House of Representatives
5 November 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 2779

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden, Mr Mathews, Mr Millar and Mr Sherry.

Petitions received.

Fraser Island

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

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

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

  1. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McKenzie, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mir 0’Keefe

Petitions 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 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, by Mr Hodges, Mr McLeay and Mr Reynolds. Petitions received.

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 :

Their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Donald Cameron. Petition received.

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 decision to abolish the Naval Reserve Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps and the Air Training Corps is ill conceived. The Cadet Corps has much to commend it including stimulating an interest in Service life and providing an element of discipline so often lacking in the youth of today.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to impress upon the Government the need to retain the Australian Cadet Corps.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax these would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would be grossly disadvantageous for Tasmania and Tasmanians and would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living amongst the States;
  2. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  3. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes;
  4. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  5. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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:

  1. It has been suggested recently that the regular wrangling between the Australian Government and the various State Governments would be greatly reduced if the State Governments were given access to part of the Australian Government’s income tax powers. It has been claimed that the States would no longer be forced to approach the Australian Government “cap in hand”. Your petitioners, however, believe that any proposals to hand over income tax powers to State Governments in Australia would not eliminate disagreement over financial matters between the Australian Government and the State Governments, but would just move the focus of disagreement from general revenue grants to the income tax system.

    1. Indexation of income tax would reduce the rate of growth of income tax, which would be resisted by the States.
    2. Similar problems could arise from changes in the shape of the income tax rate scale, or the imposition of separate levies for one reason or another (health levies, Woodhouse Proposals, etc.).
    3. Since almost any proposals to change the income tax system might be seen as a potential threat to their revenue by the States, resistance to income tax reforms (e.g. introduction of a guaranteed minimum income scheme) could be strengthened.
    4. Since it is likely that the various State Governments would want to make a series of alterations to the tax system over time, it is likely that there would be a drift towards greater complexity- this would probably be opposed by the Australian Government, leading to disputes between the Australian Government and the States.

  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to failing to bring about any improvement in Australian GovernmentState Government financial relations, a transfer of any personal income tax powers to State Governments would have various disadvantages, including the introduction of a more complicated after-tax wage structure in Australia, the development of numerous marginal income tax scales throughout Australia, further difficulties in the system of industrial relations, and new problems for the Australian Government in the management of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would:

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble 2780 REPRESENTATIVES 5 November 1975 Petitions

That if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependency on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would tend to favour the larger States of New South Wales and Victoria over the smaller States of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania;

That in Canada, where the various Provinces have the power to levy income tax, differences between the Provinces in income tax rates are substantial and tend to favour the large wealthier Provinces;

That it is undesirable that a new taxation system should be introduced in Australia which would widen rather than lessen the difference in standards of living between the various States;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained.

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

Petition received.

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 reintroduction of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would:

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.
  3. be forced to maintain separate records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that present uniform income tax be continued and that double taxation not be reintroduced.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Telephone Charges

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. b ) 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 muter 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 P.M.S. card.

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

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. 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.
*Petitions* 5 November 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 2781 {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry thoughout Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian' Government Insurance Office Bill 1975. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by **Mr Connolly.** Petition received. {:#subdebate-0-12} #### Income Tax: Land and Water Rates 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 on 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. {:#subdebate-0-13} #### Specific Purpose Payments 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: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There have been criticisms recently of the rate at which Specific Purpose Payments to the State Governments have been increasing. It now appears that there are proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments. 1. Your petitioners believe that the importance of Specific Purpose Payments to the States as a proportion of total funds available to State Governments has been exaggerated. In 1975-76 more than half (53 per cent) of the funds available to the States from Australian Government payments and Loan Council programs will remain untied for use by the States as they see fit. Further, the Australian Government's Specific Purpose assistance in 1 974-75 was estimated to have amounted to only about 29 per cent of the total funds available to the States (making allowance for funds available from the States' own revenue sources). This seems scarcely the 'dominating' influence that some critics of Special Purpose Payments have referred to. 2. It is true that Specific Purpose Payments have been growing recently at a faster rate than general revenue funds. This is because of the Australian Government's policy of overcoming 23 years of neglect in specific areas. Special Purpose Grants have grown for such purposes as the sewerage program, area improvement programs, loan councils, growth centres, transport, education and health. If the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments is cut back the rate of expansion of these programs will have to be curtailed. Agreements reached with the States after protracted negotiations would have to be redrawn. Existing legislation covering the programs would have to be amended. 3. It is true that in 1975-76 Specific Purpose Payments to the States are expected to grow at a faster rate (35 per cent) than increases in General Purpose Grants (27 per cent). However, in interpreting these figures allowance should be made for the impact on Specific Purpose Payments as a resultof the introduction of Medibank. In 1975-76, payment to the States for the running costs of public hospitals under Medibank are estimated at $700m. This will have the effect of providing very substantial, and continuing, relief to the States' Budgets which, in fact, is equivalent to providing additional General Purpose assistance to the States for use as they see fit. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. It is proposed that some funds presently provided under Specific Purpose assistance could be transferred to the General Purpose assistance item. There are, however, immense practical problems of transferring funds from such programs as education to General Revenue assistance. Your petitioners believe that State Governments will not welcome the uncertainty that this vague approach would lead to. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments will not be introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by **Mr Fry.** Petition received. {:#subdebate-0-14} #### Broadcasting and Television: Religious Programs 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 we, the undersigned are opposed to the adoption of the recommendation by a working party of the Department of Media that the statutory requirements for Radio and T.V. Stations to provide Religious Programmes be abolished. that implementation of this would greatly reduce the beneficial effect Christian morality has had on the laws and culture of Australia which would be in opposition to the spirit and intent of the preamble to the Constitution which contains the words 'humbly relying on Almighty God '. that 86 per cent of Australians claim to be Christians and such an overwhelming majority merits an increase rather than a decrease in religious content. that as the present time allowance for religion on T.V. was established by a Royal Commission, it should not be changed by the hurried decision of a small non-representative Committee composed of anonymous Members. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will reduce the time for Religious Programmes on Radio and T.V. by **Mr Hodges.** Petition received. {:#subdebate-0-15} #### Appropriation Bills 1975-76 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: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Governments are elected for a three-year term of office and have a right to govern solong as they command a majority of the House of Representatives. , 1. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives, which is the People's House, and not in the Senate, where there are as many members for 500 000 citizens of Tasmania as there are for 5 million citizens of New South Wales. 2. The Parliament should adopt the 1975-76 Budget by passing the Appropriation Bill Number One 1975 and the Appropriation Bill Number Two 1975. {:#subdebate-0-16} #### Income Tax 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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and 1. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and 2. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by **Mr Morris.** Petition received. {:#subdebate-0-17} #### Shire of South Gippsland 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: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. The Rural economy of the Shire of South Gippsland is severely disadvantaged by the current prices being paid for cattle; 1. The Council of the Shire of South Gippsland is extremely concerned with the financial crisis which is rapidly overtaking its finances; 2. Non-replacement of outdoor staff has been introduced since early 1974 because of the effective reduction in funds for road maintenance and construction caused by inflation; 3. Continually increasing wages and salaries as a result of indexation cannot continue to be passed on to the ratepayer. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. grant to the Shire of South Gippsland an amount of $200,000 to enable it to provide the same standard of service it provided in 1972; 1. increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by **Mr Nixon.** Petition received. {: .page-start } page 2783 {:#debate-1} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-1-0} #### QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE {: .page-start } page 2783 {:#debate-2} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-2-0} #### OVERSEAS LOANS {: #subdebate-2-0-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA -- I ask the Minister Assisting the Treasurer: Has he, the VicePresident of the Executive Council, any information that would exonerate the former Minister for Minerals and Energy from full blame for what has occurred over the overseas loans affair? {: #subdebate-2-0-s1 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -As the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I have no information that would put the blame on anybody who was associated with the loans affair; nor do I have information that would completely exonerate anybody, if there is any blame attached to anybody. {: .page-start } page 2783 {:#debate-3} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-3-0} #### OVERSEAS LOANS {: #subdebate-3-0-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA -- I ask the Prime Minister the following question without notice: Why did he inform the House on 9 July that if the loan transaction being discussed with the Government's original financial intermediary had been finalised no commission would have been payable? Was it not a fact that the interest rate on that transaction was raised from 7.7 per cent per annum to 8.35 per cent per annum during the negotiations to cover the commission? {: #subdebate-3-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The only response I will make to the honourable gentleman in answer to his question without notice is to nail again the assertion that anybody was the Government's intermediary. The Government has not had any intermediaries or agents. That has been made plain in the course of over 200 questions on this matter. I said that I require questions on this matter to go on notice and I have given, in the case of the honourable gentleman, the very good reason that he has based questions to me without notice on some newspaper reports and has not directed attention to newspaper reports appearing in the same issues denying those upon which he has based his questions. He does not ask honest questions and accordingly I will- Opposition members- Ha, ha! {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It may well be a laughing matter for members of the Opposition to ask dishonest questions or to ask questions based on documents which they do not verify and which they could not honestly verify if they were asked to verify them. I have required that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should put questions on this matter on notice and also I have required that the Leader of the Opposition should do so. Perhaps I should detail again the reason why I *Questions Without Notice* 5 November 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 2783 require it. A week ago the Leader of the Opposition had a rambling article in the *Age* and the *Sydney Morning Herald* in which he made a great number of allegations against me which were without foundation. I will give just 2 examples. The Leader of the Opposition said that on 26 August I was asked: >Has the Government abandoned all attempts to raise the sum of$2,00Om He went on to say I replied, and these are the words in his articles of last week: . . . the particular loan referred to is past. I looked up the *Hansard* of 26 August from which the Leader of the Opposition was purporting to quote and this is the reply I gave: >The particular loan proposal referred to is past but the Government will continue to seek funds as and when appropriate. This quotation was used against me in some way to suggest that we have not, as any government would have, a continuing interest in overseas borrowings. Again in the same article the Leader of the Opposition said that on 23 October I took the unprecedented step of refusing to answer further questions in the Parliament about the overseas loan affair and he quoted **Mr Peter** Cole- Adams of the *Age* in support of his assertion. Neither of them apparently can listen or read. What I have said repeatedly, as the. House will recall, is that questions on overseas, borrowings should be put on the notice paper where they will be answered. What I said on 23 October was precisely this: >I will not answer questions without notice from the Deputy . Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament because I cannot trust him nor can anyone else . . . And I will not answer questions without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter because I cannot trust him either. - . What I said has been borne out by the selective quotation and therefore the distortion of what in fact I have said in the Parliament. When I have asked that questions be placed on notice they very rarely have been. The Opposition contents itself by making allegations in questions without notice which it knows would be out of order if it proposed to put them on notice. Perhaps on this matter I should add that the only fresh information I have to give honourable gentlemen on the question of overseas loan borrowings is that one of the three sources of loan funds which have been discussed in the House has as one of its directors, I find, the Treasurer of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party. {: .page-start } page 2784 {:#debate-4} ### BUDGET BILLS {: #debate-4-s0 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA -- I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen reports that the Government is planning to bypass the Parliament in order to continue administering its affairs. Can he say how it is possible to govern without Parliament and what evidence exists to show that the proposal is being considered? {: #debate-4-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
ALP -- There is no evidence to show that at all. One would have thought that the Government was demonstrating now, for the sixth week running, that we are very anxious to see that the Parliament does govern. We are keeping the Parliament together so that the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in the Senate will cease their strike in debating the Budget and so that the Liberal and National Country Party senators at last will make a decision whether they will pass the Budget or reject it instead of just stalling. It is true enough that the Leader of the Opposition has constantly made this assertion. Last night on *This Day Tonight* he said: > **Mr Whitlam** has posed the greatest threat to parliamentary democracy since the beginning of Federation by saying- Opposition Members- Hear, hear! Opposition Members- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: **-Mr Speaker,** I would have thought that honourable gentlemen opposite would see that my patience is unlimited. I shall continue the answer if necessary until the three quarters of an hour for question time has elapsed. The Leader of the Opposition said last night *on This Day Tonight:* > **Mr Whitlam** has posed the greatest threat to parliamentary democracy since the beginning of Federation by saying he will govern without the Parliament. This is typical of the comments that the honourable gentleman will make outside the House and that his colleagues will make in Press conferences outside the House. He knows quite well that if he makes such an allegation in the Parliament it can be answered. Despite his fumbling questions, there were answers given yesterday which completely disposed of any idea or allegation that this Government would govern without parliamentary approval. The Treasurer made that plain. I was asked but one question and I made it plain also. Everything that the Government is considering has been considered after the closest consultation with the law officers of the Crown. There is no possibility of this Government doing anything which the law officers of the Crown do not certify is within the statutes and the Constitution of this country. It is not on this side but on the other side that Parliament is being debased and disregarded. It is on the other side that the attempt is being made to subvert the practices of this Parliament which have applied for three quarters of a century. **Mr Speaker,** the Parliament will sit until the senators call off their strike. Parliament will sit until the Appropriation Bills are passed. Appropriation Bills have never been rejected in the history of the Federation. Appropriation Bills have never previously been stalled in the history of the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, who makes this allegation about my Government outside the Parliament and would not make it inside the Parliament, used to be the man of honour. He has now descended to be the man who, as we all know, has impugned the Deputy Prime Minister for leaking a Treasury document to his deputy, who has accused my staff of rumour-mongering and who has allowed his deputy leader to ask questions which he would know are without foundation or in fact have been denied. The honourable gentleman is losing whatever reputation for honour or probity he had. In this place where one can call him to book I give the lie to what he said on TDT last night. {: .page-start } page 2785 {:#debate-5} ### MONEY BILLS IN THE SENATE {: #debate-5-s0 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES -Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 9 October that he was determined to end for all time the Senate's power over money Bills? Is the power to which the Prime Minister referred the power which is conferred on the Senate by section 53 of the Australian Constitution? Is this the power the Prime Minister was referring to in 1970 when he spoke several times of his intention to force the government then in office to resign and face the people? Did he accept and in fact assert in 1970 that the proper consequence of the use of such power was the resignation of the government and a general election? If the Prime Minister now no longer believes that the Senate should have this power, is it not for the Australian people themselves to decide whether the power is to be taken away from the Senate? Will he give the people the opportunity to say in a formal manner whether or not they believe this safeguard against bad and corrupt government should be struck from the Constitution? {: #debate-5-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
ALP -- I believe the people have made it quite plain and I believe before very long the Senate itself will accept that the Senate is not entitled to usurp the money powers of this Parliament. Section 53 of the Constitution lays down the Senate's powers as regards money Bills. It says it cannot initiate them. It says it cannot amend them. It says that it can request the House of Representatives to amend them and that the House of Representatives may accede to that request or may reject it. Section 53 of the Constitution, it will be noted, does not expressly say that the Senate can reject money Bills. I draw the contrast with the Victorian Constitution Act which says that the Legislative Council may not originate money Bills, may not amend money Bills but may reject money Bills. The parallel is sometimes drawn between the role of the Senate and the role of the Victorian Legislative Council. The Victorian Legislative Council operates under a statute which gives it the express power to reject money Bills. The Senate operates under a Constitution, a British Act of Parliament, which does not give the Senate the express power to reject money Bills. No lesser an authority than **Sir Richard** Eggleston, a very distinguished academic, constitutional and forensic lawyer has recently pointed that out in correspondence in the newspapersthat is, there should be no assumption that the Senate is entitled to do things which it is not expressly given the right to do under section 53 of the Constitution. The right honourable gentleman quotes what I said in 1970. If he believes that I was right, why does he not use his notorious influence over the Leader of the Opposition to persuade him to put it to the test? What I said in 1970 would, I gather, justify the Senate in rejecting Supply and thus compelling the Government to hold an election for the House of Representatives. If the Opposition members believe that, why do they not ask their senators to reject the Budget? {: .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock: -- We do not trust you. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -They do not trust their colleagues in the Senate. **Senator Bessell** said on *Four Corners* the weekend before last that he would not vote against the Budget. He said that there were many other Liberal senators of the same mind. It is quite plain that when the Leader of the Opposition hauls off the Liberal Premiers who control the selection of Liberal Senate candidates and allows a free vote in his Party room there will be a vote by the senators on the Budget and the senators will pass the Budget. My attitude towards the usurpation of the Senate in this regard was made very plain to all my colleagues and, I believe, to the Parliament in the first year after I became Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament. Honourable gentlemen will remember that the Senate had disallowed some regulations increasing telephone and postal charges. The Government then introduced those charges in the form of a money Bill. My Party, in collusion with the Australian Democratic Labour Party, was considering rejecting the Bill in the Senate. I persuaded the Labor Party, to its credit, not to do so. When, in a Budget context, it would have been possible in collusion with the DLP to reject a money Bill, my Party on my persuasion decided that that would be an improper thing to do. It should now be plain to everybody in this House, in the Senate and in the country that the Government can quite legally continue to govern, despite the Senate's strike on the Budget. I alone will advise the Governor-General when writs should be issued for an election for the House of Representatives. I have no intention of doing so for at least a year. {: .page-start } page 2786 {:#debate-6} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-6-0} #### CURTAILMENT OF DEBATES {: #subdebate-6-0-s0 .speaker-HF4} ##### Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA -Will the Minister for Administrative Services and Leader of the House inform the Parliament why debate on matters of public importance and certain other matters is being curtailed? {: #subdebate-6-0-s1 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I will be delighted to inform the honourable member of the reasons why the Government has taken certain action in the Parliament. Before I do so, I am prompted to refer to an article that appeared in the *Australian* of today 's date under the heading: >Opposition can't get a hearing, claims Chipp. It states: >The shadow Minister for Social Security and Welfare, **Mr Chipp,** flew from Canberra to Sydney yesterday to give a press conference because he claimed the Opposition was being gagged and guillotined into silence by the Government. > >He said the Opposition could no longer get its story across to the people of Australia from Canberra . . . 'We cannot get a debate going on anything in the House', **Mr Chipp** said. 'Debate after debate is being gagged. We are prevented from initiating debate. If we are frustrated in debate in Parliament, another opening has to be sought '. > > **Mr Chipp** said Parliament had once been the place where the Opposition could get its point across as well as the Government, but this was no longer the case . . . > >The suppression of debate had led to a situation where there was a 'storehouse' of double dissolution bills waiting to go through. > > **Mr Chipp** named three bills . . . The Inster-State Commission Bill . . . The Broadcast and TV Authority Bill . . . The Electoral Bill, which he claimed would enable the Labor Party to receive vast sums of money from the trade union movement, while threatening heavy fines for any business that gave the Liberal Party financial support. I quoted that in order to set the record straight, because many of the statements made there are completely false, which is unusual for the honourable member. Firstly, these sittings are for only one reason; that is, to see that the Budget is passed in the interests of the Australian people. We were reluctant to adopt the course which we have adopted in the Parliament but it has been caused by the unprecedented, unprincipled, undemocratic and irresponsible actions of the Liberal and National Country Party members in both Houses, particularly in the Senate, where they have gone on strike. In this Parliament the debates will be restricted to business that is important to the Government, and priority will be given exclusively to the passing of the Budget. It is true that honourable members opposite are endeavouring to frustrate debate. We find that the honourable member has complained about the use of the guillotine. He was one of those who voted for putting 17 Bills through this Parliament in 19 hours when we were in Opposition. We also find that the Opposition Deputy Whip has caused untold inconvenience to honourable members opposite by constantly calling in a most stupid way for quorums and things of that nature. It is certainly a good speech for him when he says 'Quorum ' because it is a long one. That is what he does continually. The honourable member for Hotham, who made this statement, has hardly asked a question in this Parliament since June. He has been reprimanded by his Leader for not knowing the Opposition's policy on Medibank. He has been sulking and is on the brink of being dismissed from die large and unbalanced shadow Cabinet. In addition, his statement about campaign funds is completely false. Legislation was brought into this Parliament to make every candidate and every political Party, without exception, reveal the source of their campaign funds. Honourable members opposite said that they would support it, until the funds started to roll in from the Central Intelligence Agency, the oil companies, the newspapers and others. Then they went for cover. Had this legislation been the law yesterday we could have found out for sure just how much the Country Party received from the CIA. But we do not know now. We have to take their word for it. That legislation is being opposed by honourable members opposite, and the statement of the honourable member for Hotham is completely false. To bring the honourable member up to date, I point out that the Inter-State Commission Bill has passed through both Houses of the Parliament and is now the law of the land. So may I suggest that, instead of commuting to and from Sydney to get his name in the Press occasionally, the honourable member should spend a bit more time in the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has said that honourable members should be in the Parliament when Parliament is sitting. Yet we find, at a time when the public is suffering great stress because of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends, the honourable member for Hotham is jet setting, as it were, to and from Sydney. I will name a few other later who are doing the same thing. They will not be doing it for long; I will give them the good oil on that. I advise this House, so that honourable members opposite will not waste the time of the Parliament, that the business conducted in this Parliament will be exclusively directed towards passing the Budget in this Parliament. We do not want to be told that we are doing anything undemocratic, because everthing that I know about leading the House I learnt from the late **Sir Eric** Harrison, a Liberal leader in this Parliament, who was looked upon as one of the greatest leaders in the Parliament. In the way in which I conduct the business of this House I am only giving effect to Liberal attitudes of days gone by. **Sir Eric** Harrison was held up and exalted by all as a first class Leader of the House. If one studies his record one will see that mine does not match it but goes pretty close. Having said that, I give the lie direct to what the honourable member for Hotham said. It is so unlike him to be so misleading. My advice to him is to spend more time in the House and learn what is going on instead of jet setting around the place, and to vote for legislation such as the disclosure of funds. Then he will know where the ill-gotten gains of the Country Party and his own Party are coming from. {: .page-start } page 2787 {:#debate-7} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-7-0} #### GOVERNMENT FINANCE {: #subdebate-7-0-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER: -- I ask the Treasurer: Will he tell the House what device, laws and provisions he intends to use to carry on without the Budget? {: #subdebate-7-0-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Yes- at the appropriate time, which is not today. {: .page-start } page 2787 {:#debate-8} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-8-0} #### SEWERAGE FUNDS {: #subdebate-8-0-s0 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. What impact will the delay in passing the Budget have on financial assistance given to the States under the national sewerage program to eliminate the sewerage backlog? {: #subdebate-8-0-s1 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Government is trying to keep up the supply of money to maintain full employment in the sewerage program. As honourable members are aware, all capital works are of a major labour intensive nature. We are doing our utmost to make sure that unemployment does not occur. At this stage we can only guarantee the situation until Supply runs out. Approximately $40m was made available under the Supply Acts but there is provision for approximately $70m more in the Appropriation Bills. If the Appropriation Bills are not passed a great deal of unemployment could be created by the action of the Opposition. I hope that those honourable members from the appropriate electorates where the sewerage program is in fact being carried out to meet a social problem, particularly areas in the western suburbs such as the electorate of the honourable member for Mitchell, will be aware that they are restricting employment by preventing the carrying out of work on social problems. {: .page-start } page 2787 {:#debate-9} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-9-0} #### DEFENCE REPORT {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr NEWMAN:
BASS, TASMANIA -- My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Last week, in the *Australian* and the *Canberra Times* at least, serious allegations were made against the Government by the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces. He made 2 allegations, one of which was in regard to school cadets. He said that the Government had used selectively the report that he had made, indeed that it had even used parts of sentences to prove its point on the abolition of the cadets. He said that the Government ignored the conclusion that it was in the national interest that the cadets should be maintained. The second allegation - Government supporters- What is the question? {: .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr NEWMAN: -- I am explaining. {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable gentleman is giving information. I have given him fair latitude. He should get to his question {: .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr NEWMAN: -The question is that these allegations reflect on the integrity of the Government, particularly when the **Chairman, Dr Millar,** said that the CMF - Government supporters- What is the question? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question or sit down. {: .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr NEWMAN: -- The question is: Are the allegations true? {: #subdebate-9-0-s2 .speaker-009DB} ##### 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 did see those allegations and charges and they are completely groundless. I challenge any member of this House to read the report- I hope that some members opposite will read it and I have a copy here if they wish to do so- and having read the report try to come to a conclusion that is the same as the conclusion reached by **Dr Millar.** Let me quote from the report. I shall not quote selectively. It states: >On these grounds therefore the pure military value of school cadets is quite small and quite expensive. I am prepared to go through every part of the report but I will not take up the time of the House. The parts that I have quoted previously are within the report and they have not been taken out of context. The report 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. The report also states: >It is very clear that the funds spent on cadets could be spent in ways which would add more to Australian's present defence capacity. There is a whole host of other statements that I could make drawing on the report of the Millar Committee. What I am asking is: If honourable members opposite would only read that report and put themselves in the position of the Minister for Defence who has to make a decision, in the light of the defence preparedness of Australia, on the expenditure of $11. 5m and the deployment of some 380 Regular Army soldiers, what decision would they come to? I am happy to say that the Opposition in its manifesto on defence has come to exactly the same decision as the Government. The Opposition has said that it will not reinstate the cadets to the extent of spending $ 11.5m and deploying 380 Regular Army personnel. {: .page-start } page 2788 {:#debate-10} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-10-0} #### GOVERNMENT SPENDING {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -Has the Treasurer seen claims that recent increases in government spending have been inflationary? In the present circumstances should there be less public spending with a consequent reduction in the size of the public sector in Australia? {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN:
ALP -The Opposition proposes to slash public expenditure by quite enormous amounts and the effects would be disastrous within the economy. Right now I am subjected to considerable pressure and rather attractive blandishments from various interest groups in the private sector arguing that I should be authorising even greater levels of expenditure in the public sector to allow considerably more activity in the private sector. I answered a question on notice from the Leader of the Opposition a day or two ago which by implication seemed to argue quite strongly, if not persuasively, that more money should be made available by the Australian Government to support the construction industry. The fact is that the level of public expenditure last financial year was essential to maintain the level of activity which occurred in the private sector. If the level of expenditure in the public sector had been less the contraction which occurred and which still exists would have been even more severe. Similarly, if there is going to be any reduction in the level of public expenditure over that which we propose, those who suggest that must explain how the contraction is to be borne by the private sector, because it would be the private sector which would mostly feel the effects of such a squeeze. They must also explain where retrenchments would take place because they would be quite considerable, especially in the case of the proposals of the Opposition, and would involve teachers, health workers, road workers and architects and a whole range of people who would be measured not in hundreds but literally in tens of thousands and probably in multiples of tens of thousands. There is no direct relationship no iron clad law, which establishes that the level of public expenditure is directly related to the level of inflation which exists in the community. For instance, the level of public expenditure in Australia by world standards is low. As a proportion of gross national product it is a little over 32 per cent compared with 33 per cent in the United States of America, 39 per cent in Canada, nearly 42 per cent in France and over 50 per cent in Sweden. The interesting point here is that Sweden has the lowest rate of inflation of any of those countries which I have mentioned, although it has the highest level of public activity. It is the the fourth lowest on the world table. On the other hand, the United States of America which has a very low rate of public expenditure has had one of the highest rates of inflation in the world. It also currently has the highest level of unemployment in the world. So the assertions do not stand. I repeat what I said previously, that those people in the Opposition who assert dogmatically that there must be a substantial cutback in the public sector must explain how they propose to carry that out. They must also explain to the private sector how it is to withstand the onslaught of such a contraction. {: .page-start } page 2788 {:#debate-11} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-11-0} #### NEW RADIO STATION {: #subdebate-11-0-s0 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES -Has the Minister for the Media seen reports last week that a radio broadcasting licence was promised to a certain group by an employee of the Labor Administration? Is he aware that the name of the present Secretary of his Department was mentioned in the same article? Has a decision been made to grant a radio broadcasting licence to Prospect Broadcasting Company? Is that the company which was mentioned in the report last week? Has a writ in respect of that decision been served on the Minister? Will he assure the House that there is no truth in the suggestion that personnel involved with that company were promised a licence some time ago and that the Secretary of his Department was not involved in that promise? {: #subdebate-11-0-s1 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP -- I have not seen the article. I know nothing of the allegations. A writ has been served and it has been referred to the AttorneyGeneral's Department. Until that matter is resolved I intend to make no decision at all. {: .page-start } page 2789 {:#debate-12} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-12-0} #### TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-KWA} ##### Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Is the Minister for Administrative Services in a position to give any further information as to the possibility of further travel restrictions for members of Parliament? {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
ALP -- I am not in a position at this stage accurately to give the honourable member any advice as to what actual restrictions will be imposed, but I feel that the question is well justified because I read in today's *Australian* a report by. a **Mr Barney** Murray. The report stated: >The Opposition will put pressure on government MPs by campaigning in marginal seats while the House of Representatives is still sitting. > >Opposition shadow Cabinet members will hold press conferences in and around the marginal seats to push the Liberal-Country Parties' case for blocking Supply. > >The Opposition is making the move because of the Government's control of the House of Representatives. Honourable members opposite do not think they have been beaten yet. They have not read the results of the last 2 elections. We have given this Parliament unprecedented opportunity for debate. We are sitting now at a time when we should be in recess. We have sat a couple of weeks extra. What more could honourable members wish for but extra days? I find that honourable members opposite are returning to electorates to hold Press conferences- not to hold public meetings. The people want to hear only Labor speakers on this issue. Honourable members opposite are not game to face people on the streets and in the public places; but behind the closed doors of Press conferences shadow Ministers will put their case from one side backed up by false documents and other things. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in this place and said that the Opposition would not grant pairs because every member should be in his place when this Parliament is in session. Yet I have here a list of members who are jet-setting sometimes once and sometimes twice a week to the various capital cities at a time when members are restricted in the use of their facilities. I tell honourable members opposite that their place is in the Parliament. They are not going to the capital cities to address their electors. They are going to other electorates. They are not game to go back to their own border-line seats. I will give honourable members opposite the good oil: Do not worry about our border-line seats; have a good look at your own, because that is where the worry is. I advise honourable members oppositeI say this in all seriousness- that if they think there is an unlimited supply of funds for members' travel while this crisis is on they are in for a very severe shock. I have a list of the names of members who in recent weeks have travelled to and from Canberra on the same day. Quite frankly, that will stop. {: .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair: -- The big stick again. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- The honourable member who interjects wants us to reveal the source of our gifts but will not tell us where his funds come from. He has 2 sets of ethics. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- He has 2 sets of valuations, too. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- Yes, 2 sets of valuations. I thank the Prime Minister for a very intelligent interjection. I say to honourable members that this week there will be a review of members' travelling faculties. No matter what else might be done, the practice of honourable members opposite leaving Canberra when Parliament is in session and spending money unnecessarily will definitely stop. I am indebted also to the Opposition Whip who put a question on the notice paper. It was not directed to me, but I think we might take up his suggestion and start with Opposition office holders and curtail some of their expenditure, which is extremely extravagant. {: .page-start } page 2789 {:#debate-13} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-13-0} #### AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION {: #subdebate-13-0-s0 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I direct my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Why has the Government instructed the Australian Postal Commission to investigate the proposal that all Australian Government departments, commissions and statutory bodies, State governments and local councils which continue to have the insignia 'OHMS' printed on their envelopes be advised that at a yet to be determined date their mail will be no longer be carried because of the existence of that insignia? {: #subdebate-13-0-s1 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I am not able to answer the question. I suggest that it be put on the notice paper. I shall find out the answer. {: .page-start } page 2790 {:#debate-14} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-14-0} #### INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES {: #subdebate-14-0-s0 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to statements on the relationships between Ministers and members of the intelligence communities of other nations? Can he give the House information about those relationships and other matters of importance to this nation? {: #subdebate-14-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
ALP -The honourable gentleman will appreciate that in my position I am reluctant to expand too much on matters of security. My predecessors have always refused to confirm or deny such matters. Nevertheless, yesterday in apparent innocence, the Leader of the National Country Party did refer to such matters. In fact he asked me to apologise to the person concerned. I would point out that I never mentioned the person concerned myself. I never mentioned his position myself, and I never mentioned the places of his employment myself. The right honourable gentleman, however, did mention all these things. There was no denying the accuracy of what he said because he knew that I knew and he knew therefore that he might as well come clean. Nevertheless, yesterday I did quote from the *Australian Financial Review* editorial in part on this matter. Honourable gentlemen, I am sure, will forgive me- and I expect that most of them will be delighted- if I quote more *in extenso* from today's editorial in the *Australian Financial Review.* It states: >Yesterday in Parliament the Leader of the National Country Party, **Mr Anthony,** suggested that the Prime Minister of Australia, **Mr E.** C. Whitlam, should apologise to an official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States for involving that man in a domestic controversy. > >The man, **Mr Anthony** informed Parliament, was a family friend even though he did not know he was an official of the CIA. > >To put it bluntly the man was a spy, a spook, a man with allegiance to a foreign Government, who befriended **Mr Anthony** when he was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. > >The duty of this man, **Mr Richard** Lee Stallings, a quite senior man in the CIA, was to report back to his superiors every remark he gleaned from **Mr Anthony,** who was at the time the second most senior man in the Australian Government. > > **Mr Anthony** is fast earning the reputation for being a man of limited perception in politics. His latest parliamentary exercise further reinforces the impression of his gullibility. I go on: > **Mr Stallings** was the Dale Carnegie of the spy world, ingratiating himself not only into the friendship of **Mr Anthony** and family but also into the senior echelons of Australian business and indeed into the confidence of senior officials of political parties > >To imagine that spying in 1 975 is all about uncovering defence secrets is totally to misunderstand the importance of the current economic order. > >To list the areas where US interests are not identical with those of Australia is to go in the first place to the core of the interests of the Country Party. > >Australia's policies in terms of production, output and national policies in respect of wheat, wool, lead, zinc, iron ore, uranium, bauxite and mineral sands are quite simply not identical with the interests of the United States. In some areas they are inimical. > >The same can be said of certain key manufacturing and import areas. > >It was apparent to listen to **Mr Anthony** in Parliament yesterday, that the fact that Australia has a separate and identifiable interest from the US has not yet dawned on him. > >Let there be no mistake. **Mr Stallings** passed himself off on the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia as something which he was not. At the time he was a highly placed official of the United States covert intelligence system. > >It is beyond belief that the Australian intelligence system, which knew of the man's activities, did not warn such a senior politician as **Mr Anthony** that a spy was cultivating his friendship. > >However, the situation having been exposed, **Mr Anthony** is compounding his stupidity by asking the Prime Minister of Australia to apologise to a spy. I forgot to mention that the editorial is headed 'An Innocent At Home'. **Mr Speaker,** I ask that further questions be placed on notice. {: .page-start } page 2790 {:#debate-15} ### AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL: RESOLUTIONS OF 93RD MEETING {: #debate-15-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP -- For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the ninetythird meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Canberra 4 August 1 975. {: .page-start } page 2790 {:#debate-16} ### COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON MUSEUMS AND NATIONAL COLLECTIONS {: #debate-16-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections including the report of the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. {: .page-start } page 2790 {:#debate-17} ### INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION {: #debate-17-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP -- For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on motor vehicle import restrictions. Due to the limited number available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Printed copies of the report will be distributed to honourable members as soon as they become available. {: .page-start } page 2791 {:#debate-18} ### DECENTRALISATION {: #debate-18-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP -- For the information of honourable members, I present a volume of studies commissioned by the Committee of Commonwealth-State Officials on Decentralisation. {: .page-start } page 2791 {:#debate-19} ### PUBLIC BROADCASTING {: #debate-19-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · Maribyrnong · ALP -- For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the working party on public broadcasting. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. {: .page-start } page 2791 {:#debate-20} ### AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION {: #debate-20-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP -- Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourism Commission Act 1 967-1974, I present the annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975. {: .page-start } page 2791 {:#debate-21} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS {: #debate-21-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP **- Mr Speaker,** I want to take the opportunity to correct a gross mis-statement that occurred in today's issue of the *Australian Financial Review.* {: #debate-21-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -Yes. In an article on page 23 under the name of one **Mr P.** P. McGuinness it is stated: >During the crucial Budget discussions he - That is myself- on several occasions disclaimed responsibility for the Treasury submissions, although he had signed them, saying 'Treasury wrote them, not me.' This was a far cry from his - That is my- once proud claim that, 'There is no Treasury view, there is only a Treasurer's view. ' **Mr Speaker,** I did not make any such asseveration. I still have the greatest admiration for the Treasury officials. They tendered advice which I did not always take but which I respected. Any submission that appeared under my name was my submission and I took it as such. I made no such statement. I do hope that the *Australian Financial Review* will correct that and give it the same sort of prominence as has been given to the matter today. I suppose, like all Treasurers, I did not always get my view accepted. I do not think that I am the sole exception. But I still believe that insofar as statements that are called 'Treasury Opinion' are made the only person who can make them is the Treasurer of the day. {: #debate-21-s2 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond -- I wish to make a personal explanation, **Mr Speaker.** I claim to have been misrepresented by an editorial in today's issue of the *Australian Financial Review* and in a most cowardly and gutless way by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** who quoted the editorial a few minutes ago. I think it justifies my suspicion that there has been a conspiracy between the Prime Minister and certain elements of the *Australian Financial Review.* The House will be aware of the statement that I made yesterday exposing the falseness of an accusation made against me by the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: -- I rise to a point of order, **Mr Speaker.** The Leader of the National Country Party of Australia is not offering a personal explanation; he is debating the question. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The right honourable gentleman will offer a personal explanation and not debate the question. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I am not debating it, **Mr Speaker.** Before dealing with today's misrepresentation I wish to acknowledge that in today's *Australian Financial Review* the editor makes the following statements: Firstly, that the *Australian Financial Review* does not doubt that I was absolutely unaware of the fact that a man who rented my house 9 years ago was an official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Secondly, the *Financial Review* has found no evidence that there has been any financial contribution to the National Country Party by the CIA and has found that the weight of other information suggests that such action would have been very unlikely. Thirdly, the *Financial Review* does not for a moment question the innocent nature of my involvement in this matter. Whilst I welcome these statements by the editor of the *Financial Review* for the way in which they completely destroy the Prime Minister's vicious misrepresentation, I have been further misrepresented by the editorial in today's issue. The editorials arguments are based on the claim that **Mr Stallings** 'befriended **Mr Anthony** when he was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia'. The editorial goes on to say that **Mr Stallings** had a duty to report back to his superiors every remark he gleaned from **Mr Anthony,** who was at the time the second most senior man in the Australian Government. At the time these events occurred- 9 years ago- I was not the Deputy Prime Minister. I was a quite junior Ministerthe Minister for the Interior. By the time I became Deputy Prime Minister **Mr Stallings** had retired and was living in Hawaii. {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: -What a lie. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -I would urge the *Financial Review* if it wishes to pursue - {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- I raise a point of order. Is the honourable member for Gwydir entitled to refer to the Leader of the National Country Party as a liar? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable gentleman is as aware as I am - {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: -- The editorial is a lie. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Gwydir will remain silent. If he opens his mouth once more I will name him. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I would urge the *Financial Review,* if it wishes to pursue its criticism of me, to try to base its arguments and accusations on fact and to be more accurate in statements it makes. In regard to the continuing efforts by the *Financial Review* to imply that I was influenced by the CIA and that I provided information to it, I emphatically deny such accusations. I regard these suggestions as an extremely serious reflection on my own integrity and on my loyalty to Australia. I would hope that the *Financial Review* might give careful thought to the matter before pursuing this line of misrepresentation. {: .page-start } page 2792 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### THE PARLIAMENT . Discussion of Matter of Public Importance {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have received a letter from the honourable member for New England proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: >The deliberate and determined attempts by the Government to frustrate the proper functioning of Parliament by minimising opportunities for normal debate by the elimination of ministerial statements, the abuse of question time and the gagging of speakers on legislation and matters of public importance. 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)* {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
New England **-Mr Speaker-** Motion (by **Mr Daly)** put: >That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 56 Majority....... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2793 {:#debate-23} ### GOVERNMENT BUSINESS {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Precedence {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP The purpose of this motion is - Motion (by **Mr Sinclair)** put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 56 NOES: 62 Majority....... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: #subdebate-23-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The question is that the motion for precedence of Government business be agreed to. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: **- Mr Speaker** - Motion (by **Mr Daly)** put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 55 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put-: That the motion **(Mr Daly's)** be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 54 Majority....... 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2794 {:#debate-24} ### ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS BILL 1975 {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 4 November on motion by **Mr Les** Johnson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which **Mr Ellicott** had moved by way of amendment: >That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the Bill be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: > >to receive representations on the Bill from the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory and other interested persons and organisations in the Northern Territory, and > >to report to the House on the nature and content of such representations ' '. {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr MATHEWS:
Casey -- When the debate on the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill and the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill was interrupted yesterday I was making the point to the House that the proposal from the Opposition for a delay in the passage of these Bills should not be countenanced. I want to develop that theme further this morning. The time already taken in investigation of these proposals and particularly in investigation of the proposal of land rights for Aborigines has been very great, and there can be no question that the inquiry into land rights carried out by **Mr Justice** Woodward was one of the most thorough and searching inquiries which has been seen in this country in recent years, yet the Opposition is anxious to see this legislation referred for yet another inquiry. It is transparently clear that the motivation behind the suggestion for a referral to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is the disagreement which has developed between the Liberal Party and the National Country Party of Australia on the issue. As I said yesterday, the Liberal Party itself has very little interest in the subject of Aboriginal affairs. As long as Aboriginal advancement does not represent any very large expenditure on the part of the Treasury, as long as the needs of the Aboriginal people do not become a very substantial burden on the corporations which are principally represented by Liberal members in this House, the Liberal Party is quite prepared to see the cause of reform creep forward. In this it is very different from its Opposition partner, the National Country Party, which is determined at all costs to stand in the way of progress of the Aboriginal people and to maintain the Aboriginal people of Australia in the state of serfdom which has so long benefited the pastoralists that the Country Party represents in this House. That is the motivation of the suggestion which is put forward by the Opposition for a referral of this legislation for yet further inquiry. We in this House well know that the Aboriginal people of Australia have one of the most appalling rates of infant mortality in the world. Who is very largely responsible for that fact? It is the pastoralists on whose properties the overwhelming number of Aborigines have lived, the pastoralists who have so overwhelmingly ignored the proper provision of medical care on their properties. We know that the Aboriginal people of Australia have one of the most appalling rates of malnutrition in the world. Where does the responsibility for that fact lie? It lies with the diet that has been provided by the pastoralists of the Northern Territory. {: .speaker-KVQ} ##### Mr Sullivan: -- Tell us what you have done. {: .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- We know that the Aboriginal people of Australia have been one of the most appalling ill-housed people in the world. I wonder whether the honourable member for Riverina, who interjects and who is red faced at what I say, has ever inspected the state of housing at places like Wave Hill. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES -The honourable member for Riverina will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes: -- He would sell them grog. {: .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -As the honourable member for Melbourne interjects, the most the honourable member for Riverina is ever likely to do for the Aborigines is to sell them grog, as has been done so often by Country Party members outside this House. The record of the Country Party and the people it represents in these matters has been of a character which makes this proposal for a referral of the legislation utterly indefensible. How could members of this House go back to the Aboriginal people and say to them after the 8 years which have elapsed since the Gurindji people first advanced their claim for land rights- and 3 years after the major investigation carried out by **Mr Justice** Woodward, they want yet another referral, yet another investigation? This House, the people of Australia and above all the Aboriginal people of Australia will not countenance further delays in this matter. We will not have a situation in which this legislation is shelved at the behest of the Country Party in the hope that it will be forgotten, in the hope that like the electoral Bills it can be deferred again and again and again until at long last, in an unlucky day for this country, the Country Party is again in a position to make decisions about legislation. There can be no doubt about the motivation that underlies these proposals for a deferral of the legislation for yet another investigation. It is not sufficient that the Parliament should simply approve legislation setting up a framework within which land rights can be legally handed over to Aboriginal communities. It is very clear that if these communities are to take full advantage of the land rights vested in them under this legislation, acceptable proposals will have to be made for a system of advisers to work with the Aboriginal communities because where great difficulties have arisen in the past, where there have been failures or the foreshadowing of failures in Aboriginal communities, has been where advice was foisted on the community from outside rather than where the means were provided for the community to obtain advice on its own account. I want to make it very clear to the House that if advisers are to work successfully with the Aboriginal communities which take up land rights under this legislation it will need to be on the basis of a system of grants handed over without strings to the communities concerned so that they can then go ahead and employ the advisers of their choice. But we should not suppose that a group of people- a body of men and women- able to accept these highly specialised responsibilities will arise spontaneously. The role of the adviser to the Aboriginal community working its way towards a new sense of identity and a new sense of self-respect is a very delicate role. It is clear that the advisers who will be needed will require on the one hand practical qualifications- very wide experience in the administration of properties, the keeping of books, the maintenance of machinery and so on- and on the other hand the sensitivity and the anthropological background which is rarely found among people of this stamp. We should look to the experience of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in developing this body of expertise. We should learn as much from our failures in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as from our success there in the training of patrol officers. I repeat that this is too important a matter to be allowed to go by default. If we do not systematically and with determination tackle this question of providing appropriate training for Aboriginal community advisers the whole matter will indeed go by default and people who are utterly inappropriate for the role will move into positions because there will be a vacuum waiting there for them. At this stage of the development of the Aboriginal communities most likely to take up their rights under this legislation, it is unquestionable that the services of advisers are needed even to carry through the most routine and bureaucratic aspects of their relationship with the wider community and particularly in their relationship with governments. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order!** The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory -- Before discussing these Bills I would like to correct some of the extravagant and untrue remarks made by the honourable member for Casey **(Mr Mathews).** This morning he made a bitter attack on Territorians generally and pastoralists in particular about the lack of" housing for Aborigines and about malnutrition. {: .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr Mathews: -- And health. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- And health', he says. From his one trip to Wave Hill, where I gather he got a fairly good dousing, and deserved it, he would have no idea of some of the very good works performed by pastoralists and citizens of the Northern Territory for Aborigines. It is quite plain to me that the purpose in most of his speech today was to drive a wedge between black and white. So I think it would be advisable if he did not continue to go to the Northern Territory if he comes back with such a twisted and inaccurate view. I also want to take him up on the remarks he made about the rigging of votes. He implied that I had something to do with that son of practice. In actual fact members of his own Party are the experts in endeavouring in such a despicable way to ensure that their candidates are elected. Strangely enough, in the area about which he was speaking- -Wattie Creek and Hooker Creek about 70 miles south from there- at a previous election a whole block of votes came in all marked with the same pencil and all marked with exactly the same preferences. They all went to the Australian Labor Party candidate. The same sort of thing has happened in the Alice Springs area. Labor supporters have been seen grabbing how to vote cards from Aborigines in various areas and abusing people for supporting the Country Party. So the honourable member for Casey has no right to come in here and cast such aspersions when he knows that he is not telling the truth. He also claimed that the Australian Labor Party was the first party to introduce land rights for Aborigines. That is utter nonsense. In 1971 the Legislative Council, as it then was, conferred land rights on Aborigines under the Northern Territory Lands Ordinance. Aborigines were given rights on reserves. They had control then of 94 000 square miles- that is one-sixth of the Northern Territory- plus various cattle stations. They were given these rights and lived under better conditions than at Balanda and elsewhere. That is a convenient expression for describing white people or Europeans. The honourable member spoke about the Gurindji land battle. At that time the Aborigines virtually had control and ownership of one-sixth of the Northern Territory plus various cattle stations. They are acquiring more land as the days go by. They are in a very sound position to do so because of the state of the cattle industry. I think that many people in the Northern Territory would be prepared to sell their properties at this time. Of course, the main thing is to see that those properties are run as viable propositions. The 3 properties which the Aborigines owned at that timeEverard Park which is now called Mimili, Willowra and Kildurk- are not run properly. Although everyone supports Aboriginal land rights, great consideration should be given to the delicate situation of people who are training Aborigines. The honourable member for Casey mentioned this. I have advocated this proposal for years in the Parliament. I commend the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr** Ellicott) for the solid and sound case he made for referring the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I condemn the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** for not honouring his promise and allowing this Bill to be considered by the many communities and people in the Northern Territory whom it specifically affects. I ask him: Why is the Government trying to rush this Bill through the House? Why has he broken the promise which he gave in this House and which was understood by the Aboriginal communities throughout' the Northern Territory, the Balanda the Legislative Assembly and everybody vitally concerned? The Opposition has received many calls in support of giving the people time to have a look at this legislation. As my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth very ably showed yesterday, this Bill contains many complicated facets. It could easily alter the whole way of life of the Northern Territory. In fact only last week **Mr Charles** Perkins claimed that the Northern Territory should be a black State. Here this Government - {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In fairness, he did not say that at all. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- He said it according to the Sunday Press. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- He said he was going to acquire a pastoral property and it had nothing to do with this Bill. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -The Minister probably did not see the same Press article as I did. This Bill was introduced to this House only 20 days ago. Many communities from Docker River in the south west to Angurugu in the north east and Yirrkala have not even seen it, let alone had the chance to discuss it. All the communities have complained that they have not seen or had an opportunity to discuss this vital Bill. I sincerely urge the Government, because I do not really think that it knows what it is doing, to consider that if it passes this Bill it will be setting black against black and black against white. In fact it is virtually engineering a prototype for the destruction of the Northern Territory as we now know it. I plead with the Government to refer this matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. This is not a scheme to delay land rights for Aborigines. It is agreed to in principle by the Opposition parties. But something sensible must come out of this Bill. I warn the Minister that if he receives and mentions telegrams from the northern land council- from Bathurst Island, Melville Island and many other areas, but Bathurst Island in particular- in support of the Bill he should realise that there were 2 Aborigines, one part coloured, on the land council, and seven were what one might call 'heavies', department men or legal advisers. If the Minister would call that body an Aboriginal land council I should not do so. There have been pleas from Aborigines in central Australia. The Warramunga Housing Commission stated that this Bill should be referred to the Committee. The Rev. Lazarus Lam Lami has supported the same action. As I said, the main thrust of my speech today is to ask the Government to treat the Opposition's proposal as a sincere amendment. Surely the Minister must have got the message from the honourable member for Wentworth when he was presenting his long but well delivered and thoughtful speech concerning this matter. I turn now to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, which until the Bill was placed before this House knew nothing about it. The Assembly had not been consulted. After all, it is the main legislative body in the Territory in spite of the fact that this Government, more than 12 months after the election of the Assembly on 19 October last year has not given it the powers that were recommended by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory on 2 occasions and which were recommended by the previous Government in October 1972. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly represents the people, black and white, in the Northern Territory. Once again this Government, as it has done so often in the case of, say, the Darwin Reconstruction Commission Bill, has disregarded the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory people. It has created one of the greatest shambles of all times. Surely it should have learnt some lesson from that experience. The members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly live in the Territory. They have vast experience in all these sorts of things. There are legal men amongst them. One of the Independent members described this Bill in words which roughly meant that it was one of the greatest pieces of parliamentary hogwash he had ever seen. The Assembly passed a motion- the honourable member for Wentworth read it so I will not repeat it- which stated that the Assembly should send a delegation to the Parliament of the Commonwealth to discuss this matter, to appear before it to give evidence and to advise. Surely to goodness this Government will have enough sense to take some notice of the people in the Northern Territory and what they say about this matter. It might be said in relation to my criticism of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission that the former acting General Manager, **Mr Martyn** Finger was at the root of the confusion. That is not so. In actual fact the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, in spite of the meddling and the bungling of all the Government departments and Ministers concerned, now seems to be achieving some sort of organisation with regard to building houses. I know that it has not completed any houses in the government or public sector but plans are afoot and the operation is running. So **Mr Finger** cannot be blamed for the problems. It was the Government bungling which brought them about. I ask again: Why is this Bill being rushed through the House now? I heard someone yesterday say that there was a possibility that the Bill might be used for electoral purposes. If the Aborigines wish to consider it- they do because they have indicated this from all quarters and Balanda Territorians wish to discuss it for the good of the people in the Northern Territory- the Government should discuss it. The Bill was drafted in Canberra a couple of thousand miles from the scene by people who obviously do not know what they are doing. I know that the Woodward report has been the basis of the legislation but the Woodward report shows that much of it leant on the advice from the land councils. Many of the claims of the land councils were extravagant. The Government would be well advised to remember words which the Minister heard at Wave Hill. It is a pity that the honourable member for Casey was not there. He made a tirade against the member of the Legislative Assembly who holds the seat of Victoria River and who supports the Liberal and National Country Parties. Vincent Rangari and Mick Lingiari got up and spoke when they had received the lease instrument for the 1250 square miles of cattle country at Wave Hill. Vincent said: 'Now we have the land we must all be together'. Mick, following him in speaking before some one hundred or two hundred people, including the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and various other former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, said: 'It must be fair', and he repeated it, 'It must be fair for black and white'. Those 2 men were far more far sighted and far more considerate of the Territory and its future than the honourable member for Casey who gets up in this place and just slangs everyone left, right and centre with little or no knowledge. Those men realise that both black and white must work together for the future of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. We must have people with experience, patience, tolerance and knowledge. These people are hard to find and if this Bill goes through as it is a wedge will be driven between them and they will be even harder to find. We have heard the Labor Party's Aboriginal affairs policy described as a disaster. I assure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, and the Government that if this Bill goes through in its present form it will be an even greater disaster for everyone in the Northern Territory. It is a Bill which in so many ways misses out the feelings of the Aboriginal people and of the people who live in the Territory. The introduction of the land trusts and the handling of the land situation can do nothing but bring very severe problems into the family life of the Aborigines. With regard to mining, certainly the Aborigines must have interests in joint ventures with Europeans. But if this Bill is passed as is it could be that many millions of dollars will not be invested in the Northern Territory because there will be a lack of security as a result. The same situation would eventuate with regard to the land system if an entirely different system of land tenure were introduced, as is recommended in the Bill. It has been stated that 23 per cent of land in the Northern Territory is under claim at the moment. I would say that it is considerably more than that, but I should like the Minister to say how many claims have been made, by whom they have been made and where they are, because we do not know. Some of them are very large, I am sure, and some of them could be irresponsible. I should like just to mention the effect of the 2-kilometre area around foreshores and rivers. This will deny professional and private fishermen almost 80 per cent of the coast of the Northern Territory, not to mention the Daly, the East Alligator and the Roper Rivers which were spoken of recently. These are very significant river systems which will be denied and the matter should be discussed with the people concerned to see what effect this will have on them. This Bill as it stands will destroy the permit system which the Aborigines again and again have requested the Liberal-Country Party, or the Country-Liberal Party as it is in the north, to preserve. When the Labor Party had members in the Legislative Council, as it was then- it now has no members- they always sought to destroy the permit system. The permit system gives to the Aborigines the right to say who shall go on to their land; and that is their right. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order!** The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s3 .speaker-9E4} ##### Mr DAWKINS:
Tangney -We are today debating 3 important pieces of legislation which have been introduced to give effect to the Government's long standing intentions in the field of Aboriginal affairs. *(Quorum formed).* Before going on to the more general questions I want to spend some time talking about the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill which has taken up a lot of the time of the speeches of honourable members opposite. I find it rather intriguing that the Liberal Party particularly has at last discovered Aboriginal people. Members of the Liberal Party come here and talk sanctimoniously about consulting with the Aboriginal people and giving effect to the wishes of the Aboriginal people. They seem to have forgotten that for at least 20 years and for a long time before that they allowed the Aboriginal people to be entirely neglected, to remain entirely without consultation and to be entirely ignored by governments of which they were a part. They are members of the Party which, when in government, produced a statement on land rights on Australia Day 1972. 1 am sure I do not have to remind the House that the consequence of that announcement was the establishment of the Aboriginal embassy on the lawns outside Parliament House. That is how their pronouncement on land rights was received by the Aboriginal people. They acted completely without consultation and the Aboriginal people entirely disagree with and entirely rejected their propositions which were set out in the statement by the then Prime Minister. But that was not enough for the Liberal Party. It then went on to legislate for the removal of the Aboriginal embassy and when that did not work it moved in the police to remove the Aboriginal people and their embassy in a most violent and unprecedented way. Yet these are the people who now berate the Government for not having the concern for the Aboriginal people and for not having consulted with them. It seems to me that the Liberal Party - Motion ( by **Dr Forbes)** proposed: >That the honourable member for Tangney be not further heard. {: #subdebate-24-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The question is that the honourable member for Tangney be not further heard. Those of that opinion say aye, against no. I think the noes have it. {: .speaker-9E4} ##### Mr DAWKINS: -As long as the Liberal Party remains the stooge of the National Country Party in this regard it will never make any progress in this field. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: -- I raise a point of order. Why was there not a division? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -There was no division called for. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** you did not ask whether we wanted a division. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I ruled that the question was lost and no division was called for. I call the honourable member for Tangney. {: .speaker-9E4} ##### Mr DAWKINS: -The point is that the tactics of the Liberal Party are entirely determined by the National Country Party which is not interested in seeing the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill become an Act. It realises that the Bill would be a threat to the interests of the people whom it represents. So the only argument it can put forward is that there has not been adequate consultation. I think it is worth enunciating the extent of the consultation that has taken place. As soon as this Government was elected the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission was established. The first report of the Commission was brought down in My 1973 and the second report was brought down in April 1974, which is well over 12 months ago. In the second report there was a draft Bill which is substantially repeated in the legislation now before the House. Therefore, the draft Bill has been available for people to peruse and to discuss for well over 12 months. Not only that; during its inquiry the Commission spoke to over 100 witnesses and had discussions with 33 Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. The Commission was very thorough and conducted with sufficient informality to allow for the maximum of consultation with and participation by the Aboriginal people. That would be adequate only if it were true that the suggestions of the Woodward Commission had been accurately and faithfully followed, and that is true. There are very few departures from the suggestions of the Woodward Commission, and they are well known and well enunciated. We do not have Opposition members debating the detail of the Bill. All they can say is that it has to be deferred and that there has to be yet more consultation. Of course there could be more consultation. We could consult till we were blue in the face. But what is the point of more consultation? The cry has been to get legislation for land rights, to formalise land rights and to give effect to our commitment to provide land rights for the Aboriginal people. This is not a simple matter. As the honourable member for Brisbane **(Mr Cross)** rightly pointed out, it is not possible for legislation to mirror the traditional ownership patterns of the Aboriginal people. What we are trying to do is simply to provide legislation to formalise the land ownership for Aboriginals in an acceptable way. The legislation is a replacement for the traditional patterns of ownership; not a reflection of them and not a mirroring of them. What is important for us, because we cannot accurately reflect the traditional patterns of ownership, is to get some legislation going to formalise the process as far as we can and then if difficulties seem to emerge' it may be necessary to introduce amendments as time goes on. Surely the important thing in the light of this very extensive consultation that has already taken -place with the Aboriginal people and others concerned with this matter is to get something on the statute book and see how it works out -in practice. As well as that one must say that this legislation will be a blueprint for Aboriginal land rights throughout the whole of Australia. It is hot possible for this Parliament to legislate in respect of land rights in the States. This legislation goes very much further than any legislation which exists or which has been contemplated by any of the State governments. What is important is that a blueprint for that development is established so that hopefully there can be some development towards land rights for Aboriginal people throughout Australia. The honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** says that legislation for land rights in the Northern Territory is the prerogative of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. Quite clearly-this statement cannot be supported. We are trying to establish in a permanent way the rights of the Northern Territory Aborigines to the land which they have been deprived of for so long. We are trying to establish their traditional ownership rights. It is not a question of simply being fair to everybody in the Northern Territory. We are trying to establish the rights, we are trying to establish the interests in a permanent way, of a section of that community. It may be that in doing so we are unfair to the current land holders in the Northern Territory. But that unfairness could be criticised only if it were true that the claims of the current land holders were justified. What we are trying to do is set against the interests of the current land holders the interests of those whom we see as the traditional and permanent landholdersthe Aboriginal people who have been deprived of the ownership and the use of what has always been their land. It is a question of redressing the balance to some extent. We cannot expect that everybody in the Northern Territory will be happy with this process or that the current landholders in particular will be happy with it. Of course there will be some discontent but for heaven's sake there has been discontent among the Aboriginal people for over one hundred years. This legislation is trying to redress the balance to some extent. Of course some people will be upset, but I think that is just one of the consequences of trying to re-establish the rights of these people. I said earlier that these 3 pieces of legislation were designed to give effect to the Government's long-standing commitments in the field of Aboriginal affairs. I quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** on 6 April 1973. He said: >The basic object of my Government 's policy is to restore to the Aboriginal people of Australia their lost power of selfdetermination in economic, social and political affairs. He went on to say: >An opportunity for self-determination and independent action would serve little purpose if Aboriginals continued to be economically and socially deprived. The Government therefore plans to help them as individuals, groups or communities, in crafts, trades and professions and as business entrepreneurs. > >More generally, my Government is anxious that 200 years of despoliation, injustice and discrimination have seriously damaged and demoralised the once proud Aboriginal people. The Government, on behalf of the Australian people, accepts responsibility for their active and progressive rehabilitation. I refer also to Henry Schapper's book *Aboriginal Advancement to Integration* in which he says: >Until the white man came to Western Australia Aborigines enjoyed relative freedom from want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness in terms of their needs then. They were self-determining; they reared their children to become selfsustaining and independent persons within family and tribal groups; they had well-defined and esteemed roles in their family and tribe; they had an appropriate identity, selfrespect and dignity; and they were motivated to participate as full members of their society. > >One hundred and fifty years later the Aborigines are but one-half of their earlier number, they have been transformed from semi-nomadic hunters to sedentary unskilled labourers, and from freely self-determining persons to degraded dependants. About half have become genetically different, and in terms of ways of life now acceptable to both them and us, the needs of most of them are utterly unfulfilled. The transformation of Aboriginal attributes- *(Quorum formed)* I will not continue with the quotation although I commend this book to honourable members. I think it is clear that one of the prime objectives of the Government and most observers on the question of Aboriginal advancement has been to try to establish a way of life in which these Aborigines, both as individuals and communities, can be selfdetermining. There are some very grave pitfalls, as we move towards self-determination amongst Aborigines and that matter has to be approached with very great care. I quote from the foreword of the most recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: >The matters which gave the Committee cause for grave concern were the extent of malnutrition in children and of alcoholism in adults, and the lamentably ineffective programs for treatment. > >In respect of the silent ravages of child malnutrition the Committee considers that all services in the fields of community health, welfare and education should be given and should accept prime responsibility to ensure that all children under their notice are receiving suitable and sufficient food. It considers that parents, communities and governments have a shared responsibility at present not accepted wholeheartedly. Very importantly it then says: >The slogans for 'self-determination' and against 'paternalism ' can be and, in the Committee 's opinion, are unwittingly used to the disadvantage of children. > >The Committee was impressed by the strength of the requests made by Aboriginal people for more effective means of dealing with the complex personal and family problems connected with alcohol. Many connected aspects of what is now an unconcealed tragedy for both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals are considered in the Report. It is not sufficient for us to be saying that we are primarily concerned with self-determination amongst Aboriginal people. That, of course, is a fundamental and long term objective but we cannot allow the aim of self-determination to legitimise the neglect of these people and their problems. Our first intention and our first objective must be to see that the Aboriginal people and particularly their children at least have a chance of survival. The children must be allowed at least to grow to maturity with adequate help and with adequate mental and physical development. That surely is the prime objective. A child cannot be self-determining, almost by definition. If it is true that there are inadequacies in the community in which the child finds itself, then of course we cannot allow that child to be neglected simply because we are concerned to see that the community is self-determining. We allow for the intervention of governments or government agencies in the affairs of other people in the community. *(Quorum formed)* In my observations around this country, it has been quite clear that some people are putting an undue emphasis on the question of selfdetermination or at least they are putting this emphasis at an inappropriate time. What some people are doing is using the goal of selfdetermination to wash their hands of many of the problems that confront Aboriginal people. We have a responsibility to sustain and assist Aboriginal communities. We must not ever allow ourselves to wash our hands and say that because it is the Aborigines' wish, we should not intervene in any way. {: #subdebate-24-0-s5 .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s6 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar **- Mr Deputy Speaker** - Motion (by **Mr Nicholls)** put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 54 Majority....... 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: #subdebate-24-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Ellicott's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 53 Majority....... 9 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clauses 3 to 9- by leave- taken together. {: #debate-24-s0 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -I am very worried about some of the implications of this Bill and particularly the imprecision of certain parts of it. I refer to some of the definitions, particularly the definition of 'Aboriginal' in clause 3. This goes right to the root of the whole difficulty in regard to this Bill. It is a very complicated Bill and it is quite unbelievable that it is being pushed through the House in this fashion after the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** had given us an assurance that there would be some months during which it could be debated and during which we could obtain the opinions of Aboriginal people. The violation of that assurance is very bad particularly because the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs wanted an opportunity to consider it and to consult the Aboriginal people. The defect of this Bill is that it tries to deal with all Aboriginal people in the same way and this is absolutely contrary to all the necessities of the situation. Under this legislation an Aboriginal means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australians. What does this mean? Is a man who is half Aboriginal a member of the Aboriginal race or is he a member of the European or some other race? If he is three-quarter European is he a member of the Aboriginal or the European race? When I was the Minister in charge of this portfolio for the purposes of administration I put in the definition that an Aboriginal was a person of full or part Aboriginal blood who himself claimed to be an Aboriginal and was acknowledged as such in the community with which he was associated. That is a definition which is quite applicable when one is talking about giving special benefits to disadvantaged people. It was put in for this reason- so that the benefits available under legislation would be available to the disadvantaged people who in many cases are probably not substantially Aboriginal at all. I adopted that definition in order to give disadvantaged people the benefits under the law, but it is not an appropriate definition for this kind of Bill at all. It is entirely inappropriate because what the Minister is saying in respect of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill is quite correct if it is to apply to one kind of community and it is quite incorrect if it is to apply to another kind of community. I would think that there is going to be a backlash if it is said that a person who is one-sixteenth or one-thirty-second part Aboriginal, as will happen in future, is entitled to the full benefits of this legislation. There will be all sorts of inequities and indignations in the community. It is quite absurd in respect of a permanent Act of this character to think that all Aboriginals have to be treated in the same way. I know that in this Bill there are many things which are very good and will have full support but it is a great pity that in its attempts to do these things the Government has brought in a Bill- I think it was brought in with the very best of intentions- which in some respects is clumsy and will do more harm than good to the Aboriginal people. The Government has made a grave mistake because it is looking at the Aboriginal people as something which it can use and which the European or the white man can use and push about for their purposes. We know perfectly well that this is being done in the chamber today to meet the exigencies of the Government's procedure in the chamber. The Aboriginal people are being exploited and victimised here in this chamber today because they are being used as a vehicle - {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I raise a point of order. The honourable member is clearly making a speech that should be more appropriate to the second reading stage. It has nothing to do with clause 3 of the Bill. {: #debate-24-s1 .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA -I cannot uphold the point of order. The honourable member so far has addressed himself to definitions. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -Thank you, **Mr Chairman.** I do not want to trespass on the Minister's tenderness too much, but what I am saying is that in this place today we are guilty of a crime against the Aboriginal people because we are using them for our purposes and that is very wrong. Indeed, it is something of which we should all be ashamed. These Bills are important Bills and they should be directed - {: #debate-24-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I remind the honourable member that if he strays too far I will have to uphold a point of order if it is raised. We are dealing with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, clauses 3 to 9. The honourable member has been impeccable so far. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -Thank you. Let me come back to this definition of 'Aboriginal'. What is meant by this definition? For example, is **Mr Charles** Perkins an Aboriginal? His mother is half Aboriginal, his father is white. He is onequarter Aboriginal. Are we to consider him an Aboriginal? We can consider him perhaps a disadvantaged person and somebody for whom I wanted to get the benefits of the relevant Act which we had and which allowed me to help people who would be disadvantaged. These Aborigines were disadvantaged, but being an Aboriginal is something more than being disadvantaged. There is or there should be a positive virtue and a positive pride in being Aboriginal. Are we to take that pride and tear it up and regard these people who are much more European than they are Aboriginal as Aboriginal for the purposes of this legislation? Have a look at the kind of purposes which are in this legislation. Consider local government purposes. If we are talking about a community in the north of Australia, on a reserve for example, we want the administration to be in the hands of Aborigines to the very greatest extent; but, if we are talking about a community in Redfern, we do not want to cut across local government and give such responsibilities to a group of people who really are not Aborigines, who are much more European than Aboriginal and who are living in a situation where they should not be in command of the whole of the community, as they should be in command of the whole of the community at Oenpelli, Milingimbi or somewhere like that. The Government is trying to use a steam roller to put all these people in the same category. They are not all in the same category; they are diverse people. By this definition we are trying to serve our own mean purposes and to clear our own consciences. That is not the point. Our consciences do not matter. What matters is that we help the Aboriginal people to the greatest extent. We should not be considering them as a means of doing something else; we should look at them from the point of view of their consciences and their values. {: .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-24-s3 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP -- I think the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** is being unduly pessimistic and perhaps a little less than charitable. I respect the difficulty we have over the question of definition, whether it be the definition of Aboriginal people or anybody else. For instance, is the honourable member for Mackellar a Wentworth or not? His father was a Wentworth but his mother was not. So it goes right through the whole scene. We cannot define people into one group or another simply by inserting a definition in an Act of Parliament *( Quorum formed)* There is no doubt in my mind that everybody in the House who is concerned with this problem would agree that it is exceptionally difficult to define Aboriginal people in legislation. Generally speaking, our general decision has been to use the terms that the honourable member for Mackellar used. My inclination is to use the widest possible terminology and to give some direction to the administrative system that that is the way the definition is to be applied- to say that an Aboriginal is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia if he is accepted by the Aboriginal people and considers himself to be one of the Aboriginal people. The last thing we would want would be race catalogues in which people would have to define their ancestry in such a way that they were able to say whether they were or were not Aboriginal people. I have referred to the general approach of this legislation. We recognise the difficulties, but our objective is to have the cover as wide as possible. The other point the honourable member for Mackellar made was that we were trying to roll this matter up into one omnibus piece of legislation which would cover all contingencies. As I read the Bill, that is not the case. The Bill is flexible enough to allow for all sorts of communities and all sorts of rules in all places in Australia. I remind the honourable member and the other honourable members who are present that there is a large number of community groups which sometimes act as total governmental operations. Within our community there are groups that come together, I suppose usually more for religious purposes than for anything else, and take on a total view. They have their own schools, their own community groups, their own property and so on. Internally they have a relationship which is social and, perhaps, religious or spiritual- whatever you like to call it- but not necessarily geographic. Therefore, it is quite possible for the people of Redfern - Motion ( by **Dr Forbes** ) put: >That the honourable member for Wills be not further heard. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins) AYES: 50 NOES: 62 Majority....... 12 AYES NOES AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: #debate-24-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Clauses agreed to. Part III- Aboriginal Council Areas and Aboriginal Councils- Clauses 10 to 42. {: #debate-24-s5 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth -- I rise simply to make again the point that I made in the second reading debate, namely, that the provisions of Part III are unlimited in their application. This legislation would apply, for instance, to areas in the western part of New South Wales which are represented by Government supporters. It provides that an application for the establishment of an Aboriginal council in a particular area requires the support of only 10 adult Aboriginals. Let us take the town of Bourke as an illustration. We could have the situation in which the local government council of that town, instituted under the Local Government Act, would be operating alongside an Aboriginal council set up under Federal legislation and which covered an Aboriginal community living near the town of Bourke. Such a situation could only lead to conflict; it could only lead to misunderstanding. I do not know of any discussions that have taken place between the- Commonwealth Government and the State governments on this matter. If the State governments were happy to allow Aboriginal councils to look after health, sewerage, water.supply and electricity, as clause 11(3) suggests, and other matters, well and good. This would be a satisfactory arrangement if the State governments were in agreement. But as I understand it that has not happened. Therefore may I suggest that for the sake of good relations within the federation and for ease of administration Part III be limited to the Northern Territory. We could see how it worked there. We could ascertain what expertise the Aboriginal Councils were able to develop there and then, if thought fit, we could extend the provisions of this part of the Bill to the rest of Australia. At this stage may I once again press on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les** Johnson) the thought that I pressed on him during the second reading debate, namely, that Part III be limited in that way. I want to advert to the power of the Registrar. It appears that the Registrar is to be a very powerful and very important person. He will consult with the Aboriginal people. He will be able to exercise a great deal of power. Not only will he inform Aboriginal people in the terms of clause 12 but also he will explain to them the purpose of the application, the boundaries of the area which is the subject of the application, and the functions of the proposed Aboriginal council for that area. The honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** has already pointed out the complicated nature of this Bill. The problems associated with explaining to Aboriginal communities the terms of the Bill will be very great. This will also be the case with respect to explaining the effect of Part III, and of course other parts of this Bill, to adult Aboriginals who are of the view that , an Aboriginal council should be established. Not only will the 10 adult Aboriginals concerned with the application have to understand the effect of Part III; so also will adult Aboriginals living in the.area to which the application relates. Part III is fairly broad in what it contemplates. I emphasise that the Registrar seems to us to be a very significant person. I do not know what range in the Public Service he is to occupy, but I think it is worth bringing into the debate the fact that he will be a very significant person. Therefore he needs to be highly qualified. Perhaps the Minister intends to see that this is so, but I would like some explanation of his intention. {: #debate-24-s6 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I appreciate the point made by the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott).** It is unquestionably the case, of course, that the Registrar is to be an extremely important person. As I see it the honourable gentleman's anticipation is a clear indication that he expects this legislation to be effective. When all is said and done the legislation is designed to incorporate councils and associations, and the extent to which this is done will reflect the spontaneity and the voluntary wish on the part of organisations to register under an Australian Government law. The situation in the 6 States at the present time is that there are laws that enable registration or incorporation to take place and those laws will continue to prevail. {: .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott: -- I am talking only about Part III. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I know that the honourable member is talking about Part III. It will be optional for any council or association to choose between the Australian Government law and the State law. The honourable gentleman talked about the importance of the Registrar. The Registrar will be important only if the legislation attracts that kind of response. *Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.* {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch the honourable member for Wentworth had raised 2 matters concerning the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1975. One was about the power of the Registrar. I had been pointing out to the honourable gentleman that he had anticipated the success of the legislation because he regards the Registrar as having prospects of being a very busy man. I assure the honourable gentleman that the provisions are such that the Registrar is certainly very much under the influence and control of the provisions of this Bill- an Act, as it shall become- and the regulations to be made under it. I think the first thing the honourable gentleman should have regard for is that the Registrar shall be appointed by the Minister and shall have such duties, functions and powers as are provided by this Bill and by the regulations, and that is the limit of his power. *(Quorum formed).* The Registrar is very much, indeed almost exclusively under the influence of this Bill and the regulations made under it. The Minister determines regulations but of course the Parliament also acts in that respect. Sub-clause 4 (4) provides that both the Registrar and the Deputy Registrars shall be officers of the Australian Public Service. I think it is important for the honourable gentleman to note that sub-clause (5) says that the Registrar and the Deputy Registrars shall hold office as such during the pleasure of the Minister. So one can hardly expect irresponsibility in that respect. They are appointed by the Minister. They are capable of being dismissed by the Minister. {: .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott: -- The Registrar is an important person. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -He is an important person. There is no question about it. He has very extensive prescribed functions to fulfil. I am not sure in what context the honourable gentleman is making this point so heavily. {: .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott: -- What I meant is that he would have to be a Second Division officer by the sound of it. He has very heavy functions. That is my only point- it is a serious one. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -If the honourable gentleman believes that the office is so important as to justify the appointment of a Second Division officer there is no quibbling about that and there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent that kind of recognition. The honourable gentleman raised next the question of Aboriginal councils. I think he was putting at one stage or another that it was undesirable to make it possible for these councils to operate outside the Northern Territory; that they would conflict with the local government concept that prevails in each of the 6 States. I think there is some misapprehension and some misunderstanding in this bit of objectivity. There are many reserves in Australia outside the Northern Territory where it is competent, possible and indeed likely for a council to be incorporated and to act. In New South Wales there could be- I am just pulling a figure from the top of my head- in excess of 60 Aboriginal reserves. It is quite possible that in a reserve area which is embraced by and included in a local government area an Aboriginal group would seek to incorporate under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act, as it will become, to exercise and fulfil a function of the type that is outlined in sub-clause 11 (3) of the Bill. The role of an Aboriginal housing association under this legislation would in no way be in conflict with a local government obligation or activity in the Aboriginal council area. For example, if there is a reserve in the local government area of Moree, the Aboriginal group could constitute itself as a council and incorporate under this legislation to conduct a garbage service, a water supply and an electricity supply. That is one of the very significant purposes of facilitating such incorporation under this legislation. It is certainly not implied anywhere in the provisions of the Bill that such incorporations would take place recklessly or indiscreetly. There are many provisions, more in Part III of the Bill which we have not yet come to - {: .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins: -We are dealing with Part HI of the Bill at the moment. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I am sorry. We are dealing with Part III so I can go on to discuss it at greater length than I had intended. The fact of the matter is that the Registrar receives an application under clause 1 1 and then he has a number of things to do. He seeks the views of the Aboriginal people who want to constitute a group and incorporate under the legislation. Then he is able to refer the application to the Minister for his direction. Clause 16 says that where the Registrar is satisfied with respect to an application under section 11, he shall do certain things, and those things are spelt out. Sub-clause 16 (3) says: >Where, by reason of the circumstances of an application under section 1 1 , the Registrar is of the view that he should not constitute the area to which the application relates as an Aboriginal Council area under sub-section ( 1), he shall refer the application to the Minister for his discretion. The Minister in terms of clause 1 7 of the Bill may give very precise directions. Where an application is referred to the Minister under clause 16, the Minister may direct the Registrar to constitute that area or that part as an Aboriginal Council area and, if he does so, he shall specify the boundaries, the name and the functions of the area. I think it makes it perfectly clear that there is proper anticipation of the problems to which the honourable gentleman has referred. For example, the Minister can specify the precise functions. So there is no possibility at all of an Aboriginal Council in Moree or in any place covered by a local government area usurping a function which is already provided or which would be provided by the council unnecessarily. I think that that lays at rest the concern expressed by the honourable gentleman. I am a bit surprised that he has put these 2 issues into sharp relief. The first was his concern about the Registrar. It is apparent that we all regard the Registrar as a man of very great importance, and he is bound to be a competent officer and a member of the Public Service. I think that I have placated the honourable gentleman's anxieties in that respect. I will be surprised if I have not done likewise in respect of the second matter. Does the honourable gentleman still harbour any idea that it is a bad thing to be able to constitute a council outside the Northern Territory? That is the issue he raised. I cannot see any affirmative response from him. It is extremely clear to anyone in this Committee that there is a necessity to ensure that if an Aboriginal group of people is to conduct an activity of the kind that is spelt out in the provisions of subclause (3) of clause 1 1- including such things as community amenities, welfare, garbage collection, roads, relief work, education or training, communications, electricity supply, water supply, sewerage, health and housing- it is our responsibility, since the States are ceding it to us and since we have in any case acquired it as a result of a referendum, to provide legislation which will make certain that such an organisation operates as legal entity. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is the Government's *bona fide* intention that it shall operate outside the Northern Territory as well as in the Northern Territory. Of course, in the Northern Territory there are many autonomous communities which operate virtually as local government authorities, with a full range of authorities. The honourable gentleman is well aware of that. Many people in the community and indeed in the Parliament are not aware of the comprehensive range of services which is conducted by such councils in the Northern Territory. Yet there has never been an adequate arrangement to facilitate their incorporation, and that alone provides the justification and the urgent necessity for this legislation. But added to that is the obvious need to ensure that any similar activity conducted by Aboriginal groups should be legalised. Even if there are provisions operating under State laws now which enable a group in a State to incorporate itself, much of it is done under co-operative and company legislation which is not attuned to the Aboriginal processes, way of life and voting systems. This legislation is designed to accommodate not the peculiarities but the special considerations that are necessary in respect of this type of activity. {: #debate-24-s7 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- I have some difficulty about this legislation. I do not want to put a contrary view; I merely say that there are so many complexities in the legislation that it is a great pity that it is not being looked at. Clause 1 1 says: >Where 10 adult Aboriginals living in a particular area desire that an Aboriginal council be formed in respect of that area - The word 'area' is defined simply as an area for which the council is established. That definition does not take us any further. Are we talking, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** was talking a few moments ago, of an area like a reserve at Moree or are we talking about an area like the whole of Arnhem Land, Maningrida or Elcho Island? What does 'an area' mean? I hope that in this definition we are talking not entirely about geography but also about tribal affiliations. If one is talking of the Northern Territory, Central Australia or Cape York one is really concerned not with localities so much as with the tribal affiliations and the compatability of tribal groups. In nearly every one of these settlements there is more than one tribal group, but they are compatible groups. If one goes to Moree, Redfern or some town in Queensland one finds a quite different situation. The word 'area' may mean something else. In that case one cannot have any respect for the tribal affiliations because the tribal infrastructure has gone and one is dealing with an absolutely different situation. I come back to a proposition which was put by the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott)** a few moments ago when he suggested that the operation of this legislation be restricted for the time being to the Northern Territory so that we can see how it goes. Even in the Northern Territory the situation is different in different places and with different kinds of Aboriginal structures. This leads to another difficulty which is quite fundamental. I am not trying to criticise the Bill or the Government. What I am saying is that we are in a very complex situation which has not been adequately discussed with the Aboriginal communities concerned. It is quite wrong for us to be trying to impose a view on them. They are going to have an elected body, but in some ways the idea of one man one vote or equal vote equal value, if I may use that phrase, is absolutely foreign to the Aboriginal concept. Only a few months ago I was out with some Aboriginals in the centre of Australia discussing some of these matters. I think that we had enough common language on both sides to discuss them with understanding. The thing which shocked them most- I do not put it as being right or wrongwas that women should have the same kind of vote as men, because the idea that the woman and man are equal is absolutely foreign to the Aboriginal concept. This may be right or it may be wrong but what we are doing in this Bill is trying to impose on Aboriginals our values, with perhaps insensitivity in some cases. We assert to them that our values are right and their values are wrong. In a way this is an expression of what goes by the name of racism in its most acute form. We say to them: 'Your way of running your community is all rubbish. We are going to give each adult Aboriginal a vote and he is going to be the same as every other adult Aboriginal'. This may be right for our community. It may even be a kind of pattern which we- the superior race, or so we like to consider ourselves- should be imposing on other people, the lesser breeds without the law. But what we are proposing to do here is in a sense entirely unAboriginal. It is in contravention of what the Aboriginals think about themselves and what they want for themselves. I know the difficulties. I do not know how this matter can be approached except on the basis if universal suffrage. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- To which clause is the honourable member referring? {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- I am referring particularly to clause 12 which refers to the first vote which will be taken. I agree that, in clause 23, sub-clause (2) reads as follows: >The Rules of an Aboriginal Council with respect to any matter may be based on Aboriginal custom. That is a very good provision and I entirely commend it. But I should like to see it redrafted to suggest that the rules may be based on the particular Aboriginal custom peculiar to the area. It is quite ridiculous to presuppose that Aboriginal customs are the same all over the place. My friend the honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** knows that even in the Northern Territory Aboriginal customs in the north-east of Arnhem Land are quite different from those which obtain at Haasts Bluff, Papunya or somewhere else in the Centre. We talk about the Aboriginal race. Some people even talk about the Aboriginal language, I regret to say, not realising the complexity of the thing. The fact is that customs are different. Not only are Aboriginal customs different from ours but also as between various Aboriginal communities customs are quite different. I think that the intention of the legislation is excellent and the intention of the Minister is quite right and proper in stating that the rules of an Aboriginal council with respect to any matter may be based on Aboriginal custom. Perhaps the problem is a matter of drafting. We should be talking about the local Aboriginal custom or the Aboriginal custom which is proper to a particular tribal organisation. Of course, with contiguous clans these customs differ, but they come into the same kind of pattern. There would not be the same kind of difference between Oenpelli and Yirrkala as there would be between Yirrkala and Haasts Bluff, but there is always a certain amount of distinction. I would have preferred to see in the Bill an expression which did not confine us to geography but took some cognisance of the Aboriginal organisations within a geographical framework. As I said, I would have preferred to have seen explored some way of obtaining an initial Aboriginal consensus without putting the question to a vote where everybody is equal. I would be the first person to admit the difficulties of this. That is why I am so distressed, in a way, that we should be undertaking this exercise without due consideration. {: .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-24-s8 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP -None of us should ignore the thoughts of the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** in this matter. He has has a long and honourable association with this subject and he keeps in touch with it, I suppose, more than most of us are able to do. I think the points he made are relevant and valid; but I suppose it is part of the different political philosophies that we may well approach the opportunity to enact this measure with more optimism than do our friends opposite. Taking firstly the question of the relationships between an Aboriginal society incorporated as a council under this legislation and a local council, I think it was the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott)** who mentioned earlier the town of Bourke and the fact that in that town there would be an Aboriginal council and a local council at the same time. I do not really see any great difficulties about it. We are accustomed to this kind of concurrent- that might be the word- organisational basis. A large number of community organisations operate in almost an autonomous way in our community, interposed with other organisations rather than integrated with them. This proposal is an experiment. It is the gathering together of the needs of the whole of the continent and bringing them into this legislation because this one Parliament has responsibility for all the continent. This process will start best and easiest, I expect, in the Northern Territory where the Aboriginal areas are more easily defined. So I do not see all that much difficulty about it. We are accustomed, in company legislation, co-operative legislation and various association legislation throughout Australia, to doing this. It is just novel that we now propose to do it for the Aboriginal community. I suppose that as one of the early Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs in this Government I can only regret that we did not have this machinery with which to start back in the beginning in 1972, so that by this time we could have worked it out, made any amendments that were necessary and be working in a different way. I turn to the question of the rules and the relationships. Like the honourable member for Mackellar, I cannot think of any way of doing it other than the simple voting pattern we use in making decisions ourselves. But my observation leads me to believe that the Aboriginal communities are likely to resolve this in thenown way. I have had contact with a number of Aboriginal communities in which, technically speaking, the spokesmen were one group of men but the actual power lay with others, as it does in so many communities. They managed to resolve the difficulties between their internal organisation and the front they had to put on in relationships with our community in that way. When the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee was established this general question of how one defines areas and selects people was raised. If we had had a long practice at it, if we had known much more about communities than we do and so on, we may well have been able to define a way of doing it which allowed for the tribal organisation, the social organisation, etc., of the communities. But we are not all that skilful at it yet. I regard this as an historic piece of legislation. It is an attempt- I expect that it will be a successful one after it has been administered for some time- to produce a new form of social organisation for the Aboriginal community of Australia. It may well be that it will produce for the rest of the Australian community some breakthrough instead of the normal reliance on such things as the company legislation which is available to the rest of us to do things. Our community has not been all that adventurous in attempting to create new forms of organisation and give them legal sanction. This is a step in that direction. It is a product of the fact that in 1967 we managed to change the Constitution to give this Parliament the authority to do so. On this side of the chamber we are grateful for the participation of our colleagues opposite. As was pointed out earlier, they perhaps have been slow learners- not all of them. Some of them started in the field perhaps earlier than the rest of us here did. If the Parliament applies itself to this task with the wit and wisdom of which it is capable, I am sure that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will be able to keep a watchful eye on the whole system as it goes. That was one of the functions the Committee was given when it was created. It has a power, I think, to act on its own motion and to examine matters and report without having to direct references made to it. So I do not know that the pessimism from my colleagues opposite is necessary. {: .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott: -- It is wisdom, not pessimism. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -I am corrected. From the other side of the chamber, it is wisdom. From this side of the chamber we look upon it as pessimism. Perhaps that is a pretty good definition of the philopsophical and political differences between us. The Opposition mistakes pessimism for wisdom and so we do not make as much progress as we ought to, unless the Opposition is under our guidance. {: #debate-24-s9 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** has expressed some concern generally, without bringing down to specifics the nature of his concern. He contended, in a very vague and general way and in a way that is clearly lacking in any confidence, that this Bill might be too sophisticated, I suppose, and might reflect too much of the non-Aboriginal standards that prevail into an Aboriginal scene. Of course all of us would be entitled to some misgiving along those lines because this whole question involves us in a scene to which we are not indigenous and in respect of which we lack understanding. **Mr Justice** Woodward used the term 'spiritual feeling', and I suppose all of us would be deficient in that kind of sensitivity. That being the case we have to acknowledge that we are doing the best we can in a difficult situation. I think the legislation provides for a considerable amount of versatility and flexibility. At least there has been a very clear intention on the part of the architects of the legislation, my several predecessors, the parliamentary draftsmen and their advisers from my Department, to facilitate flexibility so that Aboriginal people can take a choice. On the question of boundaries, which was raised in the first instance by the honourable gentleman, there is a clear intention in the Bill to enable boundaries to strike lines which have never been identified previously in any nonAboriginal objective. We are not emulating any local government boundaries or any existing organisations ' boundaries. We are simply talking about Aborigines living in a particular area. Surely that indicates the intent to accommodate Aboriginal people no matter where they live. Boundaries will be drawn in such a way that their needs of incorporation will be properly accommodated. I think the honourable gentleman is fishing around and that might not be the best method to select to make the point that he is seeking to make. How else can one express the intention but in terms of a boundary? The Registrar will have a considerable range of obligations to fulfil in looking at that application and he shall discuss the boundaries with the people who are the subject of the application and their original application can be withdrawn, modified or altered. He will hold the capacity at all times to reflect their views. Similarly, the honourable gentleman talked about elections, who should vote and matters of that kind when he raised the point about our seeking to impose our values. I think we can easily underrate the extent to which elections are understood by Aboriginal people in Australia and we ought not to be deterred from taking a course which will help to expose them to some experience in this respect. One obviously does not know much about anything unless one is involved and has a lash at it. We have often heard people being very careful about giving their kids any money because they do not know how to spend it. They will probably never know how to spend it until they get to handle it. I have noticed that Aboriginal people who are exposed to what we describe as our sophisticated democratic processes show a capacity to catch on very quickly indeed. Varying degrees of achievement are in evidence around Australia but we must bear in mind that we have 41 Aboriginal electorates covering the whole of Australia. There are 41 members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and there has been a very high incidence of voting in those elections. Their degree of sophistication exceeds that of nonAboriginal people in local government areas in New South Wales, for example. The incidence of Aboriginal voluntary voting is more than double that of non-Aboriginal voluntary voting. So it is very impressive to see how these people can and do respond. I acknowledge that there are people who are not practised in these matters to the utmost degree. The honourable gentleman talked about our seeking to require both men and women to vote and that that could be at variance with Aboriginal practices. I understand that it is in some parts of Australia at least, but he should note that there is no obligation for Aboriginal women to vote or for Aboriginal men to vote in this situation unless they choose to do so. The legislation makes specific mention of that. When we use the word 'electing' there are many ways of interpreting that word. In another place the honourable gentleman's colleagues are electing not to pass the Appropriation Bills. That does not mean that they are electing people. One can elect to have an orange or one can elect to have an apple, but it does not necessarily mean that we are going to be involved in our traditional form of electoral process. The measures involved in this cognate debate make it very clear that if Aboriginal people choose to select their people in a way that differs from our traditional way, they may do so. I am told that in some of the land council meetings in the Northern Territory without calling for nominations, seconding, voting or anything else, the acknowledged Aboriginal leader walks to the head of the table, to the chairman's position, to the place of authority, and takes the chair. It is competent that that can happen and under the legislation that we will be discussing subsequently and under this legislation as well. I am not sure that the honourable gentleman has read this legislation to the extent that he should have done, but if he has done so he will come to understand that there are many provisions which have the effect of indicating that the draftsmen and their advisers- their clients, shall we say- have bent over backwards to facilitate Aboriginal initiative and the Aboriginal style of conducting things. The Registrar will determine the manner in which the election is to be conducted and he will explain to the Aborigines the manner in which the election is to be conducted. That provision is contained in clause 21 of the Bill. Then clause 23 (3) states: >The Rules of an Aboriginal Council with respect to any matter may be based on Aboriginal custom. If the honourable gentleman goes through the Bill and finds that kind of accommodating provision he will come to understand that the basic objective of the legislation is to have a legal entity and to have some kind of requirements which indicate a decent course of behaviour that should be followed in the course of electing people to places of authority in the councils and associations and that the councils and associations should conduct themselves in a decent manner, because we are dealing with an incorporation process it is designed to facilitate a legal entity. So it cannot be a complete shambles by any means. To the extent that it has been possible there has been a very accommodating attitude which will have regard for traditional Aboriginal customs. {: #debate-24-s10 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** was quite right when he said that we have not had an adequate opportunity to study this Bill. The Bill was brought down with the pledge from the Minister that it would lie on the table for some months and that there would be an opportunity to consult Aboriginal people in regard to it. Yesterday we learned that that pledge was to be broken. For that reason it has been sprung on us- it is a most complicated piece of legislation- without an adequate chance to study it. That is true. The Minister cannot deny it. He broke the pledge which was in his second reading speech and this legislation has been put on us without adequate study. As it happens, in the particular point which he raised the Minister was wrong because I was careful to refer to the initial meeting of a council and the initial meeting is governed by clause 22 of the Bill. The clause states that the question shall be decided by a majority of the votes, but the question of Aboriginal custom and so on, commendable as it is, does not come in there. I was careful when I spoke to refer to the initial meeting, but apparently the Minister either was not listening or did not understand. Having said that, let me come to another question altogether which arises under clause 30 of the Bill. Clause 30 relates to by-laws and to penalties. This, of course, has to be interwoven with some of the things that are provided for in another Bill which will be before us later on. One of the great things that we have to look at is the capacity on the part of Aborigines to exclude from their own area not merely Europeans but also Aboriginal people who are not conforming to their rules of the area or who are tribally incompatible with it. This is something which the Aborigines of Arnhem Land, of the north of Australia and of the centre of Australia require. They want command over their own territories according to Aboriginal custom. Aboriginal custom gives to the person in authority- call him the owner if you like- power to exclude people from the area. No Aboriginal would go into a tribal area without the permission of the true Aboriginal people in authority. It may be only a case of asking permission as we would ask permission before going into a person's house. We do not just walk into somebody's house without permission. We knock on the door and say 'May I come in?' The Aboriginal wants to have that same kind of authority over his own place. Maybe it is not a house; maybe it is a locality; but to him it is home and to him, in his eyes, he is the owner or the person in authority. We are not going to give that kind of authority to the Aborigines concerned. Apparently under another Bill which we will discuss later we will be talking about a northern land council and a central land council having overall authority to issue and revoke permits. This is an affront to the Aboriginal community and we have to do something about it while the going is good. Sub-clause (7) of clause 30 states: >The by-laws may provide that any contravention of a by-law is an offence punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $20. This is not, in most cases, the appropriate Aboriginal penalty. We should have some kind of concession to the Aboriginal customs of the area in this regard. I am only saying that the Aboriginal communities should be given authority over their own areas, and this I think we should be standing up for in this chamber. It worries me very much that this Bill, which I am sure has been drafted with the very best of intentions- I do not want to denigrate the intentions of the people who have drafted this Billwas not meant, as the Minister said- he has gone back on his word- to come into operation until the Aborigines had had an opportunity to study it and to tell us what they wanted in regard to it. This was stated in the Minister's own words in his own second reading speech. He knows it very well. Why only 3 weeks ago did he give the pledge from which he is now drawing back? Why did he deceive the House - {: .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins: -Order! I allowed the honourable member some latitude in his introductory remarks. I suggest that he get back to the Committee discussion. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- I am only commenting, if I may, **Sir, on** what the Minister said a moment ago about my being vague in regard to this. I am vague and the reason is that I have not had an opportunity to study the Bill and I have not yet had an opportunity of going with the Bill and talking to some of the Aboriginal communities to find out what they think about the Bill. I am vague also because I am against the idea that we can have the same kind of legislation for an Aboriginal community in Redfern as we have for an Aboriginal community at Yirrkala. Of course I want time to have a look at this. I want time to consult Aboriginal people about it, as the Minister promised that I should have. The person who has gone back on his word is the Minister and he is responsible for the fact that we are now debating a Bill without adequate knowledge and without an adequate opportunity to find out the wishes of the Aboriginal people. I want to have a Bill not to satisfy the conscience of us in Parliament but a Bill which will be the best for the Aboriginal people, and it will not be the best for them unless they are consenting to it and unless they are saying themselves that it is what they want. Give them a chance to do this. Give them an opportunity to say what they want. I come back to clause 30. One of the things that the Aborigines will want- it is not provided for in clause 30 as it should be- is power for local groups to issue and withdraw permits to enter their areas. They do not want to give that power to a northern land council in Darwin or to a central land council in Alice Springs. They want the local group to be a local power and they are entitled to have the local power. They are entitled to be able to make by-laws and this should be provided under clause 30 of the Bill, and it is not. They should be entitled to make their own local by-laws for that purpose. Part III agreed to. Part IV- Incorporated Aboriginal Associationsby leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to. Part V- Investigation and Judicial Management of Aboriginal Corporations. {: #debate-24-s11 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -Let me just say that this Bill is being rushed through. Even if it were not rushed through we would not be in a position to offer detailed criticism because we have not had an opportunity to consult the Aborigines who should be our principals in this matter. I hope there will be a more careful look at this Bill before it becomes law. We should be approaching the Bill in a non-partisan manner. I am trying to do just that. I am sorry that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** is not allowing it to be done. Part V agreed to. Remainder of Bill and Title- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. {:#subdebate-24-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Mr Les** Johnson) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2812 {:#debate-25} ### ABORIGINAL LAND (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1975 {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 October on motion by **Mr Les** Johnson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth -- I move: I have already spoken in relation to this motion in the speech that I delivered yesterday. {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- I hope that even at the last moment, the Government will see fit to accept in a non-partisan manner this motion which is before it. It is a motion to put the Bill before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on which the Government has the numbers. It is chaired, and might I say in my opinion it is chaired very well, by the honourable member for Brisbane **(Mr Cross)** who is a member of the Government Party. I do not think that the Government can put up the argument that by requesting that this Bill be put to a committee, we are doing something inimical to Government policy. We only want the Bill to be as good as possible. This is a most complex and difficult Bill. It will set for a long time to come the whole economic future of the Northern Territory. Even more importantly perhaps, it will be pouring into a mould the future of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. It has been said in this House quite recently that the Government is trying to set up a new social order for the Aboriginal people. I do not like those words myself; I would rather say that we are trying to find a way in which we can use the existing infrastructure of Aboriginal society in order to help the Aboriginal people to become part of the new world in which they and we ourselves must live so that we can have some kind of better community of interests between us and them. If these things are as complicated as Government supporters say they are- in this respect I agree entirely with Government supportersthen we should have time to look at these things. Why was it that only a little while ago the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** was telling us that we would have months in which to look at this Bill and to obtain Aboriginal ideas and reactions? It is perfectly true that we have had the Woodward Report. It is perfectly true that we have had Aborigines coming before a commission and giving their points of view. But they have not had this detailed document and it has not been explained to them how and to what extent this embodies or develops from the Woodward Report. Indeed they have not had an opportunity of saying whether or not they think that the Woodward Report really sets out their views and really follows their interests. I am certainly worried by the proposal to create the 2 land councils. I know that there is provision in the Bill for extra councils to be created and for the areas to be split. But this is not always practical politics as those who are looking at New Guinea at the present moment might remember because once one forms the mould and pours the material in, it tends to set. It may set in a way which is not conformable with the real desires of the Aboriginal people concerned. I am not trying to reject the concept; I would agree that the concept has been put forward with goodwill and indeed with some skill. I would agree that it conforms very largely to the Woodward Report. But this is not the end of the matter. The honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott)** has proposed that the matter go to the Committee for consideration so that the interested people who include the Aborigines and our own council in Darwin can have an opportunity of putting their views before that Committee. The honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** would know far better than I would that this Bill is making a fundamental change to the whole of the Northern Territory. It may be a good change. I am not saying that it is a bad change, but it is a change that kicks away the props of the last 60 or 70 years that have underlaid the whole of the structure of the Northern Territory. I ask Government supporters not to put words into my mouth and say that I think that this is a bad thing that is being done. I am not saying that at the present moment. I am saying that here we have something which is of tremendously far reaching importance and we have not had an opportunity to consider it. The Bill is being rushed through this House without that opportunity. I am only asking the Government, even at this late stage, to put the matter to its own standing committeethe committee of this House where it has a majority. Let us have a look at the Bill and let us try to improve it. Let us try to find out how other people react to it and whether they have a point of view that is worth considering. When we are doing something absolutely far reaching like this, it is wrong for the Government to throw it at our heads, to impute that we have to understand every clause and implication of it *de nouveau* and then ask us to pass it. I know that luckily this Parliament has a bicameral system and there will be an opportunity for consideration in another place. But why should we abrogate all of our own proper functions? Surely we have a proper function here. The Woodward Commission heard a lot of evidence. It made recommendations which have not been adequately considered. I am not saying that they are right or they are wrong; I am simply saying that we are jumping in the dark and that we should not be doing so. I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to forget its improper pride and do what it should have done from the start, that is, let the Standing Committee look at this matter and report back to this House in due course after it has received representations from all of the interested people, particularly from the Aboriginal communities {: #subdebate-25-0-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** is very good at advocating democratic processes but he is not such a good performer when he gets the opportunity to hold the reins of office, as has been the case in the past. {: #subdebate-25-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I should point out to the Minister that he is not winding up the debate; he is speaking to the amendment. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -That is right. As I understand the position, **Mr Speaker,** we have had a cognate debate on the motion for the second reading of 3 Bills and we are now debating the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott).** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honourable member for Wentworth has put forward a proposition to the effect that this Bill should be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It is probably a proposal that is without precedent. I am certainly unable to think of a previous one. It holds the implication of a committee setting off with the approval of the Parliament to usurp the traditional right of the Government. We are in the middle of considering this legislation. We have had a second reading debate on it. It is now proposed that we should not come to a conclusion about the Bills before the House but should send them off to a committee of the Parliament for deliberation. It has to be acknowledged as a unique proposition. I will be surprised if I am unable reliably to contend that an unprecedented proposition is being put to the House at the present time. At a time when there is a complete inadequacy of cooperation, a complete lack of co-operation from the Opposition, especially in respect of the very sinews of government in regard to the appropriation for this Parliament, the honourable gentleman is seeking and expecting to obtain cooperation from the Government in regard to an unprecedented proposal of this kind. Let me tell him frankly that no decent government could say that that is on. It is not on for reasons that are very apparent to everybody. This Bill has been before the House for a reasonable time. It was introduced on 16 October and copies of it have been forwarded to Aboriginal communities throughout the Northern Territory, which is the area of interest covered by the Bill. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr Katter: {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -As I understand it, soon after the legislation was introduced into the Parliament. Many responses have been received already in respect to it. That is a process in which this Government engages. It was certainly not the practice of this Government's predecessor. It is a new ball game. Honourable gentlemen opposite are getting a fair go at a good thing, but it seems to me that they want too much of a good thing. I would not have been averse to this legislation standing on the stocks for a longer period, but the fact of the matter is that the Opposition has made the whole situation completely untenable. It is talking about conventions and traditions; yet it is upsetting the conventions and traditions which have prevailed ever since we have had Federation in this country and, indeed, which have prevailed right throughout the Westminster system. We are about to witness the kind of disruption to which we are being subjected when we are talking about an important matter like this. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr Kelly: **- Mr Speaker,** I draw your attention to the state of the House. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I am referring to that call for a quorum by the honourable member for Wakefield. *(Quorum formed)* The point I have been making is that the Opposition has flouted all the traditions and has changed the parliamentary timetable. Of course, many alterations will follow in the wake of the disruption that has taken place in respect of the Appropriation Bills. We would have preferred to have let this legislation lie on the table for some time in order to get an even better response than we have had, but no one can foretell the future and we have been obliged to bring this legislation on now for the reasons that I have mentioned. It would be very wrong for honourable gentlemen opposite to give the impression that the principles and concepts that are the very basis of this Bill have not been widely circulated. Indeed, they have. The fact of the matter is that **Mr Justice** Woodward made a point of consulting with Aborigines throughout the whole course of his inquiry during 1973 and up to the submission of his report in May 1974. His report and the resultant Bill have been heavily influenced and guided by Aboriginal opinion. The matter has been under discussion by the northern and central land councils consistently since May 1974. In most cases honourable gentlemen opposite would not have a lot of association with Aboriginal people through those councils. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I am talking about the majority of honourable gentlemen opposite. They certainly would not have much knowledge of the northern and central Aboriginal land councils. The honourable gentleman who interjected does have some knowledge of and association with them, but most of his colleagues who sit opposite have never even heard of the existence of these land councils. The fact of the matter is that the Government has had a very effective relationship with them, works co-operatively with them and has had the benefit of their suggestions. Many of those suggestions have been taken into account in the drafting of this legislation. I want to make the point clear that it is not the view of either the northern or central land councils that the passage of this legislation should be delayed. I heard the honourable member for Wentworth talking yesterday about some Aboriginal people at Oenpelli, Milingimbi or somewhere else who had a different view. Of course, one can always find some people who have a different view. I interjected at the time and said: 'Which people? Which ones precisely?' He was not talking about a corporate community. He was just making the point that there were some people who disagreed with some unidentifiable provisions in this legislation. But the informed body of Aboriginal opinion in the Northern Territory is strongly behind the concept of this legislation and wants it to proceed without delay. It has made the point that it has waited long enough and that there has been a lot of inaction and a lot of talk but that it is now starting to see things being done under the Labor Government not just in regard to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, not just in regard to the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill but in regard to the provision of funds, in regard to giving people autonomy over their own affairs, in regard to the establishment of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and in regard to so many other initiatives. The Aborigines do not want any vacillation or delay in respect of this matter. Let me read out a letter from the Secretary of the Central Land Council, dated 24 September and addressed to me. It says: >During the course of a recent Aboriginal Land Council Meeting held in Alice Aprings on 1 6- 1 7 September 1 975, the following Resolution was agreed to by all delegates present: > >Resolution: 'That the proposed Aboriginal Land (N.T.) Bill be passed this year because Aboriginal people have already waited too long. ' > >I trust this Resolution may be granted every consideration in respect of all the Aboriginal delegates' wishes. It was signed by **Mr K.** L. Smith, the Secretary. It did not come from some tin-pot organisation. It was not sent on behalf of a couple of people at Oenpelli or somewhere. It was sent in respect of all the people represented by the Central Land Council- the ones who have been exposed to the concept of this legislation, the ones who have sat down, with the benefit of eminent lawyers and advisers, and thrashed this out over a long period of time. They are not saying: 'Delay'. They are saying: 'Get on with it'. They are not saying: 'Refer it to a parliamentary committee so that it will be brought to the Parliament for action in some vague far off time'. They are saying to us: 'We have already waited too long. We approve it and we want you to get on with it'. That letter came from the Central Land Council in the Northern Territory. It is very much at variance with what the honourable member for Wentworth has put to the Parliament in the form of his amendment. It is wrong for honourable members opposite to give the impression that they are speaking for the Aboriginal people in calling for a delay, some time-consuming process, in the hope that they might be able to bury the legislation for all time in the event that they ever get control of the treasury bench again. The fact of the matter is that we are not going to be led down the political garden path in that respect at all. We are taking notice of the Aboriginal people whose views are expressed through that letter from the Central Land Council. We also have a telegram. This came from the Northern Land Council. Do honourable members opposite know what it says? There are 2 councils operating in the Northern Territory, covering all the matters associated with this legislation at the present time. Subsequently there might come to be more councils, but at the present time there are 2 councils. They are very well informed and they represent Aboriginal opinion in its corporate state to the extent that it can be represented in the Northern Territory at the present time. In a telegram to me the Northern Land Council said: >After visit by Northern Territory Legislative Assembly delegation to Northern Land Council meeting at Bathurst Island yesterday and after debate conducted in the absence of all non-Aboriginal advisors and visitors the Northern Land Council unanimously resolved to request immediate passage of Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill. Precise text of resolution- 'That the Bill be sent and asked to be passed as soon as possible . . .' That was signed by Ward Keller, the legal adviser to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Honourable members opposite talk about Aboriginal customs. They talk about Aborigines not being contaminated by white opinion. In this situation, I am advised, all the white people, all the non-Aboriginal people, were asked to leave the meeting so that the Aborigines could make up their own mind, and indeed they did. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr Kelly: **- Mr Speaker,** I draw your attention to the state of the House. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The honourable member for Wakefield does not like this. *(Quorum formed).* I have indicated the views of the Aboriginal people, as expressed through the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council. I do not know that the Opposition is able to produce the voice of the Aboriginal people in the form that I have. What am I supposed to do when I am asked to proceed with this legislation and to implement it, when I am told that they have waited too long- defy it? What does the honourable member for Mackellar want me to do in this situation? Does he want me to tell them that I propose to disregard their unambiguous message which is calling for action immediately? I do not intend to do that. They have waited long enough and the legislation is going ahead. This attempt to steer this legislation into the limbo of inactivity will not succeed. I know that there are some ruffled feathers in the Northern Territory, and of course there are bound to be. I know that people would resort to any ruse to avoid this legislation going on to the statute book. I hear them saying: 'Everything was fine until you started to talk land rights. Darwin was a happy place. All these people lived happily together. But now there are stirrers there*. Because Aboriginal people are starting to find a legal way and because they have a government which will help them to set up the legal device and contrivance that will enable them to get land, they say that the troublemakers are in. Whether it is in respect of the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Aboriginal Medical Service or anything else where there are vested interests who have had an uncluttered go at things and who have been able to talk to the Aboriginal people in a pontifical, benevolent and paternal way for so long, those vested interests are bound to be disturbed and they are bound to cook up all kinds of reasons why we should send this legislation off to some committee. Let me tell honourable members that in respect of this Bill this will not happen. I have great respect for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It was set up on the same day as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. Have honourable members opposite sent any Bill to that Committee? Of course they have not. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was set up on the same day as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. Have honourable members opposite sent any road safety Bill to be studied by that Committee? Of course they have not. What about all the other committees, such as the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System, the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests on Members of the Parliament and the Joint Committee on Prices? They are joint committees. Have honourable members opposite sent any legislation to those committees? No, of course they have not. They have suddenly found a precedent, and it is in respect of the deprived Aboriginal people. Let me tell honourable members opposite on their behalf that they are not going to deter them from their objectives, from their rights and from the Government's objective of giving effect to the Woodward principles. This legislation is going ahead and it will be passed by the House of Representatives this day, despite this miserable amendment. {: #subdebate-25-0-s4 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory -- As the seconder of the amendment, I rise to point out that I intended to ask the Government, through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson),** to send this Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He has already given the answer to that suggestion. I tell him here and now that what he says does not represent the views of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. I forestalled him this morning by telling him that the composition of the Northern Land Council that sent that telegram from Bathurst Island was 7 whites, one part-coloured and 2 Aborigines. I said it in this place this morning and I warned him not to use the telegram because it is completely false. In respect of the letter he received, I am certain that the Central Land Council would have the same composition. It is an absolute falsehood to say that all the people at the Native Land Council on Bathurst Island are Aborigines. The Minister is determined to force this Bill through the House. Obviously he is not interested and does not understand Aborigines, their traditions or the usage of their land. As the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** said, there is a lot of good in this Bill; but there also is a lot of absolute political hogwash in it, to interpret the independent member for Port Darwin in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Government and its supporters have to give the Territorians a chance to discuss this legislation. The Government has not even had these Bills circulated around the Territory. Its spokesman might say that they have been sent out but they have not reached their destinations. That responsibility is on the shoulders of the Minister. It is up to him to see that the people of the Northern Territory get this Bill and consider the effects that it will have on both the black and white populations of the Territory. This Bill deals specifically with the Northern Territory but the Government and its supporters seldom, if ever, have been there. They do not understand the people who live there, whether black or white. The only thing that the Government can do with any semblance of decency is to give those people the chance to look at the Bill. The Minister should not trot into this House and tell me or any of us from the Northern Territory who understand these things far better than he does- I do not say we understand them entirely but we understand them far better than he or anyone on his side of the House doesthat this Bill represents the wish of the Aborigines. They have not even seen the Bill and they do not know what the Minister is talking about. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is going to do a very stupid thing. If he persists in his stupidity that is his affair but I am certain that when the people of the Northern Territory hear that he is ramming this Bill through the House they will dislike him and his Government even more than they do now. **Mr Minister,** I give you one more chance. You have said that this Bill is going to be rammed through. I am warning you that if this Bill is not amended - {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We have heard your threats for so long we are not very impressed. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- The Government's policy on Aboriginal Affairs was a disaster. That was admitted by the Government's own Minister. The present Minister is a disaster. If he puts this thing through he will see what sort of a disaster will occur. By all means give the Aborigines land but the Minister is cutting across everything they are interested in, everything they understand and everything they want. Just mark my words. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Which of them said that? {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- I am telling the Minister to refer the Bill to the Committee. Give someone a chance to speak about it and he will tell you something you do not know. Motion (by **Mr Les** Johnson) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 61 NOES: 54 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Ellicott's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 61 NOES: 54 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: #subdebate-25-0-s5 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta -- I do not wish to canvass the matters that were discussed in relation to the amendment that was just considered by the House. However, I want to refer to some comments that were made in relation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members the fact that there has been considerable cooperation in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs notwithstanding the present crisis that was referred to by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson).** Motion ( by **Mr Nicholls)** put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 61 NOES: 54 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. In Committee Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together. {: #debate-25-s0 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -I am looking now at the definitions of 'Aboriginal ' and 'adult Aboriginal' in clause 3. This legislation relates only to the Northern Territory and in the Northern Territory the distinction between the full-blood- or, I should say, the person who has been initiated tribally- and the person who has not been initiated tribally is very clear. I wonder whether we should make some alteration to this definition. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** to consider this particularly because the tribal people in the Northern Territory resent considerably the halfbloods entering the Territory who claim to be full Aboriginals. I think that there is some force behind their contention that those adult persons who claim to be Aboriginals but have not been initiated in accordance with Aboriginal custom should not be considered to be Aboriginals. They resent very much the fact that we have this kind of superior attitude and say that our laws take precedence over those of the poor old boongs. That is a horrible attitude on our part. The fullblooded Aboriginals resent the fact that we consider these non-initiated persons to be Aboriginals in the same sense as they are. They say that to be an Aboriginal does not depend just on the colour of skin. The validity of the Aboriginal infrastructure has to be acknowledged, the rules have to be accepted and the initiations which are the fundamental part of Aboriginal society must be undergone. It is all very well for us to take a superior attitude and say we will not talk about this Aboriginal nonsense. That is a very bad attitude for us to be taking because when we are talking about Aboriginals we are talking surely about Aboriginal values. We should be making a distictioncertainly in the Northern Territory and perhaps in other parts of Australia too- between the Aboriginal who is a real Aboriginal, who is a member of his tribe, who conforms to the customs of his tribe, who is proud of his Aboriginality and the synthetic or phony Aboriginal, probably half-blood or less. Because the latter type of person has a superior formal education, is connected with the Government and is able to give handouts he has some kind of authority over other Aboriginals and they resent this. It seems to me that we should certainly define an Aboriginal as a person who is predominantly a member of the Aboriginal race and perhaps as a person who has been accepted in the community with which he is associated by reason of his conforming to its customs whatever they are. Further on the same clause refers to ' adult Aboriginals '. I do not think that an Aboriginal would consider another Aboriginal, especially male, an adult at the age of 1 8 years. That would be a very low age for an Aboriginal to be considered an adult member of the community. I think we are endeavouring in this Bill to impose upon them our values which are alien to their values. They certainly would not consider any Aboriginal to be an adult unless he had undergone the prescribed initiation ceremonies for his sex and his tribal origin. They would require this. They speak of man-making ceremonies. This is the ceremony which makes a child an adult member of the community. It is an affront to Aboriginals to ask them to accept as an adult somebody who has not undergone their own tribal initiation. One of the problems is that as we have had this Bill thrown at us we have not had a chance to draft proper amendments or to consult Aboriginal communities to find out what amendments they would consider right and proper. In point of fact we are just going to impose our own values willy-nilly on them. This is very wrong. There are many other things in the clauses which we have under consideration at present which I would like to follow up but I see that the honourable member for Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** is anxious to speak and I will defer to him. {: #debate-25-s1 .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER:
Kennedy -One thing which brings out all the venom which I am capable of expressing is the absolute hypocrisy of many honourable members of the Government side in relation to the Aboriginal question. If perhaps I am exaggerating my reaction may I say that it has been stimulated by one or two practical examples. One has been my own experience in this chamber where at least half a dozen honourable members on the other side have been unable to restrain their racist inclinations and have had a crack at me. So perhaps I am able to understand a little more than others the feelings of Aboriginals. Let me tell the Committee about an incident on an aircraft a few months ago when I was travelling between Sydney and Canberra. A very prominent member of the Australian Labor Party, **Mr Jack** Egerton, looked at **Senator Neville** Bonner and in a voice that could be heard not only in that aeroplane but also in any other aeroplane that might have been flying within 5 or 6 miles of it, said: 'Good day, Bonner. Have you got a didgeridoo with you?' As if that were not enough, again in a voice that could be heard from one end of the aircraft to the other, he said when he rose to leave the plane: 'You go ahead of me, Bonner. I wouldn't have a black walking behind me'. That man is a spokesman for the so-called pro- Aboriginal Labor Party. But let us get down to some more fundamental points. Yesterday we heard the honourable member for Casey **(Mr Mathews)** making implications - {: #debate-25-s2 .speaker-DRW} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins: -Order! I have allowed the honourable member some latitude in his introductory remarks, but he is making a speech which is more relevant to the second reading debate than to clauses 1 to 3 which are at present before the Committee. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I respect your ruling, **Mr Chairman.** {: #debate-25-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Clause 3 with its definitions allows a wide scope but, I am afraid, not as wide as the honourable member is going. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I ask you to correct me if I go off the line again, **Mr Chairman.** I want to refer to traditional Aboriginal owners. I was about to enlarge on the subject of the comments made by the honourable member for Casey. What I am trying to do is to clarify the definitions, as one who has authority to comment on them. I would say that very few of us in this House have had the practical experience of living with Aboriginals, sharing their problems, going to their funerals, going to their weddings, swimming in the creek with them, being brought up with them and understanding their reactions and their wonderful attitudes towards family life. The honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** has lived among Aboriginals for 40 years. I have lived among Aboriginals for 55 years and I am proud of it. If the opinion of Aboriginals regarding my qualifications to speak about these definitions is to be questioned I invite honourable members to take a look at the election results for my electorate. The subject of traditional Aboriginal owners raises a great question. Quite recently I had the example in my electorate of a young lady of Aboriginal descent who had married a European and who wanted to apply for a loan to buy or build a house in Cloncurry where, I might mention in passing, there is a splendid example of a community in which we have not tried to assimilate. There we have not seen any of the artificial and hypocritical vote catching moves that have been stimulated by this Government. Late one night in this very chamber recently a Minister said of me: 'I wish he would sit down. There is not a bloody vote left in the Aboriginals'. That is how the Government regards Aboriginals. Not a bloody vote left in the Aboriginals! So I come to the matter of Aboriginal ownership and the definition of an Aboriginal. Only people who have experienced the reaction of Aboriginals can speak with clarity and sincerity on any of these definitions. The Opposition has been accused of holding up this legislation. We are not holding up the legislation. We want the Aboriginal people themselves to be involved. {: .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes: -- They shall be. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -They shall be, and the Opposition will see to it. As long as the Opposition holds the numbers in the Senate it shall see that the Aboriginals express their point of view. If the Government thinks that they do not want to express their point of view and are not entitled to be heard on the definitions, let me point out that the Party which is constantly accused of being racist- my Party, the National Country Partyhas a closer affinity with and understanding of Aboriginals than has any other Party in this Commonwealth. Let me point out also that the Liberal Party has an Aboriginal senator and that there is an Aboriginal member in the Queensland Parliament. He will be there forever because he is doing a splendid job. That is the opinion of the Aboriginal people themselves and of people generally because they know that my Party is fair dinkum. Its members would not come out with the comment: 'There is not a bloody vote left in the Aboriginals'. I suppose honourable members opposite would say: 'There is not a bloody vote left in the pensioners'. We on this side of the chamber are extremely fortunate in having as our shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a fellow like Bob Ellicott. My one regret is that with his brilliance and his knowledge of constitutional law- he was a former Solicitor-General- he will probably not remain in that position when the Opposition Parties regain office shortly. He has the experience to speak on these definitions with great clarity because he was one of the leading figures in the land rights case in 1970. His contribution was probably more substantial than that of anyone else associated with the hearings of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. Also he is a man of great compassion and understanding. I am sure that there is not one man in this chamber or in the Senate who would not admit that Ellicott would be a splendid Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I take it that the honourable member is referring to the honourable member for Wentworth. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I am sorry. I apologise, **Mr Chairman.** {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- To which clause is the honourable member referring? {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I am speaking to the definitions. If the Minister has the time when the Parliament adjourns I will have a talk with him about Aboriginals. I would even be prepared to take him up and show him some Aboriginals. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I rise to order, **Mr Chairman.** I ask you whether the honourable gentleman, with his long discourse on the virtues of the shadow Minister, is able to relate that to any of the 3 clauses at present under discussion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member was speaking to the definitions and pointing out the virtues of an honourable member in his understanding of them. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -Thank you, **Mr Chairman.** I hope that you remain long in that position. The point I want to make now is the failure of the Government to give time for effective dialogue. It is all very well for the Minister to wave 2 telegrams that he has received from land rights councils which he himself appointed. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out, there were about 9 people present when those telegrams were framed. Seven of them were Europeans, one was a half Aboriginal and one was an Aboriginal. They would be highly qualified to express the feelings and reactions of the Aboriginal people generally! I often wonder how the administrators of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs keep their sanity. Barry Dexter is an impeccable character, and he and his team have done a magnificent job under the most difficult circumstances. They have had to deal with Ministers who have been over enthusiastic and who have brought in ridiculous propositions. They now have to deal with a Minister who, with all due respect to him, has never had an opportunity really to understand Aboriginals. I hope that he will learn in the short time left to him. I point out that this Bill is being brought forward with disgusting lack of taste. There is no way in the world that anyone could seriously debate in the short time permitted a political manoeuvre as despicable and as questionable as those produced by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** on numerous occasions over the last 48 hours and over the last week or so. {: #debate-25-s4 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory -- I would like to refer to the definition of 'Aboriginal ' as it appears in the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill. I do not know why the Bill does not refer to Aborigines. It seems to be the custom now to call Aborigines 'Aboriginals'. But that is only a quibble. The definition has so far not been explained. Various definitions of Aborigines have been put before us. The one that was put before us when the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** was the Minister fitted the bill fairly well. It said that for a person to be identified as an Aborigine he had to be born an Aborigine and be prepared to live in the traditional style of Aborigines, or words to that effect. What worries the Aborigines in the Northern Territory- I refer to those who we in the Northern Territory understand to be the traditional Aborigines, the full bloods- is that this definition and in many cases this Bill will allow people who they do not consider to be Aborigines at all, although they may claim to be spokesmen for the Aborigines and make publicity for and speak on behalf of Aborigines, to be recognised. If a meeting is held down here, perhaps these people who claim to be Aborigines sway that meeting. In fact they might even sway council meetings in the Northern Territory. One has only to walk down Todd Street or go to Yuendumu, Yirrkala, Angurugu or any of these places and see what the real Aborigine thinks of the people who are to be allowed to call themselves Aboriginals under this Bill. It is wrong, it will let in people who have no right to come on to the scene to make claims against the Territory Aborigine. These are the people whom I am on my feet for at the moment. I am defending them against the interlopers, the part coloureds or whatever they are from the south, who express opinions all over Australia on behalf of the Aborigines. Now they are to be allowed by this definition in this Bill to go to the Northern Territory and tramp on the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. That is not right. I think that this is one of the things that should be discussed. This is contained in the first 3 clauses of the Bill we are discussing. This is the sort of thing that we on this side of the chamber have been talking about. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** told us earlier in the afternoon that he will railroad this Bill through the House. This definition is one of the faults of the Bill which he will railroad through. Once again I think he will have considerable trouble in this regard because some of the people he may believe in and who are making noises on behalf of Aborigines do not have the respect of either the Aborigines or the Europeans. This definition will give them a perfect 'in'. I know that the Aborigines in the Northern Territory do not accept them. {: #debate-25-s5 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- There is not a lot I want to say on this matter. The 3 clauses being dealt with do not represent any departure from the norm, the accepted practice and the tradition in respect of these matters. Of course the legal reason for the definition in the Bills is that it ensures that constitutionality of the Bills under section 51, placitum (xxvi) of the Constitution. I do not need to go into the matter any further than that. This question of definition has always been a difficult problem as the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** would readily concede. I make the point that the present Government follows the same working definition of 'Aboriginal' as that propounded by the honourable member for Mackellar when he was the Minister in charge of Aboriginal affairs in a Liberal-Country Party Government back in, I think, 1968. At that stage there was a trinity of criteria relating to these matters and 3 checkpoints, if you like. They were to this effect: Firstly, an Aborigine was a person of Aboriginal descent. There is nothing confusing about that. There are mixed bloods and pure bloods, but if they are of Aboriginal descent they meet the first criterion. The second criterion is that the person seeks to identify as an Aboriginal person. The third criterion is that the person concerned is accepted as an Aborigine by the community with which he or she is associated. I do not know whether anyone can embellish that set of principles which have worked with reasonable effectiveness. I suppose we will always be able to point to somebody who benefits wrongfully under Aboriginal legislation. I am not sure that it is fair to do so. If there is present identifiable Aboriginal blood, it is remarkable how Aboriginal characteristics seem to predominate. The issues that often give more concern are where a nonAboriginal person is married to an Aboriginal person and is deriving benefit under Aboriginal laws as a result of that circumstance. It seems to me that the criteria that we have have stood the test of time. Nobody here this afternoon in the course of this debate has given any reason why there should be a refinement. I suppose that for 23 years the Liberal-Country Party governments searched around for a better definition. The States have done no better in defining an Aboriginal person. It is a workable arrangement. It is acceptable to the Aboriginal people. There are certainly no uprisings in evidence against the way this definition has been working. I have not been inundated by complaints. No representations have been made to me by any Aboriginal organisation or individual, to the best of my recollection. I think this is a storm in a teacup. I suggest that as the definition has stood the test for such a long time it will more than likely prove effective in this legislation. Doubtless there will be a review time. I have no doubt that experience will cause the Government to amend this legislation at a subsequent period. If anyone is capable of contriving a better approach to this matter, particularly as a result of experience, there is no reason why a new definition should not be adopted the next time the legislation is under review. {: #debate-25-s6 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- I am afraid that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** is entirely confused about this matter. He quoted with approval a definition which when I was the Minister-in-charge of Aboriginal affairs I think I originated and sanctioned. But it is not the definition in this Bill. He said: 'This is the definition we are going to use and it has stood the test of time' and so on. It is not the definition in this Bill. Let me recall to the Minister clause 3 of the Bill. It states: 'Aboriginal' means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia. It does not say that that person claims to be an Aboriginal and it does not say that he is accepted as an Aboriginal by the community with which he is associated. These were the things which the Minister quoted with approval from this place only a couple of minutes ago. He said that this was the definition that had stood the test of time. But it is not the definition in this Bill. So he has confused the situation out of his own mouth. If he thinks that is the definition we should be using why has he not put it into the Bill? I put that straight to him. He said: 'This is what we want to do. This is the definition we use'. But it is not the definition in the Bill. This is an instance of the way in which this measure has been drafted- I am sure with good intentions. But it still needs a great deal of going over. It is a far reaching measure. It is a little bit different in 2 regards which run in opposite directions. Firstly, this is a measure which applies only to the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory the feeling about the nontribal Aborigine is much stronger than it is in the southern States of Australia. The second point is that this Bill talks about things being done in perpetuity. Will a definition which may have stood the test of time for a few years and which may be workable today be the right definition for the future? The Bill is not talking about a transitory point; it is making a provision for land in perpetuity. If we mean anything we should be getting our definitions right at the start because otherwise in future generations- not immediately- we will get 2 classes of citizens and a backlash between the two and we will have no acceptable definition on which to stand. It is no use saying that we do not want to be racists. This Bill is rightly giving benefits on a racist basis. That is what it is meant to do, and it being that kind of Bill - {: .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes: -- You would know all about that! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- I do know something about this because the honourable member might know that I had a great deal to do with the passing of the referendum and I have tried to do what I can over many years for the Aboriginal people. I have a genuine and non-political interest in this matter and I am trying to follow it only in a genuine way. In this Bill we are making arrangements about land which will be arrangements in perpetuity and we are not starting off by defining properly the people who should be benefiting from those arrangements. If we are to talk about traditional land, surely we will talk about traditional Aboriginal groups. If they are going to develop and change in the future- they will change- at least let us get clear in our minds of whom we are talking. We are not talking about the carpet baggers who will be coming from the south and trying to exploit the full-blooded Aborigines because by this Bill we are giving, very properly, tremendous material advantages to a group of full-blooded Aborigines in the Northern Territory. Do honourable members think that the carpet baggers who call themselves Aborigines, but who are really three-quarters or more of European origin, will not go to the Northern Territory to try to cash in? Of course they will. It is important and vital that our starting definitions should be correct. I do not flatter myself that my eloquence can move the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I do not flatter myself that in this House there will be any amendments, but we have to get this Bill off on a right and proper foundation and we are starting with a rotten foundation. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 4 to 20- by leave- taken together. {: #debate-25-s7 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth -- I wish to address some remarks to the appointment of an Aboriginal land commissioner. It is another illustration of what I was talking about yesterday, which is the failure of the Government in the presentation of this measure by forcing it on for debate before we have sufficient time to give adequate consideration to the Bill. A number of criticisms have been levelled by Aborigines- a lot of them have been levelled by de-tribalised Aboriginal people- about the Aboriginal land commissioner as a functionary appointed under Part II of the Bill. As we know, in the Woodward report the functions of the commissioner, or the commission as it was called in the report, were quite different from those expounded in clause 5 of the Bill. In paragraph 733 of the Woodward report the recommendations are summarised. The paragraph states: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. an Aboriginal Land Commission for the Northern Territory, or an arm of a national body, should be established with the following functions: Then a number of functions are set out, some of which are included in the Bill, but they are in quite different terms from those which are set in clause 5 of the Bill. The land commission as recommended by **Mr Justice** Woodward is not just one person as this Bill suggests by the use of the term 'Aboriginal Land Commissioner'. 1 understand that **Mr Justice** Woodward had in mind a body which consisted of expertise in the area, that is to say, there would be a number of people who would sit on the commission. I understand that some of those people might indeed be Aboriginal people. That does not sound such a foolish idea but for some reason in Part II an Aboriginal land commissioner is established. He can be part-time or I assume that the Commissioner who has been appointed, **Mr Justice** Ward, will continue if this Bill passes into law. He will sit by himself as a judge. It is true that under clause 19 he may employ consultants. I understand that he started off with the view that he did not need consultants, but he is gradually coming to the view that he needs some help in his task. That rather emphasises that there might be some point in what **Mr Justice** Woodward said. However, the point of my remarks is simply to bring to the surface again that really we are not getting down to debating the real issues which will enable us to pass a law that is most effective. If there are among the Aboriginal people some who feel that there ought to be representation on an Aboriginal land commission as distinct from having a commissioner, I should like to hear about it. I should like to know why. I should like to know also what expertise is available among Aboriginal people which can be provided to a commission. I think it is tremendously important that the Aboriginal people become more and more involved in the administration of their own affairs. That is one point I wish to make. We do not have, as we sometimes have with complex measures, an explanatory memorandum. There is nothing to tell us the reason for the change between the Woodward report and this Bill. I would have liked to know, not for any mischievous purpose but merely to understand what it was all about. Other aspects of this matter trouble me a little. Among other things, clause 5 provides: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The functions of the Commissioner are {: type="a" start="e"} 0. on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of land, being Crown land, to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, the desirability of securing that land for the use of those traditional owners; That is a very broad statement of the functions of the Commissioner. If a particular traditional group says that it wishes to lay claim to a particular area of Crown land that is all right in itself and it is very proper that the Commission or the Commissioner give careful thought to the subject and to the boundaries of the traditional areas. The phrase that troubles me however is 'the desirability'. We have emphasised in debate I suggest that the Bill is defective in clause 5 not only in that it ignores the possible need for Aboriginal expertise on a commission but also in that it fails to direct the Commission to take into account the broader public interest. Unless this broader public interest is taken into accountthis came through in what the honourable member for the Northern Territory said- and unless there is harmony in the implementation of this measure we will heap trouble upon trouble. There has to be a relationship which is healthy from the beginning. I know to some degree that this will be experimental. I can appreciate that point. Nevertheless we are not thinking sufficiently about the ways of achieving the best result initially if we simply push this sort of measure into law in this country, and this is all the more so in this case where, for instance, we do not even have any explanation of the reasons why there is a material departure from the scheme laid down by **Mr Justice** Woodward. However, as I understand it, this Bill is to go forward. It is to be pushed through today. We will 2824 REPRESENTATIVES 5 November 1975 *Aboriginal Land (N.T.) Bill* not be assisted in any way. We will not be told why the Aboriginal people will not have any interest on the councils. We will not be told about why there is a departure from the Woodward Commission report. {: #debate-25-s8 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I do not want to keep the Committee very long. I think it is important to mention in respect of the comment made by the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott)** that the Commission is entitled in terms of the recommendations made by **Mr Justice** Woodward to support and to expertise. Provisions are made for such appointments. These provisions are covered under Part II. Clause 1 8, one of the clauses which deals with this, states: >Any staff required to assist the Commissioner shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act . . . In fact temporary staff can be engaged, if necessary, under section 82 of the Public Service Act. Clause 19 is very relevant. The notation beside the clause reads: Consultants to Commissioner. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman regards this as adequate or inadequate. However, clause 19 states: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Commissioner, with the approval of the Public Service Board, may, on behalf of Australia, engage persons having suitable qualifications and experience as consultants to the Commissioner. 1. The terms and conditions on which persons are engaged . . . shall be such terms and conditions as are determined by the Minister with the approval of the Public Service Board. The fact is that under clause 1 9 consultants to the Commissioner may be engaged on terms determined by the Minister with the approval of the Public Service Board. There does not seem to me to be anything of a restrictive nature in the legislation that would cause anyone to get the impression that there will be an inadequate range of expertise. I think mention has been made of the fact that one commissioner is recommended and there seems to me to be good reasons why these affairs should be in the hands of one person. In the first instance, after the initial volume of claims is dealt with, it is very likely that the work of the Lands Commissioner will level out and the work may be undertaken at a desirable pace that is compatible with the desires of the Aboriginal people to seek and obtain autonomy over their own land. Where the acquisition of land is involved claims can be regulated at a rate which has a relationship to the availability of finance for acquisition purposes. This process will not be endless in terms of intensive hearings. I should imagine that after several years have transpired and the initial large volume of claims has been dealt with it will be possible that occasional claims will be heard by the Commissioner. It is extremely important in my view that the Commissioner should be a person who is virtually saturated in knowledge of the Northern Territory and understanding of Aboriginal traditions and customs and land utilisation matters. Of course any knowledge in that respect on the part of such a person would become an expanding dimension of knowledge. He would be exposed to an extremely wide range of experiences. If the matter were in the hands of one person rather than several we would be able to see the elements of consistency and high principle emerging. Persons who would be appearing before him would understand the philosophy and the form of approach which is taken and in most respects it would seem to me that many benefits would be derived from one commissioner being responsible rather than there being more than one commissioner. The question of Aboriginal expertise being associated with the Commissioner of course is of dubious content or size. Nevertheless, there is nothing to exclude Aboriginal persons from being associated with the Commission in terms of clauses 18 and 19 as I have already enunciated. But, in addition to that, the land councils especially, and the land trusts, will be providing a wide range of experience for Aboriginal people. I think it is known by honourable gentlemen opposite that a number of Aboriginal people have already been associated with the Northern Land Council particularly and, to some extent, the Central Land Council, in verifying and checking out the bona fides of claims made by Aboriginal people. It is very wrong for anyone to get the impression that the large number of claims pending indicate the extent to which land will be made available. They have to be claims that are properly sustained and confirmed in terms of Aboriginal use and requirements, and Aboriginal people are the appropriate people to engage in activities of that kind. I do not question that even apart from the field operations which sometimes involve a personal contact with and the knowledge of Aboriginal communities and a knowledge of the sacred grounds and traditional land usage factors, there is a clerical component which I have no doubt will see a predominating involvement by Aboriginal people. So even if the Commissioner himself does not utilise such a large Aboriginal resource by virtue of the Public Service provisions and the availability of people employed under the terms of the Public Service Act, there are many other ways in which Aboriginal expertise will be utilised as a result of the introduction of this legislation. {: #debate-25-s9 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- When I look at clause 5, 1 am struck by the tremendous powers inherent in the Commissioner. It is perfectly true, as the Minister would know, that the Commissioner does not have executive authority. He advises the Minister who performs the executive act. But in practice the Commissioner will have an immense power because the Minister, whoever the Minister is, will be inclined to follow his advices. Sub-clause (d) of clause 5 states: to advise the Minister in connexion with . . .-the making of recommendations for the granting of land under sections 46, 47 . . . If one looks at those sections, one sees that they relate both to Crown land and to land where somebody other than the Crown has an interest. Perhaps I should not have said Crown land at the start; I should have said 'Crown land where nobody else has an interest'. In the Northern Territory most of the land is held under some kind of lease. These leases run out at various times. I suppose that the average time they have to run is 15 or 20 years or something of this character. But it may well happen that claims are laid to them. If so, one may find that the whole of the pastoral industry of the Northern Territory will be without a future. It could be this way or it might not. We really have given the Commissioner no guidelines as to how he is to make his recommendations. The honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott)** of course was perfectly right when he drew attention to the nebulous nature of the guidelines that we have set for the Commissioner. It may be that **Mr Justice** Ward or whoever the Commissioner may be from time to time, may carry out his functions in a way which does not upset the major economy of the Northern Territory. But at least this House has the duty, when it arranges for the appointment of a commissioner in that way, to give him firm guidelines. At the present moment we are saying to the commissioner: 'Look, you go out and without directions from the House, you, **Mr Commissioner,** will in point of fact make the laws on which the whole of the future of the Northern Territory will depend'. This House should not put that kind of authority into another person's hands, whether it be the Minister's hands or the Commissioner's hands. I will not canvass the question of the relationship between the authority of the House of Representatives and the authority of the council in Darwin. But what we are doing now is giving to the Minister and his adviser in perpetuity the power to destroy the whole of the economic structure of the Northern Territory without coming back either to this House or to the council in Darwin. Do we realise the full enormity of what is inherent in these Bills? Do we realise that we are talking about virtually the whole of the land in the Northern Territory? I think that I may have been among the first persons to claim that the Aboriginal of the Northern Territory should have a fair deal. I think that everybody on both sides of this chamber would agree with that. But is this Committee really of the opinion that the whole of the Northern Territory economy should be placed at the executive fingers of this or some future Minister and his adviser, the Commissioner, who will be acting completely without guidelines? Virtually they can effectively take people's property away, take their future away and destroy an industry by executive act. I ask Government supporters not to get me wrong and to say that I am trying to stop the Aborigines having something in the future or in the present. What I am saying is that the horrid arbitrariness of this Bill needs to be exposed in this chamber. It is not right that we should be putting this kind of authority in the hands of some capricious Minister now or in the future. It is very bad for a parliament or a council in Darwin to be giving away control over the whole of the economy. There is another point which is a separate and very difficult one concerning which at present I do not know the answer. I have not had time to consider it. How are we really to allocate these reserves among the various Aboriginal claimants? There is no question as to these reserves. These reserves undoubtedly will be added to and should be added to. Nothing will be taken away from them. Nothing should be taken away. These are Aboriginal lands but to which Aboriginals should they be given? These are not easy questions to answer because the concepts of ownership are not uniform among the Aboriginal communities even in the Northern Territory. I fear that thinking on this ground has been perverted a little by the fact that most of the experience has been in regard to Aboriginal claims in Arnhem Land- particularly in the north-eastern part of Arnhem Land, where the Yirrkala question has bulked so large. It is true that the concept of ownership in Arnhem Land would be somewhat different from the concept of ownership in the centre of Australia, where there are very large Aboriginal reserves. The reason probably stems from the nature of the land. The land in the Arnhem Land area is comparatively rich and only a relatively small area is needed for the support of a family or a clan; but in the centre of Australia the land is very poor and barren and many square miles- tens or hundreds of square miles- are needed for the support of even a single family. So the Aboriginal concept of land ownership is rather different. The honourable member for Wentworth would have had very considerable experience of this concept in the Yirrkala and Arnhem Land area. He may have had some experience of the situation in the centre of Australia, but he will not have had such extensive experience. There are very difficult practical problems to be solved. I am not trying to put a solution to the Committee. What I am saying is that we have not had a chance to consider what the proper solution should be. {: #debate-25-s10 .speaker-KWA} ##### Mr THORBURN:
Cook -I would have thought that the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** was arguing for the passage of the Bill in its present form and that firm guidelines and full definitions should not be placed into the Bill. I say that because of what he said about the differences in the types of land tenure and so on that were required as between Arnhem Land and central Australia. My opinion is, of course, that the Bill ought to go forward as it is now. Under the normal sittings that were planned for the House the Bill would not have been dealt with until the week commencing 19 November, but because of the stupidity over the constitutional crisis the matters set down for later in the parliamentary session have had to be brought forward. So the Bill is being dealt with earlier than expected. It seems to me that this Bill and the other 2 Bills ought to go forward now as Acts and that we ought to rectify the mistakes that will become apparent through experience. There is no way in which we will find out what are the problems associated with these Bills until we have had practical experience of what the people want. I will give just a few examples. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott),** who has had a great deal of experience at Yirrkala, state that he could not see why the land could not be held in absolute fee simple so that the people could dispose of it if they wished and so on. {: .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KWA} ##### Mr THORBURN: -- I am sorry if I misunderstood the honourable member for Wentworth. I thought he said that the land should be held in complete fee simple by the owners of the land and that he disputed the fact that a land council was involved in the title to it. If what he is saying is that these people ought to be able to hold the title themselves- I do not see that as being any real criterion- I have no argument with him. But I point out that even under the New South Wales land title system one does not hold the title to the land; one holds a copy of the title and the registrar holds the title to the land. Surely the whole thing is similar there. The land council could hold the title and a copy of the title could be given to the people who own the land. I think this matter will require the gaining of experience. After that experience has been gained I certainly would have no objection to the matter coming back either to the Parliament or to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for consideration. I think that a full understanding of the situation can be obtained only by gaining experience of what the people want. The situation has changed. When I was at Yirrkala the people there were opposed to the establishment of the Northern Aboriginal Land Council. I have been advised by people who have been there recently and discussed the matter that the involvement of the people of Yirrkala in the Northern Aboriginal Land Council has resulted in their changing their opinion, which they are entitled to do, since that time. I do not think that just by presenting a Bill to them we will make these people realise all the ramifications of what is contained in it. I think that it is only through practical experience that we will find out what is needed. We ought then to be prepared, each and every one of us, to admit that there are things that need to be changed, as undoubtedly there will be in this very complex situation, and to come back to this House and have the amendments presented to us not once and not twice but a dozen times if that is necessary in order to give the people what they want. I was surprised that the contributions today from the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** seemed to place more emphasis on how this legislation will affect the white population who have business interests in the area than on what the Aboriginal people are entitled to. Quite frankly, I think that is a minor consideration compared with what the Aboriginal people are entitled to. These people and their ancestors have lived there for the past 30 000 years. I listened with interest to the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who seems to think that he is the only person in the House who knows anything about the Aboriginal people. Let me say to him that those people have a sacred belief in their land that is incomprehensible to most white people, even those who have had a close association with Aboriginal people. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr Calder: -- That is what we are trying to tell the Government. {: .speaker-KWA} ##### Mr THORBURN: -The honourable member does not have to tell the Government that because the Government is aware of it. The Government is advised by people who have much more experience of and feeling for the Aboriginal people than the honourable member has. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr Calder: -- Name them. Name a few. {: .speaker-KWA} ##### Mr THORBURN: -Professor Stanner for one. He advises the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and is a member of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. He and others who, for the last 40 years, have been associated and living with Aboriginal people are much greater authorities on the subject than the honourable member for the Northern Territory is. I consider that the Bill should go through in its present form and that the Government and the Opposition should be prepared to look at it consistently and constantly as the things in it that may need amendment are found. I think that by setting firm and inflexible guidelines, particularly in relation to the Commissioner, we would be doing the wrong thing. I think he has to go out and talk to the people, inquire of them and advise the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and that through the Minister this Parliament has to be advised of what are the wishes of the people. Part agreed to. Clause 2 1 (Establishment of Land Councils). {: #debate-25-s11 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth -I suppose that clause 2 1 is, in a sense, the most critical clause in the Bill. That is why I have asked the Committee to deal with it separately. The clause establishes 2 land councils- the Northern Aboriginal Land Council and the Central Aboriginal Land Council. I understand that those land councils have been operating for some time now. If I remember rightly, they were financed by appropriations in the last Budget and there are appropriations for them in the current Appropriations Bills which, I think, are now before the Senate. The establishment of those land councils, as I intimated in what I said yesterday, does throw up a fundamental question that needs very careful reconsideration. I realise that views have been expressed in the report of the Woodward Commission that to some extent support this concept; but, when one takes clause 21 with other clauses, such as clause 23, and has in mind the extent to which these land councils will operate, will consult and in effect will make decisions on behalf of a large number of Aboriginal communities, one cannot but envisage an extremely large and growing bureaucracy. I use this word 'bureaucracy' because I suppose I have a certain aversion to bureaucrats when they are not necessary. I do not believe in the principle that they should just sort of accumulate. I would rather see people involved in productive endeavour. I would also like to see the Aboriginal people- I believe they agree with this- making their own decisions and making those decisions as close to themselves as is possible. Quite frankly if the Yirrkala council, the Elcho Island council or the Millingimbi council now thinks that it can fit in with the Northern Land Council, I think it is rather that it has been convincedif it has been convinced- that this is something it can go along with instead of something that it would initially choose. I cannot see why the people at Yirrkala or the other places I mentioned, or for that matter the people in communities close to Alice Springs, are not better served in terms of self-management, in terms of their own involvement, in terms of expenditure of money or the needless expenditure of money if they themselves are making the decisions about how their land is to be used. I cannot understand why it is necessary- I do not believe they ultimately know why it is necessaryto have a large land council which covers the whole of one-half of the Northern Territory to make these decisions about what is to happen to their land. If there is a project at Yirrkala why cannot they do what they have been doing in the past? Why can they not sit down in their town council house, as they have within the Darnbu Association, and talk about it? They have their community adviser there. He seems a reasonable sort of person. He seems to understand them. There is another lady there- an American lady whom I met. She seems to help them in what they are deciding. If they want any help from **Mr Allum,** the Department of Aboriginal Affairs man at Gove, or Warren Paul they get it. They are both quite capable men; they are administrators and are experienced. They can sit down with them and work out their problems. If there is some question as to one of the clans wanting to move to an outer area, as the Galpu or the Djapu people are doing, they have consultations about it. Why should there be all this talk about going back to Darwin to have a chat with the Northern Land Council? I do not understand the necessity for it. I can only see a complication to the Aboriginal life style. Why can they not go on doing what they have been doing in the past? Why should they be interfered with by **Mr X, Mr Y** or **Mr Z** from some other community? It just does not seem to recognise their land associations close to the grass roots nor does it appear to me to be common sense. That is the basic reason why I am so insistent about this. I have remained insistent about it for the reason that the clause does not seem to recognise the Aboriginal people where they are but wants to put on top of them some bureaucratic structure. Once people have to go from Darwin to Millingimbi to discuss a proposal about what is going to happen to the land of the Aborigines and once you start saying that you have to give them some building or some architectural advice or you have to give them some other sort of advice or assistance, naturally you are going to start building within that large land council another bureaucracy. You cannot avoid it. There will be people, clerks and others who will have to service it. There will be field officers who will have to go out, sit down with and talk to the Aboriginal people. I do not understand why this is necessary. I cannot understand why they cannot get the full benefit of the money that is being provided to them without putting bureaucrats between them and this Parliament. I cannot understand it, because I am afraid I have great faith in the people at Yirrkala to make up their own minds about these matters given the assistance they would ordinarily attempt to get from the Department or perhaps from some outside consultants. Clause 2 1 does raise a basic issue and it is a matter to which we should be giving very serious consideration. I know that in one of the clauses the Minister has the power to establish smaller land councils. I would much prefer- I believe that this is the view of the Opposition, because ultimately we would want to hear representations in relation to this- a provision which gives a directive to the Minister to establish land councils in accordance with certain criteria would enable him to define the area, and define it in all probability in most cases in relation to existing communities. It is possible to define the land ownership that attaches to a place like Yirrkala, Elcho Island and other places. It may be more difficult in areas further south around Alice Springs- I do not know- but certainly in relation to those areas a small land council would be quite appropriate. There does not seem to be any need even for an eastern Arnhem Land council. That does not seem to provoke the necessity for a decision making body away from the local group. True it may be that there ought to be some sort of expertise that might be collected at a central point so that the various Aboriginal communities can be serviced in an adequate way- I can understand that- and so that they can all refer to that centre where it is a common type of service. But apart from that sort of advisory function from a central body I suggest to honourable members opposite that this clause, critical as it is, needs very careful reconsideration. I do suggest that the basis upon which it ought to be reconsidered is to redraft it so that the Minister will be directed to establish land councils according to criteria which, as I say, will result in what basically are those local communities being the land councils. Those communities are used to sorting out the problems. They have been doing it for a long time. They will sort out the problems of permits. They will sort out the problems of land use and land ownership. They are groups and clans working and living together and they will be able to operate in a natural way- natural in the real sense- for Aboriginal people. {: #debate-25-s12 .speaker-KCU} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-25-s13 .speaker-JYK} ##### Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs -- I would like to reply to a few of the comments by the Opposition spokesman on aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Ellicott),** in relation to clause 21. He seems to have the impression, not only from what he has just said but also from what he said in his speech in the second reading debate yesterday, that the 2 land councils to be set up under this legislation are to have an overall say in what goes on in the Northern Territory, not only on a global basis but on a day to day basis, and that this is the be all and end all of the situation. He mentioned only very briefly the fact that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Les Johnson)** can set up further land councils if the suggestion is put up to him and if he considers that they are appropriate. This is covered in this clause. It is precisely because of the importance of the legislation that the best step forward in making provision for the Aboriginal people is that, while the 2 land councils are to be set up now, it is recognised by the Government that it may well be necessary and desirable in the future to set up further land councils. This provision has been inserted since **Mr Justice** Woodward brought down his report. It is one of the amendments that he recommended to the draft Bill. I suggest also that the purpose of the land councils is not, as the honourable member suggested, to make day to day decisions for the people in the area but to make decisions of a global nature as to which group should be recommended to and recognised by the commission as owners of particular land. Their job is to make fairly general registers of the land and its usage. A great deal of the decision making process in a particular community would still go on at that local level. The people at Yirrkala would still be able to make decisions. In fact in other clauses in this Bill it is stated it will be incumbent upon the land councils not to make a decision contrary to the wishes of the people in the particular area. It will not be a case of a land council dictating to a local community and saying that it shall do this, that and the other. Power will not be taken away from the community; rather, the land council shall have a general overseeing function dealing mainly with the ownership and acquisition of land. This matter is dealt with in a later clause. A land council will have a general function and will leave day to day decisions to the local community. It will go to the local community to ascertain its wishes in any particular case about which the land council may have to make a decision and it will see that the wishes of the local community are carried out. I urge the Committee to pass this clause and the rest of the Bill without too much further delay. For that reason I do not wish to take the full time at my disposal. I only wanted to point out that the situation is the reverse of what was suggested by the honourable member and that in fact it will be the role of the land councils to see that the wishes of the local community, where the real decisions will be made, are implemented. {: #debate-25-s14 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory -- I want to speak briefly to this clause relating to land councils. I noted that the honourable member for Isaacs **(Mr Clayton)** said that they would not control the day to day decisions but would have a more or less overseeing job. I intended to speak about this part of the Bill relating to the permit system. If a day to day function is not the issuing of permits for people to go on to Aboriginal land I do not know what it is. Clause 21 relates to the establishment of land councils, and then it goes on to state certain things about them. Clause 23 relates to the functions of a land council. Clause 23(1) (g) states that the functions of a land council are: to issue, and revoke, permits to persons, other than Aboriginals, entitling them to enter and remain on Aboriginal land . . . This should not be the function of a land council, especially as is envisaged in this Bill. Clause 21 ( 1) (a) and (b) relate to the setting up of the Northern Aboriginal Land Council and the Central Aboriginal Land Council. The issuing of such permits should be the function of the citizens council of the town or village where the people concerned are living. Surely someone wanting to go to Goulburn Island should not have to get a land council permit in order to do so and surely the people of Goulburn Island do not have to seek a land council decision in order to allow people to go to their island. As I said before, this is one of the rights which Aborigines in north Australia especially hold very sacred. They want control over people, whoever they happen to be, whether Aborigines or not, who do not have the right to go on to their land. I notice that there seems to be a difference between the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Bill as to who actually is to have permission to go on the land, who is to revoke permits and who is to issue them. I do not know whether the Minister issued another statement after making his second reading speech, but the 2 things do not add up and the Minister might look into it. One of the fundamentals of Aboriginal life is that Aborigines wish to control the set up. The Government is going to take away this responsibility and possibly give it to another group of people. I know that other land councils will be set up, but I think there will be a very top heavy organisation if we have all these land councils over the top of the citizens councils to do this sort of thing and many other things. Despite the remarks made about me and my limited knowledge of Aborigines, I think I know this and that the Government does not. Motion (by **Mr Les** Johnson) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins) AYES: 60 NOES: 54 Majority....... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23 (Functions of Land Council). {: #debate-25-s15 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- Might we have a little shush? Motion (by **Mr Daly)** put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins) AYES: 61 NOES: 54 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2832 {:#debate-26} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 AND APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76 {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have received from the Senate Message No. 285 in the following terms. The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution agreed to this day in connection with the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76, viz: That the Senate, having considered Message No. 392 of the House of Representatives- rejects the assertion made in paragraph (a), rejects the allegation made in paragraph (b), and asserts that, as to the matters contained in paragraphs (c) and (d), the true position is given in the Senate Resolution as communicated to the House of Representatives in Message No. 279. JUSTIN O 'BYRNE President Motion ( by **Mr Daly)** agreed to: >That the message be taken into consideration by the House forthwith. {: #debate-26-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP -- I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That the House of Representatives having considered Message No. 285 of the Senate- {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) re-asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 for the reasons given in the Senate Resolutions is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution and is contrary to established constitutional convention; 1. b) denounces again the blatant attempt by the Senate to violate section 28 of the Constitution for political purposes by itself endeavouring to force an early election for the House of Representatives; 2. declares that the Constitution and the conventions of the Constitution vest in the House of Representatives the control of the supply of moneys to the elected Government and that the action of the Senate constitutes a gross violation of the roles of the respective Houses of the Parliament in relation to the appropriation of moneys; 3. re-asserts the basic principle that a Government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be allowed to govern; 4. declares its concern that the unprecedented and obstructive stand taken by the Senate in continuing to defer the passage of the Bills is undermining public confidence in our parliamentary system of government; and 5. again calls upon the Senate to pass without further delay the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. 1. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this Resolution. The latest message from the Senate demonstrates that the Opposition in the Senate is persisting in its unconstitutional course- putting aside a clear convention that has been built up Let me analyse what the Senate is doing. I repeat that for 75 years the Australian Constitution has proceeded on the undeniable proposition that a government formed in this House must be able to govern, and to govern it must be able to obtain moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of government. {: .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: -- You said that that is not necessary. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Governments are made and unmade in this House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Hume seems to want to be named in this House more than anything else. I warn him that if he continues his practice of trying to disrupt people whenever they speak in this House I will accommodate him. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -The Senate, by its action in blocking the Budget Bills, is therefore striking at the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy. The Senate's message denies that its action has been taken for the purpose of violating the principle contained in section 28 of the Constitution. Section 28, in the clearest possible terms, says that every House of Representatives shall continue for 3 years from the first meeting of the House. In passing, I observe that one of the 'constitutionalists', the law and order men, the men of principle, in the Opposition demonstrated his fine appreciation of constitutional principle by saying that this Government's term of 3 years is already up! Like so many of his colleagues, not only are his mathematics conveniently wrong; so too is his appreciation of our Constitution. Not only does section 28 lay down the term of this House; it also says who has the formal authority to dissolve it. Not the Senate, not the Oppositionthe formal power is vested in the Governor-General. Similarly the power to call general elections for the members of this House is not vested in the Senate nor the Opposition. 2832 REPRESENTATIVES 5 November 1975 *Appropriation Bills* Under section 32 it is the Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Executive Council- the Government. The very purpose, openly acknowledged by the Opposition in the Senate, behind its action of delaying the passage of the Appropriation Bills is to force a dissolution of this House and a general election. The Opposition in the Senate does not want a periodic election for vacancies in that House even though one could quite properly be held right now. No, Opposition members have stated time and time again that they will be satisfied with nothing less than a general election for this House. It is clear that they are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent a half Senate election. We now find the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** offering a 'compromise'that the Senate Opposition will allow the Budget Bills to pass if the Government agrees to a general election for this House to be held by the middle of next year. The blackmail, of course, is still there. The only difference is that the time for the payment of the ransom has been generously extended! Until yesterday the most claimed by the Leader of the Opposition- whose appearance I welcome- was that half the Senate could indefinitely delay the elected Government's Budget to produce such chaos as to force the dissolution of the House of Representatives. His new claim is that any Leader of the Opposition accidentally in control of half the senators can dictate the timing of a House of Representatives election. It is breathtaking in its arrogance and irresponsibility. Opposition members are coming to the realisation that their carefully orchestrated attempt to subvert constitutional principles and propriety is not paying off as they expected. They are, therefore, now beginning to shift ground, but I repeat that they are still making the same unacceptable demand, namely, for a general election for this House. Not that the shifting in their ground is in evidence in today's message from the Senate which we are now considering. That message moved by **Senator Cotton** on 29 October has been passed by that tainted Senate in exactly the form presented by its movers 5 days before the Leader of the Opposition in this House offered his 'generous' compromise. Today, not an hour ago, **Senator Cotton** has again moved the same amendment to Loan Bill 1975 (No. 2) which was moved in the Senate on 15 October to Loan Bill 1975. I mention this because not only are we faced with the situation that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to exert influence on sufficient of the Liberal and National Country Party senators to ensure a rejection of our Budget, but quite clearly his so-called compromise has been ignored by those same senators. He has told the Governor-General; he has told the Press; he has not told his colleagues in the Senate or they took no notice; and he has not told me. Is he shifting ground or preparing to shift ground again? Quite clearly the senators have not yet moved from their stalling of the Budget nor have they yet moved to vote on the Budget- for it or against it. The attempt by the Senate to force the demand on the Government by holding up the Appropriation Bills is a violation of the principles contained in the Constitution. To give in to this blackmail would be to abandon these constitutional principles. The Government is duty bound to reject the demand and to oppose the course the Senate is attempting to take; that is to say, to determine the timing of a general election for the House of Representatives. The Senate has sought to obscure this basic point by referring to the existence of grounds for a double dissolution on 22 Bills that have nothing whatever to do with the Budget. To accept the Senate's claims now would be to accept the right of the Senate to have the House of Representatives dissolved without itself having to go to the people. I repeat yet again that the grounds for a double dissolution on the issue of the Budget do not yet exist. They could not exist for another 3 months, until after the Senate had twice rejected the Appropriation Bills with an interval of 3 clear months between the first rejection of the Bills by the Senate and the second introduction of the Bills into this House. That is, until the Opposition senators make up their minds to vote against the money Bills in this case the time for setting in train the machinery for resolving deadlocks between the Houses to bring about a double dissolution cannot yet run. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- You have other Bills and you know it. You are not telling the truth. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -Of course there are. The double dissolution could be advised straight away on 22 Bills, but not on the Budget Bills. The right honourable gentleman is slowing up. It is so pathetic to see all those who sit around him lamenting his decline. I repeat yet again that the grounds for a double dissolution on this issue do not exist. The fact that there are other grounds extant does not solve the problem. Let me make my Government's position clear yet again. I shall not advise the Governor-General to dissolve both 'Houses at the behest of this tainted Senate in which the Opposition parties have a chance majority or can muster half the votes because of the death of **Senator Milliner** and the constitutional impropriety of the Queensland Government in failing to replace him with a nominee of my Party. In the words of **Senator Steele** Hall: 'They did it over a dead man 's corpse '. A double dissolution on the ground of the Senate 's rejection of the Budget does not arise, nor is it even remotely in sight. I remind honourable members that the Senate has not yet rejected the Budget for a first time. As **Senator Bessell** has disclosed, apparently it is unable to do so because it lacks the numbers. Behind the present constitutional struggle is the wider political question of the way in which Australia 's whole political future will develop. The question is not just whether this particular Government will be allowed to govern for the term for which it was elected; the question is whether any duly elected government will be allowed to govern in the future if in its own right it does not also command a majority in the Senate. Half the numbers in the Senate are enough to reject any Bill or any motion. Unless a government has a majority in the Senate to vote in favour of any Bill or motion the Senate can frustrate the Government which, in the nature of things, has to have a majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate also seeks to reaffirm the erroneous views communicated to this House in message No. 279..In other words, the Senate is again asserting that it has the constitutional right to act in the manner in which it is acting; The powers of the Houses of Parliament in respect of Bills appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government are dealt with in section 53 of the Constitution. What does section 53 say about the Senate's powers in respect of such Bills? Firstly, it says that they cannot originate in the Senate. Secondly, it says that the Senate cannot amend them. Thirdly, it says that the Senate may return them to this House requesting the omission or amendment of any items or provisions in them. I have already referred the House to a letter to the *Age* of 27 October from **Sir Richard** Eggelston, a distinguished and eminent member of the Constitutional Bar before his appointment to the Australian Industrial Court by the then Menzies Government in 1960. **Sir Richard** analysed the provisions of section 53 and pointed out that the actions of the Senate did not follow any of the procedures in section 53. Those actions, as I have already shown, are designed to violate section 28 of the Constitution. There is therefore nothing in the Constitution that warrants the view that the Senate may hold up an Appropriation Bill until the duly elected Government formed in this House capitulates to the Senate's demand for a general election of members of this House. My Government will not shrink from its clear duty to uphold the authority of this House under the Constitution. In April last year I took the view, perhaps naively, that the action of the Senate in holding up Supply Bills was an aberration. On that occasion I advised the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses of the Parliament simultaneously. The subsequent behaviour of the Opposition in this Parliament had demonstrated that given the opportunity a Senate, controlled by forces opposed to change, would elevate that aberration of April 1974 into orthodox behaviour under our Constitution. {: .speaker-JVK} ##### Mr Mulder: -- Every 6 months. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Let there be no delusions on this point. If the Senate once successfully acts to throw out a government supported by this House that power will be exercised again and again. It can be exercised, as my colleague points out, every 6 months- in April every year when the Supply Bills come up to cover expenditure between 1 July and 30 November following and again in October to cover expenditure throughout the current financial year. Every 6 months a government would have to advise the GovernorGeneral to dissolve the House of Representatives and have an election if the Senate rejected or even, as it is doing at the moment, deferred debate on the Supply and the Budget Bills. {: .speaker-KVQ} ##### Mr Sullivan: -- Of course it is not passing a bad Budget. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The honourable gentleman says that it is a bad Budget. His colleagues in the Senate do not say so. They say that if I advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives and have an election they will immediately pass this bad Budget. Furthermore, in speaking a week after the Budget the Leader of the Opposition condemned it on many points and said what he would do if he had the privilege of introducing a Budget in present circumstances. A fortnight ago at a Press conference he said that his proposals were now inoperative; that is, we are asked to have an election for the House of Representatives on the basis of a Budget to which the Opposition presents no alternative and for which they are prepared to vote immediately. The whole fabric of democratic society in Australia would be undermined if the Senate Opposition succeeded in its objective. Australia faces a simple question: Are we to continue to be governed by a system of parliamentary democracy under which the Government is able to govern? The answer of an overwhelming majority of Australians is clear. They reject the Opposition's persistent attempts to undermine the very foundations of parliamentary democracy in this country. Time is rapidly running out for the Opposition in the Senate to end this crisis honourably by passing the Budget before innocent people are made to endure personal hardship. There can no longer be any doubt that the Opposition's policy of blocking the Budget, of stalling the Budget and of going on strike in the vote on the Budget, has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Australian people. Already some Opposition senators are beginning to see what the proper and honourable solution is. **Senator Bessell** has made it clear that neither he nor a number of his colleagues will take the positive step of rejecting the Budget. Indeed it seems that even the Leader of the National Country Party **(Mr Anthony)** is starting to realise the consequences of the unprincipled action of the Opposition parties in the Senate. There is a glimmer of hope that he is beginning to see where his duty lies. Unless the Senate ceases its blocking action and passes the Budget quickly, the Opposition will stand even further condemned by every Australian who will suffer the Opposition's selfish pursuits of its narrow political purposes. The Budget must pass, and it will pass. While it is not my intention, or desire, to provide needless fear of alarm, we must be quite clear about the consequences of the continual refusal to pass the Budget. This refusal is already damaging the business community, threatening the normal life of the nation and endangering the delicate process of economic recovery. As I have said before, there can be no surrender to the Senate on this issue. The fundamental principle of democracy is too important. I call on all honourable members to condemn the actions of the Opposition in the Senate. I call on that Opposition to pass the Budget without further procrastination, without further delay. {: #debate-26-s2 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition -The Prime Minister seems to believe that the Constitution is **Mr Whitlam,** the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister forgets that the Parliament is composed of the Queen- in this case the GovernorGeneral the Senate and the House of Representatives. The attempts of the Prime Minister to take to himself total and dictatorial powers will not succeed. They cannot be allowed to succeed. It is the Parliament that must prevail- and the Parliament is the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Governor-General acting in the Queen's name; it is not this Prime Minister, this greatest of all politicians! The Prime Minister said that the Senate was opposed to change. There are some changes to which the Senate certainly is opposed. Over the last 10 years of the Liberal-Country Party Government inflation averaged 3.4 per cent. Under this Government it is 16 per cent. The Senate is opposed to that kind of change. In the last 10 years of our Government unemployment was 1.5 per cent. Under this Government it is 5 per cent and rising to 6 per cent or 7 per cent. It is admitted that as a result of this Budget unemployment will rise to 400 000. One Minister said that there would be only another 150 000 unemployed. What concern does he have for the people whom he ought to represent? The increase in gross national product in our time averaged 5 per cent a year. Under this Government it is 2.8 per cent a year. Is the Senate opposed to change? Of course it is opposed to that kind of change and so are the people of Australia, so are the average people on the farms, in the factories, in the cities or wherever they may be. This Government was disowned by **Mr Dunstan,** a Labor Premier. It is a bad Government. It produced a bad Budget which it predicted would cause 400 000 or more to be unemployed. It refers to the Senate, but at the last Senate election which was held at the same time as this House was elected the people of Australia, the same electors who elected members of this House, gave the Opposition Parties control of the Senate. The authority of the Government was a limited authority. *( Government members interjecting).* {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER: -- If I had any concern for the people who use certains words that are unparliamentary I would ask them to withdraw; but before I would ask them to withdraw I would have to have some concern for their opinion, and in this instance I have none. This Government has acted against the Constitution, as it did last year, and is seeking to subvert the Constitution now, seeking to go against the opinion of that learned judge **Mr Justice** Murphy and that learned Q.C. **Mr Whitlam** and against all the constitutional authorities. Why? Because this Prime Minister is frightened to face his masters, the Australian people- and remains frightened to do so. The Government now says that it will govern without Supply. How? Why? The Parliament is not entitled to know. The country is not entitled to know. But the Government is going to govern without the Budget, it claims. This Parliament is entitled to know but the Treasurer **(Mr Hayden)** does not even know when present Supply will run out. If he does know, he keeps it secret for himself. Is the Government going to use section 9 of the Banking Act and give special directions to the trading banks requiring them to open special accounts to meet the bills of the Commonwealth? Is it going to use section 8, 9, 10, 1 1 or 87 of the Reserve Bank Act and the powers it has under that Act? Is it going to use, by some secret and diverse means, sections 32, 62B or 70B of the Audit Act and use control of the banking system without appropriations by this Parliament? It needs to be remembered that if directions are given to the banks under these powers or any part of these powers, not backed by appropriations through the Parliament, it is the deposits of the banks and the assets of the banks that are ultimately at risk. We need to know the answers to these particular questions, but the Prime Minister sits back and refuses to answer questions in this House. He refuses to answer questions at question time but parades his mixture of Falstaff and Richard III. This is a government of economic mismanagement, of massive unemployment, of massive inflation, of greater industrial unrest than the country has previously seen and of higher interest rates than Australia has previously seen. We know quite well what occurred in the conspiracy of 13 December last year to which the Prime Minister was a direct party. We know that the sacked Deputy Prime Minister revoked that authority on 7 January because he did not agree with it but we know that as soon as the Prime Minister returned from overseas he reinstated it on 27 January. We know he revoked it on 20 May because if he had not an American loan could not have been consummated. This Prime Minister would have had to tell the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of all the murky dealings in getting money from subterranean sources. So the authority was revoked. But what was the conversation that took place during the process of revocation in the Executive Council? Did the former Minister for Minerals and Energy say: 'Now will I cease negotiations?' Or did the Prime Minister say to him: 'Oh, carry on Rex. It is easy enough to get another authority as soon as you land the money? ' On 9 July the former Minister for Labor and Immigration said that the Minister would land the money. The Prime Minister heard him say it. He must have known that money was being pursued. He must have given authority for money to be pursued. And all the while he seeks to pretend his own innocence. We know that he had the letter in his possession which led to the sacking of his former Deputy Prime Minister some weeks before he used it. He was' prepared to condone that misleading of the House until it was forced into the public by the media. But once it became public, he sought to wash his hands clean and sack his Deputy Prime Minister. He used the same tactic- the same device- in getting rid of **Mr Connor.** We know quite well that President Nixon used this technique to try to prove his innocence time and time again. But ultimately, having sacked colleagues, having sacked supporters, the truth in that instance was revealed. In this instance it will also be revealed unless the Prime Minister can burn the documents-burn the evidence. He refused to answer questions in this House as to whether he had burnt the evidence. {: .speaker-KZI} ##### Mr Whan: -- What rubbish! {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER: -The record is there. The Prime Minister refused to answer whether or not he had burnt the evidence. How hard did this Government fight in the Senate to prevent a certain document being tabled? It fought for hours to prevent it becoming public. It expelled the person who might have given evidence before a Senate inquiry because it was fearful of the result. Government supporters know that this Prime Minister is as guilty as the colleagues that he has sacked. Everyone sitting beside him and behind him knows likewise. There is also the story of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd which has not been told. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has described the royal commission in somewhat harsh terms. The Prime Minister supports the royal commission against the President of his own Party. But the President of his own Party is more likely to be right in that instance than the Prime Minister who is again covering up for the activities of his own Government. Then again we have a situation in which the Treasurer deliberately leaked to the president of a political party and a director of commercial companies, revenue secrets at 1 o'clock on the day of the Budget. The Prime Minister, in coming to the Treasurer's defence, says: 'That is normal. It has happened before'. He has to put out an apology afterwards for misleading the House because he knows quite well that nobody before had been told of the revenue proposals, the excise proposals and the tax proposals. Certainly States have been told of States grants legislation and money for schools and roads but that is not the legislation or the part of the Budget that provides a prospective gain. It is the revenue proposals including the excise proposals. For the first time, this Prime Minister, with his great standards, condones the leaking of that information to the President of the Australian Labor Party. For what purpose? To gain political support. **Mr Hawke** will not support the Budget unless he hears about it beforehand and can be persuaded that it is an adequate document. What nonsense, humbug, deceit and deception is involved in the heart of this Government. Now the Prime Minister, in the last and most desperate act of all, seeks to govern without the Appropriation Bills. By what device is he going to do it? By what device is he going to take this country on the first significant but important step towards dictatorship in ignoring the Parliament and making parliamentary appropriations quite irrelevant? This is the greatest threat to democracy since the foundation of this federation. Partly because of the nature of this threat, partly because of the nature of this Prime Minister, we, with completely unanimous support, made a reasonable and responsible proposal on Monday which would have enabled the people of Australia to vote. It would have provided a reasonable and proper solution to this problem. *(Honourable members interjecting)-* {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER: -Listen to the people opposite, **Mr Speaker.** They are terrified of facing the electors of Australia- every one of them. They are terrified of facing the people of Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I suggest to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that he remain silent. I also suggest that the honourable members sitting behind the Leader of the Opposition also remain silent. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr MALCOLM FRASER: **-Mr Speaker,** if I may say so without disrespect to you- it is not meant as disrespect for the Chair because I have great respect for you and the way in which the office is carried out by you- I sometimes wish members on the Government side of the chamber were not restrained in these matters so that everyone can understand them for what they are, know them for what they are, and know what they are doing to democracy in Australia. The proposal was a reasonable and a proper one. Its acceptance would preserve the parliamentary institution of which the Senate as well as the House of Representatives is a part and would preserve the right of the people of Australia to vote. The one threat to democracy is when one gets a Prime Minister of this kind who is terrified to face the electors of Australia, terrified to face his masters, because he knows that he would be banished. I move: >That all words after 'the Senate' be omitted and the following substituted therefor > >endorses the message from the Senate and concurs with it; > >denounces the proposal of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the Government will continue to finance the functions of the Government without passage of the Appropriation Bills; and > >deplores the failure of the Prime Minister to resign and set a date for a general election for the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is the amendment seconded? {: #debate-26-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
New England -- I second the amendment. The whole climate of the debate that has just begun with the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** - Motion (by **Mr Daly)** put: That the question be now put. The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 55 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put- That the motion (Mr Whitlam's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 62 NOES: 55 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2838 {:#debate-27} ### LOAN BILL 1975 [No! 2] {: #debate-27-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -I have received the following message from the Senate: >The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution agreed to this day, during consideration of the Bill for 'An Act to Authorize the Raising and Expending of Moneys for Defence Purposes', viz.: > >That this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgement of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of- > >the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the overseas loan scandal which was an attempt by the Government to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass Parliament and to evade its responsibilities to the States and the Loan Council; > >the Prime Minister's failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people; and > >the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation 's potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years. Motion ( by **Mr Daly)** agreed to: >That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting. {: #debate-27-s1 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I want to talk about the way this Government has brutalised the great democracy of this chamber - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I warn the honourable member for Griffith to sit down. The question is that the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 6.9 p.m. *Adjournment* 5 November 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 2839 Motion (by **Mr Daly)** proposed: >That the House do now adjourn. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP **- Mr Speaker** - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The question is - {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP **- Mr Speaker** - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Griffith sit down. The question is that the House do now adjourn. I call the honourable member for Griffith. {: #debate-27-s2 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP **- Mr Speaker** - {: .page-start } page 2840 {:#debate-28} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Australian Broadcasting Commission: McKinsey Report (Question No. 2735) {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the cost of the McKinsey Report into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. 1. Have the recommendations been accepted. 2. 3 ) Which recommendations have been implemented. {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Because this was a transaction involving another party, McKinsey and Co. Inc., the ABC believes it would not be proper to make public the terms of the transaction. 1. Yes. 2. A number, such as the appointment of Radio and Television Media Heads, measurement of the total cost per ABC-produced television hour, and the establishment of an analytical support group for the Commission and Senior Management. Australian Broadcasting Commission: McKinsey Report (Question No. 2736) {: #subdebate-28-0-s2 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon: asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the McKinsey Report recommend that all programming for ABC radio should be under one Assistant General Manager and all ABC television programming under another Assistant General Manager. 1. Is the General Manager maintaining direct responsibility for all news programs. {: #subdebate-28-0-s3 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-28-1} #### Canned Fruit (Question No. 3208) {: #subdebate-28-1-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is canned fruit included in the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. 1. Are there any restrictions on the sale of Australian canned fruit in New Zealand; if so why. {: #subdebate-28-1-s1 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The only item of canned fruit in Schedule A, which lists all the items to which the free trade provisions of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement apply, is canned prunes. 1. Imports of canned fruit into New Zealand from all countries are subject to import duties (except canned prunes from Australia) and import licensing. Australian canned fruit is subject to lower rates of import duty than are applied to canned fruit from most other countries. {:#subdebate-28-2} #### Therapeutic Drugs (Question No. 3213) {: #subdebate-28-2-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it a fact that although approval of initial evaluation applications for new therapeutic drugs have been accelerated they still take on average 12 months longer than similar drugs submitted to the FDA in the United States. 1. With the increased number of drug applications released for clinical trials, is there now a shortage of suitable ' pharmacologists which will mean a delay of up to S years before some will be available for marketing registration. 2. If so, what is the Government doing to overcome this long delay. 3. What is being done, and with what success, to obtain reciprocal arrangements with countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United States to expedite clinical evaluation procedures. {: #subdebate-28-2-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As I am unaware of the average time taken by the FDA to approve new drugs I am unable to comment on this point. However I am informed that while the FDA does have a time schedule for processing applications this schedule is not consistently met. It is also fair to say that a number of important new drugs have in fact been granted marketing approval in Australia before the United States. 1. and (3) While there are two vacancies for pharmacologists which have not been filled because of departmental staff ceilings, the shortage is not such that there will be up to S years delay before some drug applications are available for marketing registration. 2. The Department is presently negotiating with a number of countries, including those mentioned to institute reciprocal arrangements for drug evaluations. At the same time the National Council of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries through its member companies with overseas principals and affiliates, is collaborating to ascertain their views on reciprocal arrangements. Preliminary communications indicate favourable responses from some of the drug control authorities contacted. However to date the Department has received no response from the NCCPI as to the attitude of the drug companies towards allowing the overseas evaluations to be made available to my Department on a confidential basis. {:#subdebate-28-3} #### Health Manpower Requirements (Question No. 3237) {: #subdebate-28-3-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What contact and co-ordination is there between his Department and the Commissions responsible to the Minister for Education on future health manpower requirements. 1. What recommendations were made to these Commissions in respect of the need for increasing the output of therapists, nurses, dentists and medical practitioners, and how successful were they for the 1976-78 period. 2. ) Did it become obvious that the necessary increased capacity would not be provided; if so, did he personally intervene with the Minister for Education. 3. Is it considered that the long term effectiveness of the Community Health Program and the School Dental Scheme will be reduced, unless there is an early increase in capacity in these areas of health manpower. {: #subdebate-28-3-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Analysis of future health manpower requirements and the making of recommendations thereon is being undertaken by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. The Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Committee on Technical and Further Education are all represented on the Committee on Health Careers (Personnel and Training), formed by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission to advise it on health manpower matters. Furthermore, initiatives by the Universities Commission to determine future health manpower requirements, specifically of medical practitioners and dentists, have both been conducted in close collaboration with the Department of Health. 1. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission, in its report 'Australian Health Manpower' which was tabled in Parliament in March 197S, recommended increases in the output of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech pathologists. The Commission also recommended an increased output in other health occupations, not mentioned in the Question on Notice- viz., chiropodists, medical record librarians and optometrists. The Commission made no recommendations on increasing the supply of nurses for the reasons advanced in Chapter 19 of the Report. Recommendations to the Australian Government on dental and medical manpower were basically made by the Universities Commission in its report of December 1974 ' Future Demand for Dentists in Australia- A Survey of the Supply of and Future Requirements for Dentists' and of July 1973 'Expansion of Medical Education' respectively. The recommendations made in respect of therapists were that the interim targets for occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech pathologists in active practice be a ratio of one per 10 000, 5000 and 20 000 population respectively. The extent to which plans relating to courses in 1976-78 will facilitate achievement of these recommended interim targets cannot yet be determined. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Not applicable- see reply to part 2 above. 1. The long term effectiveness of all health services is dependent upon the availability of suitable personnel, and in this regard the Community Health Program and the School Dental Scheme are no exception. The recommendations made concerning increased supply in the various health occupations have been made having regard to the total demand on those personnel including that of the Community Health Program. Similarly the forecast of demand for dentists includes the demand of the School Dental Scheme. In addition, the demands of the School Dental Scheme for dental therapists will be met by the establishment of training schools for dental therapists. {:#subdebate-28-4} #### Fawnmac Companies (Question No. 3287) {: #subdebate-28-4-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When considering the purchase of the Fawnmac Companies, was he or the Australian Industry Development Corporation aware that the Companies had been offered for sale in 1972-73 for about $2m. 1. Did he or the AIDC ascertain the price paid for the Companies from the Lowe family; if so, what was the figure; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-28-4-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. However, I was aware that the Liberal-Country Party Government had in November 1972 made an interim order under the Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Act 1972 prohibiting the sale of shares in the Fawnmac Group to Syntex 1. 1 was aware that the business was purchased from the Lowe family. However, this was a private transaction between the Lowe family and UNITUS Pty Ltd and as such I am unaware of the details of the purchase price. I might add, this was the only wholly owned Australian company which AIDC recommended to the Australian Government for purchase. The terms of the purchase were the best that could be negotiated by AIDC. {:#subdebate-28-5} #### Cot Deaths (Question No. 3288) {: #subdebate-28-5-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the National Health and Medical Research Council provide a research grant for the investigation of the 'cot death phenomenon' at Sydney University. 1. If so, has this grant now been cancelled. 2. Is any Council financed research now being conducted into this problem. {: #subdebate-28-5-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. See(l). 2. No application for a project grant has been received. An application for a sholarship is being considered. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs: Australian Citizenship (Question No. 3261) {: #subdebate-28-5-s2 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was a circular distributed in the Department of Foreign Affairs recently asking officers to indicate whether or not they are Australian citizens. 1. If so, (a) what information was gained from these circulars and (b) to what use will this information be put. 2. Further to part (4) of the Minister's answer to question No. 2747 on 19 August 197S, has there been an amendment to the Citizenship Act so that Foreign Affairs officers who are not Australian citizens are not precluded, by virtue of the nature of their duties, from becoming Australian citizens. {: #subdebate-28-5-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. (a) Not all circulars have yet been returned and the results have not therefore been assessed. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The Department wished to know how many officers who are not Australian citizens might have their opportunity to become so affected by their service in the Department. 2. Discussions have taken place between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and' Immigration. It has become clear that, while officers who are not Australian citizens and wish to apply for citizenship must have resided in Australia continuously for one year immediately preceding the date of being granted a certificate of citizenship, the further two years of residence in Australia required for the grant of citizenship may be fulfilled while serving overseas as a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Under these conditions officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs who are not Australian citizens- and the Department naturally expects the few officers who are not yet Australian citizens to become so as soon as practicablewill normally meet the residential qualifications while pursuing their career in the normal manner. There remains one anomaly, members of the armed forces and Merchant Navy who are not Australian citizens but apply to become so are catered for by a specific exemption contained in the legislation. Other Government servants, including Foreign Affairs personnel, whose duties require them to serve overseas on a regular basis are not so exempted. {:#subdebate-28-6} #### Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3312) {: #subdebate-28-6-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control. 1. 2 ) What is the general nature of the publications. 2. 3 ) In what languages are they published. 3. When were they first published in this way. {: #subdebate-28-6-s1 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating:
Minister for Northern Australia · BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media to Question No. 1 58 1 published in Hansard of 4 December 1974, page 4590. {:#subdebate-28-7} #### Scripture Union of Australia (Question No. 3104) {: #subdebate-28-7-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: >What was the result of the work undertaken by the Scripture Union of Australia, with a grant by the Australian Government, to prepare a report in consultation with youth workers in the drop-out/unattached area. {: #subdebate-28-7-s1 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: >The Scripture Union is an Australia-wide organisation working, inter-alia, in the field of drop-out /unattached youth. The Union, at the request of youth workers active in this area, agreed to convene a conference to enable such workers to come together to consider jointly some of the issues inherent in their work. > >The Australian Government, through my Department provided a grant of $3,800 to the Scripture Union for the purpose of preparing a report on the subject. > >Seventy-five youth workers from around Australia attended the Conference from 24 to 28 September 1973 entitled 'Frontier Youth Workers' Consultation', to share their ideas and draw on overseas experience in their field. The range of youth work encompassed by those present included detached youth work, work within sub-cultures and work amongst young people who reject traditional social structures. > >The report of the findings of the Conference was submitted to me on 22 November, 1973 and has since been distributed widely. Copies are available within my Department. {:#subdebate-28-8} #### Asian Youth Council (Question No. 3107) {: #subdebate-28-8-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the Asian Youth Council. 1. What role does Australia have in it. {: #subdebate-28-8-s1 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Asian Youth Council (AYC) was founded in 1972. It is a voluntary association of Asian National Coordinating Committees of Youth Work which conceives and implements projects designed to further Asian youth cooperation. I am sending a copy of the Asian Youth Council Statutes to the right honourable member from which he can learn in more detail the aims and objectives of AYC 1. Membership of AYC is open to representative national committees of youth organisations from countries in Asia. Australian youth has been represented at AYC by the National Youth Council of Australia. In the initial year, funds for establishment expenses and operating costs for the first year were contributed by member organisations. The Australian Government through my Department, provided a non-recurrent grant of $10,000 as Australia 's contribution to these expenses.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 November 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751105_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant