangements that exist in the various States of Australia. I would be very happy to engage the honourable member for Port Adelaide in a debate on the electoral arrangements that used to exist in New South Wales prior to 1965. But I would remind honourable members that the purpose of this debate this afternoon is to discuss the redistribution proposals for the Commonwealth Parliament.

References to electoral arrangements that exist in various States are irrelevant to the discussion.

The thing that intrigued me most about the speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide- particularly in view of the eloquent tributes to democracy paid by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly)- was his reference to the result of the last Senate election. He said that the result was caused by the system. I think we ought to take such a proposition very seriously because in effect, what the honourable member for Port Adelaide is saying is that the present method of electing senators at Senate elections is undemocratic and unacceptable to the Labor Government. I think that is a very interesting proposition because I think even the honourable member for Port Adelaide, in his less partisan moments, might agree that there is less electoral distortion and a more direct expression of popular will through a system of proportional representation than there often is through a system of single member constituencies. It is precisely because the Senate is so evenly balanced so often that the fairness of the system of proportional representation is demonstrated.

On most occasions in the past, not all- and I dare say it will not be the case on the next occasion that this country goes to the polls- the total number of people who voted one way or another is usually fairly close. The percentage variations between the two are not very large. Above all, because the Senate has a system of proportional representation- a system which the honourable member for Port Adelaide knows very well- the result is always likely to be close and one which is very democratic. So the honourable member for Port Adelaide and Government supporters cannot really blame the result of the last Senate election in May 1974 on anything other than an expression of will by the Australian people.

One of the greatest untruths about the electoral situation in Australia at the moment is the story which has been peddled by the Labor Party that somehow or other the result of the Senate election last year was a fraud. Government supporters argue in that way only because they did not win the Senate election. That is the reason why they think it is a fraud. That is the reason why they are suggesting that in frustration they might go outside the system. This tack was adopted last night by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). He spent 6 minutes during the adjournment debate talking about the frustration of Labor members who entered Parliament as young men and grew to middle and old age in Opposition. He said they were so frustrated that they were tempted to go outside the system. This is a very remarkable proposition that has been advanced by the Government because -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman not refer to another debate.

Mr HOWARD:

-Well, I will refer to the argument.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not. He must debate the question before the Chair.

Mr HOWARD:

-The question before the Chair involves electoral matters, Mr Speaker, and I am referring to comments by the honourable member for Port Adelaide on the electoral system which produced the Senate election result in May of last year. In effect the honourable member was saying that that result was unacceptable. He categorised it as fraud. He said we had abused the system in New South Wales. He spoke about the independents. If he knows anything about the independents who stood in New South Wales for the Senate election and if members of this chamber know anything about them they will all know very well that the suggestion that somehow or another there was a giant conspiracy between these disparate groups such as the Family Action Movement, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party of Australia and all sorts of other groups to clog up the ballot paper absolutely boggles the imagination. If that is the only sort of argument that can be advanced by Government supporters in support of their case it is a pretty sorry state of affairs. The truth is that the Labor Party did not like the result of the Senate election last year. The result of that election accurately reflected the views of the people who voted in that election. If Labor Party supporters believe anything about democracy they have to accept the result of that Senate election because Senate elections above all are not subject to the distortions that can be produced unintentionally by single member constituencies because they do not exist. Honourable members opposite know very well that it is the overall popular vote that determines the result of Senate elections. The overall popular vote in the Senate election in May 1974 denied the Labor Government a majority. That was the will of the people. That was the result of that election and of course it is a result that honourable members opposite do not like and are not prepared to accept.

Mrs CHILD:
Henry

-No one would deny that we need a redistribution. The last time we had one, from memory, was in 1968 which is 7 years ago. No one could deny that the proposed redistribution is the fairest we have seen for the Australian electorate. When the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) spoke he said that we have not seen very many Australian Labor Party governments. He is quite right of course, but more people vote Labor each election than for any other party and they have done so in every election bar the one in 1966. The way the Opposition throughout its years in government has gerrymandered the single member electorates, we have to do so much better than the Opposition parties have done if we are going to win them. One look at the situation in Queensland, where the State Country Party leader whom I suppose we could call the bastion of democracy rules with 20 per cent of the vote, shows what the Country Party philosophy really is. It just says: ‘Give us the power; give us the seats. Forget about justice and forget about the people’s rights. : What else does the Country Party say? It says: ‘Let us drive a wedge between the city people and the country people. Let us pretend we have got walls around the city people and the city electorates and that there is something quite different about country people’. The real truth of the matter is that people and people’s problems, whether the people are in the city or in the country, are paramount to the members who represent them and so they should be. The Country Party says: ‘Give us the seats and we will just sit there, even if we produce nothing’. Let us be clear about this. We in this place do not represent square miles. We are representing people, or we should be representing people. Many of us are, but I would suggest that many honourable members sitting opposite are not representing people. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) spoke of the situation in Tasmania. He intimated that we should also make seats in Tasmania larger if our argument of one vote one value is to hold water, but the honourable member surely must be aware that the Constitution sets down the minimum number of seats for a State as small as Tasmania.

Mr Howard:

– Why do you not try to change the Constitution?

Mrs CHILD:

-While you may like to kick the Constitution around as your Party has been doing over the past 2Vi years we are not prepared to do so. My Party believes in parliamentary democracy. We are not the ones who are trying to wipe out the foundations of the system. We are not the ones knocking down the precedents and conventions. We leave that to you. The honourable member knows full well that we cannot enlarge the seats in Tasmania and his is a dishonest argument to be putting forward. The honourable member is also aware that our intention in regard to these Bills is to make each seat as close to each other in numbers as we possibly can. We are aware of the moving population as distinct from the fairly stable country communities.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the third reading debate on this Bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1530

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (TASMANIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This Bill relates to the redistribution of electorates in Tasmania. I would only plead that I be permitted the same kind of elastic interpretation of the Standing Orders as has applied in the past. If I may in 5 minutes take advantage of that interpretation of the Standing Orders -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I wish to point out to the honourable gentleman that we were having a cognate debate.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nevertheless, I appreciate the motives. I should like to refer to 2 matters that have occurred. One of the statements earlier today was the enormous statement made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), and it deserves to be repeated. He said: ‘We will have to look outside Parliament to determine what democracy is aU about’. In respect of this chamber, which is presumed to be the people’s chamber, which is the chamber of the House of Representatives in which the ultimate power which resides in Australia exists, he said: ‘We shall have to look, outside Parliament to determine what democracy is aU about*. That is a statement of motive. That is a statement of intention. One would rather expect such a statement to be coming not from Watt Tyler who was a very honourable person in his own way but perhaps from a Portuguese military dictatorship. The honourable member for Port Adelaide said: ‘We shall have to look outside Parliament to determine what democracy is all about’. The enormity of that statement ought to be recorded and the statement ought to be repeated because the significance of it may in fact come to haunt those who hold some respect for what parliamentary democracy is all about.

The second point I wish to raise involves the purity of the motives of the honourable member for Port Adelaide when he spoke about my National Country Party colleagues and friends who sit on this side of the chamber. I was intrigued about the purity of his motives when he said: ‘You know, it is not appropriate that you people who approach me ought to have available a bounty or financial assistance on superphosphate because it is not worth it’. However, I did not hear the honourable member apply the same stringent economic analysis when it was proposed that there should be massive tariff and quota protection for the motor car industry in his own city. In one instance tens and tens of millions of dollars are involved and the other involves far less. So in a redistribution debate let us completely dismiss any purity of motive in that respect.

What this redistribution proposes to do is simply this. The Labor Party is in some difficulty. It will lose the next election. It cannot win it. It is trying through this process of redistribution to arrange a blood transfusion to itself from its own carcass. That is the position. There is nothing else to it and that ought to be recognised. Having dealt in a gentle and in a friendly manner with what this redistribution is about let me state 2 principles. Redistributions are looked at in 2 ways by members of Parliament. They have to be cleared of the verbiage and they have to be cleared of a false purity of motives. Redistributions are looked at by members of Parliament first of all to see how their own seats fare, and that is fair enough. Secondly, they are looked at to ascertain that a vote of 50 per cent plus one of the electorate ought to be sufficient to elect the Party receiving that vote. In Australian history it needs to be recorded that in respect of that second principle only once has a vote of 50 per cent plus one not been sufficient to elect to government the Party for which the people voted and that was under the Labor Party’s last successful redistribution for this House in 1 948 and in 1 949. The last time the Labor Party had a redistributionlet it be clear- it cheated. It tried to make its own seats so safe that it cheated itself 5 years later in the 1954 elections. It is perfectly reasonable therefore that we on this side of the chamber should have a grave doubt as to the ultimate intentions and motives of the redistribution.

Having said that, I want to become quite parochial in the four or five minutes left to me. Firstly, I want to look at the proposed redistribution of my own seat of Lilley. I find it very difficult to vote against this redistribution, but I will vote against it for reasons of Party loyalty. The proposed redistribution of my own seat is the first one since 1949 which has had a modicum of fairness in respect of boundaries. The redistributions proposed in 1955 and 1962 made the seat of Lilley as difficult as possible for a member of the Liberal Party to hold. In fact I lost my seat in 1972 as a direct outcome of the proposals and the intentions of my own Party. Of the redistributions proposed in 1955, 1962 and on this occasion the redistribution which we are now considering is the first one to draw the lines with some semblance of rationality. Nevertheless, as I have said, out of Party loyalty- and this is a very difficult step to take- I will vote against the redistribution. I will vote against it ultimately for the reasons which I have indicated.

The overriding principle in any proposal such as this has to be that 50 per cent plus one of the total Australian electorate ought to have its vote recorded for the Party which it seeks to elect to office or the Party which is currently in office.

Mr Coates:

– That is 52 per cent now.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well, the honourable member might be multiplying. He might go back to tutoring in bio-chemistry. So as part of a package no redistribution exists on its own. It ought to be remembered that the boundaries which the Government proposes to draw on this occasion are drawn on the basis that it intends ultimately to change the electoral system. So that destroys immediately the proposition that 50 per cent plus one has any meaning.

As I said, I had intended to speak for only seven or eight minutes. I shall not dwell on this point. I will vote against the redistribution. My motives for doing so ought to be known. But I think the background of some of the past experiences which could drive one to vote in another way should be appreciated.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I would like to reply to a couple of comments that were made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). Reference was made to the question of democracy being determined outside the Parliament. I say in all seriousness that all members of Parliament ought to realise that there is no minefield around this building. They cannot sit here in isolation and consider that whatever they determine may be the interpretation given by the population to the term ‘democracy’.

We listened to what the honourable member for Lilley said about what this chamber represents, namely, the popularly elected government, the legal representatives, the law makers. I hope that the honourable member remembers that when next in the Party room a note comes in from the National Country Party telling honourable members opposite how they are to use the Senate. Members of the Liberal Party do not believe that this is the way in which Parliament should be run. It so happens that the voting systems of the various States of the United States of America were formulated outside the Congress of the United States. They were determined by the United States Supreme Court. Perhaps a similar decision might be sought from the High Court of Australia.

Mention was made of superphosphatewhatever that has to do with electoral reformand the car industry. Since 2 December 1972, when this Government of great reform was elected, we have been dealing with the manipulations of industries that were bestowed on us by the McEwen era. Subsidies, tax concessions and hand outs to the country have meant that enormous protection has been given to some inefficient industries in Australia. This has led to the building up of industries which really ought not to be qualified -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 3.30 p.m., the time allotted for the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question put-

That the Bill be read a second time.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 51

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

– I move:

I wish to comment briefly on what has been said in regard to the Bills we are discussing. I was particularly interested in the attitude of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin

Cairns). As a Queenslander he would be an expert in gerrymandered boundaries. He would not be an expert from the inside as such because the Liberal Party in Queensland is an extremely silly and docile organisation. Members of the Liberal Party are partners in a coalition government, the other member of which, with 19 per cent of the votes, has taken over complete control of the State. The Liberal Party is done like a dinner and does not realise it. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party in Queensland, under the gerrymander that the honourable member supports, gets more votes than the other 2 parties put together but gets fewer seats. Consequently the honourable member is not exactly an expert on this matter.

This redistribution has been described quite rightly as one of the fairest ever presented to an Australian Parliament. That view is supported by none other than the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) who has voted with the Government on 2 occasions. He was proudly nominated by Mr McEwen as one Prime Minister the Country Party would serve under in this Parliament. He led the now Opposition as Prime Minister. Do honourable members opposite say that he would support rigged boundaries? Do they tell me that a former Liberal Prime Minister would do that? Do they think he would support a partial redistribution? As he sat here today- I could see the look on his face- I knew he was sorry that he ever had occasion to lead the collection of members who sit opposite, knowing their lack of integrity on electoral boundaries. One only has to mention electoral boundaries and everybody from the leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) right down nearly goes into hysterics and has a heart attack.

Honourable members will notice today how members of the Country Party spy on their Liberal colleagues. Members of the Country Party have hardly left the House today. The name of every Liberal member who has come into the chamber is in a black book. They say that the Liberal members are not with them in spirit; they have come in only to get marked off on the roster. Have a look around. You could fire a shotgun and not hit a Liberal. They are not game to come in on this issue. The survival of the Country Party depends exclusively on rigged and gerrymandered boundaries and on loaded electorates. Let us have a look at the situation. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) nearly went into hysterics when some changes were made in the boundaries of his electorate. I have not heard him cry his eyes out over the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) who represents one million square miles and who does it magnificently without complaint and to the applause of his electors.

The Country Party does not realise that the Labor Party is the largest country party in the Parliament. We have more country members than the Country Party in the Parliament. We hold more country seats than the Country Party. The largest seats in area are represented by men from this side of the Parliament who consistently espouse the policy we are putting forward of one vote one value in the community. Everybody knows that when there is one vote one value intelligent people, unless they are rigged, would not vote for the collection which is supposed to represent the country people in this Parliament. We know that a fair distribution will mean good representatives for country areas. It is interesting to note some of the changes that have been made and why the Country Party always clings to its policy on electoral reform. Members of the Country Party will not even let us know where their funds are coming from to buy their illgotten gains in this Parliament. They will not even let us know where the $25,000 they each got during the last election in Queensland came from.

Mr Corbett:

– I did not get any.

Mr DALY:

– Well, they held out on you. They reckoned they would be wasting their money but you bobbed up all the same. In this Parliament no fewer than 52 electorates of the 109 electorates in the four most heavily populated States vary from the quota at this stage by 10 per cent. Today Mitchell in Sydney has 83 941 electors and Darling 46 975, a difference of 36 966 electors. Diamond Valley has 87 522 and Wimmera 49 200, a difference of 36 322. McPherson has 94 024 electors and Maranoa 46 456. So the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) is only half as good as a Liberal. By gee, that must insult a Country Party man. He represents 47 568 fewer electors in an area twice as big. Bonython has 83 388 electors and Wakefield has 49 56 1 , a difference of 33 827. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) asked a few minutes ago, what will be the position in a year or two? Democracy will be unknown. The Country Party is opposed to the principle of one vote one value. It does not want equality of representation.

The answer to the problems of representing a country electorate is not having loaded electorates but giving country members adequate transport and travel facilites and all the things that go with representation. I must say that

Country Party representatives in this Parliament for years did nothing even to give themselves benefits, let alone give them to others. Undoubtedly the Country Party’s survival depends on an unjust and distorted system. Without a doubt not 10 per cent of the Country Party members I am looking at opposite me today would be returned to this Parliament under a fair and just electoral system. I do not say that the country would suffer. A few Liberals and a few Labor members would win these seats and the people would have good representation.

It is no wonder the members of the Country Party want the present system to continue. In 1 972 they got 9 per cent of the votes and they got 16 per cent of the power in this Parliament. Who among them would not want that system? Who would not want a system that helps an honourable member such as the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson)? He got 17 per cent of the primary vote and he was elected to this Parliament under the present system. No wonder he would want that kind of system to continue. Even that nitwit Field in another place would think it was better than the way he got into Parliament. The average enrolment of the 66 seats won by the Australian Labor Party in the 1974 elections was 63 000, the average enrolment of the 40 seats won by the Liberals was 64 000, and the average enrolment of the 21 seats won by the Country Party was 54 000.

Why would members of the Country Party not fight to the death for the present system? Why would they not spy on their colleagues today to see who is going under their neck? Why would they not pull the strings in another place? As the honourable member for Port Adelaide said, they have torn up the rule book, conventions and the democratic principles of this country. They should not complain if unionists follow the infamous example they are setting them at this level if they reject this legislation in another place. Their action at this level is typical of what they are bringing on this nation at every level.

Today no sound argument has been advanced against these proposals. In Western Australia today the Liberal-Country Party Government has produced 24 electorates the boundaries of which were drawn up by the Parliament. I understand that the Minister for Justice presented a report to the Parliament, but members of the Opposition cannot find out who drew the boundaries. There are 24 electorates, but members of the Opposition cannot find out who drew the boundaries. The Government will not tell them. This is the system that honourable members opposite want. In Western Australia under a

Liberal-Country Party Government there is being introduced today legislation which will allow for up to a fifteen to one variation in electorates in the Legislative Assembly. In Western Australia under the system that honourable members opposite support there have been 38 elections for the Legislative Council and the Liberal and Country parties have won the lot. What a remarkable coincidence under a democratic voting system. The wins are not accidents. That is the kind of system that honourable members of the Country Party want to force on this countryloaded, rigged and gerrymandered boundaries all designed to keep in power a party which cannot get a majority of the votes and which represents less than 10 per cent of the Australian people.

To their eternal discredit, the Liberals are hiding today. They have sent into the chamber one of their lightweights to put their case. He shows a fair academic knowledge of the situation, but when one has said that one has said the lot. Today Mr Fraser- the prospective Prime Minister, the Liberals call him- is hiding. In all these debates he has never been known to speak on this issue. We could not even get the former leader- I am nearly tired out from thinking who the former leaders of the Liberal Party have been- Mr Snedden, to speak. We did not see that brilliantly dressed Chamber of Commerce man, Mr Lynch, come into the chamber to defend the Liberal Party’s attitude on this matter. The Liberals are frightened of the Country Party. I do not know why they would be frightened of the Country Party because members of the Country Party have nowhere else to go but to the Liberal Party, because nobody on earth but the Liberals would have them.

In respect of these matters we would like to know today why the Liberal Party will not fight vigorously against the proposed new boundaries. Why do they not sent in their topweights if they are fair dinkum? What we would like to know is why honourable members opposite think they cannot win the votes of the Australian people and repose to a fair and just electoral system in this country. All these proposals mean is what has been said in their support by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and by that Liberal, Senator Steele Hall, in another place. Thank God there is one left there.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1535

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I do not propose to occupy very much time in this debate but the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), who seems to appreciate some of the difficulties of people in vast electorates, cannot rid himself of or shake off the obsession he has about the National Country Party of Australia. I often wonder whether he wakes up obsessed by the National Country Party. He seems to have one great obsessed desire in life and that is to eliminate us. I wonder why. He must find us effective, or something. I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the obvious difficulties, insurmountable in many respects, that one encounters in a vast electorate. I am surprised and I am finding it very difficult to understand how the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) could possibly, in all sincerity, support the proposed redistribution. He no doubt has the same sort of difficulties as I have, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) has, the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) has, and so on. I could go on naming various electorates. I could mention the vast mileage honourable members for these electorates cover in a week. If it is of any interest to the temporary honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), I travelled 5000 to 6000 miles during the recess period which has just concluded. If the honourable member for Bowman would like to tell us what he did and where he went, we could talk about what work all honourable members have done in their electorates. The honourable member could not even find his way across Coppermine Creek without a compass and a couple of guides. If he went to the far ends of Brisbane he would not find his way back. However the honourable member will not have that problem within the next so-and-so period.

Let us for a moment consider very briefly some of the difficulties which honourable members face in a huge electorate- and I am talking of an electorate of 253 000 square miles. Firstly, let us look at the value of an electorate, the value of the people who are in the frontiers of this country. Take away the beef cattle industry, even in its present low tempo, take away the mining industry, take away the sheep industry and take away the other industries that are in the vast electorates and this country would be flat broke without the help of the honourable members on the Government side. They have brought us to our knees. They have adopted the recommendations of the Coombs Report, detrimental to country areas. They have crucified every worker in the backblocks by making him pay the best part of $1 for a gallon of petrol. They have taken away the differential petroleum subsidy. They have tried to make the people of the inland areas and far flung areas second-rate citizens. But they will never break them. We will break honourable members opposite before they break us; let me tell them that.

Here is the interesting thing: The Leader of the House talked about the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard). Unfortunately it is as obvious as the nose on the face of each honourable member opposite- they look very glum faces these days, may I say- that that man has gone. Why has he gone? He has gone because of the introduction of these redistribution Bills and because, one by one, honourable members opposite have called the people of the inland areas galahs and kangaroos. They say we in the Country Party represent trees and cows. That does not go unnoticed. People know the Government is trying to reduce them to a status which would mean they would have no effective representation in this chamber at all. Let me say this to the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh): You come out to my electorate and electioneer next time. I invite you to come out and support my opposition. That would be even more valuable than Senator Keeffe moving around the electorate. Senator Keeffe has been the cause of my majority rising from 1000 to 1 1 500. You know you are gone at the next election too. I rather like you- you are a nice little fellow. We are going to miss you terribly, but you will be gone as sure as night follows day.

May I get back very briefly to the sort of difficulty we have. First of all there is the matter of travelling from point A to point B. Remember, we get the same allowance as the honourable member for Bowman, who could spit across his electorate. He could get in a taxi and cover the whole of his electorate in 35 minutes provided he did not delay to go to the dogs at Capalaba.

Mr Keogh:

– That is where I have seen you.

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– That is where I have seen the honourable member too. Honourable members representing rural electorates have a terrible financial penalty, quite apart from the time absorbing difficulty, in moving across such vast electorates. Another point is that people in a vast electorate such as Kennedy or Maronoa- the Government proposes to join them into one electorate, yet it says this is a fair redistribution- cannot go to a telephone and ring a government department. So every darn thing they want comes to us. This is how we want it. But we also want the facilities to cope with these representations.

I give the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) credit. He has helped country members considerably. But he has not gone anywhere near far enough. I wish that the Remuneration Tribunal would wake up that the average member of Parliament in this House does not want a salary rise because he loses most of it in taxation; but what we do want is some sort of acceptable allowance to be able to service the people in our areas in some sort of sane way so that we do not have to depend on a telephone to contact them.

I was particularly amused by hypocritical remarks that came from those people who are temporarily occupying the Treasury benches when they talked about other countries. There is not one great country in the western group of nations which had a voting formula of one vote one value. Does the Government claim that the United States of America has always had the one vote one value concept? Of course it did not. It required a case to be taken to the United States Supreme Court and a judicial ruling. The Government would not succeed with such a case in Australia. If it thinks it would it should wait until it receives the judgment of the High Court. Even in the United Kingdom to this day there is not the concept of one vote one value under the straggling Wilson Government. It had enough common sense to give the people some sort of a voice.

As long as the honourable members on the Opposition side of the chamber breathe, particularly in the National Country Party part of the chamber, we will resist these Bills. The Government is trying to put a cleavage between the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. It sickens the Government that we have a unity at this moment that we have never seen in the past- a complete cohesion. The Government will never drive a wedge between us. It will never convince the members of the Liberal Party that what we ask for is not just.

The final point I make is that the people in these remote areas have given their verdict. They have wiped out the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory. The elections for the Broken Hill Municipal Council cannot bring any joy to the honourable member for Darling (Mr

FitzPatrick). The Labor Party was completely wiped out at those elections. It held 1 1 seats and lost 1 1 seats. There is not one Australian Labor Party councillor on the Broken Hill Municipal Council and not one Labor Party member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We won 17 out of the 19 seats in the Legislative Assembly and the other two went to independents. The people are a wake up to the Labor Party. They will not have it on. If members of the Australian Labor Party continue to pursue the policies of the Leader of the House who is possessed with a vitriolic hatred of country people they will go the same way as the defeated candidates in the Northern Territory. This is a diabolical BUI. We will throw it out time and again as long as we are able to do so.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

-In the few moments left to me I should like to pass some kind remarks and thank the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) for the affectionate way in which he spoke about my electorate. I know the affection he has for my electorate and the amount of time he spends there and in the electorate of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson). He has the same affection for his electorate. It is a pity the people in his own electorate do not see a bit more of him. But of course we forgive him. I appreciate that he has a large electorate and it is difficult for him to cover. It is much more enjoyable for him to spend his time in the places that he is able to get around more readily and enjoy himself.

There are some important and interesting sporting facilities in my electorate that he desires to attend. He reminded me of that today. I do not take it from him. He is welcome to those facilities at any time he likes to attend them. However, I think it must be brought out that it is rather hypocritical of him to speak in this chamber today as he did about a redistribution that in all fairness seeks to give the people of Queensland equal representation. It seeks to take away the type of distribution of Federal electorates that exists in Queensland at the moment. Of course I am sure that we all admit that that type of distribution is not quite as blatant and as gerrymandering -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– It was very interesting to hear in the debate earlier the high commendation of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). Apparently the right honourable member considers that the Queensland redistribution at least is an unreasonable one because he did not vote for it. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to believe that community of interest or reasonable representation can be obtained in an electorate which runs from Mount Isa to Texas. Therefore the Opposition has every justification for not accepting the proposed boundaries. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Distribution Commissioners; anyone can make a mistake and certainly they have made a very bad one here. In the earlier discussions on a previous redistribution the Chairman of the Distribution Commissioners criticised the bringing of the electorate of Kennedy within 150 miles of Brisbane. It is now proposed to combine the electorates of Maranoa and Kennedy and to bring them even closer than that. So according to the evidence given by the Chairman of the Distribution Commissioners, a mistake was made there. I feel that because that mistake has been made the Opposition has a very good reason for rejecting the proposed boundaries in Queensland. The right honourable member for Higgins apparently recognised the mistakes that were made in Queensland.

I want to repeat something that has been said because it is worth repeating. In the United Kingdom, where the distribution of population is much more regular than it is in this country, the Labor Government there recognised that it is reasonable to have a variation in the size of electorates to allow for density and sparsity of population. But of course this Labor Government here is concerned only with its own survival. It feels that it has something to gain. It has tied the hands of the Distribution Commissioners. If it were not for that, I am sure that the Distribution Commissioners would have done a much better job in Queensland than was done on this occasion. So I believe that we have every justification for opposing these boundaries. It is the duty of a parliament, however much it might agree with the integrity of a distribution commissioner, if it feels a mistake has been made, to send the proposal back to the Distribution Commissioners so that they can rectify the errors. The essence of democracy is that the representatives of the people have a voice in these matters. If that is not to be the case, there is no point in bringing them before the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

– I move:

I would like to reply briefly to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) is on record as saying that he supports the proposals of the Government with respect to electoral redistribution. If any proof of that is wanted it can easily be obtained. I want to refer to the Queensland situation because it appears that there is not internal harmony there even in regard to State redistributions. I have here the Hansard for 1971 when a redistribution took place in Queensland. I mentioned in the House at that time that in Queensland the Liberal and Country parties were torn asunder and were at each other’s throats because of the Country Party’s proposal to perpetuate the greatest gerrymander of all time on the Queensland people. At that time 8 Liberal members crossed the floor and defeated the proposals. A compromise had to be reached and the number of seats was increased.

This is what was reported at the time:

There was uproar as the House divided. Mr Hinze (Country Party, Gold Coast) had to be restrained by Government members as he rose from his seat, waved his arms angrily and shouted at the 8 rebel Liberals. He shouted ‘Mongrels, mongrels’ and would not sit beside Mr Miller (Liberal) when Mr Miller returned to the Government benches.

Even in this Parliament a short time later the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who was the Minister for the Army at that time, spoke of the Liberals who crossed the floor in these terms: He said that traitors walked across the floor -

Mr Corbett:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that the Minister for Services and Property is not debating the Bill before the House. He is talking about a State redistribution in Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have allowed this to be a fairly free-ranging debate. I will uphold the point of order, but it means that all other honourable members will speak to the Bill and to the stage at which the Bill is before the House. If that is what the Opposition wishes, that is what we will do.

Mr DALY:

– All I was going to say was that the honourable member for Kennedy is on record as saying that traitors walked across the floor of the Parliament in Queensland and that they were traitors to the interests of the people -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

-The reference made by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) to the situation in Queensland brings me to a point which it is as well to make on this occasion, as we were reminded by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), we are discussing the Federal redistribution in Queensland. The point I want to make in respect of that redistribution is that the Liberal Party in this Parliament is being led by the nose by the National Country Party of Australia in exactly the same way as it allowed itself to be led when the redistribution to which the Minister was referring took place in Queensland in 1 97 1 . In 1 97 1 the Liberal Party in Queensland, after a valiant effort by 8 members, finally allowed itself to be completely submerged -

Mr Fisher:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the honourable member is treating your ruling with contempt.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think that he is. The debate on the third reading is confined to the contents of the Bill. If the honourable member is discussing the contents of the Bill he is in order. If he is not, he is out of order.

Mr KEOGH:

– I am drawing a comparison between the situation in Queensland in 1971 when the Liberals- it was acknowledged by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) who nodded his head -

Mr Corbett:

– I rise to take a point of order. The honourable member is referring to the Queensland State elections. You have already ruled, Mr Speaker, that they are not within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thought that the honourable member was referring to the redistribution proposals for Queensland. If he was referring to a State redistribution, he would be out of order at the third reading stage.

Mr KEOGH:

-On that occasion, exactly the same thing happened as is happening in this Parliament. The Liberal Party has been prepared to allow the Country Party- perhaps I should say the National Country Party, or the National Party in Queensland, to bring up to date the term now being used to describe that Party and its new image today- to stand over it with the result that it will reject these redistribution proposals even though members of the Liberal Party know that the redistribution is fair to their Party. The redistribution proposals as they affect Queensland would give the Liberal Party a better opportunity than it has at the moment of representing more seats than the Labor Party. Members of the Liberal Party know full well that in respect of Queensland this redistribution is a fair, honest and reasonable one.

Mr Speaker, there is no question of this fact: The National Country Party announced its attitude to this redistribution before the distribution commissioners were appointed. The National Country Party said that it knew that the basis of the redistribution was too fair for it and that the adoption of those proposals would lead to a reduction in its representation in this Parliament; therefore, it would not have any part of the proposals and would not make any submission to the distribution commissioners. Members of the National Country Party made up their minds before any action was taken that would result in new boundaries being set that they were against the redistribution because they were opposed to the fair rules set for that redistribution.

The Liberal Party kept its options open. It said that it would see what happened when the redistribution proposals were brought forward. In all honesty, the Liberal Party made a valiant effort for some time to resist the pressures of the National Country Party led by the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). Those pressures were exerted not only by Mr Anthony but also by the paranoid Premier of Queensland, who was the architect of the Queensland gerrymander. He forced his gerrymander onto the Queensland Liberals in 1971. On that occasion, the Queensland Liberals threw away all future chances of being seriously considered as a credible political Party which would ever form a government in its own right in Queensland. For political expediency, Liberal Party members in this House are now prepared to fall into exactly the same trap as their Liberal colleagues in the Queensland Parliament fell into in 1971.

Let me remind the honourable member for McPherson of what he said about the effects of the Queensland redistribution in 1 97 1 . The same may be said of the present position. He said: ‘It is electoral injustice at Country Party insistence’. On that occasion, according lo one report: !The Country Parry attitude concerning the redistribution Bill was one of political survival’, the Liberal Party State President, Mr Eric Robinson, said yesterday.

I know that if the honourable member for McPherson were given the opportunity to express his true and honest opinion and if the Liberal Party executive in Queensland were given the same opportunity to express its true and honest opinion in respect of this redistribution, they would support it. If they had been free of the pressures of the National Party in Queensland, if they had been free of the pressures that the National Country Party exerted on them on this occasion, as that Party did with respect to the Queensland redistribution proposals, in similar circumstances, they would support the redistribution. But they cannot because the National Country Party once again calls the tune.

The National Country Party says: ‘We will lose seats if this redistribution is agreed to. We will not be in any position to benefit from these redistribution proposals. Despite the fact that the proposals are fair, reasonable and honest, will not disadvantage any Party and will give reasonable representation as close as possible to the principle of one vote one value, we cannot allow you to support the redistribution’. Members of the Liberal Party have allowed themselves to be submerged and subdued by the pressures of the National Country Party on this occasion. Now and for evermore members of the Liberal Party have forsaken the opportunity in the Federal sphere of ever having any credibility as a political party able to govern in its own right, just as the Liberal Party did in Queensland. Members of the Liberal Party have acknowledged the fact that, in the future, they can never govern in their own right in this Parliament. If they want the chance to return to this side of the Parliament they must accept that they will be led by the nose by the National Country Party. There is no doubt that that is an absolute desecration of democracy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the third reading stage of the Bill has now expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 1540

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (VICTORIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I wish to say a few words on the legislation now before the House.

Mr Morris:
Mr KING:

– I hear a few groans from members of the Government. It is a pity that some Government members were not prepared to listen to reasonable reasons why both the National Country Party and the Liberal Party are opposing this legislation. Earlier this afternoon, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) gave a great oration in which he quoted a number of figures relating to various electorates. No doubt exists in my mind that the Minister is prepared to go to no end of trouble to upset the balance between the National Country Party and the Liberal Party.

Speaker after speaker has made reference to the fact that the National Country Party is taking the lead in this debate over the Liberal Party. I wish members of the Government to know that the leader in this debate for the Opposition parties is none other than the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He is a member of the Liberal Party, he is not a member of the National Country Party. He is the one who has organised the debate on this side of the chamber. I think that we can dispense with that claim by Government members.

I was rather interested to note the criticism directed at the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) when he was indicating some opposition to this legislation. I was interested to read in Hansard of 30 September 1975 an answer to a question on notice asked by the honourable member for Maranoa and replied to by the Minister for Services and Property. The Minister gave a list of the polling booths which are to be closed before the next election in each House of Representatives electoral division. The electoral division which tops the list is Maranoa. Is it any wonder that the honourable member for Maranoa is complaining? The Minister cannot get his legislation passed by another place, so he is going to make voting as inconvenient as he possibly can for country people. In the electorate of Maranoa, he intends to close no fewer than 44 polling booths.

This afternoon, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) criticised members of this side of the House. I note however that no polling booths are to be closed in the electoral division of Henty. I have not the time to spell out the number of electorates in which polling booths are to be closed, other than to repeat that the honourable member for Maranoa is to lose 44 polling booths in his electorate, while the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is to lose 4 1 polling boothsMr SPEAKER-Order! I would point out to the honourable member for Wimmera that the honourable member for Maranoa on a point of order a little while ago drew attention to the need for relevance. This debate concerns the redistribution proposals for Victoria. A debate on the situation in Queensland is out of order.

Mr KING:

– What I am referring to now are the problems associated with the various electorates. If you rule my remarks out of order, Mr Speaker, as they apply to the State of Queensland, perhaps I should talk about Victoria. After all, there are a number of electorates in that State where polling booths are to be closed. For instance, 3 1 polling booths are to be closed in the electoral division of Indi. In my seat of Wimmera, 30 will be closed. In the electorate of Corangamite, 16 polling booths will cease to operate. It is far more important, I think, that we should look at the overall picture. On a State by State basis we find that New South Wales is to lose 290 polling booths, Victoria 188, Queensland 208, South Australia 85, Western Australia 97 and Tasmania 48; a total of 916 polling booths will be closed as a result of the decision of the Minister for Services and Property. It is all very well for members of the Government to talk about the fact that they represent far more members of the community than do members of the National Country Party in the rural parts of Australia. Let us look at some of the figures. In the total metropolitan areas only 27 polling booths will be closed down, whereas in the country areas 889 booths will be closed.

Mr Corbett:

– How many?

Mr KING:

-There will be 889 booths closed down in the country areas and 27 in the metro.politan areas.

Mr Duthie:

– Why do you not give us the reasons?

Mr KING:

– We are talking about the parties, because the Minister raised this matter.

Mr Duthie:

– Why do you not give us the reasons?

Mr KING:

-All right, I will come to the reasons. The Minister raised this matter and said that the Labor Party represents more seats in the country areas than does the National Country Party. It is rather interesting to look at these figures, because of those polling booths closed down, 158 are in areas represented by Labor Party members and 758 in areas represented by Liberal and National Country Party members. The point is whether this has been a case of the Minister going through the list and indicating the areas in which he could create inconvenience to the country people. It may be that he has worked out what the proportion of closures should be and then he has issued his instructions to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer who in turn has passed on the information. I do not know whether that is right; I am just putting it forward as a possibility. Unfortunately, I have not had time to work out the number of seats affected as a result of the closing down of these polling booths, but I have worked out that only 18 seats held by the Australian Labor Party will be affected. Of the 21 seats held by the National Country Party, 20 will be affected. Evidently the only one not affected will be the seat for the Northern Territory, which I cannot see mentioned here.

I just raise these few points because I believe that supporters of the Government, including the Minister and a number of members, have given little thought, little consideration, to the problems associated with those people from country areas represented in this House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Where have you got your horse tied up?

Mr KING:

– It is all very well for the honourable member for Burke to interject and mumble in his beard. The point is, as I think the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) said earlier today, that people are entitled to fair representation. The Government as a whole has always said that it wants to give equal representation to the people of Australia and yet when it comes to the voter who happens to reside in an area outside the metropolitan area, it does not give him true and equal representation. Honourable members opposite can say all they Uke about voters being able to cast an absentee vote and aU these sorts of things on polling day, but little do they realise the problems associated with that.

Mr Duthie:

– Did you agree with that?

Mr KING:

– As a matter of fact, I would remind the honourable member for Wilmot of what actually happened in the seat of Murray, I think it was, at the last election. Because of floods the election had to be postponed for a week.

These are the sorts of little side issues about which we do not hear from members of the Government. I join with those honourable members on this side of the House who have frequently spoken against this loaded redistribution which the Government is trying to introduce. I think I can say without much fear of contradiction that when it was first announced that the seat of Wimmera would disappear my constituents have never been so much up in arms about a particular issue as they were about this one. That reaction was not confined to members of the political party of which I am a member. Rather, it came from aU sections of the community, including supporters of the Government who were very critical of the proposal.

Mr Duthie:

– Who do you blame for it.

Mr KING:

– It is not a case of who I blame. This redistribution is sought to be introduced by the present Labor Government. The formula for the redistribution was such that representation would be taken away from country people. Anyone in his right mind could see when this legislation was first introduced that the alteration to the variation in the quota would adversely affect people in country areas. The Leader of the National Country Party rightly said this afternoon that to the best of his knowledge he knows of no country in the Western world that does not have some sort of loading in favour of rural areas.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time for the second reading debate has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The speeches that we have heard on this Bill which relates to Victoria- incidentally, they have all been made by members of the National Country Party- have centred around the fact that there ought to be a difference in the representation of people who live in city areas compared with that of those who live in country areas. In fact, the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) spoke at some length about the closure of polling booths. In his remarks he singled out the electorate of Henty and said that he did not find that electorate on his list in regard to the closing of polling booths. To give the honourable member some indication of how the population in areas such as the electorate I represent is growing, I state that rather than close polling booths, three more are being opened for the next election. If the population is drifting away from the country areas but the honourable member still wants to maintain the traditional electoral boundaries, clearly he is looking to come to this place to represent open space, paddocks, sheep, haystacksanything you can name except people. The clear purpose of coming to this Parliament is to cast a conscious vote, because ostensibly, each of us represents as near as is practicable the same number of people in the community. The servicing of the electorate is a different question altogether.

At no time during the debate on the measures before the Committee has one heard the members of the Liberal Party of Australia raise a voice on them, nor did they do so when the measures were last before this place and in the other place. That gives great credence to the belief that is held by members of the community that it is the National Country Party that is again twisting the taU of the Liberal Party and bringing about something that the Liberal Party does not really want but which is of great benefit to the National Country Party. The only way in which it can maintain representation in Australia, not only in the national scene but also in the State scene, is if its member’s have very small electorates and those who opposed them represent very large, populous electorates. Of course, this is nothing new for the conservatives. They never liked elections, going back some centuries. Ever since it has been thrust upon them by the working class people that they should have elections, they have not liked that very much. But they found themselves in the position that they could not avoid elections. Ever since that time they have been devising their own little ways of holding the elections to conform with convention but making sure that the results of the elections did not tip them out of office. This is aU they have ever done. The philosophy of the conservatives is that to hold elections in this country only to determine how long they Will rule. They do not hold elections to decide who will rule; they hold elections to decide how long the conservatives will rule. We had news for them in 1972 and 1 974. Whenever the next election is held, we will have news for them again, and it will not be all good news. If this redistribution were to be agreed to- it is clear that this House agrees with it- there are sufficient sensible -

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The remarks that I wish to make in this third reading stage of the Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill are designed to put to rest, if it ought to be done, the misrepresentation which has been perpetual in this debate from the Government side regarding what it claims to be an equivocal attitude by the Liberal Party of Australia towards these redistribution Bills.

Mr Duthie:

– You are the only Liberal speaker.

Mr HOWARD:

-I am glad that my friend from Wilmot has interjected. This is precisely the point I wanted to make. If my friend from Wilmot would go back through the Hansard records of the 3 debates we have had this year on redistribution proposals, it might surprise him, the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and no doubt the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and the other experts on electoral matters who sit opposite to find that the very first person to express the Opposition’s attitude to these electoral proposals was none other than the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who happens to be a member of the Liberal Party of Australia and Leader of the Opposition. He laid down the position. He made it quite clear what the joint attitude of the Opposition parties was to these proposals. If I remember rightly, on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition endeavoured to persuade the Government that we should have a cognate debate on all the proposals which, of course, would have been a sensible course to have adopted on that occasion. But because of the fractious attitude taken by the Leader of the House on that occasion, the Government used its weight of numbers to prevent a cognate debate. It is only now when the Leader of the House is getting a little tired of the argument that he is agreeable to have a cognate debate.

Government supporters come into this House and say that the Liberal Party is not interested in the matter and that there are great benefits in this redistribution for the Liberal Party. I would like them to repeat that sort of statement in the presence of the Liberal Party candidates for all the marginal seats in Melbourne that we will win at the next election. I would like them to repeat this statement in the presence of the Liberal Party candidates for the marginal seats in Sydney that we will win at the next election. The Liberal Party is very directly and very significantly affected by these redistribution proposals, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney. The Government’s tactic during this debate has been a very clear one. It has tried to use the old scratchy record of creating mischief and division between the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. It has tried to use this totally fallacious argument that the Liberal Party has been reluctantly suborned into opposing these measures. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The attitude of the Liberal Party organisation towards these proposals, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria where they are most damaging to the Liberal Party, is quite clear and unambiguous. The proposals that were submitted by the Liberal Party organisation to the distribution commissioners acknowledges that the joint Opposition parties have consistently taken an attitude on redistribution. We opposed the alterations to the Electoral Act which were passed during the Joint Sitting. There is nothing inconsistent with what we have done either jointly or severally in respect of redistribution. We have maintained a united attitude. I can understand the attitude of my colleagues in the National Country Party, particularly those of people like the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) whose seat will disappear. Of course one can understand the attitude of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). There is a manic preoccupation in the ranks of the Government with regard to country representation in this House.

Mr Kelly:

– They hate the farmers.

Mr HOWARD:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield said, they hate the farmers.

Mr Daly:

– I am a country boy.

Mr HOWARD:

-Even though the Minister for Services and Property may have come from Currabubula, his heart is very much in Marrickville. The truth of the matter is that this tactic of the Government to try to divide the Opposition parties on this issue has been a miserable abysmal failure. The Liberal Party is a wake-up to these redistribution proposals. We recognise that it is not the tip of the iceberg that matters; that it is not the icing on the cake that matters; but it is what is below the surface of these redistribution proposals which is bad news for the Liberal Party and for the Opposition in general. That is why we are opposing these redistribution proposals. For the Minister or any of his colleagues to come into this House and suggest that we are being suborned, led by the nose, over-borne or acting in accordance with other epithets which Government supporters might throw at us, is absolute nonsense.

Mr Hunt:

– It is a heap of garbage.

Mr HOWARD:

– As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) says, it is a heap of garbage. Our attitude was made clear in this House. The first person to enunciate the Opposition’s attitude was the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wannon. That ought to put at rest completely this phoney argument that the Government has tried to advance during the course of this debate. The truth is that the Government is frantic to have these new boundaries. It is a matter of some interest not only to me but to other members of the Opposition that when the provisional parliamentary program was circulated for this week, the information we were given was that the Estimates were to be debated for the whole of the week. The idea was that there were not going to be any second reading debates on the redistribution proposals but that we were going to get rid of the Estimates. Then out of the blue came these redistribution proposals. The preoccupation of this Government with regard to electoral matters is something quite amazing.

The Hansard reports of this Parliament since the honourable member for Grayndler has been the Minister in charge of electoral matters are absolutely chock-a-block full of debate on electoral matters. The Minister has sought on 3 occasions to put through redistribution proposals. He has tried on multiple occasions to amend the Electoral Act in every conceivable fashion. The Government does not Uke the present electoral system in Australia, notwithstanding the fact that that electoral system gave to the Government a majority in 1972 and 1974. It was a majority that I am prepared to say the Government was entitled to receive because it polled a majority of votes. Nobody who believes in substantial democracy could ever argue otherwise.

The Government was elected twice on the present boundaries. If Government supporters are worth their salt, they will be re-elected on those same boundaries the next time the people of Australia have an opportunity to pass judgment. But Government supporters know very well that they are not worth their salt at present and the people of Australia will not return them on the next occasion. That is why the Minister for Services and Property and his colleagues are so frantic to have these boundaries. Let us put to rest the phoney attempts by the Government to create division and mischief between the Opposition parties. That division and mischief does not exist. We are jointly opposed to these boundaries. We will jointly vote against them here and we will jointly defeat them in another place.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has recently issued an interesting Press statement dated 1 1 September. It contains information on the population growth changes that has recently become available to his Department. It states:

Mr Uren said that the non metropolitan areas of Australia had increased their share of national growth, and in 1973-74 had experienced a rapid rise in absolute population growth. ‘The latest data available for analysis by the Department of Urban and Regional Development suggest an increasing exercise of preference for locations away from the major metropolitan regions of Sydney and Melbourne’, Mr Uren said.

He goes on to say: ‘In 1966-71 Sydney absorbed 73.2 per cent of the State’s population growth, and in 1 97 1 -74 this fell to 63.3 per cent

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the BUI has expired. The question is ‘That the Bill be now read a third time ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

BUI read a third time.

page 1544

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 September on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I rise to refute a statement made during a debate on a previous BUI by the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) who clearly was quite confused about a letter that was submitted in protest against the redistribution proposals for the State of New South Wales. He quoted the letter but clearly did not know that Collarenebri was in his own electorate. That just demonstrates the difficulty that members of Parliament have in trying to represent electorates of that size. The honourable member for Darling read out a letter which was signed by Mrs Marcia Badgery, a woman I know extremely well and a woman who happens to live in the electorate of Darling. Her address is ‘Alpha’, Collarenebri. The letter is dated 10 March 1975 and is addressed to the Distribution Commissioners, Australian Electoral Office, 162-166 Goulburn Street, Darlinghurst 2010. She is a very fine woman, a very temperate woman, but a woman who is concerned about the way in which this Government has been performing. She is also concerned about these sorts of redistributions which will disadvantage her, her family and her friends even more than they are disadvantaged today. She writes:

Dear Sir,

I should like to complain about the size of suggested alteration of the Gwydir Electorie. It is far to big for any member to cover and find out what the electors want.

She is referring to the proposed new electorate of Gwydir. She goes on:

We in this area have only seen our member once -

That is the honourable member for Darlingsince it was last altered;

It was in my electorate. When Collarenebri was in my electorate I was a very frequent visitor there and saw this woman frequently about many problems which they had in that area. She went on to say: and he never seems to take any notice of what we want in this area.

Mr Kelly:

– Who was that?

Mr HUNT:

– It is the honourable member for Darling. He is a friend of mine and a neighbour. He does work hard over a tremendous area but clearly he does not go to Collarenebri very often because he does not know that Collarenebri is in his electorate. She continues:

We have had the worst open throated locust plague that has been known. This area the worst of anywhere, and our member has not had time to come and see us. So if the Gwydir electorate is made bigger, it would be just impossible for any one man to keep in touch with his electors.

My friend, the honourable member for Darling, in selecting that letter out of those that are published in the collection of comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners for New South Wales clearly thought that she was referring to me as the honourable member for Gwydir and assumed that Collarenebri was still in my electorate. I think that demonstrates the futility of a government trying to pursue a poliCY of achieving this elusive one vote one value concept. The Minister is an intelligent man and he knows that there is no way in the world that he can achieve this concept. The only possible way of achieving a one vote one value concept is to have a census today, a redistribution tomorrow and an election the next day. With the mobility of population, it is absolutely impossible to achieve this elusive concept. Clearly the Government is not interested in pursuing it to its ultimate conclusion. It has decided to have a redistribution because it can see that under the existing boundaries, it needs a better redistribution than the ones it now has to stay in power. Let me look at the present situation. In 1972 the Labor Party polled 49.6 per cent of the vote but won 52.8 per cent of the seats, and that was under the former Liberal-Country Party Government redistribution. What sort of weighting does the Labor Party want? I Will tell honourable members what sort of weighting the Labor Party wants. In 1974 Labor polled 49.3 per cent of the vote but won 52 per cent of the seats. It is now pursuing this redistribution. It is getting scared. The Labor Party is scared. It has talked itself into an election. It has talked the people into an election and if it does not watch out it will talk us into an election.

Mr Garrick:

– What percentage did you get?

Mr HUNT:

-I got 57.8 per cent and if your Party can achieve that percentage at the next election it will have done well. The redistribution proposals that the Labor Party is now putting to us under the criteria that it has laid down would bring about a situation in which Labor would win with a majority of five if it polled 45 per cent of the total Australian vote.

Mr Howard:

– That cannot be right.

Mr HUNT:

– That is correct. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) looks absolutely shocked. I know that the Minister for Services and Property knows about this because, as I said earlier, he is an intelligent man and he knows what he is about. The Labor Party is lucky to have the Minister really and, the way things are going, it might need more than him. Under this redistribution the Labor Party would win with a majority of five after polling 45 per cent of the vote instead of a majority of five after having polled 49.3 per cent of the overall vote.

Mr Kelly:

– That is what it is trying to do.

Mr HUNT:

– Exactly. The honourable member for Wakefield has clearly understood what this whole exercise is about. The Minister made some grandstanding statements about the Labor Party. He said it represented more rural seats than the Country Party and it represented more rural people.

Mr Daly:

– That is right, too.

Mr HUNT:

– That is nonsense because the truth of the matter is that the Labor Party holds ten of what we might call rural seats, the Country Party holds 2 1 seats, and the Liberal Party holds 14 seats.

Mr Daly:

– That is not right.

Mr HUNT:

-It really does. There are 45 rural seats. I suppose the Minister is going to call Mitchell a rural seat.

Mr Daly:

– I am going to call them rural seats if the member gets a country allowance.

Mr HUNT:

-That is another Caucus racket. Let us be fair. Labor represents only 3 rural seats in New South Wales. It represents no rural seats in Victoria and at the rate it is going it will represent none in New South Wales.

Mr Daly:

– We represent rural seats- seats for which an allowance is paid to a country member.

Mr HUNT:

– You are only talking about trees and haystacks. Let us talk about people. The Australian Labor Party, having reached a situation through kicking rural people in the teeth, now knows that it has lost faith with those people. Clearly it is setting out to achieve a redistribution that does erode the voting strength of people in rural areas. It is clear that Labor could not care less about these people. To illustrate what has happened, in the electorate of Gwydir 24 polling booths have been abolished by the Minister. I would like to know how many polling booths in Australia -

Mr Lloyd:

– Nine hundred and seventeen throughout Australia

Mr HUNT:

– Nine hundred and seventeen polling booths have been abolished throughout Australia. Who was that designed to advantage? This is designed to advantage the people who support the Labor Party. This is designed to disadvantage the people who support the nonLabor parties. Let us get things into perspective. We know why we are here. Worse still, I know why we are here debating this measure. It is because the Government is scared of its future and it feels that this measure might save it should it get through the Senate. There are 4 sound reasons for opposing this legislation. The first is that the legislation providing for this redistribution is under challenge before the High Court. As the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) has said, the Government is almost in contempt of the Court.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The time allotted for the second reading debate on this Bill has now expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 0

Majority …….. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-During my remarks in the second reading of the Bill I make reference to a Press statement issued by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) in which he said:

The latest data available for analysis by the Department of Urban and Regional Development suggest an increasing exercise of preference for locations away from the major metropolitan regions of Sydney and Melbourne.

He continued:

It is also significant that despite the high level of population growth in Queensland in recent years, the share absorbed into the Moreton area and Brisbane actually declined after 1971.

This indicated substantial increases in population in nonmetropolitan Queensland.

The Minister went on to say:

The relative performance of Sydney and Melbourne suggests a changing pattern of social preference and relative attractiveness which is favouring non-metropolitan areas and the smaller capitals.

It is interesting in the light of information which is available to the Department of Services and Property and presumably to the Distribution Commissioners and the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), that all the country electorates, with the exception of Farrer and New England, are rated above quota. In the case of Calare the figure is .22 per cent above and in my own electorate it is 4.56 per cent above. This is the pattern in other country electorates.

The electorate of Hume, which takes in part of the growth centre of Bathurst-Orange, has the largest enrolment in the State of New South Wales, 65 625. This gives some indication of the confidence that the Government has in its decentralisation proposals. That is one point that I wanted to make in this debate. The other point is that if we look at the situation that exists in the United States of America, it is interesting to note the results of a survey of congressional districts taken in the 1970s. Each State in that country is divided into a number of congressional districts and each district within each State is held very, very closely to the same size within the State. Let us look at some of the figures of variations between the States. In the State of Connecticut, for instance, the size of the electoral districts is about 505 000. In Idaho the size of electoral districts is 356 000; in Oregon, 523 000; in South Dakota, 333 000; in Utah, 530 000; in Montana, 347 000; and in North Dakota, 618 000. In Washington D.C. itself the size of electoral districts is 757 000; in Alaska it is 307 000.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

I wish to make a few comments at this stage on what was said by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). He was formerly Minister in charge of the department dealing with electoral redistribution and consequently he has a knowledge of a matter that probably is not available to other members. I notice that he offered no criticism of the Distribution Commisioners, their appointment or their integrity generally. No criticism has been levelled at them either inside or outside this Parliament in respect of their appointment, so it must be understood that all accept the integrity of those concerned. Therefore to challenge these boundaries on the basis that the Commissioners are partial will hardly bear substance in the light of the general support for the Commissioners appointed.

The significant point about this- and this is where the whole case of the member for Gwydir collapses- is that even before the boundaries were announced or had been decided the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) said: ‘The Opposition will oppose them to a man’. In other words, the honourable member was not prepared even to look at the boundaries. Today I heard criticism as to why they were not referred back to the Commissioners. Why would they be referred back when the Leader of the National Country Party has said that under no circumstances would they be accepted at all. Despite what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) said, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has never spoken in this Parliament on these Bills.

Mr Howard:

– He has.

Mr DALY:

– He has made speeches outside, no doubt, but not in this Parliament. It is interersting to note that nobody doubts the principle involved. An article which appeared in the Age of Thursday, 22 May, under the heading ‘Liberals opt for electoral folly ‘ stated:

In determining their attitude to the proposed redistribution of Federal electoral boundaries, members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party had the option of adopting two approaches. They could have asked themselves: is this redistribution fair and equitable and in accordance with democratic principle? To which the honest answer would have been- Yes! Or they could have pondered: does this redistribution serve our long-term political interests? In which case the wise answer would also have been Yes! The Liberals made a decision which was neither honest nor wise: they decided to oppose the redistribution. In doing so, they opted for a marginal short-term political advantage and for mockery of electoral justice. The main beneficiary of this aberration will be neither the Liberal Party nor the people of Australia, but the National Country Party.

Mr Hunt:

-Who said that?

Mr DALY:

– The Age said that, which proves that people all over this country have given the National Country Party away so far as electoral justice is concerned but they expected better from the Liberal Party and its high-sounding principles. That paper supports their views. A former leader and Prime Minister of this country, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) has voted in this Parliament in support of these proposals. In another place Senator Steele Hall, who is not a member of this Party and a long way from it, has said that this is electoral justice and if anything favoured the Liberal Party in the States. In addition to that, Mr Mackerras, the darling of the Liberal Party, said that they are the fairest boundaries ever presented to an Australian Parliament and consequently the reasons for opposing them today are difficult to follow. It is said that we are opposed to country representation, that we seek to reduce it. We on this side of the Parliament believe, as do all democrats, that the value of a man’s vote should not depend on where he lives. We believe Australians are equal everywhere.

Mr Hunt:

– What about Tasmania?

Mr DALY:

– As the honourable member knows, that it constitutionally a totally false argument to put forward because Tasmania must have a minimum of 5 seats under the Constitution irrespective of the numbers that live there. Therefore that comparison does not hold water. In addition the Labor Party believes that people everywhere are equal in respect of their votes and the domicile of a person should not give him twice, three times or fifteen times the voting power- as is the case in Western Australia under a Liberal-Country Party Government- of another man who lives in the city. Honourable members opposite say they represent people. The Labor Party believes that members of this Parliament represent people and not trees, haystacks, acres or things of that nature. Therefore the size of electorates should be determined on the number of people. Consequently we are endeavouring to give electoral justice by seeing that members of this Parliament do represent people.

It is no good saying that we have not a mandate for this legislation. We fought two elections on it and it has been carried by the joint sitting of this Parliament; that cannot be denied. How many more times must persons on this side of the House bring to this Parliament the question of one vote one value and be told that there is no mandate for it? The Country Party is opposed not only to this legislation but also to every semblance of electoral reform, even to a draw for positions on the ballot paper which members of the Country Party say is designed to ensure and enshrine a Labor Government in office for ever. Did honourable members ever hear anything so silly? Even Mr Lewis in New South Wales, who our forefathers never realised would be leading a State, has even brought this proposal forward. There are other matters, including the disclosure of funds. I will not go over them all. It does not matter whether we are considering electoral boundaries or the way names appear on a ballot paper, the Country Party is opposed to it and the Liberal Party tags along.

We heard the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) speak of the great things the Country Party is doing in regard to electoral matters. In all the time I have been in the Parliament the Country Party brought in one Bill which did not attempt to gerrymander certain boundaries by giving instructions to the Electoral Commissioners. That was in 1 965. The proposal was never proceeded with because in the middle of it all a hell of a battle broke out in Queensland over redistribution and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who was the Minister in charge of electoral matters at the time went for cover. When we brought in his proposals later he even lined up and voted against them in this House. This indicates the position. The Country Party in Queensland has a disgraceful record for gerrymandering. In New South Wales it is the same. In Western Australia the Labor Party will have to get 54 per cent of the votes to win. In addition to that for 30 years in South Australia Mr Playford never had a redistribution of electoral boundaries. We find today that the Country Party seeks to perpetuate this system in

Australia, We will see that the electoral proposals are ultimately carried out even if we have to fight for them in the courts. (Quorum formed). Every time someone gets on to the truth and gets under the skin of members of the Country Party and their cohorts in regard to their weak approach to this problem they run for cover.

I want also to refer to country polling booths. It is true that a number has been abolished. In the vast majority of cases there were no objections whatever from the members concerned. I will go further and say that I believe that people these days ought to be able to travel a few miles to vote. I can see no reason for maintaining at great expense polling places throughout areas where people probably will drive 20 miles to have a beer on a Saturday afternoon but will not go in to vote. I give honourable members opposite a warning: There is worse to come. A few more country polling booths will go. We are saving money. We are in the middle of an economy drive. We are taking the advice of honourable members opposite and the best way to do so is to cut out a few country polling booths. The opposition to this Bill collapses when one studies the unsavoury record of honourable members opposite on electoral reform. This legislation has the endorsement of the Australian people and of the joint sitting of this Parliament. Come hell or high water ultimately, even if the courts decide so, the proposals will become the law of the land.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time for the debate on the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 1549

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HOWARD:

– Yes. During his concluding remarks the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) misrepresented a statement I had made and I merely draw his attention to page 2555 of Hansard dated 21 May 1975 which clearly indicates that the first contribution made in this debate on behalf of the Opposition was by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr FitzPATRICK:
Darling

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Yes. During the debate the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said that I had claimed that he was not in his electorate. I want to correct the impression I may have given. I read a letter from a woman living at Collarenebri. She wrote about the honourable member’s new electorate, but she was referring to me. The honourable member for Gwydir will understand that I was not referring to him if he reads the statement I made. I said I used all my chartered flight allowance to go to Collarenebri to see the spur throated locusts. That clearly indicated that I knew the woman was speaking about me. I went up there again to see the hospital. I would not say that the honourable member for Gwydir was not in his electorate because I have been out there with him on several occasions. Of course I knew he was there. The point I make is that I was not making an attack on the honourable member for Gwydir. I do not think any member of this House could ever accuse me of making a personal attack on anyone.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes. In the light of the personal explanation of the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick), I apologise to him if I offended him. I did think he was making an attack on the honourable member for Gwydir and I thought he had misunderstood the purpose behind the writing of the letter to which he referred. He is a jolly good neighbour and I feel that would not be Uke him. I think this clears the air on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest you can now discuss it in a more convivial atmosphere.

page 1550

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 30 September. Second Schedule.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $58,790,000.

Department of Police and Customs

Proposed expenditure, $98,785,000.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

- Mr Chairman, speaking to these estimates I would Uke to emphasise to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) that with regard to the Government’s grandiose scheme of uniting the

Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory police forces, the Northern Territory people, the Northern Territory police, and, I am certain, the ACT police, and I agree that this amalgamation will not work. It is supposed to be an economy measure. It is supposed to assist with various logistic supplies for the force. But when it gets down to the front Une man, the policeman, it is very unsatisfactory indeed.

I might add that 2 reports have been presented by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory about constitutional development in the Northern Territory and the Government has so far done nothing whatsoever about instituting any constitutional development in the Northern Territory. The Territory witnesses appearing before that Committee were unanimous that the police function should be transferred to the Territory Executive. The opposite case was presented by the Attorney-General’s Department but the Committee considered that the Territory Executive should be responsible for the enforcement of State-type laws. In my view the Territory executive should have executive responsibility over those laws. That is, it should be responsible for the major function of running the police force. The Committee recommended that the police function should be shared, but the main part of running it should be held in the Northern Territory. I would point that out to the Minister and urge him with his colleagues to do something about introducing what was recommended by the report of the Committee.

Whilst I am on my feet I would Uke to ask the Minister why the Commissioner for the Northern Territory Police Force had his name deleted from the Australian delegation to the 1975 general assembly of Interpol. The Northern Territory police and Northern Territorians consider that the deletion is an insult and it is denigrating the Commissioner of our police force and the people in the Northern Territory whom the police look after in their turn, and we in ours. So I ask the Minister what he is going to do about that. This continual denigration of the Northern Territory is a terrible thing. We are made second class citizens and obviously considered as such by this Minister and by bis Government.

In view of the happenings to our near north I urge this Government to look once again at instituting a special branch of the Northern Territory police force. It was removed without real explanation. I have asked questions about it and have not received a satisfactory explanation. We in the Territory feel that there should be a force inquiring and taking unto itself information prior to happenings, rather than waiting for things to happen and then trying to do something about them.

I ask the Minister and the Government- I have already done so in telegrams I sent a week or so ago- whether they realise how serious the situation is on the former missions- settlements and towns they are now- throughout the Northern Territory with the problem that arises through disorderly behaviour, drunkenness and so on. Once again I would draw the Government’s attention to the situation at Oenpelli and the urgent need and demand for police from that settlement, as well as from Goulburn Island, Milingimbi and Elcho Island. These are communities and it is the responsibility of this Government to do something about them. I would like to hear from the Minister on that aspect. There are other places throughout the Territory which need similar support with regard to their community life.

In the last few minutes available to me on this matter I once again urge this Government to assent to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Bill on drunkenness which was thrown out, with some severe criticism, quite ignorantly by this Government which claimed that the Bill was racist and so on. This Bill would assist not only the Aborigines, who are the main offenders, but everyone concerned. It would assist the police and the citizenry. The Bill provides that there should be sobering up centres. When the law regarding drunkenness was taken off the statute book the Government said that it would replace the practice of having people arrested for drunkenness by providing a pick up service and a sobering up service with social security sort of assistance.

Nothing whatsoever has happened. So we have numerous people who are drunk and disorderly and dangerous and offering violence, and often carrying on far worse than that, in centres throughout the Territory. The police are powerless to do anything about it under the law. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly introduced and passed a sound Bill in which the police were provided with 3 choices of action. Firstly, they could drive the offender home, although why they should be expected to turn on this pick up service when the Government promised so to do I do not know. That was the first choice provided by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Bill. The second choice was to take the offender to what was then referred to as a detoxification centre. It is now referred to by most people as a sobering up centre. The Bill recommended that the people picked up for drunkenness should spend 6 hours in such a centre before being released. When we asked certain Aboriginal leaders about this they said: ‘Why not 12 hours? We think it would be better. ‘ I suggest that this Government and this supposedly wise Attorney-General take some notice of some of the people with experience who know about these things, whether they happen to be inside Parliament or outside.

The third choice available to the police was the right to arrest a person for drunkenness. I want to know why that Bill has not been assented to. It is sound and it is recognised as being sound. I cannot understand why this Government does not assent to it and stand behind the Northern Territory Police Force, or any police force. That is what the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) is supposed to do.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Order! Even with an added minute, the honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-In rising to speak on the appropriation for the Department of the Attorney-General I wish to direct my remarks to expenditure on the Australian Legal Aid Office. It is almost an axiom to say that people are equal under the law but this is true only if people have equal access to the law or are able to afford to take the matter to the court to gain justice. At the moment the battle between the ordinary person and big governments, big business or the wealthy is often akin to a battle between David and Goliath. Equal access can be obtained with legal aid and the Australian Government has established the ALAO to ensure equal access under the law. I will not rely on alleged prejudices or hopes of this Government but on facts and research to support the Government’s intention to continue to provide access to the law to all those who require it and especially to those who normally could not afford it.

I turn for support to a survey carried out by Australian National Opinion Polls during May 1975 in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It was a broad-ranging study aimed at deriving information on the implications of legal aid in this country and whether it was actually necessary. Results showed a high awareness of the existence of the Australian Legal Aid Office despite the fact that legal aid at the national level is a new concept. It is an initiative of this Government. Awareness is due to 2 main factors- the way it operates and how it has been advertised. It is interesting to note that the operation of the Australian Legal Aid Office is not in some obscure, out of the way, hidden high rise office block but operates on the shop front principle where it is easily accessible, identifiable and relevant to ordinary people.

The Australian Government also carried out an extensive advertising program to bring the Australian Legal Aid Office and legal aid to the attention of ordinary people. We used television in a very effective, communicable program. We also advertised extensively, as a supplement, through the Australian Women’s Weekly. Yet this Government was criticised strongly by the Opposition for spending money on advertising the service. Of course, it dressed its criticism up differently and argued that we were advertising our policy with taxpayers’ funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were advertising a service provided by public money and it is an obvious thing that if one is to use the taxpayer’s money he should be aware that it is available to him, that the service provided by taxpayers’ money is there and what it can do. It is not criticism that we merited; surely it was a pat on the back. The survey also showed that the need for the Australian Legal Aid Office was recognised by nearly everyone interviewed. I seek to incorporate in Hansard an extract from that poll to make this point.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr LAMB:

– I thank the Committee. Clearly a problem that the Australian Legal Aid Office will not face is the need to convince the Australian community of the desirability of the establishment itself. These results are quite extraordinary in the magnitude of the recognition of need itself. Seldom do research figures show such massive convergence on an issue. More than nine in ten, or 94 per cent, of those interviewed do see a need for the Australian Legal Aid Office. There are a few pockets in the community where the need is perceived as not so great. There is perhaps a slight tendency for the better educated to perceive a greater need, but the variations are not big. Indeed variations are not apparent at aU across age, sex and, importantly, are not apparent across the political Party support groupings. If there is an isolated group not prepared to acknowledge the need for the Office then it may well be simply those who have not heard of it. Whereas 96 per cent of those already claiming awareness of the ALAO acknowledge the need for it, only 80 per cent of those unaware of it did likewise. It appears valid to suggest that resistance to the concept of the ALAO decreases as the knowledge of its operation increases.

Certainly it would seem that the best way of breaking down potential resistance to the principle is simply to tell the people all about it. But as I said, the Opposition opposes giving this information to the taxpayers about how their taxpaying money is spent. This recognition of need is almost universal. Yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his speech on the Budget promised to dismantle it to save the public expenditure of $8.7m while depriving persons in need, disadvantaged persons, of the advice and assistance that they could have. This service would save the persons in need millions of dollars and thousands of hours of “worry and concern, and yet he claims a saving of $ 16.7m. I said $8. 7m because, $7m is included in that amount to go to legal practitioners in the private sector and $ 1 m for States to supplement legal aid systems there.

The honourable member for Wannon is typical in his action of the elitist laissez-faire philosophy which guides so many of the actions of the present Liberal leader. It is an insensitive promise inspired by vested interests which take no account of the many thousands of people who would be denied access to the law and legal remedies simply because they could not afford the service of lawyers. Inquiries to the ALAO’s 30 offices throughout Australia are running at 10 000 a month and the rate is increasing. The offices handle hundreds of problems daily in the fields of family law, hire purchase agreements, landlord and tenant disputes, motor vehicle accidents, criminal law and police offences. What does the Leader of the Opposition propose should happen to these people in need? Are they to be left to the mercy of unscrupulous business operators? Are they to be consigned for economic reasons to broken marriages, unjust penalties, under-representation in the courts? Are they to be told that there is nothing we can do when their homes, their marriages or their livelihoods are threatened?

It is important that the people of Australia know just how out of step is the thinking of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the Australian Legal Aid Office. The plan of destruction is supported by a plan of obstruction, an obstruction in the way of a challenge by private lawyers in the High Court on constitutional grounds, grounds which mask the real objection by those conservative elements. The reasons they claim are allegedly depriving private solicitors of work; creating an over-burdened legal system, such that personalised service and standards will suffer; also naturally, being part of a Labor Government’s alleged program of intervention into private professions. This is the Medibank struggle all over again. These are the same arguments put up against 2 popular initiatives of this Government- Medibank and community health programs. The lawyers’ fears will prove to be as groundless as those of the genera! practitioners.

Just as the community health services have taken the excess load off the GP and mainly serviced those who normally would not have gone to a doctor through not being able to pay, so it is with the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Legal Aid Office has dealt with people who would not normally have gone to a lawyer and often has referred cases to lawyers and barristers to handle in the private sector. All law societies in Australia accept the need for a government financed legal aid service. The Australian Legal Aid Office will co-operate, not compete, with private lawyers. It is time that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition recognised these facts. The survey showed that most people see the Australian Legal Aid Office as being mainly concerned with providing legal aid to disadvantaged peoplethose financially not so well off- that assistance mainly being restricted to marital problems, property, rent and eviction matters. This is not a true picture. It is not the entire picture. The Australian Legal Aid Office will also provide legal aid for the culturally and socially disadvantaged, for migrants as well as community groups and for the inarticulate. I seek leave to incorporate another table in Hansard indicating the types of service and the number of calls upon those services at Victorian offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

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

Mr LAMB:

-The table indicates the low call on legal aid for environmental matters. Let me illustrate with an example the misunderstanding about what legal aid is and its availability for environmental matters. Recently the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) announced that assistance to the value of about $5,000 to $6,000 would be given to a woman at Ferntree Gully to fight against quarry operations which were allegedly despoiling the environment and encroaching onto the communal rights of nearby residents. In requesting assistance she was representing not only local residents but also a conservation group. The local council in whose shire the quarry operated discussed the assistance and some councils objected to the Australian Government interfering with what was a State and local government matter. It should be noted that this council had co-operated with the State Government to evolve a quarry plan in their area- the Dandenongs- which would allegedly bring minimum despoliation to the area through necessary quarry operations. The interpretation was that the Australian Government interfered in areas outside its concern and it sided with the woman and the environmentalists, whereas the facts were that after the woman had established that she had a prima facie case against the quarry company she required legal assistance, to take her case to the court. The Australian Government did not have an opinion on the matter in question.

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

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I want to address some remarks to the enforcement of the Constitution and the law generally in the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. I think it is true to say that the federal system is at as low an ebb today as it has ever been. It has been mentioned constantly in debate in recent days. There seems to be an ideological battle going on aU the time between centralists and State lighters- those who think that all power should be at the centre and those who think that for some reason the States have some inalienable rights. Mr Deputy Chairman, this argument has proved to be futile and unproductive and without any benefit to our people. Basically, the blame for this lies at the feet of this Government. No doubt the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) will not say ‘Hear, hear’ now. What we have in this country today is a situation of confrontation, not co-operation. The purpose of the Opposition’s policy in federalism is to repair the Federation and to bring back a little bit of sanity and co-operation into it

It seems to be impossible for any level of government these days to achieve co-operation. The Attorney-General himself should be deeply involved in the upholding of the Constitutionand the Constitution is a federal Constitution. It means a federation. It means there will be States. It means that State powers will exist and Commonwealth powers will exist. It means that there will be a High Court and that the High Court will be an arbiter. When some allege breach of convention, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam), the Attorney-General and others in the Government are very quick to complain. They have a list of double dissolution Bills that they are continuously piling up. Yet if they are bona fide about their attitude to what the Senate is doing they have a ready solution in their hands, and that is to go to the people if they wish. But of course they will not. What they are doing is simply using it as an excuse, all the time abusing the Senate when in reality if there was anything in those Bills that was preventing this Government from governing they could go to the people and have the question decided.

The general attitude of the Attorney-General and of this Government is one of contempt for the Constitution. There has been a continuous abuse of the States. The Attorney-General takes the view, I think, that if he believes the States do not exist they will suddenly disappear- that if he acts as if they are not there they will disappear. People who dare to go to the High Court and attack legislation are abused. What is the High Court there for if it is not to deal with the question of whether a piece of legislation or an Act of the Government is constitutional? Since I became a member of Parliament, I have been gravely concerned about a number of matters that have occurred where the law officers have been involved. There was an occasion last year when the Builders Labourers Federation delivered threats against builders that if they proceeded with a matter in the High Court the Federation would create industrial trouble. This matter was brought to the attention of the then Attorney-General and he did nothing about it. If ever there was a serious and grave contempt of the High Court, that was it.

Earlier this year- I have already spoken on it- we had the loans affair, which was a gross contempt of the Constitution and a gross abuse of the fundamental constitutional principle. I said then, and I repeat it, that no honest man could have given the advice that was given on that occasion. Notwithstanding what has happened since, I am in no way convinced that the advice that was given on the night of 13 December was honest advice. Until there is a full inquiry into the matter I particularly will not be convinced. Nor will I be taken aback by the statements of the Prime Minister that he acted on the advice of the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department. I do not believe that there was any such advice. I believe that if it existed it would be produced.

The third thing, and the latest, is the resort to consitutional anarchy that has been suggested recently. It has been said that an appropriation Bill does not need the assent of the Senate. All I can say to that is: ‘What nonsense; what complete nonsense!’ I could, of course, refer to what the Attorney-General said; I will not take the time to say it.

Mr Enderby:

– I have never said it.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– What he said was this: … the more the situation and the solution I would offer, or the advice I would give, tallies with common sense and that is that an Opposition in an Upper House, an Upper House where the Government does not reside, should not, and indeed it cannot- it can indeed be said that if it does it’s constitutionally improper- refuse a money Bill that the Government needs to carry on a Government of the country.

That is what he said.

Mr Enderby:

– Those are the words of Sir Isaac Isaacs.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– That is what the AttorneyGeneral said. Those are his words, and no lawyer in this country has come to his aid- not Professor Howard, who is an assistant in his Department, not Professor Sawer who is not noted for his conservative views, not Senator Everett, not Gareth Evans. Nobody. And where is the SolicitorGeneral’s opinion on that matter? I suggest that here again we have not advice which is independent and responsible, and I suggest that the attitude of an Attorney-General in a government and before this Parliament has to be one of independence and responsibility.

I want to test the Attorney-General with another matter tonight. I refer to the third report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum- a report that has been in the hands of this Government since 19 September 1975. The contents of this document are very serious. The report reveals something just a little more than deceit of a Minister of this Parliament. The report at least reveals that there may have been a breach of the Crimes Act by Mr Souter and other directors of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. I would like the assurance of the Attorney-General tonight that he is causing inquiries to be made into the question whether there has been a breach of section 29a, sub-section (2) of the Crimes Act, or of some other provision of the Crimes Act of a State. The Commonwealth Act provides in that section:

Any person who, with intent to defraud, by any false pretence, causes any benefit to be given by the Commonwealth to any person, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

This is a very serious matter. One has only to read some sections of the report to appreciate that fact for example, in paragraph 15.4 of the third report, the Royal Commission states:

The Commission finds that the directors of ACTU-Solo other than Mr Hawke, initiated and carried through a course of conduct designed to mislead and deceive the Minister for Minerals and Energy. As to Mr Hawke, the Commission makes no finding. The role played by Mr Souter has achieved particular prominence partly because he gave evidence. The Commission finds that although he was not the architect of the scheme he shares equal responsibility with other directors.

One can go to other paragraphs. For instance, on page 24 of the report, paragraph 1 9.2 states:

The Commission finds that the letter of 17 June 1975 sent by ACTU-Solo over the signature of Mr H. J. Souter to the Minister and the accompanying document in terms of Annexure I misrepresented the price for which the crude was sold and that the Government was critically misinformed.

I refer next to pages 27 and 28 of this report, just to sew up the argument in terms of what this company hoped to get. I quote paragraph 22.2 of the report in which the Commission states:

ACTU-Solo stood to gain by securing a supply of motor spirit resulting from the refining of the crude at a price approximately 5.4 cents a gallon cheaper than the average wholesale posted price in Melbourne.

There are other equally damaging paragraphs in this report. I have already referred to the Crimes Act. There is no need for me to go through it word by word to illustrate how what is revealed in this report is at least a suggestion of prima facie evidence against the directors of ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd.

I would like to know tonight whether the Government through the Attorney-General- it is the Attorney-General’s peculiar responsibilityis entering upon an inquiry as to whether there was any criminal conduct involved in these activities? This matter is not confined to Mr Souter. The position of Mr Hawke must also be considered. It is suggested in this report that Mr Hawke was overseas. Perhaps he was overseas when this was done. The real question is: Was he a party to this matter? Was he aware of it? The fact that he was overseas is no answer. One would hope that the Attorney-General is going to look at the involvement of Mr Hawke in this matter. Of course it is hard to believe that a director was not aware of and concerned in decisions on transactions involving the purchase of 420 000 barrels for almost $2m. I would hope very much that Mr Souter is not being made a scapegoat in this report for the other directors of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable members time has expired.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Department of Manuf acturing Industry

Proposed expenditure, $82,402,000.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The Budget documents show a small increase in the number of staff employed by the Department of Manufacturing Industry for 1975-76, but well they might, given the many and complex problems confronting the manufacturing sector today. It is important, I believe, in initiating consideration of the estimates for the Department of Manufacturing Industry that those estimates be seen against the Government’s overall policy towards the non-government sector of the economy and the manufacturing sector in particular. The Government’s approach has been and remains, despite some more recent lip service to the contrary, that the government sector comes first and the private sector has to make way. One can go right back over the history of this Labor Government, with its hallmark of incompetence, to the big government ‘spend-up’of 1973 which was the major- I do not say it was the only- cause of the inflation which currently besets us. If that is a matter of dispute, I refer to an article written by the economist Kenneth Davidson in the Age only today.

Much of our present problem stems from the inflationary Budget brought down by the Whitlam Government in 1973.

And so on. But along with that was the parallel credit squeeze implemented by the Government and the associated record high interest rates which were introduced for the purpose of cutting back the private sector of the economy. The credit squeeze is sometimes spoken of as though it came down from heaven, but in fact that credit squeeze was a matter of deliberate policy designed to cut back private activity in order to make way for the great expansion of the government sector which has occurred. There we have the main genesis of the continuing and accelerating inflation which we have experienced since that time and the rapid build-up in unemployment which has occurred in the past 12 months. That inflation is the worst enemy of the private sector and the manufacturing sector in particular.

I could refer to other adverse factors, such as the perverse operation of the Prices Justification Tribunal, the tariff cuts and an unsympathetic and I believe misguided tariff policy pursued by the Government, the unduly prolonged revaluation of the currency, the withdrawal of the investment allowances, and so on. However, the adverse impact of the Government ‘s policies on the private sector is focussed in two statistics. First, as was revealed in the Employment and Unemployment Bulletin statistics for the most recent 12 months we have, to June last, there was an increase in employment in the government sector of 93 000 persons, while employment in the nongovernment sector- that is, employment in Australian business, large and small- decreased by 150 000. Employment in the manufacturing sector was the lowest since 1968.

The second statistic to which I would refer is concerned with company profits as shown in the National Income estimates. As a proportion of total incomes- that is, all incomes, wages, salaries, profits interest and rents in the economy- or, strictly speaking, as a percentage of non-farm GDP at factor prices, company profits, which have normally stood at a level of 15 per cent of these total incomes, were during 1974-75 as low as 9 per cent in some quarters and for the year as a whole they were at the level of 10.8 per cent. Those two statistics- the change in the employment figures to which I have referred and this low level of profits- sum up the impact of the Government’s policies in relation to the private sector and the manufacturing sector in particular. Perhaps they best sum up the effects of socialism in practice. This is at the core of the malaise of the economy.

We hear a good deal about the lack of confidence and the lack of incentive in the economy. I stress particularly the impact on private investment and the thrust to new development. We hear of the question mark over the Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd steel expansion program and the new exploration and development, private investment generally which sustains and creates for the future the capacity for the greater production of goods and services to meet all our national goals in the social welfare and other fields that we wish to pursue. But the very capacity to invest is being undermined. Confidence and incentive are important, but there is also this question of the very capacity to pursue these things, and that question stems in particular from those figures on company profits to which I have referred. I take this opportunity to stress that when one talks about company profits, it is not just a matter of pandering to big business, of which I am likely to be accused by honourable members opposite. It is a question of the very jobs of a large number of Australians.

Mr Ellicott:

– They have a one-track mind.

Dr EDWARDS:

– As my colleague says, honourable members opposite have a one-track mind- they should understand the situation which one can sum up in the dictum that today’s profits are tomorrow’s investments and the day after tomorrow’s jobs and increased individual and community incomes. What is important, especially as far as manufacturing is concerned, is that even this low level of profits to which I have referred is over-stated. A major element is what some refer to as phantom or fictitious profits- profits which arise on paper but in fact are not realisable. They are associated with 2 elements. The first arises in the process of investing and re-investing over a period in stocks of materials and finished goods at higher prices due to the inflationary process. So even though a person may begin a year with a given level of operations and end the year with the same level of operations and the same volume of stocks of materials and finished goods, the difference in the value of the stocks at the end of the year compared with the value at the beginning of the year is counted as profit. It is a totally unrealisable ‘profit’ unless the firm concerned terminated the business and realised on the asset. It is a totally unrealisable profit and yet it is subject to company taxation at the going rate. So company profits at the very low level I have referred to are over-stated for that reason and the other reason of the inadequate allowances for depreciation. They are over-stated and then they are taxed. In this way companies are bled and their capacity to invest and to provide employment is seriously diminished.

These matters were brought to the attention of the Parliament by the Mathews Committee. I would like to stress to the Parliament that the Mathews Committee was appointed following the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 12 November last year. The Committee was chaired by Professor Mathews of the Australian National University and its membership included Mr R. A. Jolly of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other worthy citizens. The report of the Committee was endorsed by the ACTU. Yet in its economic policy and in the drawing up of this Budget which we are debating and which is the major instrument of the government’s economic policy, the Government has turned its back on the imperative recommendations of the Mathews Committee. That will be the Government’s undoing. Who can have confidence in a Government with priorities so illjudged that the health of the private sector and therefore the jobs and the gainful, meaningful employment of thousands of ordinary Australians are put in jeopardy? On that ground alone, apart from any other, this Government and this Budget stand condemned.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– I was impressed by the spate of reports that have been corning from the Press on the plight of small business in Australia to the point that I thought I would do a little research on the matter to find out just how serious the situation was. The first thing I noticed was that most of the statements that have been given such prominence in recent days in the Press are largely based on a survey that was conducted 3 years ago. The results of that survey have suddenly leapt into prominence, presumably because it serves the political convenience of the Opposition and the people who organise the Press stories. I carried this investigation a little further on the assumption that if things were as grim for small businesses as they are portrayed in the Press today, we would be seeing the result of this in the form of bankruptcies.

I discovered that, as at June 1975, for the year 1974-75 there had been 2052 reported bankruptcies in Australia. In the year before there had been 1964 bankruptcies. In 1972-73 there had been 2660 bankruptcies. Then we discover that in 1971-72, the last year of the Liberal-National Country Party Government, there were 3036 bankruptcies. That is, there were nearly 1000 more bankruptcies in the last year of a Liberal-National Country Party Government than there were in the financial year just completed. We find also that most of the observations that are being made about the plight of small businesses are based on that particular year- the last year that the Liberal and National Country parties were in office. I found that in 1970- 71 there were 2783 bankruptcies, in 1969-70 there were 2542 bankruptcies, and in 1968-69 there were 2550 bankruptcies. In other words, the average number of bankruptcies during the 3 years preceding Labor taking office in Canberra was considerably higher than the average number of bankruptcies during the 3 years Labor has been in office.

This discovery was quite revealing so I carried my research a little further. I discovered that the main reason given for bankruptcies was a lack of business ability. In 1973-74, 304 of the bankruptcies occurred because of a lack of business ability. In 1972-73, 420 such bankruptcies occurred. Economic conditions rate third on the list of causes for bankruptcy. Lack of sufficient working capital was the next main reason for companies going bankrupt. Economic conditions, including the competitive market place, accounted in 1973-74 for 176 bankruptcies. In the prime year for bankruptcies, 1971-72- the last year of the Liberal-National Country Party Government when there were 3036 bankruptcies or nearly 1000 more than under the Labor Government in the year 1974-75-378 bankruptcies were associated with the building industry. That is significant. This is the industry that is being emphasised in the Press by people like Mr Henderson, the Director of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia. Mr Henderson estimated that at least 1500 small businesses had closed their doors in the 12 months to 30 June 1975. That is not a surprising figure when we realise that the average number of bankruptcies in Australia is 2000 per annum. Mr Henderson did not go on to make the comparison between that year and previous years. It is of no good honourable members opposite trying to interject. The facts are there. The fact is that in 1974-75 there were 2000 bankruptcies. In 1971- 72 under the Liberal-National Country Party Government there were 3036 bankruptcies. Now we discover how healthy the business sector has been under the 2 governments. Now we discover that all this screaming in the Press is largely based on a survey conducted from the New England University by Professor Meredith 3 years ago.

What exactly is the situation? There can be no question that small business enterprises that operate on fixed price contracts have gone through a very severe period. They, like all other businesses, are affected by inflation. Just by way of comparison to emphasise the point I made last night that this inflationary factor is affecting the entire world, it is worth making an observation in regard to Japan with all the expertise it can turn on to give advice to small business operators. Japan trains some 1000 small business advisers each year. It has a definite government policy of helping small businesses with funds and skill, as this Government has done but the previous government did not. It was this Government which established the Small Business Bureau in Australia, not the previous Government. But in spite of the fact that that sort of service is offered in Japan as at August 1975, there were a record number of 977 bankruptcies recorded in Japan. This happened in spite of the fact that that country gives such generous assistance to its business operators.

I ask honourable members to compare that with the bankruptcies registered this year in Australia. I repeat that there were 2000 bankruptcies under this Government compared with 3036 under the Liberal-National Country Party in 1971-72. This is the comparison; this is the fact. It is time that the business community started to look at the fact and that the Hendersons of this country realised that they have a responsibility in leading the business fraternity. They have a responsibility to state the position as it is. They are compromising their leadership by acting as political bandits. They are using their positions of leadership as spokesmen for the Opposition. If they choose to do that, they should nail their colours to the mast. Let us again emphasis the position for Mr Henderson. There were 2000 bankruptcies to June of this year and 3036 bankruptcies in the last year of government of the Opposition parties for which he chooses to compromise his leadership position.

In Australia the situation is difficult for small business just as it is difficult for small businesses the world over. As we go back into the effects of inflation we find that inflation is affecting rents. What State in this country has been able to control rent? South Australia is one State which has taken the opportunity to capitalise on its cooperation with Canberra. Those States which have not co-operated with Canberra are the States where rents are running riot. They are the States which have refused the type of assistance which has made it possible for South Australia to keep rents in hand. Rents are one of the main bugbears for small business operators. Many of them have a very low labour force. Many of them are single entrepreneur businesses and have no real labour charges over and above the living costs of the family. So we find that for the small business operator who cannot pass on the effects of inflation, rents and inflation are two of the main reasons why they are having difficulty over and above the normal problems associated with small businesses, namely, lack of business ability and a lack of sufficient working capital.

It was to assist small business that the Government has established a national Small Business Bureau counselling service. (Quorum formed.) I emphasise again that in the last financial year there were 2000 bankruptcies under this Government and 3036 in the last year of the LiberalCountry Party Government. The business world should listen and look. The business world should check its facts. There were 1000 more bankruptcies under the Liberal-Country Party Government than there were in the last financial year of this Government.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) I remind the Committee that when a quorum is called an honourable member should not enter and then leave the chamber. I ask the Opposition Whip to remind the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) of that fact. I call the honourable member for Wakefield.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– It will not surprise honourable members to learn that I wish to talk about tariffs. I think that at a time such as this, with unemployment a problem as it has not been in the past, that there is need for greater clarity of thinking than there usually is on this problem. There will be some old fundamentalists on both sides of the chamber who think that employment can be created by increasing tariffs. That number is diminishing as education becomes more of an influence. There are not many on either side of the chamber- I am not saying that there are not a few on my side and I know that there are some in the Labor Party- who do not recognise that it is a fundamental fallacy to think that employment is created by increasing tariffs. Let us look at the textile industry. There would be some honourable members here who know the industry in detail. In order to create employment, the fundamentalists would increase the tariff on textile yarns. There may be magnificent ceremony when a textile yarn factory is opened. Everybody thinks that the employment problem has been solved. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) is too well educated economically to believe that kind of nonsense and so would most honourable members be. But that is the way in which people used to think, forgetting about the people who use the yarn to make it into fabric and about those who have to use the fabric to make it into garments. They know that employment is diminished in the user industry by increasing tariffs. As I look at the rather serried ranks of those opposite, I do not think that I can see anyone in the chamber now who would not believe that that is the economic truth.

If the matter is taken further and a duty is put on garments to stop them coming in the reality of the situation can be seen. We mouth platitudes about trade being more important than aid and at the same time put duties on goods which are made by what honourable members on both sides of the chamber used to call cheap black labour. Now we call it cheap Asian labour because some of us are sensitive about these things. But almost everyone on both sides of the chamber knows this fundamental fact that you cannot continue forever to deny access to products made by what might be called cheap Asian labour but which I would call labour from the developing countries. If we do not trade with them, by some means or other they will bring about the destruction of civilization as we know it. We all know that and anybody who does not recognise it would be a fundamentalist of the worst kind. There has been nonsense talked on both sides of the chamber about tariffs creating employment. I concede that many honourable members know that it is economic nonsense.

Let me refer to another matter which should be given attention at a time such as this and that is the Industries Assistance Commission. The first question is whether it should be an independent body. There are some who think that the reason for having an IAC is to insulate the Minister against political pressures. If there is a factory that is demanding protection in the Minister’s electorate or in some particular electorate, then if there is an IAC of present days or the Tariff Board of the past, it can be interposed between the political pressure and the affected industry and the Minister may be sheltered. I do not believe that that should be its function; that could be part of its function but it would have a far more important function to perform. It is not the duty of the IAC to make government more comfortable. I emphasise this. The task of the IAC as it was of the Tariff Board is to give the Government independent economic advice. The Government is then charged with the responsibility of taking political decisions thereon.

Dr Edwards:

– What do you mean by independent?

Mr KELLY:

– I shall take up the honourable member for Berowra on other matters shortly if I have time. The LAC should be independent. The members of the Commission should be people who are able to do more than stand between the Minister and the pressures. There should be a body which is able to give independent economic advice. To say that all that is wanted is a shelter for the ministry-something to make government more comfortable- is not to have a clear picture of the real requirement. The Government has to take the political decision. I never thought for one minute that the LAC or the Tariff Board should.

Let us consider tariff on motor cars. The LAC gave a crystal clear economic decision in that matter and the Government took the political decision thereon and weighed up the social cost. I think the Government was wrong but I think it is its function to take those kinds of decisions. To pretend that it should be the LAC’s task to measure anything else but the economics of things is putting too great a load on it. I would always hope that we would get clear independent advice from the IAC. I repeat that it is the Government’s task to take political decisions thereon as it has done.

I should also like to refer to some points raised by the honourable member for Berowra. I wish to pay a tribute to Mr Rattigan, the Chairman of the LAC. I think Australia owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Mr Rattigan for the way in which he has carried the torch for independent economic advice in the face of considerable difficulties. I have heard him castigated on this side of the chamber and on the other side. I want to make my position clear: I think Australia will honour his work in the future if not now. I do so now. The honourable member for Berowra speaks frequently about this 25 per cent dividing line. There is far too much criticism in this regard. I have the figures for last year; I could not get this year’s report because it is not yet available. For 30 per cent of the industries dealt with last year, the IAC recommended an effective rate of over 25 per cent. If honourable members want me to spell that out, I will. The honourable member for Berowra made a speech which I must admit I did not hear but most of which I am not particularly proud of, concerning heavy earthmoving construction materials worth $125m. There was an effective rate recommendation of 47 per cent. Honourable members can go right down the list. It is not true to say that the IAC is egg-bound with a rate of 25 per cent. The IAC is making sensible assessments of what the percentage ought to be. It is not true to say that the IAC has the idea that it cannot go above 25 per cent. Last year 30 per cent of its recommendations were above an effective rate of 25 per cent.

There are other things I would like to come to. There is far too great an acceptance by secondary industry of saying to the IAC: ‘Look, it is aU right to give us a tough ruling but what you ought to do is tell us what we ought to do instead ‘. That is utter nonsense. These are the people who go around saying that they believe in private enterprise and they believe in standing on their own feet. When there is a recommendation which they do not like they want to be told what to do next. What will happen, as in all walks of life is that a third of them will make a mess of it, a third of them will do well and a third of them will be average. The third who make a mess of it will come crying to the Government saying: ‘You told us to get in and do this’. That is a policy of utter despair both in farming and in manufacturing and I want to make that clear.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I want to discuss the motor vehicle industry. I would like all people from my own State of South Australia to take very careful note of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) because his prescription for the car industry will mean economic ruin to South Australia. The present malaise of the car industry is part of the world scene. There is a world wide slump, but there are certain unique features in Australia which are important.

The Australian market is relatively small with 13 million people, mainly provided for by 5 companiesGeneralMotors Holden, Ford, Chrysler and those that are mainly importing, Toyota and Datsun. With a relatively small throughput for each, motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia is a high cost operation. The vast United States market, in contrast, has only 3 main SUPpliers However, the small market in Australia means that each type of locally manufactured vehicle has a relatively small run making its production relatively uneconomic.

The trouble in Australia is compounded by the fact that two of Australia’s suppliers- Toyota and Datsun- do their manufacturing outside Australia. Furthermore, the Japanese, who have specialised in small cars, have progressively eroded the market previously monopolised by the United States multinationals. There is no doubt that the Australian consumer has shown an increasing preference for small cars, with their lower initial cost and their lower fuel consumption. These stark facts were brought into the limelight with the import explosion of 1974. In other words, 3 local companies had a relatively small market. Now this is being eroded by increasing sales of tighter cars manufactured outside Australia. This obviously threatens the employment base of the Australian car industry. It is now a glaring fact that the Japanese models are here, and that is what the Australian motorist likes. If we want to retain a viable industry, the Japanese models will have to be made in Australia. Australian workers should not have to pay for the stubborn persistence of the United States multinationals in relying on 6-cylinder cars.

In response to this situation, the Labor Government has formulated a plan whereby all the 5 Australian suppliers will manufacture vehicles in Australia, with each company averaging 85 per cent Australian content. This will involve reducing the Australian content of the 6-cylinder cars from their present 95 per cent and increasing the 4-cylinder models from their present Australian content which is now at a level of about 45 per cent. The cornerstone of this plan is the manufacture of 4-cylinder engines at Lonsdale in South Australia. The project is intended to be launched by a consortium of 4 parts- Chrysler, Toyota, Datsun and the Australian Government. With an annual output of about 200 000 engines there will be great opportunities for economies of scale. This will lay the ground for an economically viable vehicle industry making the cars which consumers want.

There will thus be 5 main companies still sharing the market, but there will be significant differences compared with the present situation. Firstly, there will be rationalisation of componentry with at least 3 companies having their 4-cylinder engines cast, machined and assembled at the one plant. Secondly, we will be manufacturing those components in Australia which we can manufacture most effectively. Thirdly, the light cars- that is, the cars in the growth sector of the industry- will be made here and not imported.

One would have thought that the merits of this plan are self-evident. However, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman on labour matters, Mr Street, have continually attacked the Government’s proposal and seem to be calling for the retention of the plan which was inherited from Sir John McEwen, that is, a 95 per cent content for the medium car range and importing the light cars. They have even attacked the concept of a 4-cylinder engine plant at Lonsdale in South Australia. It is not clear whether Liberal policy means that the light cars will be imported or whether quotas will be imposed to protect the United States multinationals. Either option would be disastrous. If the 6-cylinder models are kept at 95 per cent local content their already high cost will become prohibitive, not to mention the high cost of fuel for these petrol guzzlers.

If the 4-cylinder models are allowed to be freely imported they will continue to erode the employment base of the Australian car industry. On the other hand, if quotas apply to the lighter cars, we will be saying to the Australian consumer: ‘You are only allowed to buy the 6- cylinder models’. With such protection, cars manufactured here would become more costly still. The result Will be that the consumer will respond by not buying a car at all, or buying a car much less frequently. With declining sales against fixed and rising costs, the companies will respond by further price increases, followed by further sales resistance, and so the cycle will go on. The final result would be that the jobs of vehicle builders in Australia would be very gravely threatened. And that is not all that would be threatened. Think of the effect of closing the Austalian market to Japan, our most important export market.

The people of my own State of South Australia need no reminder of the importance to them of the car industry. I hope all South Australians realise that the Liberal Party policy means disaster for the economy of the State. The Labor Government’s plan is absolutely crucial for the prosperity of South Australia but it is not just South Australia which will benefit. Remember that Toyota and Datsun already have assembly plants in Victoria. The encouragement of light car manufacture will sustain their operations. Indeed, it Will probably mean that they will expand. Not only that, but bringing the Australian content of light cars up to 85 per cent will greatly benefit Australian component manufacturers and, of course, their employees. The Labor Government’s car plan will lay the basis for an efficient and economic industry. Because the industry Will be making the cars consumers want, it will be safeguarding their jobs. Not only that, the plan will promote good relations with Japan, our No. 1 trading partner.

It is absurd to argue that we must prevent the establishment of a further manufacturing plant in Australia. The Japanese cars are here already, but the manufacturing is outside Australia. We can only accommodate to this situation by saying: ‘Yes, continue to supply the Australian market, but build here in Australia. ‘ No South Australian can afford to neglect the attempt of the Leader of the Opposition to drive the South Australia industry to the wall and exclude the Japanese. The effect of a downturn in the car industry will affect every South Australian. It is of no use for those not in the industry itself to shrug their shoulders and say: ‘I’m not in the car industry, I’m all right, Jack’. If the car plants in South Australia close up, it will affect everyonetheir incomes, their property values, their job opportunities, and their children’s future. The price of Mr Fraser’s political prostitution will not only be paid by South Australia but - (Quorum formed) Not only will South Australia suffer under Liberal Party proposals for the car industry, but also they will be costly to all Australian motorists and have unthinkable economic and political costs for the nation as a result of a shortsighted jingoistic attitude to Japan. It is sad to see Mr Fraser’s revival of 19th century interstate jealousy but South Australians are now forced into a position of defending their survival. At the next Federal election, whenever it may be, any South Australian who votes for Mr Fraser’s policies will do so at his own peril.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-I want to reply to some of the remarks of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) who seemed to me to sheet home his complete disregard for the current problem confronting small business. It is no good trying to whitewash the Government’s record in respect of what it has done for the private sector since it has assumed office. The fact that the honourable member chooses to turn a blind eye to the problems of small business typifies the attitude of so many supporters of the Government, including the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) who is trying to interject. It typifies the attitude of the Government to the private sector. The Government has attempted to distort the facts and the real position. It ignores the warnings of Mr Henderson and Professor Meredith, independent authorities, on the problems that now confront small business in Australia. Probably the honourable member for Eden-Monaro knows better than these independent authorities. The fact that he represents one of the most vulnerable electorates in Australia determines his defensive arguments. No doubt the fact that Australian Labor Party advertising agents will arrive here tonight will promote further speculation about an election. Who is concerned about an election? I think that the Government is talking itself and the people into an election. Clearly the honourable member for Eden-Monaro showed great concern tonight. He obviously seems to be thinking that an election could be held this year and that he could be defeated. One can forgive the honourable member for trying to defend his Government’s deplorable record in the private sector if he is arguing for his political life. But his electorate will not forgive him if he does nothing to improve the lot of small business in Eden-Monaro.

I want to devote most of my time to the very real problem faced by small business because of the great importance of this sector to the rural areas of Australia. About 90 per cent of people employed in rural areas- areas that I representowe their employment to small business. I draw attention to the complete inadequacy of the National Small Business Bureau that the Government has established. It is hopelessly understaffed and has insufficient resources to provide any worthwhile assistance. I believe that it is staffed by about 20 personnel and that it is set up in about 3 capital cities. Admittedly this is a start, but it is not enough and the Government should not kid itself that it is.

The small businesses of Australia are undoubtedly the foundation of our private enterprise system. We understand that there are about 250 000 small businesses in Australia which provide 42 per cent of the employment opportunities in this country. Let us not turn a blind eye to the independent survey that was released in May which showed that two-thirds of small businesses in this country are either facing bankruptcy or are facing very serious difficulties. Of course, if these projections are true the result could well be the unemployment of 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the Australian workforce. If they are only half true 10 per cent to 1 5 per cent of the Australian workforce will be unemployed. Australia lags behind nearly every advanced country in relation to policies to assist small business. I am not saying that we had all the answers when we were in Government.

Mr Duthie:

– Of course you did not have all the answers.

Mr HUNT:

– I think that small business took its future for granted because it felt and knew that the then Government was sympathetic to private enterprise. But small business does not have the same confidence today. Clearly so many small businesses are sick and tired of trying to hang on to the cliff edge by their fingernails. That is about what is going on at the present time. Something has to be done urgently. It is incredible that no State or Federal government, or indeed the present Federal Government, has a special section of a department which is responsible for the welfare of small business in this country. There is no minister directly responsible for this section of the Australian business community. Yet, this is not the case in every other advanced Western nation, including Japan. So let this be a lesson.

Mr Cohen:

– Would you have one?

Mr HUNT:

– I would have one. I believe that it is absolutely necessary that there be established a special department responsible for small business in this country.

Mr Cohen:

– Is it in your policy though?

Mr HUNT:

– It will be released in due course. The point is that so often governments introduce legislation without knowing what effect that legislation will have upon small business in this country. If a department is not established to advise a Minister and Cabinet on the effect of legislation that is introduced in connection with the business sector of the community how can there be government direction that shows any real concern for that sector?

Small businesses are the breeding ground for new ideas, techniques and innovations. Small businesses dominate, as I mentioned earlier, the outer metropolitan areas, particularly country towns where they face special problems. Most small enterprises have limited access to financial resources. Many pay a high interest rate penalty compared to bigger businesses. There are insufficient taxation provisions to encourage small businesses. I want to devote some little time to one of the real problems that small business faces. Small businesses operate by way of a private family company or some other partnership. In respect of private family companies the profits earned go first to paying the primary company tax of 42lA per cent and secondly to pay dividends to shareholders equivalent to 50 per cent of the amount remaining of the original profits earned after payment of primary company tax. This leaves an amount available of 28.75 per cent of the original profit to be added to the company’s accumulated reserves. The figure of 28.75 per cent is arrived at as follows: On each $100 of taxable income, tax is payable in the sum of $42.50 leaving a balance of $57.50. As one-half of this sum is then declared as dividend, the balance remaining is reduced to $28.75 or 28% per cent of the original amount earned. If there were no inflationary factors perhaps that would leave sufficient reserves for a company to reinvest and to operate from its own reserves. But in today’s inflationary spiral there is no way in the world that small business can operate in that manner. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), a businessman, smiles. Of course he must know that he is wrong. I hope that the honourable member, with his knowledge of business practice, tries to persuade his colleagues to see the sense in what I am trying to say. The present income tax arrangement for small companies in this country is practically wrecking them.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is all new to him. He is dumbfounded by this information.

Mr HUNT:

– He probably is. Let us hope that he does not try to whitewash the Government’s record in this area as did the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Australia cannot lag behind comparable countries in the western world in this regard. There is a need for a special department. There is a need for legislation to be looked at to ascertain its effect upon small business. There is a need, in my view, for an annual White Paper on small businesses in this country. I believe that they need to be elevated to the sort of position and the sort of importance that this country and this Parliament owes to them.

Honourable members opposite can smile. Forty two per cent of the people who are working in this country owe their employment to small business. If two-thirds of small business are facing bankruptcy the Government will have brought one of the worst unemployment and social problems to this country in its history. Honourable members opposite should not smile; they should take the matter seriously and start to look for a solution to the problem they have created. They owe a big responsibility to the people that they supposedly represent, the small people of this country, but they have thrown their chances away.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Manufacturing Industry let me refer to the tariff structures. The Government is proceeding with tariff review but is anxious that the process of change be at a manageable rate. It is trying to avoid disruption from excessive imports. It is true that tariff reductions frequently can result in hardships for the individuals concerned. What was the record of the previous Liberal-Country Party administration? Its record is blank. Its members had no concern for the disruption they caused to industry with their economic policies. This

Government, for the first time in Australia instituted a structural adjustment program to facilitate desirable economic change and to avoid undue hardship for the individuals concernedthe workers and businessmen. At the same time expenditure on this program in 1974-75 was $5.3m. If honourable members opposite want to increase the expenditure let them say so. Incidentally, $4.7m of that expenditure was made in non-metropolitan areas under the special assistance for non-metropolitan areas scheme.

I must congratulate the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), on his new found cause of small business. He should really hang his head in shame when he comes into this chamber and advocates some sort of interest in small business.

Mr Fisher:

– We have been interested for years- long before your time.

Mr MORRIS:

-I am glad the honourable member makes that comment. All the Country Party ever did was talk about this matter. In 1968 the Leader of the Country Party and the Minister for Trade and Industry appointed the Wiltshire committee to inquire into the needs of small business. It took the Committee 3 years to look at small business. Exactly 3 years later, in June 1971, the report was passed to the Minister. But what did members of the Country Party do with it? They sat on it; they thought it was an egg that might hatch. They sat on that report until they went out of government. The report was subsequently tabled by this Government in April 1973. That is how much members of the Country Party really care about small business. They have no interest in small business. They think a few votes are to be gained by looking at it now and advocating its cause, but when they had the opportunity, and when the Country Party leader, Sir John McEwen, a responsible Minister, appointed the Committee they did not have sufficient faith in the Committee ‘s report to bring it into this chamber and table it. That is how much they care about small business. They are phoneys.

It is true that for small business people life is difficult and hard. One could not pay them for the hours they put into their business at the same rate as they would be paid if they worked in industry. They probably would have more experience of hard work, difficulty and worry than anybody who is employed in industry. But members of the Opposition were not concerned about that. They made noises and they are making noises now. The facts are that the nation has about 300 000 small firms and more than 250 000 business enterprises involved in manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing alone. Small business forms a large proportion of industries sectors such as manufacturing- 92 per centwholesaling and retailing- 97 per cent- and real estate- 93 per cent. According to statistics for the 1970-71 tax year 13 per cent of partnerships which put in returns- I would like members of the Country Party to listen; a Labor government was not in office- showed a loss while more than 80 per cent showed a profit of less than $5,000. That shows how much honourable members opposite thought about small business. I repeat: 80 per cent of small businesses showed a profit of less than $5,000.

The greatest difficulty that small businesses are having at the moment in relation to liquidity has not occurred as a result of the company tax rate but as a result of the impact on their liquidityof an increase in payroll tax from 2Vi per cent to 5 per cent, an increase in workers’ compensation premiums of 50 per cent in recent months, and the setting aside of the exemption under land tax in New South Wales. Those 3 headings have had a very great impact. From talking with small business people in New South Wales one will find that those 3 factors are affecting liquidity far more than any others. After all a company does not have to pay company tax unless it makes a profit, but it has to pay land tax, payroll tax and workers compensation premiums whether or not it makes a profit. The company tax comes later. If honourable members opposite want to show some concern for small business, have a genuine look at its problems and talk to the Liberal or Country Party Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria. They are the people responsible for the liquidity problems of small businesses, not this Government.

The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) mentioned earlier that there ought to be rent control on commercial premises. There was rent conto on commercial premises; it was put there by a Labor government. It was kept there by successive Labor governments in New South Wales. But who removed it, despite the mass protests of small business people in New South Wales? It was not a Labor government. It was Sir Robert Askin, a Liberal Premier of New South Wales. Honourable members should look at the statistics of bankruptcies and company liquidations. I draw attention to the fact that it is doubtful if bankruptcy statistics can provide a reliable indication of economic conditions since the most frequent cause of bankruptcy is lack of business ability, training and experience. The next most frequent cause is insufficient working capital. The effects of economic conditions rank third. If honourable members opposite had set up a small business bureau in 1971, after the report was made, those first 2 problems would have had assistance from the Federal government. But members opposite did not even want to table the report. When one looks at the company liquidation figures in New South Wales there is a surprising lack of information on company liquidations. New South Wales is the only State to publish figures on liquidations and these give no information on the size of the firms, such as assets or the numbers employed. The figures quoted in New South Wales are of company liquidations and not of company failures.

There is quite a difference between company liquidations and company failures. Great care is needed in interpreting the figures. A minor change in taxing regulations, for example, can cause many companies to be liquidated and recreated with different articles. I am sure members of the Liberal Party would know something about that. This is clearly an administrative phenomenon with no relevance to the state of the economy. One cannot refer only to bankruptcy statistics without analysing the content and the reasons for bankruptcy, such as the numbers employed, the assets and so on. The obvious gap in information on company failures can only be filled by organising a co-ordinated collection of statistics from each State. Each State may take its own independent statistics, and there is no uniformity amongst them.

It is absloute hypocrisy on the part of members of the Opposition to have a new-found cause, that of small business. They did most to destroy small business. As I said earlier, the problems of small business now should have been looked at several years ago, not just now. Look at the food retailing sector of the nation. Sales went from $l,600m in 1956-57 to $3,273m in 1968-69. In 1956-57 there were 138 500 outlets, and under successive Liberal-Country Party administrations that number declined to 57 000 outlets in a period of about 12 years. That shows how much honourable members opposite were concerned. They did not worry about bait selling. They did not worry about the discrimination in pricing that was going on. They just were not concerned about small business. They think there is a vote in it now.

Look at the share of the market enjoyed by small business. The era of the unaffiliated retailer passed away under Liberal-Country Party administrations. Its market share in 1971-72 was down to 4 per cent, compared with 40 per cent in the mid-1950s. In 1972 the chain stores had an estimated 60 per cent of the national market, with identified groups holding 36 per cent and unaffiliated independents 4 per cent. The legislation that has helped small business more than anything else is the Trade Practices Act. What did honourable members opposite do with that? They opposed it at every move. At every possible stage they opposed it. They delayed it for 18 months. It provides now for the abolition of price discrimination against small businessmen, and that more than anything else is helping the small businessman today. At least today the small businessman can buy at the price at which Woolworths can buy. He does not have to go to a wholesaler where he is asked to pay a higher wholesale price than the price at which Woolworths, Coles or Myers market retail. If the industry associations had shown concern for small business- they are not concerned with small business; they have been derelict in their responsibility towards it- by fostering research and support facilities, then small business today would be stronger, more efficient and in a much better position to handle difficulties.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

-Mr Deputy Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr U. E. Innes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Education

Proposed expenditure, $342,100,000.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

-Under the Australian Constitution education is one matter which was not- and never has been- handed over by the States to the Commonwealth. Yet here we are today in this Commonwealth Parliament with a Commonwealth Minister for Education debating in aU seriousness the education estimates. To the thinking person it seems a little incongruous to say the least. Starting with the Menzies Government we have seen succeeding Federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, taking unto themselves an ever increasing domination over the States in the field of education. This has been possible because the Federal Government holds the purse strings. It collects the major taxes and hands over to the States the funds with which, in conjunction with their own limited taxing powers, the States run the government of their States.

The Australian Government, however, does not hand to the States in a lump sum the total cost of running the services of those States. It also employs another device, section 96 of the Constitution. This section has been used by succeeding Australian governments, quite dishonestly I believe, to circumvent the Constitution as it was originally intended. I am one who has always believed that if there is a constitution, be it in a club, a society or a nation, one should abide by the rules so laid down in that constitution. If one believes that the Constitution should be changed, that for instance education should be directed by the Commonwealth, there is machinery by way of a democratic referendum of the people to change the Constitution. If the people agree, then the matter comes under the control of the Australian Government. If they say no, then the power remains with the States.

Of course, the real sufferers under the present system are the people, the electors. When something is not done which the people believe should be done in education or in any other sphere for that matter, what happens? The people go to their State government and are told: ‘We would do it if only the Commonwealth would give us the finance’. They then go to the Commonwealth and are told: ‘We give the States grants. They set their priorities. The responsibility is theirs’. So somewhere along the line the poor old elector falls down between 2 stools. Whom does he blame, the State or the Commonwealth? To whom does he show his anger through the ballot box, the State or the Commonwealth? He or she does not know where the responsibility lies, and this is bad for democracy. This is why the Liberal and National Country Parties’ recently published policy on co-operative federalismwhereby the States are to be given responsibility for raising and spending their own finance- is so important and is, I believe why it has been so well received by the Press and the public. It has worked well in Canada and it will work well here.

But let us confine this subject of government responsibility and accountability to education. The Government made much in the Budget Speech of there being a 14.1 per cent increase in expenditure on education in the coming year. But when one takes into account the potential 20 per cent inflation rate it is seen that this is a fall in real terms. In addition, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has stated that new initiatives will be limited in 1975-76. One cannot but feel that had this Labor Government controlled some of its past extravagances these cut-backs in education may not now have been necessary. The effects of the cut-backs are already being felt in the electorate. I have in my hand a cutting from the Melbourne Age of 13 September 1975. It states:

Building is halted at 69 schools.

Some plans may be axed because of Budget cuts.

Building plans for 69 Victorian State schools have been shelved for at least six months. Some are in danger of being axed altogether.

The Education Department said yesterday that it was deferring all contracts for capital works because of Federal Budget cuts.

These schools miss out.

The article goes on to list the schools.. Included among the schools to miss out are two in my electorate of Deakin, the Forest Hill Primary School and the Box Hill Technical School. The work to be done at Forest Hill Primary School was relatively minor in cost but nonetheless badly needed. The school has no sick room. At present sick children lie on a couch in the passageway outside the headmaster’s office. Because of the limitation on new initiatives imposed by the Government a proposal to build a sick room scheduled has now been deferred indefinitely. There is only one internal toilet at the school and this is used by lady teachers. An internal toilet for male teachers was scheduled for construction. This project, too, has now been deferred. There is a tiny, inadequate staff room. This was to be extended but due to the cut-backs this project, too, has been deferred. At present there is no proper art craft room. Two classrooms have been joined together for this purpose. This area was to have been renovated and an outdoor area added. This project, too, has been deferred. This Government just has no sense of priorities. How much better would it have been if the $100,000 offered to Germaine Greer by this Government to make a sex film had been used to provide better facilities for children at a school such as Forest Hill Primary? How much more important is it to improve our education facilities than to squander $ 1 ,250,000 on Blue Poles’!

Box Hill Technical School is in an even worse situation. It has 3 1 portable classrooms scattered over a number of sites including the suburbs of Mont Albert, Box Hill and Mitcham in the electorate of Casey. It is forced to use 4 storeys of an office block in Box Hill, 3 disused factories in Mitcham and is presently opening another annexe close to my office in Rutland Road, Box Hill. Recently after a lot of agitation by parents and other concerned people, the State Government decided to purchase the old Gas and Fuel site in Elgar Road. Box Hill, so that the school could be situated on that site. The purchase of the site will, I understand, still go ahead but it is not now likely that the buildings will be completed, let alone occupied, for the next four or five years. And whom do the people blame? I can only quote to the Minister for Education his own words as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 August 1 975. He was reported to have told Cabinet that if so much as ‘one cent’ was cut from his proposed program it would be seen as a break in the Government’s commitment to education. That reported statement is a correct summation of how the people feel.

This Government has claimed great credit in the past for increases in education spending. It must also accept blame for cut-backs. I believe the Minister has fought hard in Cabinet against the reductions in education spending and I commend him for the stand he appears to have taken. But it must be doubly hard for him to accept these cut-backs when he sees how this Government has squandered moneys in many ways which he would not approve.

Mr Cohen:

– What did your Government spend on education in years? Nothing, damn nothing. You are a blasted hypocrite.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! The honourable member for Robertson will -

Dr Klugman:

– Go back to the Right to Life movement.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Order! The debate will be directed through the Chair. I ask the interjectors to cease. We will hear each speaker in silence.

Mr JARMAN:

– I shall just repeat that last sentence, Mr Deputy Chairman, because of the manner in which the honourable member for Prospect acted. It must be doubly hard for the Minister to accept these cut-backs when he sees how this Government has squandered moneys in ways which I am sure he would not approve.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I have pleasure in speaking in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Education. One could not but be touched in listening to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) and hearing of the deplorable conditions in his electorate. He should ask himself why the conditions are so deplorable in the schools in his electorate. A Liberal Government has been in power in Victoria. He was justifying State rights. The Liberals had the influence in the schools right up to the time of the Schools Commission.

The backlog that has been left in that area is a legacy from the Liberal governments of the last 25 years. In addition, we know what was done by the Opposition at the federal level when it was in power.

I think that one must look very carefully at what the Victorian Minister for Education has done in relation to the whole question of education. He has constantly attempted to place the blame on this Government for the inefficiencies of his own Department. Last year he repeatedly claimed that the value of the Australian Government grants was being eroded by cost escalation. What he did not say was that the moneys that were going to the States through the 4 commissions were indexed to allow for rising costs. Recently he has complained about a cut in the capital grants for Victorian schools. He claims that this has resulted in the shelving of capital works for some 69 Victorian schools. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Deakin. What nonsense it is to say that it was necessary to shelve the capital works for 69 Victorian schools. What about the 34 per cent increase in capital assistance to the States contained in this year’s Budget? If education is the top priority of the Victorian Government why can some of this money not be channelled into the construction of schools?

Let us look at some facts. In the field of technical education the actual capital expenditure by the Victorian Government is less than half of what it was 2 years ago. The Richardson report shows that in 1971-72, $ 1.96m was spent. In 1973-74 the figure had dropped to $728,000. When we compare those figures with the figures for the less populous State, Queensland, we find that it allocated $2.846m- four times the Victorian figure- to capital works for technical schools in 1973-74. Let me tell the honourable member for Deakin where the blame should be placed. The understanding was that when the Schools Commission came into being the rate of expenditure on education in the Budget would be the same as it had been up to that time. It has never been explained satisfactorily by the Victorian Government why independent schools in Victoria can be built so much more cheaply than the Government can build through its own PubUc Works Department. Even after the experience of building the Princes Park high school by private contract the Victorian Government still retains the Public Works Department with all its problems. I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions in this place. The Public Works Department is still retained to do most of the building work in this field.

There is no doubt that the Australian Government places a high priority on education. It is becoming increasingly important. After listening tonight to the honourable member for Deakin one realises that this Government’s concept of education is completely beyond the 19th century comprehension of honourable members opposite. Since December 1972 the Government has made it clear to all that it regards education as a lifelong process, from the cradle to the rocking chair. The Government has enlarged educational horizons far beyond the traditional 5 to 16 years age group. It has moved into new areas, such as the pre-school area, with an allocation for a comprehensive child care program of $74m this year. Another area about which the previous Government did absolutely nothing was technical and further education. The Government has increased the allocation there from $70.6m to $10 1.3m. The interest of this Government in education is reflected in the figures. Since this Government came to office there had been an increase of 400 per cent. This year the total estimated outlay is $ 1,908.2m- an increase of $237m on last year’s actual expenditure. So it is nonsense for the Opposition to be talking of cutbacks. There are no cutbacks. That $237m is not the full story. It does not include the indexation of the money for the 4 commissions, which would bring the figure to well over $300m.

The other sharp contrast between the Government’s approach and that of the Opposition when it was in power is that this Government places a maximum premium on planning. This is in contrast to the previous Government’s ad hoc approach. This Government has created new commissions such as the Schools Commission and the Technical and Further Education Commission. It has injected funds into education. If one looks at the amount of money that has gone into government and non-government schools one sees an increase of 700 per cent. As I said before, the money that has been provided for this purpose has been on the understanding that the rate of spending would be continued. But I stress that the Government retains a firm belief in the importance of triennium planning.

It was due to the need for economic restraint that the Government has found it necessary to postpone the start of the next triennium by one year. In spite of these bold and original programs, the only comment that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) can make is that the Government is fulfilling a POliCY of enforced equality. In his feverish drive for power at any price he clutches at straws. He will utter almost any word to formulate a good catchcry but to have any popular appeal a catchcry must have some semblance of reality and this particular phrase has no basis in fact. Or are the grapes sour? This Parliament. and indeed the entire nation, should never forget that the Liberal Party opposed this Government’s education program for schools to the bitter end. It must be assumed that if honourable members opposite ever gain power again they Will dismantle the fine educational edifice that we have painstakingly built. What the Leader of the Opposition is implying is that our educational program is aimed at turning out students as alike as peas in a pod or on a production line. Of course that is rubbish. The fundamental basis of our educational program is that all people are entitled to equality of opportunity in education, whether the student concerned is a potential genius or has some special difficulty. The aim is to allow aU to develop their capabilities to their full human potential. We also say that every child whether he is the child of a migrant, an unskilled worker, a craftsman, a farmer or a professional person, has the right to an education of quality.

I suggest that we have no reason to believe that the Opposition has learnt anything about education in the almost 3 years in which it has been out of office. We have no reason to suppose that honourable members opposite have departed from their elitist concept. Their approach to education remains unchanged, so that the less educated continue to be less educated and the privileged few receive all the benefits- if that is the right word for it- of an education designed specifically to produce the God-given leaders of the future. It is the weakness in their philosophy that leads them to believe that they have a divine right to rule. So who is really dedicated to enforced equality? It is the people opposite whose educational equality is an education of deprivation for the vast majority of students in this nation. I ask who it is we should listen to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-When the honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) speaks of the underprivileged in education he should remember who are the underprivileged in this community. He should ponder what his Party in government has done to the underprivileged and to spread assistance between the most privileged and the least privileged in this community. Too much of education is being judged by the sum of money that is spent upon it. This is the case certainly on the part of the Government, this Parliament and the community at large.

The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), in Budget Paper No. %-Education 1975-76- speaks of quadrupling expenditure on education in 2 years. I believe that that claim was intended to be a boast. In actual fact, in real terms, although expenditure on education was not quadrupled, it rose far too fast. The system could not expand at that rate. Wastage was enormous. The people and children of Australia as a result got poor value for what was spent on them.

The honourable member for Holt suggested that there were no cutbacks. Of course there were cutbacks, and they were real cutbacks. I am not suggesting that there ought not to have been cutbacks. The fact is that there were cutbacks overall, in every area with the exception of technical and further education. These cutbacks became necessary because of the rate of expenditure and the forced rate of increase that the Government had tried to impose upon the system. Incidentally, the expenditure of this Government should not be taken as the total expenditure upon education in Australia. If we look at the education vote, we find for instance that the amount spent on government schools in the States has risen from a nominal $288m to $299.7m, which is an increase of 4. 1 per cent. If we allow a proportion of the $70m, as the inflation component, we get a nominal increase of 9.1 per cent. This is, nonetheless, a real cutback. We might as well in this time of galloping inflation discuss education and all other aspects in real terms; otherwise, the discussion becomes meaningless.

The fact is that to strike a Budget the Government elected for other options. It elected to introduce Medibank. In doing so, it had to reduce not only the rate of increase of expenditure in the area of education but also its rate of expenditure. There is no way that expenditure on education could continue to increase at the earlier rate, given the other options that the Government chose in its Budget strategy. It is, I think, probably quite proper that there should be a reduction, certainly in the rate of increase in commitments; but to talk of no cuts is so much rot.

In the process the Government decided that we would go one year without implementing the findings of the Schools Commission. So, for one year, education planning is in limbo. The trienniums have been abandoned. For one year the commissioners do not know, so far, what they are to do with their reports. The schools and education authorities have no way of knowing how they can plan where they are going. Surely it was not necessary in reducing the rate of expenditure on education to abandon the whole planning structure?

What I want to discuss is the role of the commissions and how those bodies should be regarded in the future. Certainly the commissions have been established in the public mind and no doubt in the mind of the Government as advisory bodies. The decisions will be taken by Cabinet, by the Government, in due course. The function that is special to a commission is, surely, that it offers public advice not only to the Commonwealth Government but also to the community, to the other governments which still have the major role in education in Australia, to the educationists and to the children, and the parents even.

Those commissions should not be asked to put forward proposals that the public will expect will be the last word in education spending. In fact, in no way are they competent to draw priorities between areas of education- for instance, the Schools Commission is not able to draw priorities that will bind the Government in the amount of money that will be allocated to schools as opposed to the amount available for tertiary education in universities- let alone to influence the proportion of the total Budget which goes to education in relation to the proportion of the total Budget that is available for expenditure on defence or in other areas.

I believe that it will be necessary in the years to come for the commissions to have some guidelines as to what expenditure the Government is proposing. It will be necessary that they introduce reports that rank priorities so that they can still order the priority of expenditure within their own fields of competence but which will not be regarded as setting a level of education expenditure that is to be binding on anyone. That decision can be made only by Cabinet. It must draw the line across these priorities at some point. Cabinet will still retain the authority to change those priorities. The special function of the commissions is that they will have made their advice within the areas of their competence to the Government and the Government will be answerable to those people in the community who are concerned with education in relation to any altering of those priorities. What the commissions are not competent to do is to order the level of priorities in relation to other areas of Government expenditure.

The situation that we have now is a situation in which the commissions, I am advised, do not know what they are expected to do with the reports that they have brought down. Are they merely to update them to take account of inflation? Are they to accept the fact that there has been, perhaps of necessity, a long term reduction in the rate of education expenditure? Are they to bring in reports that advise the public and the Government at what level those reductions are to occur? How are the schools affected by the decisions of these commissions to know at what level they can expect to spend? How are they to know when they can expect to have funds available? I contend that it was not necessary to abandon triennial planning in order to reduce the level of Government expenditure on education.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

-The Budget allocation for education in 1975-76 is more than 18 per cent above the expenditure in 1974-75. This increase is well ahead of the rise in costs as a result of the effects of inflation in the past year. The total appropriation for education in 1974-75 was $1,1 72m. This financial year, the proposed expenditure has risen to $ 1,479m. I contrast that with the actual expenditure in 1972-73, the last financial year in which a Liberal-Country Party budget applied, which was $259.4m. Thus the estimate or the allocation for this year is 5.7 times the actual expenditure in 1972-73. It has to be acknowledged that inflation has reduced the value of each dollar. Inflation is a facet of the capitalist Western economies which is always with us. But the reduction in the value of the dollar has been of the order of only 30 per cent, and we are still left with a fourfold increase in the real value of the money allocated to education by this Government in that period. That increase reflects our very great concern about the state education in Australia was in after 23 years of laissez-faire government.

The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) was complaining about the state of some of the schools in his electorate. I could likewise complain about the condition of some of the State primary schools in my own area. But that is not the fault of the present Government; it is a carry-over from the situation which existed under previous Liberal-Country Party governments. From an inspection of the schools in my area, I was very pleased to see that many works are being planned and have been carried out in the last two or three years. These projects would just not have been possible had we not provided for the massive increase in funds to which I have just referred.

It was very interesting to note the comments of the 2 honourable members who have so far spoken for the Opposition on these estimates for the Department of Education. In May of this year the shadow Minister or the spokesman on eduction for the Opposition, Senator Guilfoyle, stated that education spending by the Government should be cut back as part of a reduction in overall government spending. Such was the outcry from the community, from the teacher organisations and from parent bodies which are just beginning to feel the real improvement in educational standards and facilities which this Government has been able to bring about that she has refrained from making any such comments since that date. This evening we have heard conflicting views from the Opposition on what should be done about education and about how much should be spent. On the one hand, the honourable member for Deakin was decrying the fact that we had not continued to increase rapidly our allocation for education, which has been a feature of the first few years of this Government’s term in office.

On the other hand, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) put forward the proposition that the increase in expenditure on education had been far too rapid and that we should be cutting back our education expenditure. Just what would the Opposition do if it were in government? Would it increase the expenditure on education? Would it retain the expenditure at the levels to which we have raised it, or would it further increase that expenditure? I suggest that the silence of its spokesman on education indicates that it is tacitly admitting that it would cut back expenditure on education but that it does not have the audacity or the courage of its convictions to admit it, because it knows full well that if it were to admit what its real actions would be it would be shown up as being the Party of privilege which it is. (Quorum formed.)

I think the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) was so impressed by the standard of my arguments that he thought more honourable members should benefit from hearing what I had to say. I was pointing out that the Opposition has been very silent on what it would do in regard to education expenditure if it were in government. I think we might get some indication of what it might do if we have a look at the proposals in the field of education contained in the Budget recently brought down by the Victorian Government. Whereas it has increased its recurrent expenditure on government schools in the Budget by just over 17 per cent, it has increased its per capita grants to non-government schools in the primary area by 62% per cent and in the secondary area by 58’/z per cent. That represents an increase of approximately 60 per cent in the per capita grants to non-government schools, while the increase in recurrent expenditure on government schools is only just over 1 7 per cent.

The honourable member for Deakin was complaining about money misspent by governments. I would suggest that much of the expenditure of the Victorian Government could also be looked at in terms of where the money is actually going and to whom it is going, because we must remember that these per capita grants to nongovernment schools are not made on a needs basis as are the Australian Government grants to non-government schools. Rather they are made across the board regardless of the needs of the schools. We should also ask why the money was allocated in that way to the non-government schools while, as the honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) has already commented, the Victorian Government is reducing its expenditure in the area of technical education. I would also suggest that before Mr Thompson cries poor mouth and complains about having to reduce the number of capital works which he can put forward he should ask a question of his own Public Works Department.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-In this debate on the estimates for the Department of Education I wish to confine my remarks purely to a discussion of the Government’s budgetary proposals as compared with the recommendations of the Schools Commission and the possible effects of the changes made. I wish also only to debate the possible effects of those changes and not to indulge in the political procrastination which has been occurring already between State and Federal politicians. The Schools Commission’s financial recommendations for the 1976-78 triennium are difficult to compare usefully and in a clearcut fashion with the Government’s estimates for the financial year 1975-76 for 2 major reasons: Firstly, the Commission’s recommendations cover the 3 calendar years 1976 to 1978, while the Government’s estimates are for the financial year 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976. The Schools Commission recommended an outlay of $638m for 1976 while the Budget allocated about $5 10m in 1975-76 to educational programs funded by the Schools Commission. The second reason for the difficulty in making a useful comparison is that the financial year 1975-76 contains the last half of the 1973-75 triennium and the first half of the now deferred 1976-78 triennium. If one halves the 1976 Schools Commission recommendation of $63 8m and also the 1975-76 Budget allocation of $5 10m, it is seen that the planned reduction of expenditure in the first half of 1976 over the Schools Commission’s recommended spending for half of 1976 is about $65m. This amount represents a decrease of 25 per cent.

The overall capital and recurrent amounts appropriated, however, can be calculated as follows: recurrent expenditure, $325,474,000, an increase of 38.8 per cent over 1974; capital expenditure, $146,226,000, a drop of 26.7 per cent over the year 1974. The estimates as proposed do include provision for known cost increases but do not contain supplementary funds for prospective cost increases. It is fair to mention, however, that $70m has been included in the total education program for cost escalations. This Parliament should recognise, as should all Australians interested and concerned about the expansion and improvement of education facilities, that the inability of the Government to come to grips with inflation has directly restricted the real value of these allocations. In education this fact was reflected during the last financial year when additional legislation and appropriations of several million dollars were necessary simply to maintain continuing programs.

The major implication of the reduction and slowing down in capital expenditure- a drop of 27 per cent as I have already mentioned- is that education planning will suffer a major setback which could take some time to recover. It is obvious that a real money increase will now not begin to occur in the first half of 1976, as about 25 per cent is owing to the deferral of the triennium to 1977. In addition, the Commission indicated that the real increases it was recommending for government school building in the 1977-78 triennium was about 22 per cent. These increases also will now be deferred. The 39 per cent increase in recurrent expenditure appears to indicate that the promise of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) in a statement on 20 August that existing standards and staff-student ratios would be maintained may have a reasonable chance of being implemented. But this cannot be regarded as a significant achievement. It is simply a holding operation. Only time, of course, will tell. But very tight control over costs within the various institutions, particularly in wage and salary rises, will be necessary. If not, a real cutback of educational recurrent resources, particularly in staffstudent ratios, may occur and the fears expressed by many State education Ministers may not just be political opportunism, as several Government members have suggested. What can be validly argued is that the target date set for parity between government and non-government schools recurrent resources will be set back at least one year.

The other major decision made in the Budget in relation to education can only be described as alarming. This is the rejection of the recommendations by all 4 commissions working in the field of education and the call for a total reappraisal of these commissions’ recommendations. The implications of these decisions, of course, are many. For instance, do they imply that the work done has been a huge waste of money and time? It certainly appears this way. The Government could have simply deferred the programs but instead they appear to have been rejected. The Government has, in fact, asked for new recommendations to be produced. There is now no program for education after the end of this year and those concerned about educational opportunity and development are facing uncertainty at schools and within the system. It is in this area that I would be expecting strong representations to come to members of Parliament from teachers organistions and not just recommendations from teacher organisations that are concerned about their own employment opportunities and advancement.

We should remember that education is primarily for those being educated. The honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) earlier in the debate today made totally dishonest statements when referring to the National Country Party’s attitude and interest in education. I believe that I have spoken on almost every education Bill that has been introduced into the Parliament since I have been a member of it and, I may say, agreed with most of the initiatives undertaken. I should also ask those 2 honourable members who were rather loose with the facts earlier this afternoon to recall the National Country Party’s attitude to the formation of the Schools Commission. Nobody would ever be satisfied with the quality of education his children are to receive or do receive. But if either of those honourable members would like to come to my electorate, I will take them to some of the best technical school facilities that this nation can provide.

I will show them secondary schools where local initiatives by parent groups and teachers are providing rural children with a component of technical tuition specifically orientated towards future employment in their own district and environment. I can show them a recently opened high school, the first of its kind ever built specifically in Australia for remote areas. But if they come to my electorate I will show them areas where the Government’s decision will seriously restrict capital works programs during the next 12 months and will halt these school expansion and improvement programs. There is no doubt that this decision will have repercussions particularly in the primary education field where some very serious deficiencies are occurring. I do not oppose these estimates, but the effects of these cutbacks will restrict development and expansion and this should be recognised.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

-Despite the economic restraints, education occupies a very high and important place in this Budget. This Australian Labor Party Government has made education a priority issue in the Australian community. It has been generated over a period of time. Let me say at once to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) who is not in the chamber at the moment: It was not a Labor government in Canberra which introduced the first educational initiative, the first plan of education. It was the government of the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, that introduced the Universities Commission, which I would say made a very notable contribution towards the development of education in Australia by the infusion of Commonwealth funds into that sphere.

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) cited quite a number of figures which, quite honestly, I have not been able to follow but I would suggest to him that the real test of what has happened in the last 3 years, irrespective of inflation, is just how important a contribution has been made by the provision of additional educational resources and the availability of those resources as spread amongst the mass of the students in our community. I think that any honourable member who travels around his or her electorate and looks about will see the notable improvements in terms of school buildings, libraries, greater availability of teachers, better trained teachers, the availability of ancillary staff, the likes of which we have not seen before. All of these things provide evidence of the enthusiasm of this Government and, if I may say so, of the enthusiasm of the Australian Minister for Education, Mr Kim Beazley. His contribution is well respected throughout this country and I think it is very deservedly so.

The Government’s overriding attitude to school financing emphasises the raising of standards rather than coping with increased numbers of students. At the school level it is not expected that there will be a significant increase in the number of students over the next 5 years. The Department’s projections show an increase of about 1 20 000 in primary enrolments and a possible decrease of 30 000 in secondary enrolments. Population shifts are more likely to be significant in terms of requirements for new buildings. I can see this is true of my own area. Only a few years ago there was a great dearth of secondary schools in the area but because of the change in the type of community with the growth of units and villas and so on which were more often occupied by retired and professional people and not so much by people with young families there is now an over-supply of secondary schools. On the other hand, new areas are growing up and are urgently demanding new schools. This creates a considerable problem for planning for the future.

The Budget not only puts an overall emphasis on education, but it provides specifically for certain areas of priority. These include such things as disadvantaged schools. This is a concept that was very much challenged when we first brought it before the Parliament. How does one identify disadvantaged schools? I think the Government has gone about the job in co-operation with the State departments and private educational bodies to arrive at a fairly reasonable level of competence in identifying what is meant by ‘disadvantaged’. That matter is being attacked quite vigorously.

The education of migrants and Aborigines is another area that claims priority. It is another neglected area of past decades of Liberal Country Party governments- both State and Commonwealth. There is also the matter of the education of our handicapped children. If it were within the competence of State governments to handle these matters, one wonders why for so long, these very deserving children were so neglected. It did not cost a tremendous amount of money to do something for them. But they were not regarded as economic units in our society. Therefore they apparently were neglected. We have recognised them out of humanity. They have a life to fulfil. They are educable and they are employable- much more so than we ever anticipated. But it is the humanitarian aspect that I would rather press than the other criteria.

As I have said, there has been a massive injection of resources into the educational scene in Australia. In less than 3 years, a Labor Government here in Canberra has increased the resources available through or on the recommendation of the various authorities referred to in the estimates for the Department of Education. Details of this are to be found in table 1 of

Budget Paper No. 8. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr

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

Mr REYNOLDS:

– The paper is entitled ‘Education 1975-76’ and Table 1 is headed ‘Australian Government Outlays on Education ‘. It is a comprehensive and detailed table comparing Australian Government expenditure on education at various levels since 1972-73 up to the estimated expenditure in 1975-76. The table shows that whereas total expenditure on education by the Australian Government in 1972-73 was $442.6m, it is budgeted to reach $ 1,908.2m this financial year. There is provision for it to be updated according to increased costs. The sum of $70m which has been referred to before is dedicated in part to school education. The document draws particular attention to the fact that in that short period expenditure in 3 areas, namely schools, pre-schools and child care which is one group; technical colleges which comprise a second group; and colleges of advanced education which comprise a third group, the increase has been more than five-fold.

I know that money is not the be-aU and the end-all of the enterprise. The provision of finance is no guarantee of quality in education. I would be the first to admit that. Certainly the provision of more attractive, better equipped and functionally more efficiently planned schools has resulted. A greatly increased supply of ancillary staff has been a distinct advantage. Teachers have the opportunity of more pre-service training as well as in-service professional growth. There have been new initiatives and considerable amounts of money dedicated to research. I suggest that there is an economy by the Commonwealth doing this in co-operation with the States instead of allowing the State education authorities and private education authorities to overlap one another and wastefully to duplicate their efforts.

Division 281 of the estimates for the Department of Education makes financial provision for the Curriculum Development Centre. We debated this matter only a short time ago. An amount of almost $ 1.4m is provided for this purpose. That amount is almost double last year’s expenditure. So we are not just concerned with bricks and mortar and with the number of teachers standing before classes; we are concerned with the quality of education. That is why the development of this Curriculum Development Centre is so important. It works in cooperation with the States.

There are a number of other research provisions in these estimates. Much has been said lately about deficiencies in literacy and number ability amongst many of our students. It is interesting to note that the National Committee on English Teaching which was established in October 1974 will come into full operation this financial year. Its charter is to investigate the ways in which written and spoken English may be more efficiently taught in schools. There is the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools. The Asian Studies Coordinating Committee has a provision of $450,000 in these estimates. In division 270 of the Estimates, $900,000 is made available for research and development in education. I have just touched upon some of the things that are in these estimates and which will improve not only the quantity but the quality of education.

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

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-In rising to speak on the Estimates for the Department of Education, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the information paper presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). I have found it most informative but I think it is also an instance of the pea and thimble trick. In the paper the Minister talks in terms of the massive increase in the overall amount related to education. In doing so he talks of an increase of $236m in the total amount of expenditure involved. If we analyse the figures supplied by the Minister which are given in the back of this paper, we realise that the universities are receiving an increase of 3 per cent over last year’s allowance. We see that the colleges of advanced education are receiving an increase of approximately 3 per cent over last year’s allocation. We see that the technical education area receives an increase of 41 per cent. But then we realise that in the field of universities, the amount expended is $569m; in the area of the colleges of advanced education it is $495m; but in the technical education field it is a mere $ 101m. So the 41 per cent in this respect is not such a large amount.

If we look at the areas of schools, pre-schools, child care and the Schools Commission for State schools, we find that in relation to government schools in the States there is an increase of 4 per cent. These are hardly magnificent increases in the field of education when one considers inflation. The Minister has also pointed out in this paper that allowance Will be made for indexation. I accept this. It is obvious that if there is an inflationary rate running at 15 per cent to 20 per cent- one can select a figure because there seem to be many experts on the actual amount of inflation one allows for indexation of the amounts to cover any rise caused by inflation. Last year’s estimate of $1,1 20m for Schools Commission programs rose to an expenditure of $l,326m because of indexation. This means we will obviously have to allow for at least another $200m to $300m in education expenditure to allow for indexation. To me the Government’s estimate appears to be somewhat false. I am not saying that the Government should not allow for these increases, but the Government must allow for the fact that all the items in the Budget are going to be subject to the same pressures and if allowance is made for indexation in terms of rising costs because of the inflationary trends there will be an increase in the projected deficit of $2,750m to something like $3,000m or $4,000m because in education alone the increased expenditure will be at least $200m to $300m.

I know that the Minister has received correspondence from the College of Advanced Education in Bendigo and also the state college in Bendigo expressing concern because the amount of money provided in these estimates for building programs is roughly the same as the amount proposed at the start of last year. This means, in effect, that when allowance is made for inflation, buildings will not be able to be completed. I think this has been quite clearly spelled out. I wonder what really is the value of even starting a building which cannot be completed because a building is useless unless it is completed. If adequate money is provided for building programs and allowance is made for increases in inflation we will find that the total push in respect of these estimates will far exceed the amount shown as the actual estimate of expenditure.

I take nothing away from the Minister’s report in any shape or form; in fact I compliment him on its presentation. It has been very well presented, but in presenting it he also outlined weaknesses in estimating expenditure. I realise he has had to conform to certain Treasury restrictions. We accept that, but in doing so he should not try to gild the lily by saying that this year there has been an overall increase in the allocation of funds on the previous year. There has been an increase but there are some relatively new areas of expenditure. I have mentioned the increase of 41 per cent in technical education. I look further down the table set out in the document on education attached to the Budget Papers and see that in the area of government schools, pre-schools and child care centres in the Territories the proposed expenditure has risen from $72m to $96m by roughly 3316 per cent. I suppose one can honestly admit- we have advocated this, or I certainly have- that one can spend a dollar only once. I am not in any way saying that the Government should be throwing money around. I merely point out that we should look at the real facts. The universities are getting an increase of 33 per cent but the colleges of advanced education are getting an increase of only 3 per cent. Surely this means that in effect there has been a cut in educational expenditure. This is what we have been telling these people who are concerned about this. We have said: ‘Do not swallow the story that you are getting an increase. In effect you are getting a cut in the amount of money to be provided for your sector of education’. This is a fact. It is spelled out in this document in black and white and the figures are clear. If expenditure in this area is cut there will be a return to the problem of a banking up.

The cutting out of the triennium arrangements has provided a very easy excuse for the Government to say, as the Minister has done very plausibly and very nicely, that requests have been sent back to the various commissions asking them to review their cases. They have put a lot of time and study into this and they know how much money they need to make a success of their goals based on their expenditure in the last triennium. They did not come along and ask for the moon; their requests were based on proper reports. The Government has used this excuse of going back to re-think the situation as a basis for holding up education programs which is has so proudly presented and which it has so proudly said represents great achievements. I do not deny that the Government has achieved a lot in education but it is starting to go downhill in this field right now.

The biggest mistake the Government has made is in not continuing the triennium payments. The schools cannot budget properly for their building projects and education programs with money being appropriated for only one year. The Minister is well aware that during the last triennium a lot of money was provided for various areas of education as is clearly set out in the Minister’s report. I agree with speakers, I think from both sides of this chamber, that much of this money was not used correctly and that this is one of the areas of concern. I do not entirely blame the Australian Government for this. One of the problems facing State governments is that they are told almost overnight that they have to spend a large amount of money in a very short space of time. They are told that they have to use it aU up. This creates a pressure with the States trying to use up the money that has been provided. That does not exonerate the States in any way, because in many cases I believe the State education authorities have used money unwisely.

The Australian Government, like some State education systems, has not used money wisely either. The fact that the States may have made some mistake does not exonerate this Government. A Government supporter- the windmill up the back- is laughing. This is a serious matter. I only hope that the Government calls for additional reports very quickly, reviews the situation and brings in new triennium arrangements. I hope it comes forward with an honest policy and an honest estimate of the money that will need to be provided for expenditure on education. If the Government is going to stick to the Budget, as the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has stated, and if it is not to have a deficit in excess of $2,500m I would like the Minister to explain whether allowance has been made for indexation to cover cost increases which the Minister has stated in this report have been provided for. I stated at the commencement of my remarks that this report was well presented but it is a plausible cover-up for the old pea and thimble trick of now you see it but you do not ever get it.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-Children who are poor, children who are black, children who are female, children from families where English is spoken, if at all, as a second language, children from country areas or children who suffer from mental or physical handicaps, including specific learning difficulties, have been victims of educational deprivation on a massive scale. If in this place debates on education tend to be expressed in terms of money it is because of the massive infusion of funds which has been necessary over the last 3 years to redress the balance to some extent. It will be a slow and painful process, a slow and expensive process making good the years that the locusts ate up- the 23 years when educational expenditure in this country at the Federal level and at the State level was low and misdirected because overwhelmingly it was the children I have catalogued whose schools were the most crowded, the oldest, whose classes were the largest, whose equipment was the most inadequate, who overall received the worst possible deal educationally. For those children who came from homes where education was valued, where achievement was encouraged, for those children what encouragement was available educationally was given but it would be a mistake for these Estimates debates to be concerned exclusively with expenditure.

It would be a mistake to make too much of the figures which have been set out by the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) in the paper attached to the Budget Papers and to which the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) referred because it has become very clear, I think, to people professionally involved in the field of education, and it is becoming clear to the community at large, that no amount of money can make good entirely for a lack of stimulus in the home. No amount of expenditure on schools can wholly compensate those children who come from homes where little or no value is placed on education or where the education process is ill understood.

I want to say something tonight in the context of these estimates about the need for parental education. This is a field to which the United States of America is now devoting a very great deal of attention. It was recognised 10 years ago in the United States that children who had had the advantage of a pre-school education were able to come to grips more rapidly and more thoroughly with the formal education process when they got to primary school; that at every subsequent stage of education they were better off than children who had not been able to find places in pre-school centres. So it was that the American federal government sponsored the head-start program to see that America’s most deprived children, the black children, the poor children- (Quorum formed). I was saying when I was interrupted by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner), who called for the quorum and who appears not to take the subject under discussion seriously, that the United States federal government initiated the head-start program so that poor children, black children and children disadvantaged in other ways would be fully equipped to take advantage of a primary school education when it became available to them. But it rapidly became apparent when the results of the head-start program were analysed that not even this step, not even getting the disadvantaged child at the earliest possible stage of his life, was a sufficient response to the disadvantage of which he was a victim. As a result the American government now is spending more in the field of educational research on parental education than on any other area of educational activity.

Tonight I want simply to register a request with the Minister for Education that we should similarly take this business of parental education seriously. I have been impressed by the antenatal classes which are conducted in many parts of this country for prospective parents. But surely we should recognise the need to carry on these classes after the birth of a child and make the subject of them the problems which every parent encounters in raising a small child. Similarly we must acknowledge that many parents, and among them those most in need of assistance and advice, will never come within the reach of any formal system of classes, instruction or advice. We should recognise the potential for reaching those parents who will not come within that sphere through the television media.

It is extraordinary how little use we have so far made of television in this country for education in any of its forms, but most particularly for education in the forms which are important to people who cannot otherwise be reached. I would like to see a close co-operation developed between the Children’s Commission, the Schools Commission, the Department of Education, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations so that a concerted effort can be made to bring parents advice on the child raising process. There is no want of experience overseas. There is no want of expenditure on research overseas. We should draw on that body of experience and research to devise programs which will meet the sort of problems which cripple the later education of so many of our children. This is not a task which is beyond the resources of this country, either financially, in terms of educational expertise or in terms of the resources of the television industry. This is an exciting field waiting to be opened educationally. It would have been a pity if the discussion of these estimates had gone by without some reference being made to a major new field- the field of parental education.

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

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-Mr Deputy Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 59

NOES: 48

Majority……. 11

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)-

Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 11 July 1974, I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

AYES

NOES

page 1578

ADJOURNMENT

Papua New Guinea- Political

Parties - Aborigines

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

– I wish to speak upon the question of Papua New Guinea and certain aspects of Australia’s relationship with that country. I am prompted to do so for 2 reasons: Firstly, because like you, Mr Speaker, I was in Papua New Guinea during the independence celebrations and, secondly, because of some of the reporting in the Australian media since the independence celebrations which has given in my opinion an unfair picture of the problems facing the Papua New Guinea Government. The problems which that Government faces are immense and it is neither fair nor realistic to judge the Government of emerging countries by criteria such as those which would apply for the problems of highly industrialised economies. Yet this is what some reporters have done.

I will not, at this stage any way, specify the reporters or analyse their reports. I certainly do not wish to appear as an apologist for the Papua New Guinea Government but I do wish to appear as a member of this Parliament who worked in Papua New Guinea and who probably has a better appreciation of the problems of that country and the policies of that Government than have the reporters who have aroused my ire. I will therefore content myself with presenting my view of the significance of the independence celebrations and independence and the nature of the problems now being faced by that Government. I do so in a very non-Party political fashion. I think one of the most impressive aspects of the independence celebrations was the fact that there was neither euphoria nor hysteria. There were no extravagant gestures or speeches; there was merely a calm acceptance of the reality of independence. Many of the Ministers and other members of Parliament admitted that they had tears in their eyes when the Australian flag was lowered and again on the following day when the Papua New Guinea flag was raised. This must rank as a rare independence celebration indeed.

The independence celebrations were highly successful. Prince Charles and other visitors expressed their appreciation of the smooth fashion in which the celebrations were organised. There was no major hitch. This again is a rare event. It is doubtful whether the average citizens of Papua New Guinea can really conceive the magnitude of the problems which lie before their country and its leaders. Its principal leaders do recognise those problems and they do intend to apply themselves with determination to the resolution of them if only because the alternative to success is quite unthinkable.

It is widely recognised that the inner Cabinet is a strong one and that the choice of Sir John Guise as Governor-General is most appropriate. It is a very fitting climax to his career and one which must privately astonish him when he considers the controversial nature of his career. The most notable members of the present Cabinet are the Prime Minister, Mr Somare; his Deputy, Sir Maori Kiki; the Finance Minister, Mr Julius Chan; Sir Paul Lapun from Bougainville; and Mr Ebia Olewale. These men represent all parts of Papua New Guinea and are likely to be its leaders for many years to come. They are very much aware that the highlanders are ceasing to be the conservative people who they were once and they are also aware that younger leaders are emerging and that if they are cultivated they will add strength to the present Government and that if they are ignored they will become opponents.

The Public Service continues to grow and this Will be a problem for Papua New Guinea. Australia has provided that country with a larger Public Service than has been left to other countries by colonial powers. While this has been important in budding the necessary infrastructure, the new nation’s leaders will have a major task in curbing the growth of the Public Service. Other emerging nations have found that the Public Service has become a haven for mediocrity and the means of resolving employment problems amongst families and friends of politicians and senior public servants. The traditional sense of kinship obligation will make this a distinct probability in Papua New Guinea. The shortage of middle management will remain a problem for at least another decade. There are many less competent, and often less humble, persons who have filled the vacuum created by the Australian departure and this will mean that no matter how conscientious are departmental heads and how competent are the Ministers and the senior public servants, there will be below them a number who can at best perform their duties adequately. If they are able to do even this they will have served their country well. Evidence of the vacuum created by Australia’s departure strikes one quickly on returning to Papua New Guinea but Papua New Guinea’s leaders are aware of this. After a period of consolidation we may expect that this vacuum will be filled by overseas experts recruited by the new Government in accordance with policies aimed at maintaining firm control of Papua New Guinea’s resources in the Government’s hands.

It is often observed that one of Papua New Guinea’s greatest difficulties lies in the fragmentation of its language and culture. This can, however, be converted to an asset as there is no one ethnic group large enough to dominate the others and there is no likely coalition of ethnic groups to achieve this dominance. This is one case, therefore, in which unity can be achieved despite the extreme diversity, because that diversity is so great as to make any independent action by any of the ethnic groups economically and politically impracticable. Public education programs have been conducted to convince citizens of the need for unity. A wide range of T-shirts and posters proclaim both independence and unity with slogans such as ‘Our country’s future is in our hands’.

The leaders in Port Moresby will certainly need to guard against the tendency to preoccupy themselves with the paper work associated with administration, at the expense of travelling the country and communicating with its citizens. Papua New Guinea is a potentially rich country, and with improved technology much of its mineral and oil wealth will be capable of extraction on a commercial basis. In order to expedite this, its foreign investment policy will need to be made clear and its border problem with Australia will need to be resolved amicably and expeditiously. Likewise it must continue to show the residents of Bougainville that it is a strong government and can provide leadership without malting martyrs of the people who have tried to have Bougainville secede. It is generally felt that Bougainville will not secede if the central government can remain strong and provide the necessary services for the people. The situation would, of course, become complicated if a foreign power were to recognise the unilateral declaration of independence by Bougainville. Judging from the media coverage there are some media people in Australia who would wish that to happen. Similarly, the Papua separatist movement is not regarded seriously. Just as there are many senior administrators who come from Bougainville, there are many prominent Papuans in the Government and in the public service.

Last night the Papua New Guinea Treasurer, Mr Julius Chan, presented the independent country’s first Budget. In doing so he was reluctantly critical of Australia ‘s grant in aid. This is a matter upon which the Papua New Guinea Government feels most upset. As I said before, I do not wish in this speech to introduce a party political note, so I will conclude by expressing my regret that this unfortunate wrangle should have occurred at this time when Australia is handing over to the independent nation. I am sure that all Australians will recognise our obligation to assist Papua New Guinea with technical and material aid for decades to come, and also to extend trade between our countries for the benefit and prosperity of both.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Last night when I spoke on the adjournment I was trying in what I thought was a fairly moderate tone to engage in some intelligent debate on the crisis towards which this country is moving. Unfortunately, some members of the Opposition seemed to think that I was begging for sympathy or making some form of request for people to go easy on the Government. Let me make it perfectly clear. I want no sympathy whatsoever from members of the Opposition or any of their ilk. I was simply trying to explain what is happening, because no one seems to have gone past the point of what will happen if this country is forced to a double dissolution. If honourable members opposite want me to talk in highly emotional tones, I am quite happy to do so. If they want to go on as they did last night and talk like a pack of yahoos then I will talk in the same language. Otherwise we will talk, I hope, in the intelligent way in which this chamber ought to function.

I was trying to get members of the Opposition to understand the sort of climate they are creating. I will not go over everything I said last night, but I said that in the pre- 1972 climate certain elements were active in our society. They were people on the left of politics, well to the left of me. I suppose that if labels are being put on people I would be regarded as being in the centreleft of the Labor movement. There are people in the Labor movement and outside the Labor movement- Trotskyites and Maoists- who do not believe in the democratic system. Some of them were able during 1971 and 1972 to get the hearing of quite a large section of the community. People such as Dr Cairns, Senator George Georges and Bill Hayden went out on the streets and talked to the demonstrators. They told them that what they ought to do was to have a peaceful demonstration. They were able to avert violence. Dr Cairns, rather than being a man of violence, as the picture was painted, was a man of peace. There were plenty of people within that section of politics who were prepared to create violence, but we were able to talk to them. I was not involved so much in the Vietnam moratorium, but I was involved in the antiapartheid movement. I went to university meetings and I was hissed, heckled, ridiculed and abused because I saidMr Fisher- You said that last night.

Mr COHEN:

– But you were not listening last night. I hope you will listen just a little more closely because I am going to do what you did. I am going to repeat this every night so that if you do not listen people somewhere else will listen. What I said to these people was that they would have to give the system a go, that we have been in Opposition for 23 years but the public mood was such that we are going to win the next election. I said that the only thing that could lose us that election was the sort of violence that would create an electoral backlash. I said that if they wanted to see action on the things they hatedAustralia’s involvement in Vietnam, conscription and tours of Australia by Springbok sporting teams and so on and so forth- the way to do it was to get behind the Labor movement and work and expand their energies in getting us elected. This they did, and we were successful. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) is trying to interject. I wish he would not interrupt me. As I have said before, he has stood too close to the guns for too long. He is suffering from shell shock.

The point I was trying to make last night is that we were able to convince the great majority of people who took to the streets that the answer was to work through the democratic process. In 1972 we won. In 1974, when the Opposition decided to try to cut short our elected term of office by half, those people were boiling with anger but once again they gave the democratic process a go. They worked hard and they had us reelected. Now we face this second threat. Really, it is enough to make one throw up to hear people say there is not a threat, because if there is not a threat why is it talked about in every political column in every newspaper in the country almost daily.

Mr Sullivan:

– You are talking about it.

Mr COHEN:

– I am not the only one who is talking about it. If the honourable member had any brains, any intelligence or any capacity to observe, he would also know what is being talked about. If such a threat succeeds- there is no doubt that it is a possibility, otherwise we would not be talking about it- what are we going to say to these people afterwards? When they come to us after the election and they sayMr Fisher- That is your worry.

Mr COHEN:

-That is right. It may be our worry but it will also be your worry because there will be no way in the world they will listen to us when we say: ‘Work through the democratic process’. I would suggest that those who think that violence cannot break out in Australia disabuse themselves of that idea immediately, because in many countries around the world- America, Britain, France and Italy- violence we have never known- bombings, riots and things like that- are now almost daily or weekly occurrences. If this democratic process is wrecked once and for all- that is what the Opposition is bringing down upon Australia- it will give the people no other alternative but to take to the streets and to violence.

Mr Sullivan:

– You are threatening, are you?

Mr COHEN:

– I am stating what I believe will possibly happen. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) in the Budget debate raised this possibility. At that time I did not think about it. A lot of us have given it a lot of thought and we now believe it is a distinct possibility. Let me put the next possible scenario to honourable members. What chance in the world do honourable members think that the Liberal and National Country Parties would have of maintaining wage indexation? Absolutely none. Good Lord, we are having enough trouble now with sections of the trade union movement to convince them of the Tightness of wage indexation. Within one week of a Liberal-National Country Party government usurping office, wage indexation would be out the door. We remember the great speeches made by people like the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) who talked about law and order and about doing things the right way through the arbitration system. Why would the unions want to use arbitration after what the Opposition would have attempted to do twice- throw the Government elected for a 3-year term out of office? The Opposition parties have twice broken the conventions relating to casual vacancies in the Senate. And the Opposition would then go to the unions and say: ‘Yes, do the right thing’. The unions would laugh in the faces of members of the Opposition. There is not a hope in hell of getting that sort of -

Mr Sullivan:

– Are you looking for a good seat?

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member for Riverina has earned the reputation in the short time he has been a member of this House of being the No. 1 clown. I pay tribute to the other honourable members who have been here a little longer and who are a little wiser. They at least are giving me the courtesy of listening. I hope I am getting an intelligent response from them. Maybe the honourable member would learn a little if he would just listen. When he has been here a little longer maybe he will be a little wiser.

Mr Sullivan:

– You will not be here much longer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Riverina remain silent.

Mr COHEN:

– I say these things because in the short time I have been a member of this House I have learnt to respect the parliamentary system. When I was first elected maybe I also talked wildly as some newly elected honourable members do. But I believe in the parliamentary system and I respect it. I am not asking for sympathy; I am just asking people to think of the consequences of what they are doing. If such action is taken there is no way in the world that afterwards when people come to me and say: ‘We are going out in the streets and we are going to create a violent situation’ I will try to tell them that they should try the parliamentary system. What for? To work their backsides off for six, nine or twelve years to get a Labor government elected? For what? So that after another 6 months it can be thrown out of office?

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You are whingeing a bit.

Mr COHEN:

-What the honourable member does not seem to understand is that it does not matter to me professionally. The end of my life will not come if I leave Parliament. Quite honestly it does not concern me that much. I like being here, but I am not concerned for myself. What I am concerned about is the future of Australia and the future of the parliamentary process. I think it is important that a few of us who have some brains think coolly and calmly about the alternatives. Honourable members opposite ought to think carefully before they drag the country down because the time would come when they would stand and ask: ‘Why did we do it?’.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar ( 10.53

– Two or three weeks ago in this House I read a letter that I had received from the Aboriginal community at Oenpelli. It was a rather dreadful letter telling of the devastation of the community by alcohol and the lack of discipline and the whole breakdown of the fabric of their society. During the short parliamentary recess I took the opportunity, together with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), of visiting Oenpelli to see whether the facts as set out in that letter were true. I came to the melancholy conclusion that not only were they true but also that the letter had underestimated the gravity of the situation.

I knew that a similar situation, although not as bad by any means, was gathering at Yirrkala. When I was in Darwin a couple of weeks a go I saw people from Elcho Island who told me that there was again not as bad a situation but a similar situation gathering at Elcho Island. I heard also of the bad things that have happened at Maningrida. So it can be said that throughout Arnhem Land the society of the 6000 or 7000 Aboriginal people there is in the process of dissolution and decay. That has to be stopped. The Aborigines themselves want it stopped and asked for something to be done. I do not believe that any measures can be effectively taken in this area unless they are backed by Aboriginal consent. Therefore, I would not advocate any measures which do not have that consent behind them.

One of the things that the Aborigines are asking for is proper police protection, and they are entitled to have it. These are Aborigines who are asking for the protection of police and specifically asking for the location of European police officers in their communities. I took this question up with them and I am quite certain of what they are asking for. They ask that these officers should have Aboriginal aides. They ask also that their tribal customs should gain more recognition than they get from our administration of the law. All these requests are reasonable. When I made some inquiries I found that it would be some time before police could be stationed in the area. It was said that there is no suitable accommodation for them and that there is no point in putting a constable there unless he has some kind of complex with detention cells and things of that character. I am saying that we cannot wait for this to happen. There is not time because the processes of dissolution and decay are going on so rapidly in that Aboriginal community. One of the things that has to happen now, and only with Aboriginal consent and because Aboriginal initiative has asked for it, is the stationing of police officers immediately in these communities.

As honourable members know there are police officers at Maningrida. There is an officer at Yirrkala or Nhulunbuy which is just next door to Yirrkala. Other officers are needed; certainly at Oenpelli, Goulburn Island, Mulingimbi and Elcho Island and I think also just outside the reserve on what is known as the Jim Jim Crossing. It may be that these police officers would have to have temporary accommodation. If a house cannot be provided they will have to have caravans. But it has to be done quickly and now where the Aboriginals want it and only where the Aboriginals ask for it.

I suggest that we can get over the difficulties by one simple device. Over Arnhem Land we have a wonderful flying doctor service. I say that this has to have in parallel with it a flying magistrate based, say, at Yirrkala, which is more or less central to the area about which I am talking. That magistrate should have an aeroplane so that when there is a violation he can be on the spot the following day. The aeroplane should have in it accommodation for prisoners so that if necessary, because there is no local detention cell, they can be taken away. This must be done swiftly and justice must be meted out swiftly if the present disorder is in any way to be contained.

In addition to this I believe that we have to give back to the Aboriginal communities discipline over their own members and we have to recognise the right of the tribal organisations to inflict punishment on their own people when they so determine. This is something which we would not want to apply to Aboriginals unless we gave to those who did not want to accept the tribal discipline the capacity to emigrate freely from Arnhem Land. I would not suggest that we allow death or mutilation as punishment. I would suggest that any Aboriginal who wants should be able to get out of Arnhem Land and avoid tribal punishment. But, with those reservations, tribal punishment should be reinstated throughout Arnhem Land.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1584

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aboriginal Legal Service (Question No. 1913)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what are the functions of the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service in Nowra.
  2. If so, does it have functions other than the provision of legal aid, e.g. co-ordination of activities.
  3. How many (a) permanent and (b) casual employees are there.
  4. How many vehicles does it own or use.
  5. 5 ) How is it funded, and who controls expenditure.
  6. How are payments approved, and who is authorised to sign cheques.
  7. What restraints are there on spending.
  8. Has the Service the power to make payments for casual work; if so, of what nature.
  9. Has the Service the power to fund travelling, meals or other expenses for people taking part in demonstrations against government or other authorities
  10. 10) How many service stations, motels, etc., have credit facilities and account arrangements with the Service.
  11. What sum was spent by the Service on travelling, maintenance and repair of vehicles and accommodation during the past six months.
  12. Were staff members of the Service involved in demonstrations against the Australian Government in Canberra in November 1974.
  13. 1 3 ) If so, what sum was spent on these demonstrations by the Service.
  14. Does the Service serve the needs of people only on the South Coast.
  15. Have there been changes in the starling of the Service in recent months; if so, what were the reasons.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Service is funded by the Australian Government to provide legal aid to Aboriginals on the South Coast and adjacent areas.
  2. Australian Government funds are provided to enable the Service to employ five permanent staff.
  3. The Australian Government has provided funds for the purchase of three vehicles for the Service.
  4. The Australian Government provides direct grants to the Service from funds allocated to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for support of Aboriginal legal services. The accountant to the Legal Service reimburses proper expenditure under the directions of the Service’s Council and after approval by the auditor.
  5. See (S) above. All five staff members are authorised to sign cheques.
  6. See (S) above. In regard to Australian Government funds, I approve the budget of the Legal Service and the Service is required to provide an audited statement demonstrating that funds have been disbursed in accordance with the approved purposes.
  7. Yes- for work of an urgent nature when permanent staff members are not available.
  8. No.
  9. 10) Four service stations; one motel.

  10. Total spent by Nowra section of the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service on:

    1. motor vehicles (repairs, maintenance, fuel etc.)-$5,529.28.
    2. travel and accommodation- $2,428.39.
  11. The Aboriginal Legal Service has provided the following information: ‘In the course of their duties as research officers and field officer respectively two staff members were present in Canberra at various times during November 1974 as were executive members and senior staff who were attending discussions with Ministers’.
  12. See (7) and (9) above. Some unauthorised expenditure has recently been disclosed and I am requiring the Legal Service to have its staff make this good.
  13. See (1)and (2)above
  14. Yes; mainly personal.

Special Assistance to Non-Metropolitan Areas Scheme (Question No. 1981)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. Approximately what sum was (a) paid and (b) promised as subsidies to firms under the Special Assistance to Non-Metropolitan Areas Scheme.
  2. How many persons is it estimated this Scheme has prevented becoming unemployed during each month.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1. (a) and (b) $4,916 million has been paid to 40 companies under the Special Assistance to Non-Metropolitan Areas Scheme (SANMA) and a further $0.14 million has been approved but not yet paid.

  1. The number of companies being assisted under the SANMA scheme during each month between November 1974 and July 1957 and the estimated number of persons employed by them were as follows.

Complete employment details for July are not yet available.

It is not possible to state the actual number of persons who would have been unemployed each month in the absence of SANMA assistance. However, before providing assistance the Government satisfied itself that significant numbers of persons are at real risk of retrenchment. It is estimated that 5,560 persons would have been retrenched but for SANMA assistance. The total number of employees in plants which have received SANMA assistance is in the order of 9642.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 2119)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1652 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my reply to Question No. 1652 which appeared in Hansard (Page 1276) on 10 September 1975.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 2129)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1156 which first appeared on the notice paper on 26 September 1 974.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was provided on 20 August 1 975 at Hansard page 363.

Production of Consumer Durables (Question No. 2200)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

Was the production of durable consumer goods in the 3 months ended 31 January 1975 significantly lower than in the corresponding months ended 3 1 January 1 974; if so why.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

The production of durable consumer goods in the 3 months ended 3 1 January 1 975 was lower than in the corresponding months ended 3 1 January 1974.

There were two major factors in this downturn:

In the three months to January 1975 many factories were shut down for a longer period than previously because of the introduction of four weeks annual leave for many awards.

In addition Australia, in conjunction with most other developed economies, suffered an economic downturn over the course of 1974. Typically, this downturn was more severe in the durable consumer goods’ industry. To quote the latest OECD Economic Outlook, published in July 1975, ‘the decline in total output began last year with a sharp downturn in final domestic demand, led by final consumption and housing’.

There are no comparable statistics of production of durable consumer goods, but it does appear that the downturn in total Australian industrial production was less severe than in many other countries. To quote the OECD again. ‘By the first quarter of this year, industrial production had fallen from its last peak by some 20 per cent m Japan, 10-15 per cent in the United States, Germany, France and Italy, and 5 per cent in the United Kingdom’.

By contrast, the comparable decline in the seasonally adjusted ANZ Bank industrial production index was 9 per cent.

Aboriginal Legal Service (Question No. 2452)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the structure and establishment of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia.
  2. How many are employed.
  3. What are their names and locations.
  4. What is the estimated cost during each of the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia is an independent incorporated body controlled, within the terms of its constitution, by an executive committee which is answerable to the general membership of the Service; only Aborigines may be members of the incorporated body. The principal officers of the Service are the Executive Officers, Principal Solicitor, Senior Field Officer and Office Manager; these officers are responsible to the executive committee.
  2. ) The Service employs staff and has professional staff on retainer. The total of persons employed or otherwise directly associated with the Service is 22.
  3. The names and locations of persons employed by or on retainer with the Service are as follows:

Perth

John R. Huelin Lloyd L. Davies Dominic J. Bourke Phillippa Thomson Raymond Clinch Phillip E.Bennell Susan Stack Noreen Achard Jacqueline Ann Oakley Urmila Devi Pillay Selina M. King

Narrogin Pauric D.Lane Clem Rodney Alison Cretan

Temporary, Part-time Stan. T. Jakobsen Peter G. McKerron

Kalgoorlie

Fulvio Sammut William L. Dimer Lolo Shepard

Port Hedland

Henry A. Wallwork Doreen Lockyer Jennifer Hicks

This list does not include those solictors and barristers to whom work is referred out from time to time.

  1. During 1974-75 Australian Government grants totalling $246,867 were paid to the Service. The budget for the year 1 975-76 is at present under consideration.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 2458)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When may I expect an answer to question No. 497 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 1 7 July 1 974.
  2. Why has there been so much delay in furnishing an answer.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The answer to the honourable member’s question was provided on 20 August 1975, Hansard at page 362.

  2. The preparation of this answer was delayed because of:

    1. delays in the NACC transmitting resolutions to the Minister;
    2. difficulties rendering these resolutions into cohesive form, which meant that, by the time a draft reply to this question had been prepared, another meeting of the NACC had taken place; the drafting was then held over to take account of the new set of resolutions.

Aboriginal Enterprises: Shareholders (Question No. 2459)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When may I expect an answer to questions numbers 1306 and 1307 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 15 October 1974.
  2. Why has there been such a delay in providing answers to these questions involving the public interest.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The answers to the honourable member’s questions number 1306 and 1307 appeared in the daily Hansards of 13

May and 20 August 1975 at pages 2192 and 363-364 respectively.

  1. In both cases the compilation of answers required referral of the questions to several officers within my Department, including officers then responsible for the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. While draft replies were being prepared, the legislation establishing the Aboriginal Loans Commission was enacted and further drafting action was overlooked in the resulting transfer of responsibilities. The answer to question 1307 was approved by Senator Cavanagh on 27 May 1975. Before this was printed in Hansard, changes in ministerial portfolios necessitated its submission for my consideration.

Government Cars (Question No. 2465)

Mr Kelly:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which Government Senators and Members, including Ministers are supplied with Government cars.
  2. What was the individual and total cost of these cars during (a) 1973 and (b) 1974 in each case.
  3. What is the formula for all the items used to ascertain the costs, including depreciation, administrative costs and running costs.
  4. Are such cars for depreciation purposes costed on market price although the Government only pays landed price.
  5. 5 ) What is the difference in value between the two prices.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Every Senator and Member of the Parliament is entitled to official car transport on certain occasions.
  2. (a) It is not possible to provide the individual costs for cars supplied to all Senators and Members. However, I outline below the individual costs for Ministers, Parliamentary Office-holders and others entitled to exclusive use of VIP cars.

  1. For the total costs of official transport for Members of the Australian Parliament I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure, for the year ended 30 June 1973 - see Division 352 on page 40, for the year ended 30 June 1974 - see Division 521 on page 41, for the year ended 30 June 1975 - see Division 521 on page 48.

    1. (a) The Stores and Transport Branch of the Department of Services and Property which provides car transport in all States charges:
    1. an hourly rate for driver’s time on the job (currently $9 per hour) which is built up from the following: direct labour for drivers; depreciation of vehicles and equipment; and overheads or administrative costs which include salaries and wages of depot staff, employee benefits (sick pay, holiday pay, furlough, etc. ); drivers’ indirect labour (training, supervision, cleaning vehicles, meal allowances, etc.); materials and expenses (uniforms, office supplies, ‘telephones, electrical services, security, water and sewerage rates); service section costs (accounting industrial and personnel).
    2. a kilometre charge (currently 5 cents per kilometre) is made up of the following items: fuel and oil; tyres and tubes; and repairs and maintenance.

The charge is calculated only for the time and distance from picking up the passenger to dropping the passenger.

  1. Depreciation is costed on the Government purchase price.
  2. The Stores and Transport Branch formerly attached to the Department of Manufacaturing Industry last purchased vehicles for ministerial transport in May 1975. The price of the Ford LTD was as follows:

Retail list price $9,701

Department of Manufacturing Industry contract price $6,533

Details relating to the formula for charges and the cost of vehicles used by the Transport Section of the Department of the Capital Territory should be sought from my colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Parliamentary Procedures (Question No. 2659)

Mr Garland:

asked the Leader of the House, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1294 that was placed on the Notice Paper on 15 October 1974 and was unanswered by 23 May 1975.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to my reply to question No. 1294 which appeared in Hansard, 1 1 September 1975, page 1380.

Department of Social Security (Question No. 2678)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, 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 Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. IS46 which appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard of 5 June 1975, pp. 3518-3522.
  2. 1 refer the honourable member to the answer by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on 21 August 1975 to Question No. 2691 (Hansard p. 468).

Grants to Non-Government Bodies (Question No. 2680)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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 Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Department of Foreign Affairs gives annual nonrepayable grants to the United Nations Association of Australia and the Australian Institute of International Affairs. The honourable member is also referred to my answer to question 1549 (Hansard, 5 June 1975, p. 3513) which deals with grants administered by the Austalian Development Assistance Agency.
  2. The assistance is not advertised and is made available annually on application to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the bodies concerned.
  3. The honourable member’s attention is drawn to the answer to part (3) of Question 2691 (Hansard, 21 August 1975, p. 468). His attention is also drawn to the handbook ‘Guidelines for Project Submissions-Financial Assistance for Overseas Aid Projects Undertaken by Australian NonGovernment Organisations’, issued by the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

Government Programs: Costs (Questions No. 2765)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2680 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 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) (a) United Nations Association of Australia-

197 1- 72-$ 15,000

1972- 73- $15,000

1973- 74-$23,347

1974- 75-$15,000

  1. Australian Institute of International Affairs-

197 1- 72-$ 12,000

1972- 73-$ 14,000

1973- 74-$15,000

1974- 75-$20,000

The honourable member is also referred to my answer to question 1549 (Hansard, 5 June 1975, p. 3513) concerning grants administered by the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

  1. United Nations Association of Australia and the Australian Institute of International Affairs.

Department of the Northern Territory: Grants (Question No. 2686)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Northern Australia upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way or (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants were available through the former Department of the Northern Territory 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.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. (a) Grants and matching grants available to nongovernment bodies or individuals were detailed in my answer to Question No. 1556 (Hansard dated 4.9.75, pages 1095-8).

    1. Loans available to non-government bodies or individuals are set out below:
    1. Loans made under Section 12/2E of the Social Welfare Ordinance;
    2. Loans made under the Mining Assistance Ordinance to enable prospectors to carry out mining operations;
    3. Flood Relief Loans- these are concessional interest loans of up to $10,000 for rebuilding and up to $5,000 for a substitute building block;
    4. Loans to primary producers made under the provisions of the Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance. There is a limit of $20,000, although a loan in excess of this figure may be approved by the Minister;
    5. Loans made under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme;
    6. Loans to the Northern Territory Housing Commission to provide housing for rental to persons of limited means. The interest on these loans is at the long-term bond rate;
    7. The advance made to the Northern Territory Home Finance Trustee to enable him to make loans to home-builders;
    8. Loans to church organisations;

    9. Loan to the Katherine Meat Works;

    10. Loans under the Water Supplies Development Ordinance.
    11. c) Subsidies are available as detailed below:

  2. Emergency housekeeping services- subsidy available to assist persons deprived of their normal housekeeper through illness etc;

    1. – Pensioner Bus Service- this is a SO per cent subsidy on bus fares for pensioners;
    2. Subsidies to Missions for maintenance of children of Aboriginal descent. These payments are made on a per caput basis and adjusted annually pro rata to the cost of living;
    3. Operational subsidy to the Northern Territory Road Safety Council;
    4. Subsidy on loss of operation of iron ore loading facility in Darwin to the Northern Territory Port Authority;
    5. Subsidy of up to $2 per ton to assist prospectors and miners to convey gold or other mineral ore to a government battery for crushing. The rate of subsidy is based on the grade of ore and the distance carried;
    6. Operational subsidy to the Northern Territory Tourist Board;
    7. Operational subsidy to the Northern Territory Branch of the ‘ Keep Australia Beautiful ‘ Council;
    8. Subsidy for a shipping service from Brisbane to ports on the east coast of the Northern Territory and islands adjacent to the coast. The rate of subsidy is fixed by contract;
    9. Subsidy for operational and capital expenses incurred by the Northern Territory Reserves Board;
    10. Subsidy for operational and capital expenses incurred by the Northern Territory Museums and Art Galleries Board;
    11. Subsidy for transport of stud stock to the Northern Territory;
    12. Railway freight subsidy;
    13. Child Welfare Council operating subsidy;
    14. Drought freight subsidy.
    1. See (a) above.
  3. The policy of assistance is circulated among all interested parties by wide-spread publicity in all media.
  4. I refer the honourable member to the answer by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to Part 3 of Question No. 2691 (Hansard dated 21 August 75, page 468).

Department of Repatriation and Compensation (Question No. 2690)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, 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 Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) The only financial assistance by way of non repayable grant made by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation is that made to the Returned Services League to help with expenses incurred in placing veterans in employment through its own agency.

    1. The Department is responsible for the provision of loans for general business purposes. These loans are designed to assist former national and regular servicement to establish or re-establish themselves satisfactorily in civil life.
    2. and (d) nil.
  2. The Department advertises the assistance it provides by way of business loans in a pamphlet which is freely available to interested persons.
  3. 3 ) There is no present intention to collate this information in any booklet such as envisaged by the honourable member.

Department of Transport: Grants (Question No. 2694)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Transport, 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 avaialbe 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 Charles Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. (a) Grants to Universities are made as and when required for specific research projects. The grants are, in effect, payment for work undertaken and performed by Universities on behalf of the Department and are, therefore, nonrepayable.

Financial assistance is provided annually to subsidise the operation of the Australian Shippers” Council.

Secretariat grants are made to the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia and the General Aviation Association (Australia). They are non-repayable.

A special gliding grant is made to the Gliding Federation of Australia mainly to reimburse the Federation pan of its costs arising from its responsibilities under the Air Navigation Regulations. This grant is non-repayable.

  1. None.
  2. Developmental air services subsidies are paid to support financially uneconomic air services under prescribed conditions.

Financial assistance is made available to registered Australian shipbuilding yards in accordance with the provisions of the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975.

  1. Non-repayable grants of 50 per cent of the cost of approved maintenance works are made on licensed aerodromes owned or operated by private companies or individuals and used by regular public transport services.

    1. The Australian Shippers’ Council is advised of the amount of money provided when the matter has been determined by Parliament.

The availability of assistance to Australian shipbuilders was advertised in the Australian national press in April, 1974. Copies of the POliCY Statement on Shipbuilding issued by the Australian Government in December, 1973 are provided to representatives of the shipbuilding industry as required.

The Department of Transport is at present preparing a brochure which will outline the Government’s shipbuilding assistance arrangements. These brochures will be available for circulation to the Australian shipbuilding industry.

Aerodrome Maintenance Grants are notified by means of the Department of Transport’s Aerodrome Local Ownership Information Booklet and by ‘correspondence to and direct contact with all aerodrome owners/operators.

Other grants or subsidies are generally announced through a press release or by direct contact with the organization concerned.

  1. Because of the diverse nature of the activities involved and the specific liaison maintained by the Department I believe the arrangements I have outlined above should be continued.

Complementary information is available in the handbook on Australian Government financial assistance available to local governments, voluntary organizations and community groups, which is produced by the Department of Urban and Regional Development.

Department of Social Security: Grants (Question No. 2763)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2678 of the Member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in Pan ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1546 on 5 June 1975 Hansard (pp 35 18-3522).

Department of Repatriation and Compensation: Grants (Question No. 2775)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2690 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.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

-The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The honourable member is referred to the answer to Question No. 2690. The non-repayable grants to the Returned Services League have cost the Government $5,280 in each of the four years specified. Business loans are repayable.

The amounts advanced by way of these loans are- 1971-72 - $208,336; 1972-73 - $261,267; 1973-74 - $354,851; 1974-75 -$782,856.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 2815)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. With reference to Question No. 2612 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?
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in pan ( 1 ) of Question No. 26 1 2?
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2789, Hansard 5 June 1975 at pages 3596 and 3547.

Youth Policy (Question No. 2855)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is he responsible for the Government’s Youth Policy?
  2. If so, is it a fact that grants have been made by the Minister for Social Security under the Australian Assistance

Plan, totalling more than $14,000, for a Youth Centre at Emerald and a Youth Drop-in Centre at Rockhampton?

  1. If so, was his advice sought by the Minister for Social Security before these projects were approved; if so, when; if not, why not?
  2. How do these projects fit within the Youth Policy program that his Department is charged with administering?
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The normal procedure before a grant under the Australian Assistance Plan is approved by the Minister for Social Security is

Local organisations forward applications for funding to the Regional Council. In its consideration of the projects the Regional Council is required to investigate if the projects submitted can be funded under existing State or Australian Government programs.

The Regional Council submits its recommendations concerning projects to be funded to the Minister for Social Security.

The Department of Social Security, if necessary, investigates alternative sources of funding of projects.

On the recommendation of the Department, the Minister for Social Security considers approving projects for funding.

At the time when the projects were approved, my Department had no funds available to assist local youth projects.

  1. The scope of my Department’s youth program is indicated in my answer to Question No. 1768 (Hansard page 3504 on 5 June 1975). One of the fundamental objectives of the Australian Government’s concern with young people is to provide more opportunities for them to become involved in the community around them. That this is generally in line with the wishes of young Australians is supported by the findings of the Youth Say report.

Funds are provided to national youth organisations to develop programs designed to meet this overall objective and facilities associated with such programs are eligible to be considered for capital grants assistance. The demand for funds is far greater than we can provide and on occasions, projects such as that mentioned by the right honourable member may be assisted by other Government Departments which are also concerned with issues that affect young people.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 2856)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a project has been approved by the Minister for Social Security under the Australian Assistance Plan for Youthsay research into community needs of youth conducted by the South West Sydney Youth Workers and Leaders.
  2. If so, did the Minister for Social Security seek his advice before approving the project to ensure that it conformed with the activities his Department is pursuing in this area; if so, when, and what was his response; if not, why not.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  2. The procedure for making grants under the Australian Assistance Plan is outlined in answer to Question 2855. The South West Sydney Regional Social Development Council contacted my Department, the Youth Advisory Council and the Association of Youth Organisations and was informed by each that no assistance was available for the project.

Department of Northern Australia: Advertising Budget (Question No. 2864)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Australia upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The advertising budget for the Department of Northern Australia in 1 975-76 is $70,000.
  2. National and local advertising particularly in respect of the recruitment of professional and technical staff, but also in respect of tenders, land auctions, industrial safety, legislation, and prices, and public notices dealing with matters of concern for various Divisions of the Department.
  3. The cost of advertising for the Departments of Northern Development and the Northern Territory, now the Department of Northern Australia, for each of the last 5 years was: 1974-75, $57,761; 1973-74, $58,962; 1972-73, $43,375; 1971-72, $37,089; 1970-71, $37,477.

Department of Social Security: Advertising Budget (Question No. 2867)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What is the advertising budget of the Department of Social Security for 1975-76.
  2. ) What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) $190,000 for media advertising to inform people of their entitlements to pensions, benefits and services and of programs provided through the Department.

Another $315,000 has been provided for advertising and producing pamphlets for Medibank. Of the total of $1. 58m provided for Medibank publicity in 1974-75, $345,000 has been carried forward to 1975-76 for expenses incurred on Medibank publicity last financial year for which payment has not yet been made because:

  1. Advertising lodged after 30 April is paid in the succeeding year; and
  2. Some accounts have not yet been received.

In addition an estimated $45,000 will be spent on advertising to make people more aware of the Australian Assistance Plan and how they can become involved in it.

  1. The Department of Social Security was formed in December 1972 from an amalgamation of the former Department of Social Services and the Health Insurance and Benefits Division of the Department of Health.

The Department’s media advertising totalled $366,377 in 1 973-74 and $ 1 , 1 34,477 in 1 974-75.

Concord Repatriation Hospital: Anzac Day Service (Question No. 2882)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Anzac Day service traditionally held at the Concord Repatriation Hospital, for how many years have services been held.
  2. Was the service discontinued in 1975.
  3. What was the cost to the Government during the last 4 years of arranging and holding such services, and what was the nature of the expenditure.
  4. How many people for each of the last 4 years have participated directly in the service.
  5. Was the form of service broadcast directly to immobile patients.
  6. If the service has been discontinued, who made the decision to discontinue it.
  7. Why was the service discontinued.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Services have been held for five years commencing on 19 April 1970.
  2. Yes.
  3. No statistics of actual costs were kept. The estimated total cost for each yearly service was $ 1 00 to $ 1 20. The main expenditure was lure charges for a public address system to cater for any overflow audience, provision of a light supper for guests and provision of car transport for a small number of official guests.
  4. It is not known how many people attended the services. In addition to official guests all mobile patients were invited to attend. Official guest attendances were 1970-80, 1971-78, 1972-65, 1973-66, 1974-64.
  5. Yes. The service was relayed to all wards via the hospital broadcast system.
  6. The Deputy Commissioner for Repatriation in New South Wales on the advice of the Chaplains at the Hospital.
  7. The service was discontinued because there had been a considerable decline in the number of patients and staff attending the service in the previous two years.

Fawnmac Pharmaceutical Group (Question No. 2893)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What will be the managerial arrangements for the recently purchased Fawnmac group of companies.
  2. What administrative and managerial links will be established between these companies and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on the one hand and of both groups with the Government.
  3. 3 ) Will Fawnmac be required to operate at a profit or will it be linked with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and be subsidised by the Government.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) At this stage the operating companies will continue to function much as they do now and with the present management.
  2. The purchase of the Fawnmac Group will give balance to the range of pharmaceuticals produced by the Government. Non-biological products manufactured by the Fawnmac Group will complement the range of biological products manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Fawnmac Group already perform a considerable amount of work for CSL under contract and it is envisaged that this close working relationship will be maintained and strengthened. The links between Fawnmac, CSL and the Government will be such as to ensure the implementation of the Government’s policy of promoting healthy competition with private enterprise and, as far as possible, of reducing the cost of drugs to the Australian taxpayer, without establishing a Government monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry.
  3. It is expected that the operating companies should continue to be financially viable. However, they should be less inhibited in including in their product range of items which are important from the national health point of view but which may not offer a significant commercial return. The companies will produce and sell in healthy competition with other manufacturers but with the aim of reducing the cost of drugs to the Australian taxpayer.

Gurindji Tribe: Transfer of Land (Question No. 2899)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What area of land has been transferred to the Gurindji from Wave Hill Station in the Northern Territory.
  2. What sum was paid by the Government to the owners of Wave Hill Station for the purchase of this lease area.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) An area of approximately 1250 square miles (324 000 hectares) consisting of all that part of the old Wave Hill lease (Pastoral Lease 529) west of and including the Victoria River is now held by the Muramulla Gurindji Company Pty Limited under Northern Territory Pastoral Lease No. 805.
  2. An amount of $260,500 was made available from the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for the purchase of Pastoral Lease No. 805. Of this amount, $190,000 represents the unimproved value of the lease and $70,500 the value of fixed improvements existing thereon.

The Australian Government will also reimburse the Wave Hill Pastoral Company for the actual cost of erecting a boundary fence between the two new pastoral leases, mustering and removing cattle from the area now owned by the Muramulla Gurindji Company and sinking and equipping up to ten bores to replace lost access to the Victoria River. The precise cost cannot be ascertained until work was been completed, but is expected to be in the order of $320,000.

Aborigines at Wattie Creek (Question No. 2900)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Aborigines are living at Wattie Creek.
  2. To what tribes do the Aborigines belong other than the Gurindji tribe.
  3. How many were employed and by whom on a full time or a casual basis as at 30 June 1975.
  4. How many were receiving unemployment benefits and pensions as at 30 June, 1975.
  5. What Aboriginal enterprises are currently operative in the area.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  2. Mudbra Tribe
  3. 6 employed full time by Wave Hill Council, 9 employed full time and 6 part time by the Muramulla Gurindji Pastoral Company.
  4. No Aboriginals at Daguragu were receiving unemployment benefits, and 30 were receiving pensions, at 30 June 1975.
  5. Muramulla Gurindji Pastoral Company; Wattie Creek (Trading) Company.

Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 2918)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is the fruitgrowing reconstruction scheme still in operation.
  2. If not, have there been any requests for its reintoduction in a more satisfactory form for canning pears.
  3. If it is still in operation, have there been suggestions to make it more acceptable for the pear canning industry.
  4. Was the original scheme aimed at the apple and pear industry, but is it a fact that it has not been effective for the pear industry, particularly the dominant canning section.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes. Applications under the Scheme for assistance for ‘clear fell ‘ and ‘partial pull ‘ can be made up to 3 1 December, 1 975 with a tree-removal dead-line of 30 June, 1 976.
  2. and (3) Fruit-growing reconstruction is at present the subject of an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) enquiry, at which, it could be expected, persons or groups with views on the Scheme and its possible improvement have submitted evidence. The Commission is to report to the Government in the near future.
  3. The Scheme was introduced in July 1972 and has a general application to the fruitgrowing industries. Growers of fresh apples and pears and canning peaches, pears and apricots are eligible to apply for assistance. To 3 1 July 1975 the removal of 1336 acres of pear trees had been approved of which 645 acres were canning pears. Judgements on the effectiveness of the Scheme for particular varieties of fruit should be possible after the publication of the IAC report.

Aircraft: Non-smoking Areas (Question No. 2919)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Further to Question No. 2422 and the new nonsmoking seating arrangements on Australian internal air services, is the percentage of non-smoking seats on these aircraft still below that of other countries.
  2. Is it a fact that the first class non-smoking section on DC9 ‘s and 727 ‘s is now less satisfactory than before because the first row is now for smokers and non-smokers are now surrounded by smoke.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The domestic airlines do not make continuous checks comparing provision of non-smoking seats in Australian aircraft with those provided in aircraft by overseas domestic airlines. Their main efforts are directed towards ascertaining the requirement of the Australian air traveller. This is done through the careful monitoring of reports by booking clerks and hostesses on expressed passenger preferences, and evaluation of written correspondence from the travelling public. It is interesting to note that passenger complaints arise from both smokers and non-smokers. Currently around 30 per cent of seats are allocated as non-smoking seats, which, as far as can be ascertained, is comparable to general airline practice throughout the world.
  2. It is true that the first row of seats in the first class section of jet aircraft is allocated to smokers. This is done to maintain flexibility in seating arrangements. For instance, if only two rows of seats are required for first class passengers then smokers and non-smokers are provided for equally. However, if all the front seats were designated non-smoking then the situation could arise where first class passengers wishing to smoke could not do so.

Parliament House: Police Presence (Question No. 2931)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that notice given by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on 19 May 1975 that he would move to have Parliament agree to erect 4 guard boxes to provide shelter for the policemen guarding Parliament House, particularly during the winter months, was subsequently withdrawn; if so, why was it withdrawn.
  2. How many policemen at any one time were on duty outside Parliament House during the recent Parliamentary recess.
  3. What measures were used to protect policemen guarding the outside of Parliament House from the elements during the winter months.
  4. When will measures be introduced to protect policemen on duty outside Parliament House from the elements.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Minister for Police and Customs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The matter was withdrawn to permit consideration of the overall desirability of a permanent police presence at Parliament House. The need for guard boxes necessarily hinged on the consideration of this question of principle.
  2. Four.
  3. The police involved are supplied with the normal issue of protective clothing and are relieved at regular intervals.
  4. I am unable to indicate if and when the guard boxes will be erected; the proposal is to be considered in light of point (1) and my Department is investigating alternate methods of police providing security at Parliament House.

Milk (Question No. 2958)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made with the implementation of the report recommending the payment for manufacturing milk on a total solids basis.
  2. Who is mainly responsible for the slow progress.
  3. Can he say whether New Zealand will introduce such a scheme during the 1975-76 season.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Since my answer to the honourable member’s question No. 178 last September the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Dairy Industry Council have considered the matter further.

The Australian Department of Agriculture was advised in April 1975 that the former, by majority decision, has agreed: ‘that the basis of payment for milk for manufacture be made up of two components- one for the weight of fat and one for the weight of protein with an adjustment for volume.

The latter has given a qualified support in the following terms: ‘(Subject to a favourable recommendation by the Basis of Payment for Milk Committee after further investigations of particular aspects), this Council considers that, as the long-term policy of the industry for application at an appropriate time in the future, the basis of payment to dairy farmers for milk for manufacture should consist of two components- one for the weight of fat and one for the weight of protein with an adjustment for volume’.

In conveying this advice, the Australian Dairy Industry Council asked that the basis of Payment of Milk Committee conduct further investigations. ‘into the proposed change including an adjustment for volume, with particular reference to-

The cost of the changeover and estimates of the continuing additional costs of the test procedures;

The effect on individual dairy farmers returns;

The results of New Zealand experience;

Further details of overseas dairy countries that have made the change with information as to the date of the changeover and whether the change has had any effect on the fat/ protein relationship’.

The matter was considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture at its July meeting. It agreed to reconvene the Basis of Payment Committee to meet the Dairy Industry Council’s request, and, in response to a further request, to examine the implications of factory standardisation of milk to defined compositional standards and the feasibility of payment for market milk being on a compositional basis.

  1. The “New Zealand Dairy Exporter” (the official journal of the N.Z. Dairy Board) recently reported that there was strong farmer support for an extension of the Dairy Board’s present guaranteed minimum price- system for milk fat, to cover the solids-not-fat products. The Board proposes that the s.n.f. purchase value for products be fixed each year, within a limited movement scale, and that distribution of any end-of-season surpluses be made to manufacturers on the same basis as that which already applies for butter and cheese.

A.C.T.: Housing (Question No. 2966)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people are on the waiting list for Government owned houses and flats in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What is the waiting time for each category of houses and flats.

Mr BRYANT- The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

As at 5 September 1 973 -

2529 families or persons with dependants and 485 single persons were on the waiting list.

The waiting periods were - 23 months for a 4 bedroom house 28 months for a 3 bedroom house 6 months for a 2 bedroom flat 5 months for a bachelor flat.

ACT.: Rents (Question No. 2968)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for* the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What has been the increase in the rental on Government houses in the A.C.T. from 31 December 1972 to 30 June 1975. .

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

Rents were increased in July 1974 for Government houses in the A.C.T. on the average by $2.90 per week.

At present the frequency of distribution of rents is as follows 62 per cent of dwellings atract rents of $ 1 5 or less 35 per cent of dwellings attract rents of $ 1 5-$20 3 per cent of dwellings attract rents of over $20

Fruit Canneries (Question No. 2970)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister received a telegram from the Goulburn Valley Trades and Labor Council requesting the Government to arrange for the Reserve Bank to supply immediately bridging finance to the fruit canneries so that growers can be paid and cannery employees retained.
  2. If so, what action is the Government taking in response to the telegram.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Goulburn Valley Trades and Labor Council in a telegram of 5 August 1975 suggested that the Reserve Bank supply bridging finance to the canneries and that the Government evaluate the future of the Goulburn Valley Fruit industry and attempt to remove industry uncertainty.
  2. I have informed the Goulburn Valley Trades and Labor Council that the Australian Industry Development Corporation is currently engaged in an investigation into the circumstances of this industry and its conclusions from this study will be given immediate attention by the Government.

Hobart Community Health Centre (Question No. 2974)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the present position of the Hobart Eastern Shore Community Health Centre.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Australian Department of Services and Property (Tasmanian Division) is in the process of acquiring for my Department land in Bayfield Street, Bellerive, on which it is proposed to construct the permanent Eastern Shore Community Health Centre. The Australian Department of Housing and Construction is well advanced with detailed plans and contract documents for the Centre, and it is hoped that construction will commence in the near future.

ABC Program: ‘The Science Show’ (Question No. 2980)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

Is the ABC dropping the two science programs ‘Insight’ and ‘Innovations’ and replacing them with a new program ‘The Science Show’; if so why, and how much money will the ABC save by this action.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

Yes. Both ‘Insight’ and ‘Innovations’ had been broadcast for several years without a change in format. ‘The Science Show’ is designed to stimulate interest in science broadcasting and is expected to cost approximately the same as the two individual programs combined.

Press Secretaries (Question No. 2985)

Mr Ruddock Asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

1 ) How many press secretaries are attached to the various Ministers ‘staffs.

Who are they.

Which of them are trained journalists, and what grade journalists are they.

What are their respective salaries,and who were their previous employers.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) Twenty press secretaries were attached to Ministers ‘ staffs as at 1 5 September 1 975. Their names areMr E. Williams; Mr D. Solomon; Ms P. Warn; Mr D. A. Reeves; Mr R. Sorby; Mr N. R. Harriden Mr B. T. Connors; Mr R. J. Barry; Mr T. C. Jackson; Mr A. J. Edwards; Mr K. M. Henrick Mr C. Lloyd; Mr D. A. Halpin; Mr K. J. Longworth; Mr S. O’Connor; Mr N. Swancott; Mr A. J. Tolhurst Mr H. Rosenbloom Mr W. Pinwill Mr D. Nagle.

They are all paid at Journalist Grade A! rate ($14,815-15,397 per annum) except Mr E. Williams, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, who receives a salary of $18,816 per annum.

All Ministerial Press Secretaries are employed in accordance with the award entitlement of members of the Australian Journalists ‘ Association.

Australian Government Liaison Service (Question No. 2988)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1) How many journalists are employed in the Australian Government Liaison Service.
  2. Who are they.
  3. What grade journalists are they.
  4. What are their respective salaries.
  5. 5 ) What are their duties.
  6. Who were their previous employers.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. Twelve (12), of whom five (5) are located in Canberra, and one in each State Capital and Darwin.
  2. (3) and (4) N. Bennell, (Acting A3 Grade), Messrs M. Fishpool and W. Cooper (Al Grade), Messrs J. Martin, G. Chamberlin, W. Kingsley Ord, J. Knight, R. Perry, K. Kessell and J. Bowditch (A Grade), Mr G. O’Neill and Miss A. Pressler ( B Grade)

The salaries paid are in accordance with the award for journalists employed under Determination 85 of the Public Service Act.

  1. The duties of AGLS journalists are to:

Give the disadvantaged media and the community generally better access to national government information.

Target and co-ordinate the distribution of national government information from both the executive and administration.

Produce reference material on national government activities.

  1. Each Officer has had considerable experience in the private media industry, involving newspapers, radio and television. In most cases, there is also previous experience in public relations, both private and government.

Before becoming attached to AGLS the immediate previous positions were:

  1. Bennell (Department of the Media); W. Cooper (Department of the Media); M. Fishpool (Office of the Attorney-General); G. O’Neill (Australian Press Services); A. Pressler (Department of the Media); J. Martin (South Australian Government); G. Chamberlin (Queensland Government); J. Knight (Eric White and Associates); R. Perry (ADS Channel 7); J. Bowditch (Freelance journalist); W. Kingsley Ord (Freelance journalist); K. Kessell (Perth Daily News).

Housing (Question No. 2989)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security upon notice:

  1. How many applications for grants for projects under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act were being processed by the Department of Social Security as at 1 July 1975.
  2. Of these applications, how many (a) had been formally approved, (b) had been approved in principle (i) in writing and (ii) orally and (c) were pending consideration.
  3. In relation to pan (2), (a), how many self-contained units, hospital beds, nursing home beds and staff beds, would be built if the projects were completed, (b) what is the estimated capital cost and (c) what is the estimated amount of grant payable on the assumption formal approval has been or is given.
  4. Will all applications which satisfy the conditions specified in the Act be approved, or will approval be withheld in the event of funds required to provide $4 to $1 subsidy exceeding $30 million or any other amount for the financial year 1975-76.

Mr Stewart: The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Fifty-three applications for grants under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act were on hand at 1 July 1 975.

(2)

  1. Of these applications 14 have since had formal approval of a grant.
  2. At 1 July 1975, 39 of the applications had been approved in principle; (i) 28 in writing and (ii) 11 orally.
  3. The balance of 14 applications was pending consideration.

(3)

  1. If all 53 projects were completed accommodation would be provided for 1182 persons, 489 in selfcontained units, 281 in hostels, 396 in nursing beds and 1 6 in staff quarters.

  2. and (c) The total capital cost of these projects is estimated at $16,533,844 and the grants at $11,748,013.

    1. In the future all applications for the $4 for $1 subsidy which meet all conditions specified in the Act will be considered on a priorities basis, having regard to such relevant factors as need, existing aged or disabled persons’ accommodation in the area, number of persons seeking accommodation and the extent of funds appropriated by the Parliament in 1975/76. Until more information is available in this regard it is not possible to predict whether all grants will be approved or whether approval will be deferred in some cases.

Medibank (Question No. 2990)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Under the Medibank agreement with the State of South Australia are hospitals such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital entitled to charge fees for patients having treatment in the Outpatients’ Department.
  2. If so, are all patients charged the same fee for the same service.
  3. If some patients are charged fees and others not charged, what category of patient is charged a fee and what category of patient is not so charged.
  4. What are the current fees for the most usual types of treatment made available by the Outpatients ‘ Department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) to (4) Clauses 7. 1 and 9. 1 of the Hospital Agreement between the Australian Government and the South Australian Government provide that outpatient services at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (and aU other hospitals which are recognised for the purposes of the Agreement) are to be provided free of charge, except in regard to the treatment of persons who are entitled to the payment of, or have been paid, compensation or damages in respect of the injury or disease which is being treated. These latter persons are those who are entitled to compensation under legislation relating to Workers’ Compensation, Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance Compensation or overseas seamen as provided for by the Navigation Act 1912-1965.

With the exception of dental services or spectacles, outpatient services are available at recognised hospitals without the imposition of any means test. Clause 7.6 of the Agreement provides that a means test may be applied to determine the eligibility of patients to receive outpatient dental services and spectacles, without charge. As expressed in paragraph 4.8 of the White Paper “The Australian Health Insurance Program”, the above provisions are in accordance with the Government’s policy that generally oupatient services should be available without charge, but that a means test may be permitted to ensure that dental services and spectacles are available without charge to persons who have been able to meet a means test and who, in the past, have relied on outpatient departments for dental services and spectacles.

The current charges in respect of those persons who are eligible for compensation or damages in respect of the injury or disease being treated are as follows for each attendance and treatment by a medical officer-$10 for each attendance and treatment by a nurse- $3 for x-rays- rates equal to the medical benefits authorised by the Health Insurance Act, as amended for splints, appliances and prostheses- when of a personal nature- cost of item for returnable items- deposit only, to be refunded on the return of the items for items in demand (e.g. wheelchairs)- variable hiring charges fixed to encourage the prompt return of the items.

A right of private practice exists for radiologists and radiotherapists employed by some recognised hospitals such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital. These medical officers may treat private patients referred to them by private medical practitioners and may charge such patients on a normal feeforservice basis. Such patients are private patients and are not regarded as hospital outpatients.

Water Storage and Electricity (Question No. 2991)

Mr Keating:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Was the Snowy Mountains Project undertaken primarily as an irrigation scheme.
  2. Does the agreement with the States empower him to protect land holders against flooding in wet seasons in the event of the States wishing to depart from their normal pattern of usage of the Snowy water storage.
  3. Does the agreement empower him to protect the interests of irrigators, and to ensure the continuity of electricity supply to the Australian Capital Territory, in the event of the level of water storage in the Snowy falling to a critical level as a consequence of a succession of years of light snowfall or a long drought.
  4. What were the principles upon which, and the methods by which, the charges for electricity purchased from the Snowy Mountains Authority by New South Wales and Victoria were arrived at.
  5. Was the information provided by the States sufficient to ensure that the methods employed resulted in these charges being reasonably consistent with principles it was intended should be applied.
  6. If the information provided by the States concerned was sufficient or unsatisfactory, were one or both States at fault to the same degree.
  7. Does the agreement provide for variations in the charges; if so, in what circumstances.
  8. Did the Australian Government receive any requests from either New South Wales or Victoria to increase the electricity generating capacity of the Snowy Scheme after the original agreement on charges for electricity to the States had been agreed upon.
  9. If such a request or requests were received, did they originate from one or both States.
  10. If the generating capacity of the Scheme was increased at the request of either one or both States, were the charges for electricity to the State or States concerned increased to compensate the Australian Government for the additional expenditure incurred in meeting a State responsibility.
  11. After the Atomic Power Station at Jervis Bay was dropped in 1971 as a national economy measure, was any request received from the New South Wales Government to restore this project to meet the power generation needs of that State.
  12. What are the maximum demands which may be imposed at any given time by the Electricity Commissions of New South Wales and Victoria on the generation system of the Snowy Scheme.
  13. What is the total annual energy entitlement of these States from the Snowy Scheme.
  14. 14) What proportion of the annual energy quota was taken by each State during the first 4 months of 1973-74, and what were the proportions of their annual energy entitlements used by each State in the corresponding period in 1972-73.
  15. What are the respective annual contributions made by New South Wales and Victoria to the Snowy water reserves by way of pumped storage.
  16. Is the pumped storage contribution by each State added to the annual energy entitlements of that State.
  17. 17) Do the charges to the States for Snowy power cover the wear and tear on the Snowy plant and energy used or lost in the pumped storage operation.
  18. Does the agreement with the States make adequate provision for the cost of wear and tear on the Snowy plant, and for the water used and energy lost in maintaining the spinning reserve capacity required by the States, or either one of them, to ensure that the Snowy plant is instantly available to accept additional load, in the event of the failure of generating plant of either State.
  19. 19) Will he ascertain the principles upon which, and the method by which, the charges by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales for electricity transmitted to the Australian Capital Territory were arrived at
  20. If so, how do these charges compare with those made by the N.S.W. Commission to its other bulk customers.
  21. Will he ascertain if the proportions of the total costs of the Electricity Commission of N.S.W., attributable to generation and transmission, respectively, in arriving at the charges for electricity to the A.C.T., were substantially the same as the corresponding proportion of costs of that Commission used in arriving at the charges made by the Snowy Mountains Authority for electricity purchased by the Commission.
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

By way of introduction, the operation and maintenance of the works of the Snowy Mountains Scheme is under the control and direction of the Snowy Mountains Council, a body on which the Australian Government, the Snowy Mountains Authority and the States of New South Wales and Victoria are represented; the agreement is the agreement entered into between the Australian Government and the States of New South Wales and Victoria dated 18 September 19S7 and comprising the First Schedule to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949-1975; the Supplemental Agreement is the agreement entered into between those parties on 14 December 1957 and comprising the Second Schedule to that Act.

No, when the Scheme was launched and the Snowy Mountains Authority was created in 1949 the initial and primary purpose was as stated in the long title of the Act namely ‘An Act relating to the Construction and Operation of Works for the Generation of Hydro-electric Power in the Snowy Mountains Area’ and this was reflected in the prescribed powers of the Authority which make no provision for constructing storages and diversions for irrigation purposes.

At subsequent conferences between Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States which eventually gave rise to the Agreement, it was recognised that the Scheme’s diversions provided additional water for irrigation. This was alluded to in a number of the paragraphs of the preamble to the Agreement and given effect to in a number of the clauses. The result has been that the Scheme has been designed and operated as a dual purpose one but its total cost is being recovered from electricity production.

) The Snowy Mountains council in controlling the operation of the Scheme takes aU reasonable precautions to prevent loss by flooding of land along the Upper Murray and Lower Tumut river and in addition the Supplemental Agreement provides for payment of compensation in certain circumstances for losses by flooding arising from the operation of the Scheme along the Upper Murray River. In the case of the Lower Tumut river however, the Agreement provides that the discharge of waters from Blowering Reservoir is under the control of the State of New South Wales.

The role of the Snowy Mountains Council in controlling and directing the operation of the works of the Authority is in effect, to protect the interests of all parties, both in respect of the supply of water for electricity generation, as well as for irrigation purposes. The Scheme is designed to provide specified minimum quantities of water each year for the generation of electricity and for release into the Murray and Murrumbidgee river systems, based on 70 years of recorded stream flow in the Snowy Mountains Area. So long as a drought sequence is not worse than any that has occurred in the 70 years of record, at least the minimum quantity specified will be available. Water in excess of the specified minimum quantity is available when storages of the

Scheme and prospective inflows are in excess of the quantities needed to guarantee minimum releases.

The quantity of electricity reserved for the Australian Capital Territory is capable of being generated from releases of the specified minimum quantities of water described above.

The electricity authorities of the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Victoria, share the Authority’s annual cost of production, such shares, broadly speaking, being proportionate to average energy entitlements. The method of calculating the shares is set out in detail in Clause IS of the Agreement wherein the annual cost of production of the Authority is also defined. In brief, it comprises interest on the net capital invested, a portion of interest accumulated during construction, depreciation and operation and maintenance costs.

and (6) the basis for electricity charges was arrived at by agreement rather than on information provided by the States.

The Agreement does not provide for variation in the method of calculating charges but the charges themselves vary from year to year.

and (9) Yes. The generating capacities of the various Stages of the Scheme were approved by the Australian Government acting on the advice of the Snowy Mountains Authority formulated after consulting the States of New South Wales and Victoria. At the request of either one or other of the States but with the concurrence of both, the finally installed generating capacity of several of the later Stages of the Scheme was larger than originally planned. This arose from changes in a pattern of load growth of the States. The basis for charges was fixed with the signing of the Agreement in September 1957 at which time the generating capacity of some Stages had been determined but successive Stages had not.

10) The increased generating capacity involved higher costs and higher capital advances by the Commonwealth: these are being recovered from the electricity authorities by higher annual charges to cover interest and depreciation.

No.

The total installed capacity of the Scheme is 3740 megawatts (MW) and the respective entitlements of the States are 2683 MW for New South Wales (inclusive of the Australian Capital Territory share) and 1057 MW for Victoria.

The total annual energy entitlements for each State is notified in terms of minimum, average and maximum. Any entitlement above minimum depends upon the quantity of water in storage and the prospective inflows in a particular year. As an example, for the financial year 1973-74 notified entitlements in kilowatt hours (kWh) were:

  1. The proportions of the annual average energy entitlements taken by each State were:
  2. 1 5 ) and ( 1 6 ) A different basis applies to the two projects involving pumping. For the Jindabyne project, pumping energy must be supplied by the States when required either in the ratio 2: 1, New South Wales: Victoria, or in proportions which are mutually agreed. The States charge the Authority for this energy, the cost forming part of the annual cost of production shared by all three electricity authorities. The project contributes directly an average annual quantity of 3 SO million cubic metres of water, generation from which is shared by the three electricity authorities in accordance with their notified entitlements.

In the Tumut 3 project, the cost of pumping energy is not charged to the Scheme but is shared on a mutually agreed basis by the State Electricity Commissions as is also the energy generated from the pumped water. The energy used for pumping is variable but notionally the pumps are regarded as contributing 230.4 million kilowatt hours per annum equivalent to 632 million cubic metres per annum of water in pump storage (recirculatory) operation.

  1. Yes, excepting as stated in Farts (15) and (16), energy used in pumping at Tumut 3 Power Station is supplied free.
  2. Yes, the Agreement makes adequate provision for charges to the States for wear and tear (maintenance) of Snowy plant. The water used and energy lost to provide spinning reserve is accounted from the States ‘ entitlements.
  3. , (20) and (21 ) The A.C.T. electricity supplies are met from two sources namely, the Commonwealth’s reservation of Snowy Scheme energy and supplementary quantities purchased from the Electricity Commission of New South Wales.

On Snowy energy the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority meets its share of the Authority’s cost of production for generation and pays the Electricity Commission of New South Wales for transmission from the Snowy area to the Australian Capital Territory. The Agreement provides that the cost of this transmission is that which would be incurred by the Electricity Commission in transmitting an amount of energy equivalent to the Australian Government’s share of the energy output of the Scheme plus the cost of the electricity lost in that transmission. The Electricity Commission has assessed this cost at about the average cost per kilowatt hour of all of its transmission costs over its whole system.

On supplementary supplies purchased from the Electricity Commission the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority pays on the same basis as other bulk purchasers from the Commission, namely an energy charge per kilowatt hour plus a demand charge per kilowatt on maximum monthly demands.

Electricity Charges: Albury (Question No. 2992)

Mr Keating:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the quarterly charges for a typical residential user of electricity in Albury.
  2. However do these charges compare with those to a customer with identical quarterly consumption in Wodonga.
  3. What are the quarterly charges to a rural customer adjacent to the Albury Municipal area and those to a customer with identical consumption in the area adjacent to Wodonga.
  4. Apart from the charges for electricity used, is a rural customer in the areas adjacent to Albury or Wodonga obliged to pay any additional service charge; if so, what is this quarterly surcharge in each area.
  5. Are new rural customers in the areas adjacent to Albury or Wodonga required to make a capital contribution towards the cost of extending electricity supply to their properties; if so, what is the amount of, or the basis used to arrive at the amount of, such capital contribution in each area.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Consumers in Albury are supplied with electricity by the Murray River County Council and in Wodonga by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. For a typical residential consumer using 1800 kilowatt hours per quarter including 800 kilowatt hours for hot water heating, the quarterly charge in Albury would be $38.34 and in Wodonga $40.62.
  2. Rural consumers with electricity consumptions identical to those in (1) and (2) above who are adjacent to the Albury Municipal area and to Wodonga would pay quarterly charges of $4 1.83 and $40.62 respectively.
  3. In the area adjacent to Albury a maintenance service charge of $6.00 per quarter is made to rural consumers for 20 years after the date of connection. There is no service charge in the Wodonga area.
  4. New rural consumers in areas adjacent to Albury or Wodonga are generally required to make a capital contribution towards the cost of extending electricity supply to their properties.

In the area adjacent to Albury they are required to pay the initial capital cost of connection, less the effective cash value of a State Government subsidy either by a lump sum or by instalments including interests over a 20 year period

In the area adjacent to Wodonga they are required to lodge with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria the estimated capital cost of making the supply available, as an extension deposit. Subject to certain ceilings, the whole or part of this deposit is refunded by the Commission with interest over a number of years depending on the use of the service and the occupancy of the customer s property.

Northern Territory Police (Question No. 3011)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Minister’s statement in reply to my question No. 2217 that the Northern Territory Police is part of the Australian Police by virtue of the Prime Minister’s announcement of 27 March 197S, (a) does the Northern Territory Police and Police Officers Ordinance still require the Commissioner of the Force to exercise and perform his powers and functions in accordance with the instructions of the Administrator and (b) does the Northern Territory Administration Act require the Administrator to exercise his functions in accordance with the instructions of the Minister for Northern Australia.
  2. If so, is the amalgamation of the Northern Territory Police and the Australian Police by Prime Ministerial statement in conflict with the laws in force in the Northern Territory.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Minister for Police and Customs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

(D-

  1. Yes.

  2. Yes.

    1. No. The Minister for Northern Austalia has authorized the Minister for Police and Customs to act on his behalf in respect of police matters in the Northern Territory. In addition the Minister for Northern Australia has instructed the Administrator, pursuant to the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1974, to act in accordance with the advice of the Minister for Police and Customs in relation to police matters in the Territory.

Handicapped Children’s Allowance (Question No. 3015)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What problems have emerged with the administration of the Handicapped Children ‘s Allowance.
  2. Has the definition proved satisfactory.
  3. How many children are receiving the allowance, and how many applications have been rejected.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No serious administrative problems have been encountered in the implementation of the Handicapped Child’s allowance program. There were some problems because of the large number of claims received by my Department within a short period; now that the program has been running for some time, most of these have been overcome. A factor causing some concern is the difficulty in arranging panels of medical specialists to consider appeals against the rejection of claims. This aspect is being reviewed.
  2. Yes.
  3. At 1 1 August 197S, 148 19 allowances were being paid. From the inception of the scheme until 1 1 August, 984 applications had been rejected.

Minerals Survey: Broken Hill Area (Question No. 3029)

Mr FitzPatrick:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Bureau of Mineral Resources is conducting an aerial survey of the Broken Hill district.
  2. If so, what is the reason for the survey.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. The Bureau of Mineral Resources carried out an airborne magnetic and radiometric survey in the Broken Hill area between 26 June and 29 August 197S. This work entailed a regional survey of the entire Broken Hill 1:250 000 Map Sheet, involving an area of about 16000 square kilometres, and a detailed survey of an area of approximately 2 700 square kilometres located immediatley north of the Broken Hill township. Approximately 26 000 km were flown in completing this work.
  2. Ways to identify suitable areas for detailed exploration for new ore bodies that could extend the life of Broken

Hill as a mining centre were considered jointly by Australian and New South Wales Government departments and the Broken Hill Mining Managers’ Association. Following recommendations by these bodies, the Bureau of Mineral Resources carried out the airborne survey, the Geological Survey of New South Wales is carrying out complementary geological mapping, and mining companies will undertake the detailed exploration.

Mr Eric Walsh (Question No. 3034)

Mr Kelly:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department, at any stage, hired a private consultant, Mr Eric Walsh.
  2. If so, what were his duties.
  3. What were the fees paid to him.
  4. Has the Government met any of the costs incurred by Mr Walsh in the performance of his duties; if so, what are the details.
  5. For what period was he hired.
  6. Has he presented any written reports; if so, will they be tabled; if not, why not.
  7. Has he given any oral advice to the Department or the Minister; if so, what was its substance.
  8. Did Mr Walsh advise the Department or the Minister at any stage that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation would not be opposed by the Opposition.
  9. Did Mr Walsh accompany the Minister to Tasmania at the time the Minister appeared on Monday Conference.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. ) to ( 6 ) Not available.
  3. to (9) See the answers I provided as Minister for Repatriation and Compensation to parts (7) to (9) of House of Representatives question No. 3035.

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3050))

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Would the Minister please answer my letter dated 1 July 1975.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

A reply has been forwarded to the honourable member.

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3059) Mr Bourchier asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: Would he please answer my letter dated 27 May 1975.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I answered the honourable member’s letter of 27 May 1975 on 30 June 1975. For his convenience I have sent him a copy of my reply.

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3060)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Would he please answer my letter dated 10 June 1975.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I answered the honourable member’s letter of 10 June 1975 on 10 September 1975.

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3061)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Would he please answer my letter dated 24 June 1975.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I answered the honourable member’s letter of 24 June 1975 on 10 September 1975.

Wines (Question No. 3069)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government agree with the practice of allowing wines to be imported from countries such as France where up to 30 grams of sugar can be added per litre of wine, thus providing unfair competition with Australian wines where there are regulations against such adulteration.
  2. Will the Department refer the matter of such adulterated imports to the correct department or authority for investigation.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The National Health and Medical Research Council approved a standard for wine at its seventy-ninth session in November 1974.

The standard did not include the addition of sugar to wine other than sparkling and flavoured wines.

There is also uniform legislation enacted throughout the Australian States prohibiting the addition of sugar to wines except in the case of sparkling and flavoured wines.

The practice of adding sugar to various wines is permitted in a number of the major wine producing countries including France.

  1. I will arrange for this matter to be referred to the Department of Health for their consideration.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 3080)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Further to question No. 2843 concerning the return to the Government of property purchased by organisations in the community with Government funds, is any onus placed upon regional councils for social development, or other community bodies in receipt of Government funds, to return to the Government items which were purchased with Government funds but for which the organisation no longer has a need, even if the organisation continues to operate and has pot been dissolved.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

Regional Councils for Social Development are required to ensure that where any of the organisations funded by them are dissolved at some future date, or are unable for any reason to continue to apply the assets for purposes for which and in accordance with the terms upon which they were provided, the property, in any capital assets, funded under the Australian Assistance Plan should revert to the Council concerned so that, subject to the Australian Government approval, it may be recycled for other welfare purposes, within the region. ‘Capital assets’ are considered as property having a life duration extending over several accounting periods (e.g. land, buildings, vehicles, furniture and fittings, equipment, etc., where the cost exceeds $ 1 00).

Similarly, where a Regional Council is itself dissolved, the property in any capital assets held by the Council which were funded under the Australian Assistance Plan should revert to the Australian Government

Safety (Question No. 3110)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I note that the right honourable member has directed this question to all Ministers. He will no doubt appreciate that the broad terms of these questions make it very difficult to provide meaningful answers. To formulate answers to the questions in their present terms would involve a great deal of unnecessary work, particularly in departments where an association with an aspect of safety is not immediately apparent. While I do not wish to deny the right honourable member the information he seeks I am reluctant to authorise the work which compilation of answers to the questions as presently phrased would generate throughout the Public Service. Should he rephrase the questions to seek information on specific areas of safety from the relevant Ministers I am sure those Ministers would be happy to provide him with whatever is available.

Royal Flying Doctor Service (Question No. 2975)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia in financial trouble.
  2. If so, what aid has been given in the past
  3. ) What assistance is being considered on this occasion.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Royal Flying Doctor Service has advised my Department that it is not in financial trouble and in fact experienced a small surplus of income over expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1973, which was the first year of the current triennium for Australian Government financial assistance.
  2. The Australian Government, through my Department, has been providing assistance to the Royal Flying Doctor Service since 1936. The level of assistance is reviewed every three years. Grants in the last decade have been paid at the following levels:

In addition, special grants totalling $547,727 have been approved for payment since 1971 as the full cost of converting the Service’s radio base stations to single sideband operation.

  1. Australian Government assistance is determined on a triennial basis and the current triennium does not expire until 30 June 1977. However, in view of substantial increases in salaries and wages, fuel, navigation charges and operating expenses generally since the start of the current triennium, the Service proposed to review its financial position in consultation with my Department early in 1976.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751001_reps_29_hor96/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant