House of Representatives
11 November 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 11.45 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2589

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Budget 1976-77

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 Budget will increase unemployment to unprecedented and crisis proportions at a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially school-leavers, young workers and apprentices, are without work; the Budget completes the dismantling of Medibank as a simple, effective universal health insurance scheme, providing basic coverage for the total community; the Budget, by its heavy cuts in urban and transport programs, will worsen the quality of life available to many Australians; the Budget will compel state governments to reduce their services and increase charges; the Budget reduces spending on Aboriginal affairs by 30 per cent and returns expenditure on Aborigines to pre- 1972 days; the Budget seriously disadvantages migrant groups, most notably in employment and health, and leaves room for concern over the future of ethnic radio; the Budget, despite the government’s earlier rhetoric about defence threats to Australia, continues to hold the size of the armed services at present levels; and the Budget, despite all the above, still cannot be expected to reduce Austria’s annual inflation rate below twelve per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the 1976 Budget be redrafted to provide for economic recovery within the guide-lines laid down by the Australian Labor Government’s 1975 Budget.

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

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land m the Northern Territory.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should:

  1. Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims has been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aborigines should not be penalised;

  2. Amend the Bill to ensure:

    1. The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.
    2. The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.
    3. The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.
    4. The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Right Bill.
    5. A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both houses of parliament.
    6. A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.
    7. The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Symphony Orchestra in Newcastle

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the huble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Hunter Valley Region respectfully showeth the lack of a resident professional symphony orchestra in Newcastle and surrounding areas, with consequent denial to the citizens of adequate provision of concerts, opera, ballet, school concerts, teaching of various orchestral instruments and career opportunities for young musicians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to the provision of funds, in association with the N.S.W. State Government, Local Governments and the community of this region, for the establishment and maintenance of the Hunter Symphony Orchestra, consisting initally of 40 players, located in Newcastle and serving the cultural needs of the 500 000 inhabitants of the region, in accordance with the proposal and budget submitted to the Industries Assistance Commission, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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 our concern for single pensioners or married pensioners who have lost their partners, about funeral expenses. With married couples the normal pension is continued for twelve weeks after the death of one of the partners and this helps pay for funeral arrangements. This benefit is denied a single pensioner. We believe this benefit could be easily extended to single pensioners and we request that this be done during the current session of Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.
  4. That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved third world will increase yet further.
  7. That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uranium mining.

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

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

Petition received.

South Africa

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the recent outbreak of racial riots and killings in South Africa.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. call upon the South African Government to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination;
  2. withdraw the Australian Trade Commissioners from South Africa, in accordance with U.N. resolution 341 1G (December 1975).

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

Petition received.

Dockyards at Newcastle

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

That shipbuilding and repairs play a vital role in the economic stability of the Newcastle region.

That a recent study by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation showed that 50 000 people were partially or wholly maintained by the State Dockyard.

That stability is at present in jeopardy, as a new ship order is required within the next few weeks if serious unemployment and hardship is to be avioded.

That the previous Government’s plan for the building of a graving dock in Newcastle should be continued as proper ship repair facilities are a vital factor in the maintenance of a viable shipbuilding industry.

That the Government’s election pledge to restore business and employment can be implemented in Newcastle if new orders and a graving dock are granted.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government place immediate orders with the Newcastle State Dockyard and implement the previous Government’s plan to build a graving dock in Newcastle.

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

Petition recieved.

Governor-General

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

That, although we accept the verdict of the Australian people in the 1975 election, we do not accept the right of the Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives.

We believe that the continued presence of Sir John Kerr as Governor-General is a cause of division among the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on Sir John Kerr to resign as Australian Governor-General.

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

Petition received.

page 2590

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2590

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has the Government made a decision on any aspects of uranium mining or exports? If so, will a prompt announcement be made, as was done in relation to Fraser Island?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable gentleman must be able to read my mind because the Government has made certain decisions in these matters. At an appropriate time today- I am not sure what time the Leader of the House has organised- a statement will be made which will indicate the extent of any decisions taken to this point. There will then be adequate opportunity to debate the matters in the Parliament. If the wider community wishes to debate these matters, obviously it will be able to discuss the decisions which the Government has so far taken. I do not want to pre-empt that statement. I hope it will have the universal support of the honourable gentleman.

page 2591

QUESTION

SYDNEY NEWSPAPER DISPUTE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA · LP

-I ask the Prime Minister What is the position relating to industrial disputes concerning John Fairfax and Sons Ltd in Sydney? Can the Government take any action in this matter?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The disputes in Sydney involving John Fairfax and Sons Ltd are of very great importance and the Government, at this point, has shown a very real measure of patience in regard to any actions which it might have taken, especially in relation to its own employees. The position began with a strike by the Printing and Kindred Industries Union about 3 weeks ago. The Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union became involved in the issue about 2 weeks ago in support of the PKIU. Since the APTU has been involved no mail has been delivered to John Fairfax and Sons. At the same time, I am advised that if telephones or telex machines went out of operation they would not be repaired. In relation to the PKIU, the matter has gone to the New South Wales Industrial Commission on more than one occasion, I think, and the Industrial Commission, an instrument under law of the New South Wales Government, has said that the bans ought to be lifted and that the members of the union ought to return to work. That direction has been ignored. As I indicated, the APTU also joined in this matter about 2 weeks ago. As a result of that, John Fairfax and Sons approached the New South Wales Supreme Court to get the Court to lift the bans, if in the Court’s judgment that were the proper course. I am advised that the Court made such a judgment but the bans remain.

We have a situation in which one union is defying the New South Wales Industrial Commission, that is in the New South Wales industrial jurisdiction; and another union is in defiance of the Supreme Court. This is a serious situation, and I believe that to an extent the seriousness is compounded by the fact that this kind of action, selectively directed against the media, can impose a kind of censorship in Australia which is utterly alien to our democratic system of government and it ought not to be tolerated.

There is another matter involved. Members of the APTU who are employees of the Postal

Commission are clearly employees of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth will not abide a situation in which employees of the Commonwealth gain full pay for doing part of their job. That is the situation which has developed. Members of the union are indicating selectively that’ they are not going to do all their work, that they will do only that part of it which pleases them, but they seek to gain full pay in that situation. Obviously that makes it possible for members of the union to direct industrial action selectively against a company or against an industry at no penalty and at no cost whatsoever to members of the union concerned. In those circumstances, and with the patience the Commonwealth has shown to this point in relation to the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Industrial Commission being defied, the Commonwealth is not prepared to stand by with the powers available to it and not use those powers.

Mr Innes:

– Tell us what you are going to do.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Honourable gentlemen opposite are now starting to listen to this answer. If they will wait a moment they will hear exactly what the Government has determined to do over this matter. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be calling the Postal Commission into formal conference this afternoon and, if it is necessary, the Minister will be prepared to direct the Postal Commission to seek the insertion of a bans clause in the award. That bans clause will be applied if the situation continues.

page 2591

QUESTION

OVERSEAS RESERVES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that Australia’s overseas reserves fell by $269m during October and that there was a net outflow of capital of $258m in that month? Was this the third consecutive month in which there was a net outflow of capital? Has private capital outflow for the last 3 months been $20m in August, $238m in September and $230m in October? Are Australia’s reserves now sufficient to finance only 3 months of imports? If so, what does the Government intend to do to rectify this disaster?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not quite know why the honourable gentleman should seek to keep up a series of questions in this House on a subject which he knows to be a sensitive matter both for a question and, indeed, for an answer by a Treasurer. The .honourable gentleman is very much aware of the general policy which the Government is pursuing and which it has made abolutely clear on a number of occasions. The honourable gentleman is also very much aware of the official borrowing program that the Government has embarked upon for reasons that have been laid down in this House on a number of occasions.

The honourable gentleman says that there are only 3 months of reserves. Of course, the facts are that the reserves at the end of October were $2.36 billion. That is equal to 3 months’ imports or about 3Vi months’ if the gold component of reserves is valued at market prices. The reserves are at a comfortable level. The underlying external position remains sound. Exports, as the honourable gentleman knows, to the 4 months to October were up 29 per cent on the same period for the previous year. Imports in the 4 months period were up 25 per cent on the same period for the previous year.

I have mentioned before that the Government is pursuing a program of official borrowing pending a pick up in private capital flows against the background of recovery prospects and the winding down of inflation. I do not believe that I need to add to this. In fact on this general matter, questions would be better placed on the notice paper.

page 2592

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of decisions by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to reduce expenditure by $2m? Will this mean that a number of public affairs programs, including State of the Nation, This Day Tonight, Four Corners and Monday Conference, will be reduced? Will the Government be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to a request from the ABC for additional funds to cover cost increases?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I want first of all to make the point that the budgetary restraints placed upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission were no greater than the restraints placed upon the rest of Government expenditure. I am aware that yesterday there was a meeting of the Commission and a decision was taken to reduce expenditure by $2m. It has been decided that there will be a reduction or an elimination of some programs. State of the Nation, This Day Tonight, Monday Conference and others have been mentioned in that context. I would be prepared to say that of course we would like the Australian Broadcasting Commission to maintain the highest possible number of public affairs programs, particularly if they are presented in an objective manner. When the Chairman of the Commission writes to me, as I understand he proposes to do, putting the facts before me, I will study them and if I believe that they justify an approach to the Government, that approach will be .made.

page 2592

QUESTION

WORKER PARTICIPATION

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of the recent statement at a productivity conference in Melbourne by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in which he urged companies to provide worker participation schemes in their managerial affairs? Does the Minister agree with his colleague’s statement, and if so can he say when he is going to appoint a trade union representative to the board of Qantas Airways Ltd, following the resignation of Jack Egerton from all trade union activities? Also, can he say when he is going to appoint trade union representatives to the National Airlines Commission and to the National Material Handling Bureau which are commissions and authorities under his jurisdiction.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member for Newcastle obviously has not caught up with the change in administrative arrangements. The National Materials Handling Bureau now comes under the auspices and control of my new colleague, the Minister for Productivity and I will allow him to answer for that organisation. As far as Qantas is concerned, Sir Jack Egerton was appointed by the Labor Government. I thought that that was a very proper appointment at the time and I said so. He was reappointed by me, as Minister for Transport, for a new 5-year term, and he will remain on the Qantas board for that time. I think he would represent the trade union movement much better that a lot of the loud mouthed spokesmen in this House and outside it. Therefore I have no intention whatsoever of doing anything about that appointment or any other trade union appointment to the Qantas board. Consideration is being given to appointments to the Australian Airlines Commission. They will be announced at the appropriate time. I think that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has shown great leadership in this question of managementemployee relationship- something which the previous Labor Government might have taken more seriously.

page 2592

QUESTION

ST GEORGE AREA: TRANSPORT PROBLEMS

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Transport aware of the serious heavy transport problem in the St George area of Sydney? Will the proposed

Kyeemagh-Chullora country road alleviate the problem? Is the Minister prepared to authorise funds for this project?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-The honourable member for St George invited me to visit his electorate some weeks ago and I accepted the invitation. I was very impressed with the way in which the honourable member handled matters concerning his electorate. He has been most vigorous in placing before me the transport problems of St George and I congratulate him for it. It is fair to say that the Kyeemagh-Chullora road, which the honourable member mentioned, was presented to the Federal Government by the previous Willis State Government as a No. 1 priority road for development to solve the transport problems of the whole of the area. Regrettably, when the new State Labor Government came to power it took that priority away and did not in fact place any emphasis on other roads in the area for quick development. The result is, therefore, that Commonwealth funds are not going into the area as perhaps they should and could. I assure the honourable member that should the New South Wales Government put that road back in its list of priorities funds will be made available. There are still $6m in funds available for export roads in New South Wales. I hope that the New South Wales Government will see the force of the representations being made by the honourable member for St George and include the road concerned in its list of priorities.

page 2593

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that some members of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority who have been under notice of dismissal since July but have now obtained alternative employment through their own efforts are being refused permission to resign from the Authority with full redundancy entitlements? Will the Minister give an undertaking that irrespective of the Government’s decision on the plans for the restructuring of the industry, staff of the Authority who have received notice of retrenchment at the direction of the Minister and who have obtained alternative employment by their own efforts will be allowed to leave the Authority with their full redundancy entitlements?

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, I am aware of the problem to which the honourable member has referred. I expect to be making a statement on the future of the stevedoring industry during the current session. As the honourable member would be aware, following long and detailed discussions with the unions involved satisfactory redundancy arrangements were arrived at for the members of the staff of the Authority. I am concerned at the uncertainty which surrounds thenimmediate future employment. Once I have made the parliamentary statement that I mentioned a moment ago I intend to confer again with the unions concerned on such issues as the honourable gentleman has raised.

page 2593

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN ADELAIDE

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will recall that in August he undertook to have the problems facing those in the foothill suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide now dependent on cable television resolved as a matter of urgency. What is to be done to provide continuous reception for these viewers? Will a UHF translator be installed? If so, when? In the meantime, will the commitment of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to provide funds to enable cable viewing to continue to operate on a non-profit, no loss basis be honoured? Is the Board bound by the commitments of its officers? Is it in the habit of welshing on its obligations? What action will be taken against officers who purport to make commitments on behalf of the Board in circumstances which do not bind the Board?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am well aware of the problems in the foothills of Adelaide. Indeed, the honourable member for Sturt has raised this matter with me on a number of occasions. I have been over there and discussed this matter in Adelaide. I repeat once again that this problem will have to be resolved satisfactorily before the end of this year. A decision on the UHF translator has been made but regrettably its operation probably will be a year to 18 months away. Obviously, some solution has to be found in the short term whilst we are awaiting that translator. I want to say this to the honourable member for Sturt: I will not comment publicly upon his obvious criticism of an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Board cannot promise funds. The Board does not have funds to expend on this matter. I will have to content myself by saying to the honourable member for Sturt that he is aware I know of the details of the discussions and conversations. He is aware I have indicated that I believe this is a matter that has to be resolved. I am looking for a short term solution which will get us over the immediate problem.

page 2594

QUESTION

REPORT ON WELFARE AND HEALTH

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Government received the interim report of the Bailey task force on co-ordination in welfare and health which was due at the end of last month? Will he table the report in the Parliament so that State governments, local government bodies and the many organisations engaged in federally funded health and welfare programs are given the opportunity to examine its recommendations prior to any action the Government takes upon it and, in case the recommendations in the report do not command universal support, make representations upon them?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for that question. I have not yet received a copy of the report. As the honourable gentleman would know, it covers a very large area. I am not saying that the draft report is not available; I am saying that I have not received it. It is not over my desk. Clearly, there will be matters of very great importance to be considered in relation to it. I am advised that in some of the aspects of the report, the inquiry has been influenced by the report of the Henderson inquiry into poverty. I think that it will be a very valuable document. It will certainly deserve the most serious consideration not only by the Commonwealth Government but also by this Parliament and by other people involved in the delivery of welfare services. We will not be intending to rush decisions as a result of the report. I hope that the honourable gentleman will understand me when I say that I would not want to pre-empt decisions about the precise handling of it until I have the report and have seen it.

page 2594

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD WORKS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Transport will recall only too well that the New South Wales Minister for Transport did not abide by the Commonwealth’s request that the additional $ 11.3m recently made available to that State be used for local government road works with special emphasis on rural local roads. I ask the Minister Has he received any notification from the New South Wales Minister that he will abide by the Commonwealth’s request or is the New South Wales Government still the only State government yet to make up its mind on this issue?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– I am not sure whether confirmation has come in officially from the New South Wales Government that it has accepted my request that the $ 11.3m go to rural arterial roads and to rural local roads. But my information is that it is prepared to accept that request.

page 2594

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Treasurer Has yet another responsible body, namely, the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research of the University of Melbourne, forecast that 1977 will see rising inflation, increased unemployment and a breakdown in wage indexation? Does the report claim that the economy has remained stagnant, that output has increased only marginally, that unemployment is rising and that the growth of real gross domestic product for 1976-77 will be only 1 per cent? In view of the constant and repeated claims by responsible economic analysts, such as this type of organisation, that the Government has missed the boat to economic recovery, will the Government review its policies to restore confidence?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I am acquainted With the survey recently conducted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. The House will recall that I have said on earlier occasions, going back to 1972, that I have a sense of muted enthusiasm for the recommendations which that body puts forward, and that attitude remains. The fact is that the Institute is perfectly entitled, as are others in the Australian community, to put forward its views on the direction which economic policy ought to take in this country. I simply make 2 quick points: Firstly, the forecast by the Institute of an inflation rate of 1 1 per cent during 1977 is clearly inconsistent with the most recent evidence about the rate of price increases, and I refer the House to what I said recently about the increase of 2.2 per cent in September. I am not sure that that information would have been available to the Institute at the time that it made its findings. Secondly, the investment forecast is seriously at odds with the latest survey results. As regards the particular points which the honourable gentleman made concerning a review of policies, it is my belief and that of the Government that our economic policies are working. Those policies, which resulted from our concern about the rate of inflation, are reflected in the most recent downturn in the consumer price index, as well as in the other factors to which I referred in the statement I issued last Sunday night.

page 2594

QUESTION

ALBURY-WODONGA

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and relates to AlburyWodonga. Where and when can details of the new designated area for Albury-Wodonga be obtained by the public? Are these new boundaries final or will people be able to register objections? Will those objections be considered? Has the Minister seen reports that people who wish to sell their properties will still be under a cloud? Has the Minister any comment on this report? Finally, what reaction has the Minister had from residents of Albury-Wodonga and from the States to the Commonwealth’s proposals?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for his question. Last Monday night the Ministerial Council for Albury-Wodonga met, and I am glad to say that the Council, on which Victoria and New South Wales are represented, endorsed the Commonwealth’s proposition that Albury-Wodonga should become a national pilot project. The Council went further and endorsed a program of funding for this financial year. It also examined the question of land acquisition. I am also glad to say that in considering this question the States were mindful of the argument put by the Commonwealth that this was a time for fiscal restraint. All parties, including New South Wales and Victoria, agreed that the area of land to be acquired in that region should be reduced from approximately 48 000 hectares’ to 17 000 hectares. This will mean a saving of about $45m to $50m. Turning to the first of the specific points raised in the question, the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation will publish a map on, I believe, Monday, 22 November, which will show in detail those areas of AlburyWodonga which are now to be acquired.

With regard to the second part of the question concerning appeal or debate, the Ministers concerned considered this question very carefully and took into account all aspects of the decision to reduce the area of land to be acquired. The decision is final. As to the last part of the question, I have had no reaction from anybody in the area. I finish as I began by saying that all Ministers from the States of Victoria and New South Wales endorsed unqualifiedly the proposals which I have talked about today.

page 2595

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN MARYBOROUGH DISTRICT

When, if at all, does he expect to have talks with State and local government representatives regarding projects for employment? Further, is he aware that an amount of almost $lm for unemployment relief schemes was paid out to local authorities last year, compared with nothing in 1976?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It has already been announced that the Government is prepared and willing to co-operate with the Queensland Government concerning investigations to promote further development of forestry and tourism and to examine the prospects of greater activity as a result of the construction of a water barrage, a project currently being advanced in the Maryborough area. The House will also recall that the export licences that were issued in relation to this matter were issued subject to the results of the inquiry. Therefore, companies proceeding with development, as they have, were doing so, to a certain degree, at risk. They were well aware of the risk involved.

The honourable gentleman has suggested that certain make-work schemes, such as the Regional Employment Development scheme, should be introduced again. Under the previous Administration, schemes such as this involved the expenditure of very large sums of money. They were abandoned as being ineffective. This Government is interested in real productive enterprise, not the kind of wasteful make-work projects promoted by the previous Government and abandoned because they were noted failures.

page 2595

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Will the Minister confirm that the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on Fraser Island is primarily concerned with the environmental aspects of Commonwealth decisions regarding the export of minerals extracted from the island? Will the Government seek to have the whole of Fraser Island classified as a world heritage area under the International Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage? Also, will the Government seek to have Fraser Island classified as part of the National Estate of Australia? In this event, will the Government also examine the impact of forestry and tourism on the environment of Fraser Island?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– The honourable member is correct in stating that under the terms of reference of the inquiry the commissioners focused their attention on the environmental aspects of the Commonwealth’s decision on the granting of export licences. The Government has already stated that it would like to see Fraser Island declared as part of the National Estate. For the information of the honourable member, the procedure for taking this action, I recall, is detailed in section 23 and section 25 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. I think the Government would also give consideration to including Fraser Island as part of the International Heritage. That could be done under the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention for the protection of the world -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is private oral warfare being conducted in one corner of the House. I will not name the honourable members concerned but if they continue to disrupt the answer of the Minister I will be forced to deal with several of them. I call the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

Mr NEWMAN:

– As I was saying, the Government will give consideration to having the island declared under the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage. We are a signatory to that Convention and that could be done. As to the matter of the management of tourism and logging on the island, when my colleague Mr Nixon and I saw the Premier yesterday we put the proposition to him that we would be very willing to co-operate in any management plans on these aspects of maintaining the island. I hope that the Premier will give serious consideration to that offer.

page 2596

QUESTION

PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that negotiations have been going on for many years for the introduction of legislation to grant patent rights to the breeders of plants, which are commonly known as plant breeders’ rights? Is it a fact that this type of patent legislation is in existence in most developed countries, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, most European countries and New Zealand? Is it also a fact that this lack of patent protection is stultifying the commercial development of better breeds of plants, grain and horticultural products, to the disadvantage of Australian agricultural production? When can plant breeders expect some action from the Government in this respect?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. It relates to an area which has concerned me for a good many years. He may not be aware that, unfortunately, within the States there is some considerable opposition to the proposition for the introduction of legislaton to protect plant breeders’ rights. Therefore it has been through consultation in the Australian Agricultural Council that the Commonwealth has attempted to develop legislation that might be acceptable. It is of course, as now interpreted, quite essential that there be complementary legislation if the plant breeders’ rights are to be effectively implemented. Without State concurrence it is impossible to extend the protection to innovation in plant varieties that the whole concept envisages.

Over the years a great deal of original work has been done in various areas in Australia in developing new plant varieties. In a number of areas there are specific establishments which have evolved new plant species. These species have been propagated. Indeed, the extent of the Australian wheat crop, in spite of the lateness of this season, illustrates the effectiveness of the work of, for example, the Narrabri Wheat Research Institute in the electorate of my colleague the Minister for Health. There are a good many private institutions as well as government sponsored institutions- that one being under the sponsorship of the University of Sydneyoperating in the field.

My concern is to try to extend the opportunities for plant breeding in Australia. I am sure that the concept is worthwhile. The Agricultural Council has given some support to extending the scheme. I can only hope that those States which are so strongly opposed to the concept at the moment might see the advantage in the long term for Australia. Indeed, I am told that if we were able to establish plant breeders’ rights we might well be able to introduce new varieties from overseas which might further develop the agricultural potential of this country. Given the uncertainties of returns to primary producers, I think this might be worth while. It is an area which I can assure the honourable member has my personal support and the support of the Federal Government. I can only hope that those States which are not inclined to support the proposal at the moment might see the advantages that would flow to their own producers if it were to be adopted.

page 2596

QUESTION

NATIONAL WAGE CASE: SYDNEY NEWSPAPER DISPUTE

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consider the major industrial dispute involving large wage claims on John Fairfax and Sons Ltd to have any significance in relation to the current national wage case?

Mr STREET:
LP

– The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has referred in previous decisions in national wage cases to the current dismal record of industrial disputation and the threat that this poses to continuation of the wage indexation guidelines. Initially the claims on the company involved in this dispute included a $20 a week extra wage, and a 35-hour week as well as certain redundancy benefits when redundancy is caused by technological change. Quite clearly the wage claim elements were outside the national wage case guidelines but the company indicated that it was perfectly willing to negotiate on the question of redundancy benefits.

Apart from the vitally important national issues involved in this dispute which have been referred to by the Prime Minister, quite clearly action of this kind puts at risk the whole future of a rational system of wage fixation in Australia. The Commonwealth has emphasised in its submissions in the national wage cases the disruptive economic and industrial effects of disputation. This particular dispute draws attention to the drastic effects of such action not only on the people immediately involved but also on the community as a whole. A small number of quite irresponsible people, repudiating- I emphasise the word ‘repudiating’- the efforts of national union leaders have prejudiced the normal conduct of business in Australia and therefore the employment prospects of thousands of workers. I have no doubt that this fact has been noted by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is hearing the current case.

page 2597

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Was the Government prepared last week to consider economic growth measure as well as the continued restrictions which it eventually adopted? Does he agree that it now appears probable that inflation will not fall at best by more than two or three points in a year, unemployment will increase and, above all, real production will fall and potential production by very much more? Does he agree now that inflation cannot be reduced unless production increases and that it is now time to adopt a growth policy to increase effective demand rather than the restrictionist one imposed on the Government by the Reserve Bank and the Treasury?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman ought to know that the Government’s policy lines in this area are quite clear. Until inflation is overcome there is not going to be full confidence throughout the Australian community for businessmen to invest and to create jobs and at the same time for consumers to spend. In countries around the world there is continuing concern at the rate of inflation. When people say we should take some specific action to overcome unemployment I would reply by saying that the most specific and most effective action to overcome unemployment is action which will overcome inflation. There is no other course to pursue.

The honourable gentleman would wish to return to the days of wild extravangance that existed two or three years ago. That kind of pump priming has been shown to be quite inapplicable in a period of high inflation and high interest rates which are a consequence of high inflation. The honourable gentleman ought to recollect that in one year government expenditure went up by 46 per cent and that in that same year unemployment went up by about 200 000. If my memory is correct, throughout the whole period of office of the previous Administration, something approaching 400 000 people entered the workforce, or the workforce expanded by that amount, none of the additional people entering the workforce were taken up by private enterprise- by business employment. What expansion there was occurred merely in the government sector. Under those circumstances we had a situation in which the Government was continually squeezing the private sector and making economic recovery impossible. Indeed, it was shoving us further over the cliff. The policy guidelines we have endorsed will be successful, as they have been in countries such as Germany. We are going to make certain they have a chance to be successful in Australia.

page 2597

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the unprecedented nature of the decision on Fraser Island sand mining and the responsibility that must logically fall upon the Australian Government to finance this National Estate acquisition, will he give an assurance that the Federal Government, on behalf of the people of Australia for whom Fraser Island is being preserved, will accept full responsibility for the financial loss to and disruption of life style of those people affected by the decision?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The Government has a number of programs designed to assist in these circumstances. As to the rest of the question I would only emphasise the point again that the companies pursued these matters under export licences which were subject to the inquiry. Companies taking that kind of action are doing so at their own risk. In addition to these matters, I am advised that there is a dispute involving one of the major companies in this area in relation to export contracts. The other party, the purchaser of the product, is trying to get out of the contract by saying that the contract is null and void. If that view is upheld I understand that one of the companies will have no export contracts. If it does not have any export contracts it does not have an operation.

page 2598

QUESTION

SPECIAL EDUCATION CENTRES

Mr INNES:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. He will be aware that the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties in its report which was tabled on 14 October discussed the Macquarie University’s special education centre at some length and, on page 51, made this point:

The location of the Centre in a teacher training institution enables the resources to be available to assist both preservice and in-service training of teachers. This would appear to the Committee an economic use of resources.

I ask the Minister Does the present Government intend to develop similar institutions across Australia so that improvements in teacher education can take place in the area of learning difficulties? If the Minister is incapable of answering the question I hope I get an answer a little more promptly than I did to the previous question which I asked.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The position of my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Education, in regard to this matter is not personally known to me. I shall inquire of him the position and provide the honourable gentleman with an answer.

page 2598

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr LYNCH(FlindersTreasurer)Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 I present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2598

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney General · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Law Reform Commission for 1976.

page 2598

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to changes to education administration in the Australian Capital Territory.

page 2598

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77.

page 2598

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received advice from the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) that he has withdrawn the matter of public importance which he had submitted for discussion today.

page 2598

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Anniversary of Dismissal of Labor Government

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the consideration of Order of the Day No. 1, Government Business, grievance debate, being continued until 1 o’clock p.m.

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are two ways of regarding the events in this place whose anniversary is remembered today by millions of our fellow-countrymen. The first is to treat this day- 1 1 November- as the end of the first year of the Fraser Government. We can look back on that year and take stock of the Government’s performance. That is a political exercise and a highly instructive one; I shall return to it. The second approach is to review the events of that day in the light of their constitutional significance, to consider their implications for parliamentary democracy and for the future stability of our country. That is the more important and more urgent task for all members of this Parliament and for all Australians who respect its traditions and value its survival.

On 1 1 November last year my colleagues and I, for all our different backgrounds and different temperaments, had a shared belief, an instinctive realisation, that what was happening that day represented the supreme challenge to all we had stood and fought for, to everything we held in common, to everthing for which we had devoted the greater part of our energies for 3 years and the greater part of our working lives. Our Party had been out of office for 23 years. As democrats we had accepted that because, though one may argue about the electoral system, we respected the will of the people and we believed that in time the will of the people would give us the chance we sought. And it did. We came to office after 23 years in a time of international economic crisis; after 18 months our term was cut short. We faced another election; we won it. Half way through a second term we were challenged again by the Senate; we fought that challenge; we were dismissed by the Governor-General. One does not need to believe in conspiracy theories or to indulge in emotive recriminations to imagine the feelings of Australians who had twice voted Labor into power. So if I speak on Grievance Day it is not because we grieve for the Labor Government or grieve for ourselves, but because we grieve for the hopes of millions of Australians who supported us, millions who believed that the system of government we profess to uphold offered them some hope, some fair chance of participation in the democratic process. We grieve for the damage done to the democratic system and for the lost faith of those who believed in it.

This is an emotional response, an essentially human response to 1 1 November and the joyless conquest that came after- joyless not least for the victors. But our case does not rest on emotion alone. Our objections to what happened are based on the oldest and firmest principles of constitutional law and parliamentary practice. We took our stand on 11 November on a simple issue: Is a government with a majority in a democratically elected House of Representatives to be allowed to govern, or is it not? We took our stand on the principle that a Prime Minister who derives his authority, his very office, from the House of Representatives is entitled to remain in office while he commands the confidence of that House. All the words of our opponents cannot alter the fact that on 1 1 November that ancient principle was turned on its head, and the rules and precedents of centuries of parliamentary practice were ignored. I believe it is possible now, with emotion recollected in tranquillity, to see the salient features of our case even more clearly than we perceived them at the time. Certain things stand out from the welter of words and arguments canvassed since last November, and I shall deal with just two of them.

First let me state as fairly as I can what I might call the basic conservative case. The defence of the Senate’s action rests on the proposition that the Senate is a popularly elected House and, except in certain limited matters specified in the Constitution, enjoys equal powers with the House of Representatives. Therefore, so the conservative argument goes, the Senate may withhold Supply from a government, and a government without Supply must immediately resign. There are two central flaws- fatal flaws- in this argument. The first is that the Labor Government on 1 1 November was not without Supply; the second is that whatever the force of convention in these matters, the view that the Senate is a democratic House comparable with the House of Representatives can never be sustained. It is a parody of democracy to assert that a govenment must be responsible to a chamber elected on a grossly unequal system of representation; a chamber whose numbers can be varied, and have indeed been varied, by State Premiers without regard to the electors’ will; whose members at some times have been chosen 3 years or 6 years before the members of this House, and who can bring about an election for the House of Representatives without having to face an election themselves.

The other point I make is a simpler and more obvious one. Everyone accepts that this House alone can form a government; that is its primary and exclusive power. It follows that this House alone can remove a government, for the power to form a government must carry with it the power to preserve and sustain that government in office. No one asserts that the Senate can form a government; its powers in that regard are inferior to those of the lower House. Yet conservatives, while denying the right of the Senate to form a government, assert its right to remove one. The power of the lower House to form a government is now, we are told, conditional on the concurrence of another chamber which has no such power. It seems to me that, notwithstanding legal arguments and constitutional precedents, the attempt to claim superior powers for the Senate over this House involves us in a logical contradiction. The Senate’s assertion of power was not only undemocratic but manifestly absurd.

This is a Government that overturned all accepted rules, traditions and decencies in a rush for power. And for what results? The record of the Government speaks for itself. It is a Government that has broken its election promises as it broke the rules. It is a Government that promised a magic cure for the economic problems that beset the entire western world; far from curing these problems it has made them worse. It promised an end to the recession; the recession is deepening. It promised jobs for all Australians; yet unemployment now stands higher than it has since the Depression, and it is rising, not falling. It promised a return to business confidence; that confidence is lower than ever. It promised to retain Medibank; Medibank has been dismantled. It promised to support wage indexation; it lias undertaken a systematic attack on the real wages of employees. It promised to retain tax deductions for home buyers; it is curtailing those deductions and thereby depriving half a million home owners of tax benefits worth $40m a year. It promised to maintain federal funds for Aborigines; it has cut them. It has attacked the Australian Broadcasting Commission; it has stunted the growth centres; it has damaged our relations with foreign powers. It has embarked on policies which can lead only to the slow and steady suspension of all the best and most creative achievements of the Labor Government.

So on this Remembrance Day we lament 2 things: The damage to democracy caused by the Liberals in opposition, and the damage to our nation caused by the Liberals in government. The result of all their dishonesty, their ruthless greed for power, their contempt for rules and propriety, is not just to destroy for ever the credibility of the Liberal Party. If that were all it did the remedy could be left safely in the people’s hands. What the Liberals have done is to damage the whole fabric of trust between the electors and elected governments. And the effects of the damage will be felt for years to come- in growing cynicism and in a slow corruption of the standards of public life. It will continue until we return to honesty and decency in government; until the rules of our democratic system are restored and upheld; until the Australian people reelect a government that stands once again for progress, humanity and justice, a Labor Government.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-A few minutes ago I requested leave to withdraw a proposal for the discussion of a matter of public importance believing that perhaps the Labor Opposition had grown up and that it would stop deliberately inflaming the public with bogus arguments that have now gone on for 12 months.

Mr Morris:

– You were instructed to withdraw it.

Mr HYDE:

– If the honourable member listens he will find that my remarks are instructive. Ever since 1 1 November 1975 Australia has endured a barrage of inflammatory statements concerning the events of that day which lead to the election of 13 December last year. This dissention has been carefully fostered in the public mind and we have suffered for it at home and abroad. We have suffered a discredited ex-Prime Minister trying to rewrite the history books to his own benefit. He probably really does believe that if he had been left to govern just a little longer he could have corrected the mistakes that he had so far made. It is normal to feel bitter when you are deprived of the spoils of office. It is not uncommon for a losing team to cry ‘foul’ but I did not expect that the losing team would go on crying ‘foul’ for 12 months.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We had a crook umpire.

Mr HYDE:

– The umpire was appointed by the present Leader of the Opposition. I still believe these arguments should be ignored. I withdrew my matter of public importance this morning in the belief that the Opposition was not going to pursue these bogus arguments any longer.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You sought to argue earlier.

Mr HYDE:

– I became hopeful that the Labor Party was not going to press its arguments today and was not going to inflame public passion further. However the speech from the Leader of the Opposition was aimed at just that. These bogus arguments must be answered because, as Dr Goebbels said, untruths that are repeated often enough come to be believed.

The Labor Party was sacked not once but 3 times. It was sacked by the Senate, by the GovernorGeneral and by the people. All the steps of last year did nothing but return the decision to the people. A lot of false argument has been used to suggest that it was tyranny, that in some way the power to govern had been assumed by the then Opposition. What was asserted was the authority of the people. It rests with them, and it was returned to them. Government was chosen by the people as it is expected to be in any democracy. Among all the bogus examples from history about tyranny only one is relevant. It is the suggestion that somehow or other the then Government might govern without Supply, like Charles I during the 11 year tyranny. The Government was prepared to carry on without money and in spite of the people. Even if this had been legal it would have been a repetition of government without the sanction of the people. That is the relevant precedent from history.

We very carefully culled the arguments that have been used by Labor Party apologists. We put together some fifteen of them. We believe that the list was exhaustive. We were able to pick off each one of them- taking the debate onto the Labor Party’s grounds and conducting the debate on the grounds that Labor’s own apologists had selected. We managed to mark off each one of those arguments as bogus. There is not a single argument that suggests that the rules were in any way brought into question or that the conventions were in any way brought into question last year.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the events of last year?

Mr HYDE:

-In fact the events of last year demonstrated the value of the conventions. The events returned the power to the people. At no stage was there any usurpation of power by anyone but the people; the people were given the opportunity to exercise their authority.

Mr Morris:

– Six-monthly elections.

Mr HYDE:

– Exercise of the reserve powers of the Governor-General was a demonstration that it is necessary at some stage to return a corrupt and incompetent government to its masters. It would be more sensible to worry lest the Senate, when a Party has a majority in both Houses, might not exercise the power that properly belongs to it. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has as much responsibility for the good government of this country as has the Government itself. A corrupt, irresponsible and ineffective government should answer to the people. It has been suggested by interjection that we might have elections every 6 months. The reason we will not have elections every 6 months is that there is a political sanction against that happening, not a legal sanction. There is an effective political sanction. If an opposition sends a government to the people and that government is not thoroughly discredited, the people will vote against the party that sent the government to the people and return the government to office. So there is a political sanction against the over-use of this power. It is a power that should be properly used. It should be used with caution admittedly, but what happened on 13 December last demonstrated that it was properly used. The people of Australia wanted a change of government. The powers that were used to bring about that change of government were carefully written into the Constitution and any reader of constitutional debates will find countless references to the power to reject.

Dr Klugman:

– You should read the Constitution.

Mr HYDE:

– I can read the Constitution and this provision is very clear in it. It is very clear that those who wrote our Constitution knew exactly what they were doing. There would have been no Federation if that power had not been reserved to the Senate. Deakin very carefully spelt out to the Constitutional Convention how that power would be used. It was clear in his mind that it would be used to dismiss a government; and that is what it should be used for, to dismiss a government that has been thoroughly discredited. This rewriting of history by a man who does not care about the future of either his own Party or this country is not particularly just to those men whom he sacked when he was leader of the Government. In rewriting the history books there is an obligation to be fair to those men who were sacked. The truth of the matter must come out eventually.

I fear that if this matter is not rationally and carefully debated and the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to go on putting a viewpoint unchallenged because we do not wish to raise dissention, the one-sided argument will write lies into the history books that may be unfair to Australia and to some people. In spite of what the Leader of the Opposition says, I am reminded of the quotation:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

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

-This day, 1 1 November 1976, is indeed an auspicious occasion because it marks the anniversary of the sacking of the Whitlam Government. We on this side of the chamber would have appreciated a debate as a matter of urgency on the question raised by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde). There are many divisions in the Australian nation, this day, and they directly relate to the events of 1 1 November last. Let me make it very clear that from the point of view of democracy the Whitlam Government was denied its democratic right to remain in office for 3 years. It is because of this that right now meetings are being held throughout Australia. The citizens for democracy are meeting in their thousands this day in all capital cities. In Sydney this afternoon they will be discussing what happened on 1 1 November last and how is it that in a democracy a government could be so denied the opportunity to govern by one man? Let us talk about the corruption which has been alleged and ask where is the evidence of it. Not one piece of evidence has been produced. We have had the likes of Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, dabbling in money and sending it overseas to people in an effort to dredge up evidence against members of this Parliament. Every rotten action taken against the Whitlam Government has been motivated by money given to the present Government.

Let us look at the law on this subject. The actions of 1 1 November last were without any legal precedent at all. The fact is that a precedent was set when 2 Ministers of the Whitlam Government were told by the Governor-General something which was altogether different from what his actions were. Honourable members opposite should talk about deceit and apply it to what those 2 Ministers were advised. I will name those Ministers. They are Senator James McClelland and Paul Keating, both of whom had discussions sourced from the GovernorGeneral’s residence which clearly indicated that he proposed to take the course of action which the Labor Government had advised.

Recently, the present Chief Justice admitted that as far back as October last year, a month before the Governor-General acted, he had formed an opinion that the Whitlam Government should go. A man with the status of Chief Justice certainly can mould the opinions of others. That is admitted in the letter of dismissal by the Governor-General to Mr Whitlam which shows that the opinion of the Chief Justice had been intruded into the Governor-General’s decision.

Let us take the matter further. The opinion of the Chief Justice was not accepted by the Governor-General on that point. The selfcentred advice volunteered by the Chief Justice was that the Governor-General should take the advice of Mr Fraser. Of course, the GovernorGeneral did not take the advice of Mr Fraser; he dictated to Mr Fraser what he, the GovernorGeneral, wanted. That was a guarantee of Supply in the Senate on condition that there would be a double dissolution. The fictitous legal theory has prevailed that the election on 13 December in this country was fought on the question of Supply. It was not. If we could have fought an election on the question of supply, the result would have been different. If we could have said to the people -

Government supporters interjecting.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Government supporters laugh, but they know very well that on 1 1 November last the uncertainty concerning the economic situation was increasing. Government contracts could not be met. There were no guarantees concerning government funds. Payments were due to the States. Pension rights were in jeopardy. If honourable members look at the results of Gallup polls on 1 1 November they will see that nobody in Australia applauded the action of the Governor-General.

That is the reason meetings are being held today. The people of Australia are saying: ‘We elected a Government for 3 years which was then denied the opportunity to rule’. They were denied that opportunity because certain people were thrust into the Senate. One man, Field, said: ‘I am going into the Senate to deny Supply. That is the only reason I am going there’. How can democracy survive in this country if we have a Senate so devoid of an appreciation of its responsibilities and so subservient to party rule and party discipline that the decisions of Government senators were made not in the Senate but in their party room? The votes of Government senators were not cast according to their consciences but according to their party rules. When this kind of situation prevails under the Constitution we can never have democracy in this country.

The word ‘reject’ is not contained in secton 53 of the Constitution. It was contained in the 1891 draft of the Constitution but it was deleted. Why was this done? It was done because section 87 deals with the apportionment of money. The Senate did not have any worry about Supply. Section 87 clearly states that three-quarters of the money is to be returned to the States. Why would the States and the founders of the constitution argue about the inclusion of the word ‘reject’ when the money was already made available to them by section 87? It is ridiculous to suggest now that that interpretation can be intruded by inference. What this country needs is a new Constitution. This will happen. But the new Constitution will not be formed by politicians like Mr Bjelke Petersen or Sir Charles Court. They will not be responsible for the formation of policy.

The people of Australia, irrespective of their political or party affiliations, are meeting to discuss how they can make Australia a nation unconstrained by a set of rules which say that one man can disallow any law. Section 58 of the Constitution states that the Governor-General can disallow any law or send a law back with his amendments. Is Australia a colonial power, so subservient that it has no status at all? Australians thought that they were a nation. Australia has entered into international treaties, has sent representatives to the United Nations and has taken part in 2 world wars. It has committed itself as a nation. Australia now finds itself under a set of rules which make it subservient to one man who is deemed to be the appointee of the monarch. This brings the monarchy into disrepute and affects the whole concept of democracy in Australia. That is why there is concern in Australia today.

If honourable members opposite attend meetings in their electorates- and there should be many of them- they will find that they are held on the basis not of what happened in the past but of what Australians thought they had. Australians thought they had a nation and that they could speak with one voice. They thought they had elected a Parliament which meant something. The principle of democracy meant that the House of the people could rule and govern. Australia desperately needs a new Constitution made not by the professionals in State parliaments or the Federal Parliament but by the people- a Constitution in which they are involved. It is about time we encouraged people to meet, to discuss the Constitution and to work out their set of rules on the basis of equality of opportunity and equality of voting. Then, and only then, can we guarantee that this nation has a future.

Debate interrupted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 p.m., in accordance with the suspension of Standing Orders motion agreed to in connection with this debate, I formally put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2603

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I make reference to a misrepresentation in today’s Australian. I do not claim that it was done with malice or anything like that, but there is an article in that newspaper which refers to the Fraser Island mining issue and which names supporters of the Federal Government who, it claims, were opposed to the decision on Fraser Island mining. The article suggests that I was opposed to the decision. It purports to be a report of the Party room meeting. I want to make it plain that I simply mentioned that there was a need for compensation where possible. But, unpopular as the decision may be in some parts of Queensland, I can only admit to endorsing the decision which was made by the Cabinet and the Government.

page 2603

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport and Acting Minister for National Resources · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Roads Act and the Roads Grants Act by providing an additional $35. 8m Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for road works in 1976-77. The proposed increase in funds represents a rise of approximately 9 per cent over and above the level of funds already provided under these 2 Acts for this year. The Bill also provides for a concomitant increase in quotas for State expenditure from State resources on roads.

Honourable members will recall that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), in his statement to the House on 20 May outlining the various budgetary measures being taken to control government expenditure and reduce inflation, announced the decision to appropriate an additional $35.8m for road works. The National Roads and Roads Grants Acts will now provide for a total allocation in 1976-77 to the States of $433.5m after allowing for the additional funds contained in this Bill. The 1974 National Roads and Roads Grants Acts, introduced by the previous Government, provided a level of funds which was $225m below that recommended by the Bureau of Roads in its 1973 report. As a result provision for certain road categories such as urban arterials, rural arterials and rural local roads on which local government is very dependent for its road needs was reduced during the 3-year period of the Legislation.

Since coming to office the Government has been particularly conscious of the fact that local government in many instances has suffered badly in competing for road funds against State government programs. We have therefore endeavoured to ensure that the needs of local government in particular are looked after. This point was emphasised by the Commonwealth at the February Premiers Conference. In advising the States of the proposed additional funds and seeking their views on the proposed allocation to categories I have pointed to the decline in funds available to local government and stressed the urgent road requirements in rural areas.

As honourable members will be aware the 1974 Road Grants Act contained for the first time assistance for urban local roads. During the period of the Act allocations for these roads were increased to the benefit of urban local authorities. This was in marked contrast with rural local authorities. Following consultations with the States the proposed allocations set out in the Bill were adopted. These allocations go a considerable way towards improving the difficulties which rural local government and the rural road system were facing. This has been achieved without any disruption of the overall State road programs.

As I have indicated it will be necessary for the States also to increase their own expenditure on road works by about 9 per cent in order to qualify for the additional Commonwealth assistance.

As you will appreciate both the Commonwealth and State governments, together with local government, have joint responsibilities to finance the road program and it is only appropriate that the States increase their level of effort as well.

The Bill is divided into 3 parts. Part I sets out the usual preliminary information. Part II- clauses 3 to 6- relates to the National Roads Act. Part III- Clauses 7 to 12-relates to the Roads Grants Act. The total increase in funds for each State is as follows:

New South Wales-$ 1 1 . 3m

Victoria- $7.5m

Queensland- $7.5m

South Australia-$3.2m

Western Australia- $4.6m

Tasmania- $ 1.7m.

The allocations to the different road categories in each State are set out in the detailed schedules included in the Bill. The relevant clauses for the detailed category allocations are clause 6 for National Roads and clause 12 for the Roads Grants Act. The Bill provides for the additional amounts set out in the schedules to be added to the existing 1976-77 appropriations. I would remind honourable members that the allocations to categories were made only after consultations with the States. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2604

PRICES JUSTIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD (Bennelong-Minister for

Business and Consumer Affairs) (2.20)- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government ‘s decision, which I announced in my statement on 16 September, to alter the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal. In that statement I referred to the extensive consultations which had taken place with the trade union movement, business organisations and other sections of the community.

The changes contained in this Bill reflect the decision of the Government to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal but in a substantially modified form. The cumulative purpose of the changes is to bring about a very significant reduction in the number of companies which must notify the Tribunal of their price increases, with a view to the Tribunal’s principal function being that of price surveillance rather than price approval.

Experience with the operations of the Tribunal over the last 3 years clearly shows that the bulk of the very large number of price notifications have been approved on the basis originally notified to the Tribunal. While this has shown that there is a high level of price responsibility on the part of Australian business, the need for companies to service the requirements of the Tribunal has been at a very significant cost to business generally. This Bill will significantly reduce these costs without affecting the capacity of the Tribunal to act in appropriate cases. In other words, the Tribunalwill have a greater capacity to use its resources to investigate those areas where there is evidence of price abuse. Thus, while the notification procedures and other key features of the legislation are retained, the obligation to notify price increases will apply only to companies in the over $30m turnover class and to those subsidiaries of prescribed companies which have annual turnovers above $5m. It will, however, remain within the discretion of the Tribunal, or as required by the Government, to inquire into and report on prices charged by companies irrespective of their turnover.

I estimate that the combined effect of these 2 changes alone will relieve about half of the companies presently notifying their prices to the Tribunal from the requirement to do so. The Tribunal has already taken action to exempt companies with annual turnovers between $20m and $30m, pending these amendments. The further exclusion of subsidiary companies with a turnover of less than$5m annually will remove a large group of firms which have little, if any, control over the markets in which they operate and which are caught up in the notification provisions solely by virtue of their relationship to a holding company.

The Bill contains a positive requirement that the Tribunal in dealing with notifications pay due regard to the need for companies to achieve levels of profitability sufficient to maintain adequate levels of investment and employment. As foreshadowed in my statement of 16 September the existing exemption provisions of the Act will be substantially broadened. Whilst the Tribunal will retain a discretion regarding the granting of exemptions it will in terms of the amendments now before the House be required to address its mind to certain specific matters in the process of determining whether or not an exemption should be granted to a company normally required to notify price increases.

The specific criteria to be inserted into the Act are not meant to be exhaustive of the matters to be considered by the Tribunal in deciding upon exemptions but to indicate the view of the Government that some legislative indication is required of the type of matters which should be taken into account by the Tribunal with respect to exemptions. Therefore the Bill provides that in exercising its discretion regarding exemptions the Tribunal should at least consider the following: Firstly, whether or not the company or companies concerned are in a position substantially to control a market for goods and services; and, secondly, the reasonableness of the pricing behaviour of a company or companies over a period of time.

In respect of the first of these elements the Bill in effect copies the monopoly provision of the trade practices legislation. This will promote a greater consistency of approach between the deliberations of the Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission regarding the nature and structure of markets. In addition, the amendments specifically allow exemptions to be granted in respect of the whole or any part of the range of goods and /or services produced or provided by a company.

The Government intends that the effect of the new exemption procedures will be to significantly increase the ability of companies normally required to notify price increases to obtain exemptions. The Government expects that in most cases exemptions will not be subject to reporting conditions. Exemptions will only be revoked if the Tribunal is satisfied that the clr.o “ .cumstances by reason of which the exemption was granted no longer exist, or that there has been a material change in those circumstances. Revocation of an exemption will be subject to the company receiving not less than 14 days notice. The thrust of these changes is to ensure that exemptions are of real benefit to companies in that they do not have associated with them the onerous reporting conditions attaching to the notification procedures.

Experience with the appointment of Associate Commissioners to the Industries Assistance Commission indicates that there will be considerable advantage in having associate members of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Associate members will be appointed for either extended periods or for specific inquiries and will allow for the appointment of persons- including experienced representatives of the trade union movement as well as experienced businessmen- having expertise in a particular area to serve on the Tribunal as occasion arises.

I turn now to a number of other provisions that are of lesser policy significance. Some of these will assist in the better functioning of the Tribunal. Other changes incorporate machinery and formal amendments to the Act. The Act provides that where a company does not implement an approved price increase within 30 days, it must re-notify the Tribunal should it wish to apply the increase at a later time. This time limitation has the effect of forcing up prices unnecessarily quickly and imposing re-notification costs on companies where price increases cannot be passed on within 30 days. The Bill extends this time limit to 90 days. Provision is made for the Tribunal to report each half year on the most significant increases in prices in each industry, and the principal reasons for these increases.

It has been decided that the Act should provide for only one Deputy Chairman. This will bring it into line with the Trade Practices Act which has provision for one Deputy Chairman and the Industries Assistance Commission Act which provides for a Commissioner to be appointed the Executive Commissioner to assist the Chairman in the performance of his duties and the exercise of his powers. Changes have also been made to the quorum provisions for meetings of the Tribunal to accommodate difficulties which have arisen in the past. Provision is also included for the Chairman to be an ex officio member of all divisions of the Tribunal, and for simplification of certain inquiry procedures.

The Government’s view is that this Bill will alter the function of the Tribunal from that of a price approval body to one of price surveillance. In this form it will more effectively complement the activities of the Trade Practices -Commission and the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government will be closely monitoring the effects of the Tribunal’s operations during the next 9 to 12 months to ensure that the Government’s objectives are being met. The changes the Government is making to the Tribunal will play a part in ensuring that there are not unreasonable administrative restraints placed upon economic recovery. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2606

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to give effect to revised rules of origin, made under the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea, and to omit the word ‘sativa’ from the definition of cannibas plant in the Act. Honourable members will recall, from my statement to the House, after the signing of the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations, that the agreement establishes a free trade area which is free of duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce for trade in goods originating in a member State. In general the revised rules of origin provide for a one-half area content. However where the one-half rule is not met and it is considered that preferential treatment should be given, the Minister may determine that another portion that is less than one-half is appropriate. The new rules introduce a desirable flexibility by allowing this simple basic rule, the one-half rule, to operate without disadvantaging goods which do not meet the conditions of the rule but in respect of which it might be desirable to accord preferential treatment.

J now turn to the amendment of the definition of ‘cannabis plant’. The Customs Act defines cannabis plant as a plant of the genus ‘cannabis sativa’. When this definition was inserted into the Customs Act in 197 1 it was intended to cover all known forms of cannabis. Since that time, overseas research on cannabis has led to a theory that the plant is polytypic rather than monotypic, that is to say there are species other than sativa. As this argument has been developed in Australia and used in prosecutions, the courts have experienced some difficulty in deciding whether or not the material in question is covered by the existing definition. The amended definition will overcome these difficulties by including only the main genus description, ‘cannabis ‘. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2606

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Bills listed under orders of the day Nos 2 to 9, Government business, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 8 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 8 measures?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition readily appreciates the need to have a cognate debate. Nevertheless, I say at the outset that we propose to move amendments which are in the process of being circulated. I shall talk to them later. The significant aspect of the whole of the Government’s thrust in the Budget in relation to education was that there was growth in real terms and that this would satisfy the needs concept of education in Australia. I put to the Parliament that an analysis of the figures- that is what it is- does not support that contention.

For example, if, in dealing with universities, I look at capital figures, I find that in the triennium 1973-75 the capital needs were of the nature of $294m. Now we find that in the forthcoming triennium, 1977-79, that actual allocation is reduced to $9 1.8m. In fact, as I understand the situation, if we look at the history of this matter we find that the triennial average prior to 1977 was of the magnitude of $ 192m. We will drop in the next triennium, on an average basis, with a cost equalisation of about $75.2m. In other words, there will be less than 40 per cent of the former base. We see that the Universities Commission is critical of this fact. It says that, because of these limitations, it cannot really meet the needs. The most significant factor it draws attention to in this respect is that there will be a growth in enrolments of 1.8 per cent. If there is a 1.8 per cent growth in enrolments, how can we expect a growth in real terms of 2 per cent when no allowance has been made for this enrolment factor.

I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Universities Commission which clearly makes this point. It states:

Again, in the report we find it is stated quite effectively that in 1979 the financial resource allocation for a university student will be 3 per cent less than what it was in 1 975. 1 ask: How can it be that the Government is so confident that the alleged growth in financial support in real terms meets the Commission’s needs? The big, basic problem in education has been that the Government, for the first time, has decided to set out money guidelines. It has allocated the money. We can see in this action the influence of the Department of the Treasury, which is monetary. The various Commissions have had to work within that allocation. They have been able to say in rather strong words that the allocations will not meet the needs or the growth. Accordingly, there will be a reduction in real terms. If we look at the factors as explained to me, we find that in the normal triennium of 1973-75, expressed in December 1974 prices, basically $ 1500m was available for universities. In the next triennium, expressed in December 1975 prices, only $ 1700m will be available. Allowing for the normal inflationary costs that means a retardation, not an acceleration. It means no growth. It means a reduction. This supports what the Commissions have said. At the end of the decade the resource allocation for a student will be less than what it was at the commencement. In other -words, one must urge the Government to look at this factor.

The Commission in dealing with this point states in its report:

The Australian universities have been passing through a period of rapid growth . . . Unless there is a change in the policy expressed in the guidelines, all universities will be in a no-growth position before the end of the present decade. Lack of growth brings with it two kinds of problems; the first relates to increases in costs (other than those resulting from increases in salary scales and in prices) which cannot be avoided and the second to the difficulty of maintaining flexibility in the face of virtually static budgets.

So, on that premise, we urge the Government to look again at the monetary allocation in relation to the needs of universities and not to be so subservient to Treasury’s dominance which, of course, affects every department in Australia.

In relation to colleges of advanced education, the Commission on Advanced Education expresses its concern. The guidelines clearly indicated to it that it needed to provide for an intake increase of 10 per cent. Yet, if we look at its growth in funds, we find that it is only 5 per cent. The Commission makes this point. It says: ‘We cannot possibly cope.’ If they calculated in realistic terms capital expenditure needs for the triennium 1976-78 was $583. Yet we find that in the 1977-79 triennium the colleges are apportioned only $2 12m. This is a drop of over 60 per cent. That cannot be supported on the basis of the needs of these institutions. It will mean a drop in standards.

From the recurrent expenditure point of view, the Commission on Advanced Education said that, in the triennium 1976-78, it needed $ 1,087m. Yet in the forthcoming triennium it will get less, namely, $976m. We cannot support a Government attitude which is that in respect of the guideline factors there has to be an increase in enrolment. Obviously, the implication is that standards should be maintained. But then the Government reduces funds very substantially in the capital field and does not even maintain the current expenditure. The Commission in its report makes the point:

In considering the allocation of funds between recurrent and capital expenditure in 1978 and 1979 the Commission noted the advice that colleges of advanced education should increase their intake . . . ‘by about 10 per cent’ . . . A summary of the allocations of expenditure is shown below, and the minimum increase in recurrent expenditure of 2 per cent per annum on this base would provide an additional amount of recurrent money available in 1 978 of less than $7m. Appendix 3 indicates a rate of growth in enrolments between 1977 and 1978 of about 4 per cent and the Commission considers that an increase of that magnitude could not be funded within the additional allocation for recurrent expenditure without a reduction of standards. Moreover, colleges are required to meet-additional expenditures which are not considered as ‘cost increases’ for the purposes of the adjustment of grants. The most significant of these are the annual incremental payments made to members of academic and non-academic staff and it has been estimated that these costs alone can lead to increases of about 2 per cent per annum in a college ‘s recurrent budget.

Out of those words and expressions of the Commission we see an indictment of the Government’s policy in relation to guidelines which I again emphasise would reflect Treasury motivation.

In dealing with schools we come to the factor of a 2 per cent growth again. This is what the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) says. This is fine. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that there will be a considerable growth in enrolments of about 1 . 1 per cent which affects the very factor which he mentioned. There is a serious problem in relation to those allocations. If we look at them in real terms as at December 1974 prices, for the 1976- 78 triennium we find that an amount of $2,070m was spent. We can predict that at December 1975 prices, for the next triennium 1977- 79, the amount will drop to $ 1,554m. This is an additional burden on which the States must pick up the slack. They have to face the problem of maintaining schools on the basis that they felt they had been encouraged to initiate new programs. If honourable members talk to State Ministers for education they will find that the previous activities of the Schools Commission in education excited the States to initiate new programs. This the States have done. The States now find that they are left holding the baby. No recurrent expenditure allocation has been made for new programs initiated. This will affect teacher in-take and they will have to bear the cost of that. As honourable members know, financial resources are fairly limited. Under Implications of the Guidelines in the report it is stated by the Commission:

While it is clear from the early part of the guidelines and from the finance provided that it is not expected that it will be possible to do more than maintain existing standards in government and non-government schools during the 1977-79 triennium, other parts of the guidelines direct the Commission’s attention to needs which could only be met if there were considerable additional finance. The 2 per cent real growth in funds for 1977 must be seen in relation to the fact that enrolments . . . areesumatedtogrowbyl.il per cent. It is important to realise that the guidelines cannot be met in full; the objectives of maintaining existing standards while also undertaking other initiatives, though modest and directed towards immediate needs, are too ambitious within the funds allocated.

We would ask the Government to look at this situation. The Commission is suggesting that it really needs more resources if it is to maintain the situation at the present time. Again, there are serious problems in the capital needs area. The Commission feels that it has received about $50m short of what could be spent. A series of questions has been asked in this House and elsewhere relating to the massive unemployment, particularly in the building industry, and asking whether it would not be good value to encourage this type of capital expenditure. It would not be inflationary; it is necessary. It would mean that substantial renovation or commencement of building of schools could have been done with the labour and materials that are now lying idle. Taxpayers’ funds which are being eaten up in unemployment benefits could be put to use for the needs of children. Let me place on record that if a child is not provided for in its formative years it is too late to try to correct the defect later on.

Every honourable member here knows that the schools in his electorate have substantial needs. In my own electorate both government and non-government schools have substantial problems in the capital sector. They need large amounts of money to give them a reasonable standard. Some schools have a higher standard because of parental support. That was indicated clearly in the earlier report of the Karmel Commission, which showed that people who were able to give additional financial support out of their own pockets could guarantee that their children would, in the main, complete the secondary course and be enabled to enter the tertiary field. In government schools, and particularly in the Catholic section of the non-government schools, there is not the same retention rate, not the same opportunity. Their needs are also greater from the point of view of both capital and recurrent expenditure. This report also makes the point:

While the position in government schools with respect to the targets for recurrent resources is . . . comparatively brighter than for non-government schools, the seriousness of the problem of providing capital faculties of adequate standard for both government and non-government schools cannot be over-stated. The needs of several State systems are so pressing, for example, that they are enlarging their capital programs for 1975-76 on the principle of ‘build now, pay later’. All the analyses which the Commission has undertaken- the costing of urgent projects which it would be feasible to undertake within a triennium, the calculation of new place requirements as the result of population mobility and enrolment increases, an assessment of deficiencies of specialist and ancillary buildings in relation to each State’s schedule of facilities for each school, an estimation of the cost of bringing existing buildings up to standard- all these have resulted in target programs the size of which is beyond contemplation within a single triennium. The Commission also draws attention to the tact that stationary funds in nongovernment schools not only retard refurbishing but also effectively place limits on future enrolments.

That is the position as we see it in respect of the Schools Commission. The other aspect is the technical education field, a relatively new field. As one can imagine, the Technical and Further Education Commission has great difficulties indeed because the Commission regards itself as being the Cinderella of the education group. It was a late starter; it has to cater for large numbers of students, and enrolments show that there has been a quite massive increase in enrolments. At page xxxviii of the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission it is indicated that under the guidelines technical education received only $ 1 1 1 m in capital grants. The Commission needs $150m and it could spend $190m. There is a shortfall of 35 per cent, or $38m, from the point of view of capital, and that would have allowed for approximately 6000 additional places. If one considers it in relation to the basic needs to enable the Commission to maintain capital expenditure standards in 1979 equal to 1974 levels, it needs $78m. It received some 75 per cent less than it needs. The problem is that the Commission’s recurrent expenditure allocation has not grown as fast as it should. It has been given $38m for 1977 and its allocation for 1978 is $39m. The Commission itself says that it needs $49m. In other words, there is a $10m deficiency for 1978, and it has been allocated $40m for 1979 when it needs $55m. The real problem in this field is that there is going to be a deterioration. The Commission makes the point:

An adequate skilled labour force is not available and without rapid development of the TAFE system Australia will not be equipped to meet its future requirements for skilled manpower. The problem is one of national importance and if it is to be corrected will require a change in the distribution of educational expenditure in favour of TAFE. It will require Commonwealth supplementation of State effort additional to that envisaged under the guidelines.

If one looks at the factors involved in the allocation of tertiary funds, one finds that for every $4 allocated the technical field gets $1, or onequarter. Nevertheless, it has to cater for 40 per cent of the tertiary load and it has been allocated less than that in funds. In other words, limited as the funds are, the technical education field is still the Cinderella in the fight for a share of the funds. If it has to cater for 40 per cent of the tertiary education group, why is it that it is given only one-quarter of the amount allocated for tertiary education? The Commission was anxious that the capital provided should give them another 34 000 additional enrolment places. When considering the technology position, the structural change, the need to acquire skills in this country, one has to accept that the technical field should have a top priority in the educational needs of Australia. The Opposition proposes to move this amendment because it believes that insufficient funds have been directed to this area of education. It is impossible to guarantee a structural change or to have a skilled work force if sufficient funds are not allocated at this time. The State governments cannot possibly predict what is going to happen to them if the structural change is as massive as one could predict. If the copper mines close, if the textile mills close, if the electronics industry is phased out and the shipbuilding industry is completely eroded, there will be a massive need to retrain the work force and no plans have been made for that. The one area which could carry out that retraining function, given the encouragement and incentive, is the technical education field. The Commission makes this point: … the minimum objective must surely be to ensure that TAFE in 1979 will be, relative to enrolments, at least as well off for space and equipment as it was in 1974. Acceptance of such a limited objective will cause profound disappointment among all those directly involved in technical and further education, a sector which for many years has been denied the sorts of resources made available to other sectors of education and which has seen the hopes flowing from the ACOTAFE reports deferred if not dispelled by the political and economic events referred to . . .

The TAFE Commission would regard this limited objective as the absolute minimum consistent with the maintenance of TAFE as a viable contributor to the total spectrum of post-school education.

The amount available if the minimum growth of 5 per cent guaranteed for 1978 and 1979 under the guidelines formula becomes the actual program for 1977-79 would be $230m. The Commission must point out that a triennial program of this amount would fail to achieve even the minimum objective. It would not keep pace with the needs generated by increased enrolments, let alone begin to redress current deficiencies.

So we have this problem again. Enrolments in 1973 were 508 000. In 1979 they are expected to be 901 000. Next year they are expected to be 769 000. We can see the rapid growth in this area which, commendable as it is, is going to be quite disastrous unless sufficient funds are given for that purpose. Accordingly we propose to move the amendment that I have envisaged.

I would like to refer to a statement made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on 4 November. My attention has been drawn to something that the Minister said as recorded on page 2 of the statement. He said:

I will be asking the Commissions to convey to authorities and institutions further details of the procedures agreed to by the Government

That seems to indicate that there is some doubt on the part of the Commissions and the Government as to what the position is. The Minister referred to ‘further details of the procedures agreed to by the Government’. An air of uncertainty has been created with regard to financing. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has already said that there would be less than automatic cost supplementation. That means that there is not going to be full supplementation of cost. One can read into these words that there will be a retardation of what would be normal escalation. If as the

Commissions say, these institutions have committed themselves for a number of years to programs that are very worth while, particularly, for example, in the migrant education field and programs of that nature, and they are not able to get their recurrent expenditure, they will have to meet this expenditure from their own resources, or, alternatively, reduce some of the existing standards that they have been able to build up.

So it is important that we get a clear understanding that there will not be any reduction. There ought not be vague statements such as ‘I will be asking the Commissions to convey to authorities and institutions further details of the procedures agreed to by the Government’ without their being known at this stage. Again we will be moving amendments to clause 7 of the schools legislation. The Federal Government ought clearly to indicate the position where there is any suggestion that there ought to be a re-allocation of resources, either recurrent or capital. It is just not good enough for a matter in which a State Minister finds it necessary to ask a Commonwealth Minister for approval to be left between those 2 Ministers. In my opinion such action should only be taken on the advice and with the concurrence of the Schools Commission. We think it is important that the Schools Commission’s authority in this area be maintained and not down-graded. It is quite wrong, no matter how well-meaning it might be, for Ministers to make those decisions themselves when we have already established Commissions on the clear basis that there would be impartiality, that decisions would be non-political and most importantly that the whole accent would be on a needs basis. We must emphasise that we will be moving amendments to suggest that the Government might insert the appropriate words. The amendments in this respect have also been circulated.

I wish again to refer to the statement made by the Minister for Education on 4 November. He said:

The Government welcomes moves by school communities and State Governments to encourage a more active role for parents, teachers and local communities in school management and decision-making.

We also welcome these moves. In fact, the Schools Commission I think suggested that 5 per cent of recurrent funds be made available for this very purpose. We raised this matter when it was last debated. But we find that there is no specific allocation for this matter. Therefore, while we welcome these moves, it was important that some amount of money should have been provided on this basis. This matter should not just have been left on the basis that the Government says that it welcomes it when, quite frankly, no State can see where a specific amount has been given for this purpose. The States would like to know what the Minister’s words really mean. They would like this matter spelt out. Is it to be 5 per cent? Why was not sufficient money made available to guarantee what has to be done. As I said earlier, there is a need for a full guarantee as to automatic cost supplementation. If this is not given everyone will lose confidence as to how much they can spend next year.

Before I conclude I want to come back to a specific matter. As shown on page 12 of his statement the Minister for Education said:

The Government has also decided to implement a scheme of advance offers of building grants to non-government schools to enable projects to be commenced sooner than would otherwise be the case.

That is an excellent decision. We have no objection to that. But why should not the same facility be given to the State governments? Why should not the State governments be encouraged also to make advance progress in respect of building in the knowledge that they will be reimbursed? Why just leave it in the other sector? It is important when we deal with these matters, particularly from the non-government point of view, we have a clear understanding that any capital expenditure in that area is to be based on the concept of need and not have this program eaten up by those who are more articulate, better managed, better able to extend their resources irrespective of need and then say that the Government said that it was all right for them to do so. We want the yardstick clearly defined in this area. Welcome as it is, both in the government and non-government area, we believe assistance should be given on a needs basis. It is quite ridiculous to find that a well endowed school, meritorious though it is from its point of view, saying: ‘We are going ahead with our capital program because the Government will finance us next year’, and find that a needy school did not do anything of this kind and did not have anybody to rationalise the situation. What about the needs of other youngsters? What about their chance to get an equal opportunity? We would like to see the Government’s intentions in this respect spelt out in relation to this particular segment of the report.

The final matter to which I wish to refer relates to page 17 of the Minister’s statement at which he said:

While the Government has accepted -

I disagree with him- most of the Commission’s financial recommendations it is giving further consideration to the way in which the programs are to be managed. Detailed administrative arrangements will be announced shortly in guidelines being developed in collaboration with the States.

Again, the Commissions are not mentioned. Surely one would expect if the Government is to talk with the States about management guidelines and future policies, the advice of the Commissions would be sought. Therefore, whilst that statement may be defective in failing to mention the Schools Commission, we would like an assurance that the advice of the Schools Commission will be taken as to what should be done.

I mentioned at the outset the great problem of the limitation of funds allocated by a Treasury concept as against a needs concept in education. One cannot just say on a cost benefit analysis what the needs of education are. One just cannot guarantee what one is going to get out of a stream of life when it comes to the educational area. One cannot sit down as does an accountant and say what one is going to get and expect to come up with an exact result. One has to look at all the problems of humanity. There are those who are talented and those who are less talented but could be in the same class. One has all the problems of identifying these things. School programming should not be put on the basis that at the end of the secondary schooling you have someone who is employable and full of skill. These persons might need a lot more education after that.

The present education survey that is proceeding is upsetting State governments because they feel it may well affect the future of education if it is suggested that there is to be vocational training in secondary schools. This would mean that they would have to recast their whole programming. This could affect all the education programs. Triennial funding for them is a fallacy because while they would like to start many programs, they feel they cannot do so. They feel that annual funding represents a concept that ought to be eradicated. The States should be guaranteed now what building they can construct next year. It is futile for them to try to plan new buildings now and not have the money to build them. An exact case exists at Mt Druitt where the authorities would love to build a technical college but dare not enter that field because they do not have sufficient resources.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I rise to support the 8 Bills that the Government has introduced and to oppose the amendments that have been moved on behalf of the Opposition. I am surprised that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) speaks this way in the debate this afternoon, because as a Minister in the previous Government he was part of the team which considered the triennial report of the education commissions and reduced the funds for 1976 by $ 105m compared with 1975. I say by way of example that the Schools Commission in its report sought approximately $720m for 1975 but received $498m in 1 975 under a Labor Government- a reduction of $222m

Let me bring the debate back to reality. When we arrived in Government on 1 4 December 1 975 education was another area where a disaster had occurred. There were major problems in the education area. The Labor mess of broken promises and deceit which had occurred with the cutting out of triennial funding and the reduction of moneys which I have just mentioned meant that what we had to do firstly was to reintroduce the triennial funding program. The new form of triennial funding program will be on a rolling basis. As each year is completed plans for the remaining years of the triennium will be reviewed and updated and initial proposals made for a new third year. This will include a provision for long term reviews. Each of the commissions was asked to submit detailed programs after the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) made public on 20 May 1976 that what was needed was a complete review of the requirements of each of the commissions. There needed to be detailed recommendations for the first year and a plan proposed for the second and third years. These were forthcoming. From that the guidelines which the Minister laid down provided a total expenditure of the programs administered by the education commissions of some $ 1,537m in the 1977 calendar year. Let me give the amount allocated for each commission in 1977 as compared with 1976. The amount allocated for the Universities Commission in 1976 was $542m. This will increase to $555m in 1977. The Commission on Advanced Education received $3 85m in 1976 and will receive $494m in 1977. The Technical and Further Education Commission received $65m in 1976 and will receive $70m in 1977. The Schools Commission in 1976 received $498m and in 1 977 will receive $508m. The total in 1976 was $ 1,490m. In 1977 it will be $ 1,537m. This represents an increase of $47m or 3.2 per cent in real terms in 1977. The cash flow in 1976-77 will be $ 1,569m which represents an increase of 4.2 per cent.

I believe our Government has demonstrated a clear degree of concern for the people and the future of Australia. The children are the most important part of our heritage. It is part of the Government’s thoughts that it ensures the future of those children and ensures that those children will be looked after and educated in a way which will solve the problems that would have occurred under the previous administration. I turn now to the guidelines which were laid down within the financial limits referred to. The Government asked the Schools Commission to base its recommendations on the maintenance of existing standards in government and non-government schools. In drawing up the recommendations for the 1977 expenditure provision was made for the continuation of special purpose programs such as those for handicapped children, migrants and disadvantaged schools. This is allied with a further substantial increase of SO per cent in the allocation of moneys to handicapped children which was brought down with the Budget and the real family allowance increase which was effective from the middle of June. The assistance which is now rendered directly in money terms to each individual family in this country is quite substantial. After the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education, the Technical and Further Education Commission and the Schools Commission were asked to report they went to work and came up with a substantive program for spending in the 1976-77 financial year. The programs in 1977 mean an increase of some $47m in real terms over 1976. The commissions’ reports in more specific detail show that along with the money allocated for this financial year the commission will convey to the authorities and institutions further details of procedures agreed to by this Government. Briefly, these include the adjustments of agreed cost increases which will be made each quarter following certification from each commission of the supplementation required to maintain real levels of expenditure approved for the 1977 program. Account will be taken of offsetting savings including any from favourable building tenders. Movements in costs will be measured against indexation of wages and salary determinations and other recurrent building costs. Through this process the Minister will be able to approve programs to supplement grants to meet unfavourable cost increases. It effectively means that there will be a real increase of some 2 per cent over the second and third years. The education facilities of universities and colleges of advanced education can look forward to the future with a vast amount of confidence.

The Government has also accepted the financial recommendations of the Universities Commission for 1977. The total program amounts to $56 1.6m. In Queensland we have 3 magnificent universities- the Queensland University, the Griffith University, which is the new university, and the James Cook University. The total amount of moneys allocated this year will be to Queensland University $48.732m, to the James Cook University $9.3 98m and to the Griffith University $6.45 lm. The total amount of money allocated to Queensland universities is now $64.5 81m. This shows the genuine concern of this Government.

Colleges of advanced education are also an area of great importance to this Government. The advanced education field is ever increasing because of the type of information which is now current and which needs to be disseminated to the people of Australia through the colleges of advanced education. The allocations in real terms by the Commission on Advanced Education covers some $404m at the 1975 cost levels. In that area, in Queensland again, there will be a total expenditure of $5 1.9m. The expenditure on the recurrent program will be $42m and the expenditure on the capital program will be $9.9m. Again, these sums represent a substantial increase in the amount allocated for expenditure in an extremely important area.

I turn to deal with the technical and further education field. The Government’s 1977 expenditure program on this area- formulated upon the recommendations of the Technical and Further Education Commission- will amount to $73m at December 1975 cost levels. This amount is composed of $3 8.4m for recurrent expenditure and $34.6m for capital expenditure. These funds include an amount of $3m to be transferred from the Commission on Advanced Education to cover advanced education courses in technical and further education institutions. A significant proportion of the recurrent funds for 1 977 will go towards the continuation of specific projects commenced in earlier periods with Commonwealth assistance and to the establishment of new programs designed to improve the quality of teaching and other resources in this area. These special purpose programs include staff development schemes- including non-teaching staffimprovement of information systems and a group of other programs from which States are able to choose according to their priorities. The States must accept their degree of responsibility in this area. To that end, the total amount of money which is being allocated- again in Queensland- will mean that the total program of major projects in our capital areas will amount to $4.8m and for minor work and equipment, some $200,000. Expenditure in the total capital area will amount to almost $Sm. Expenditure on recurrent general purpose grants will amount to $2.2m. Together with special purpose grants, for staff development and data collection and processing, particular purpose grants, adult education grants and total recurrent grants, the total contribution will amount to some $8.9 1 m.

The schools area is one sector to which the Government has again given a major priority. The 1977 expenditure program for schools amounts to some $508m. Of this amount, $3 10.3m is for government schools, $ 173.4m for non-government schools and $24.2m is to be shared jointly between the government and nongovernment sectors. This is one area in which I believe it is extremely important that we have a continuation of communication between parents, teachers and local communities. It is a great delight for me to sit down with my children, listen to what they are learning about and to read them the stories which are coming from the education system. We are now providing a great deal of money for this system and looking to the future to produce young Australians who will be the fathers of our community in a very short period.

The Government has also accepted the financial recommendations of the Schools Commission for government schools in broad terms but has modified the recommended distribution between the States of capital grants. This applies particularly to Queensland. This modification was made after consideration of the basis of the recommendation and the contribution and relating this to the existing pattern of grants in 1976. The Government considered that in the light of 1976 allocations, the recommended total of general recurrent and capital grants in Queensland would make it too difficult for that State to implement its planned programs for the whole of the 1977 year. The modified distribution of grants decided upon by this Government results in a $ 1 .4m addition to Queensland ‘s allocation for general capital grants offset against slight reductions in the allocations to some 4 other States. In the government school sector in Queensland the total of general support will enable the implementation of a program amounting to some $17.4 15m. Migrant and multicultural education, which is a very important program in Queensland, will receive an allocation of $450,000. Disadvantaged school projects in Queensland- I have one school, in my electorate, the Petrie Terrace State School, which was declared a disadvantaged school only recently- will receive a total of $ 1.47m. Expenditure on the special education general support program will amount to $ 1.29m. Capital grants, general and specific purposes grants, will total $22.7m this year. The total program for this financial year amounts to $43.325m.

The non-government schools sector is strongly supported financially this year. There has been an increase in the size of the recommended general recurrent grant for the most needy primary schools from some $223 a pupil to $229 a pupil at average 1976 price levels. These schools cater for approximately 90 per cent of enrolments in the non-government primary school area. The Government also has accepted the Schools Commission recommendation that the level of grant per pupil for non-government schools be linked automatically in future years to the expenditure level per pupil in government schools. I think that this is a very important part of our total overall program. In level one schools, the 1976 allocation per pupil to primary schools was $76. In 1977, it will be $84. The allocations have been increased throughout the whole. 6 levels culminating in the allocation for level 6 being increased from $223 from 1976 to $229 for 1977, as I mentioned previously. In the secondary school area, the previous grant per child at level 6 was $355. That will rise to $367 in 1977. At level one, the allocation will rise from $ 1 1 3 in 1976 to $130 in 1977. The total non-government school program in Queensland will enable recurrent general support amounting to $22.2 18m. The allocation this year for migrant and multicultural education, disadvantaged school projects, special education general support projects and capital grants for general and specific purpose projects will total $26.434m. This is the sort of program for which I believe the Australian people elected the Government that we have. The children of Australia are our investment for the future. It is Australia’s future. I support the Bills.

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-May I suggest to the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) that he reverse the role of performer and audience in relation to his children’s reading matter. If I understood him correctly, he said that it was a delight for him to read to his children from all the modern publications that were now used in schools. The real way of advancing children’s reading skill, basic to education, I would suggest to the honourable member, is for them to read to him. Research on this aspect has been supported by the Thomas Coram Child Centre at London University which has just completed a very interesting study of British schoolchildren in Dagenham. The group of children selected had a comparable socioeconomic background. The best readers in the area were those who read regularly to their parents at the time of the study. The next best were those who read occasionally to their parents at the time of the study. The next best were those who had read regularly to their parents when in infants classes. The next best were those who had read occasionally to their parents when in infants classes. The poorest achievers in reading were those who had never read to their parents at all. This would suggest that the best experiment for the honourable member for Brisbane to try would be not to read to them but to encourage the children to read to him. I am sure that the honourable member for Brisbane will find using this method that there will be an advance in the children’s reading age.

I wonder how soon it will be before the honourable member for Brisbane finds out that there is no Commonwealth expenditure on education in the State of Queensland. The honourable member will not be invited by Queensland State Government authorities to the opening of anything which has been built in Queensland with Commonwealth money because Commonwealth money will not be acknowledged to exist in Queensland. The honourable member will have a chance of being invited to the opening of Catholic schools whose authorities acknowledge Commonwealth grants but neither he nor Senator Carrick will ever have acknowledged by the Queensland Government any Commonwealth expenditure on any State schools. I admire the honourable senator’s enthusiasm for Queensland and what the State will get in respect of technical and further education. However, if the honourable gentleman cares to compare last year’s Budget payment to the States with this year’s Budget payment to the States he will find that once more Queensland has not completely spent the capital that was available to it from the Commonwealth for the construction of technical and further education colleges. This is additional to the fact that, with the adroitness for which the Premier of Queensland is notable, that State is concealing technical education in colleges of advanced education. The more technical education work which Queensland puts into colleges of advanced education, the more the entire tab is picked up by the Commonwealth; whereas, as the honourable member so rightly observes, if this work is categorised as in the field of technical and further education, there is a State obligation to maintain its effort.

The honourable gentleman will find that the States are not very keen to carry their obligations, especially in the field of technical education. I noticed the hopeful statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) when introducing this Bill, and no doubt it was the same speech as was made by Senator Carrick in the Senate. The Minister said:

The prime responsibility for technical and further education rests with the States and these amounts are supplementary to the States’ own efforts in this area of education.

If Queen Mary had ‘Calais’ written on her heart, I would have this expression which the Minister used written on my heart because, in the field of technical and further education, in the cases of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria while I was the Minister, the more the Commonwealth did in the field of capital grants for TAFE the less they spent of their own resources. A position was reached where $10 in Commonwealth funds was being spent on technical colleges in New South Wales for every $1 being spent by the State for that purpose. I am speaking now of capital funds. In Victoria $4 Commonwealth funds was spent for each $ 1 provided by the State. A State which did play the game was South Australia which spent $3.50 for every $1 provided by the Commonwealth.

I quite agree that it would be very good if we could induce the States to continue to maintain their TAFE capital effort, including the field of residentials for technical education. But we need to be careful about some of these comparisons. To begin with, when we are cheerfully comparing what is to be spent this year with what was spent last year it might be wise to look at what was finally appropriated last year to see whether the States actually spent what was available. Otherwise we would be comparing what was actually spent with what the Government hoped in future to make available and not with what was made available to the States in the last financial year. I will always remember being denounced for providing inadequate capital grants for technical education amounting to $46m in a triennium when 3 States had returned $7m unspent because they did not have the organisation to do the authorised building or possibly because basically they were not then interested in TAFE.

The other matter on which we need to be on guard when speaking about technical and further education expenditure, is how much of it represents a real advance and how much represents a desperate attempt to catch up with enrolments. In my period as Minister for Education, enrolments in technical and further education rose from 400 000 to 705 000. So, the increase in capital from $24m to $35m for technical education is in part an effort to accommodate this greatly increased enrolment. In our period in office we were not under-estimating technical education. We came into a very defective situation with regard to it. Technical fees were abolished- this, of course, added to our problems because it increased enrolments- and financial support to the States in this TAFE sector increased by 350 per cent in monetary units from $ 1 9m in 1 972-73 to $7 1 m in 1 974-75.

I notice the persistence with which Senator Carrick has been saying that we cut expenditure on technical education. I do not know what he is talking about. If he is comparing 2 years of actual expenditure, there was neither a cut in expenditure nor a cut in recurring expenditure by the Commonwealth. The total amount provided for technical education rose from nearly $45 m in 1974-75 to $65m in 1975-76. Both capital and recurrent expenditures were increased. However, if he is talking about a cut from what was recommended by the Richardson Commissionand half the time this is what is being said- the late Labor Government found itself unable to face the expenditures recommended by the Richardson Commission.

I have noticed a tendency to refer caustically to the Treasury in the course of debates here. The Treasury is a most villainous body, as we all know. Sometimes, however, the Treasury represents a chilling blast of reality clearing the fog of false hopes. The Richardson report recommended capital grants to the States of $234m for building technical and further education colleges. Being the Minister and having to make a case for that when in the last completed triennium the States had not spent $46m in 3 yearsthis was a recommendation for $234m to be spent in 2½ years- was somewhat difficult; perhaps some Treasury criticisms had justification. Anyway, we could not see the rapid mobilisation of labour and materials to make so vast an increase in technical and further education expenditure. I do not expect enrolments in technical and further education, even part time, to continue to rise at the rate of 100 000 a year. In fact, the Technical and Further Education Commission envisages an increase in enrolments of about 85 000 over a triennium which is a much slower rate than increases in enrolments in the past triennium. I think, however, that this is a very great under-estimate of demand.

I believe that the most responsible elements among the young people who are unemployed and the most responsible elements among the young people who are in unsatisfactory jobs will be seeking to upgrade their qualifications. Therefore, I believe that as economic pressures increase there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for technical and further education. I do not want to labour this point any further, but honourable gentlemen opposite refer with pride to increases of 3.2 per cent in real education expenditure, and I accept the sincerity of that line of comment. It may be a 3.2 per cent increase in real monetary units. But honourable members opposite must also recognise that enrolments are not blocked and if there is a very large increase in enrolments, as there will be, an increase of 3.2 per cent in real money units of expenditure will be a reduced expenditure per capita. Therefore, a larger student body is not likely to have its needs met by such a small percentage increase in real expenditure.

I now wish to turn attention to one technical college that particularly interests me. I refer to the Katherine Rural College which, with agricultural and technical courses and with its planned intention to meet the needs of young people in the Northern Territory, including young Aboriginal people, represents an important Commonwealth initiative in techical and further education. We cannot attach any blame to the States if this college does not proceed because education in the Northern Territory is exclusively a Commonwealth responsibility. I draw the attention of the House to an analytical breakdown of Northern Territory Aboriginal poulation by age relevant to the likely demand for this sort of education. In the Northern Territory there are 1501 Aborigines between the ages of 25 years and 29 years, 1849 Aborigines in the ,20 years to 24 years age group, 225 1 Aborigines in the 15 years to 19 years age group, 281 1 Aborigines in the 10 years to 14 years age group, 3348 Aborigines in the 5 years to 9 years age group, and 4029 Aborigines in the 4 years and under age group. That population pyramid shows a rapid increase in the youthful sector of the population. There is a tremendous need among Aborigines, apart from literacy in their own languages and in English, for special forms of education. The Katherine Rural College Planning Committee in its report quoted a statement in the recent report of the Schools Commission Consultative Group as follows:

We recognise that a serious problem exists in the field of technical education with regard to Aboriginal people. In our experience one feature of successful schemes for the education of Aborigines has been the recognition that a special approach is necessary.

Then the Planning Committee went on to quote from the report of the Woodward Aboriginal Lands Rights Commission as follows:

There is no chance of any significant increase in the number of workers required in future, since the trend is for the industry to rely more on capital expenditure and less on labour. On the other hand, the number of jobs available to Aborigines could be increased by vocational training of Aborigines in such fields as truck driving, mechanical maintenance, building construction and bookkeeping.

The Planning Committee made a number of recommendations which I very strongly endorse. One of the recommendations was:

Aboriginal students be encouraged to enrol in short inten’sive courses at the College, with the bulk of the training being given in the home community.

Another recommendation was:

Selection of students for courses be done by consultation between the College, prospective students, community councils and traditional Aboriginal leaders.

At the Yirara College for Aboriginal students near Alice Springs this consultation with the tribal leaders has proved to be very fruitful. One other recommendation of the Planning Committee was:

The College continually liaise with Aboriginal communities to ascertain training needs and that nomination of students by communities reflect community needs and employment opportunities.

I have concentrated exclusively in the field of technical and further education because in a debate that throws together 8 educational Bills there is not much sense in spending 2½ minutes on each Bill. I appeal to the Government to commence work on the Katherine Rural College because of its great importance in the Northern Territory. The case for technical and further education was put very succinctly in the summary of the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission. It reads:

Australia does not possess sufficient skilled manpowereven during the current economic recession which is characterised by high unemployment. This national problem is aggravated by a fall in the numbers of skilled immigrants and too few Australians undergoing skill training.

When the Australian Labor Party came into power the reports on the state of technical education in Australia indicated that 70 per cent of the male work force and 80 per cent of the female work force had no skills. That was the reason for the 350 per cent increase in expenditure in this area. The report of the Technical and Further Education Commission also states:

A minimum objective should be to ensure that in 1979 TAFE will be, relative to enrolments -

Note that cautionary point- at least as well off for space and equipment as it was in 1 974 the year in which the current Commonwealth assistance program for TAFE began. The combined Commonwealth and State building programs since 1974 have failed to keep pace with actual enrolment increases in 1 973-75.

I suggest that the situation in which New South Wales was prepared to put in towards building- the capital construction in the TAFE area- last year only $ 1 for every $ 10 contributed by the Commonwealth and Victoria was prepared to put in towards TAFE capital construction only $1 for every $4 contributed by the Commonwealth accounts for the failure of the technical and further education program to keep pace with the increased enrolments. Because of the percentage increase in our expenditure, the efforts that were made by the Commonwealth were adequate if the States had played the game, or had been capable of adequate planning. I do not say that their planning departments were always able to make more space available for technical and further education students.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-I rise to support the Bills and to add that I am a firm supporter of the provision of more assistance for technical and further education. However, I believe that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has done all within his power to accommodate this important sector in 1977. For the remainder of my speech I should like to deal specifically with the question of apprenticeship, I firmly believe that apprenticeship can be aligned with the real problem of unemployment in Australia today, particularly among the young people. I specifically draw attention to what I thought was a very fine article in the Australian Financial Review of 4 November 1976. Under the heading ‘Government eventually will have to bite the apprenticeship bullet’, it states:

State and Federal Ministers for Labour and Employment will meet in Melbourne next week to review the existing apprenticeship support programs, and hopefully agree on a new cost-snaring formula between the Commonwealth, States and employers.

But as the States so far have rejected revenue-raising suggestionsincluding adjustments to payroll tax- to lift their own contributions, and employers are unlikely to be stimulated except by direct subsidy, the likelihood of the meeting reaching any kind of consensus on the point seems remote indeed.

It is quite possible that the meeting will reach some agreement on ways by which the present program can be made more efficient, and lead to some improvement

The sorts of suggestions -

I draw attention to this matterbeing discussed by a working party of officials on the subject, include a greater use of technical schools, particularly during the long vacations, an acceleration of formal off-the-job training, shortening the period of indentures where possible and a more flexible use of pre-apprenticeship training.

It has also been proposed that the subsidy to employers under the National Apprenticeship Advisory Council be spread over the three or four years of apprenticeship, rather than concentrated in the first year of training.

Such moves by themselves could result in some reduction of the present high ‘wastage’ rates of apprentices, calculated to be as disproportionate as 40 per cent in some N.S.W. industries compared with 9 per cent in South Australia.

Quite apart from those apprentices who simply ‘drop out’ because of the length of indentures, one of the major problems has been the number whose indentures have been suspended or even cancelled by employers in the second or third year when the NAAS subsidy is not available.

This trend has become even more noticeable during the current period of economic recession.

I have paid particular regard to that article because I believe that we as a Government need to look more closely at apprenticeship training. I believe that our training has dropped behind that of other countries and that if we are to improve the unemployment situation amongst the young we need to improve the apprenticeship training.

Historically, technical and further education appears to have been an area of neglect in Australia. On only 2 occasions in the past has technical and further education reached a prominent position in Australia’s post-secondary education system. During the World Wars its role was temporarily expanded to provide required skills and training for servicemen and, during the intermediate post-war years, for ex-servicemen. Apart from those periods of national emergency it is widely considered that technical and further education has been both under-valued by the community and inadequately supported financially. We have an extremely difficult problem with youth unemployment. Before I talk about apprenticeship and the history of apprenticeship let me say that I believe it is important that I have the statistics pertaining to the young recorded in Hansard for all honourable members to read.

There are 2 distinct dimensions to the youth unemployment problem in Australia. The first and most obvious reflects the severe effects of the recession on employment among young people, particularly those in the IS to 19 age group. The second dimension, which is a structural dimension, is reflected in the disturbing long term trend that has been evident since the mid-1960s for the unemployment rates among the 15 to 19 age group to rise independently of the state of the economy. This trend is common to almost all advanced Western countries. The present high levels of youth unemployment are thus the result of severe unemployment superimposed on progressively worsening structural unemployment problems. In other words, unemployment amongst the young is not simply a result of the current general deficiency in labour demand. There is the further underlying dimension to youth unemployment which can be expected to persist irrespective of economic recovery and improved labour demand. Moreover, for reasons indicated later, unemployment among the young is unlikely to abate more than marginally in the forseeable future and a further intensification of the underlying youth problem is to be expected.

At the end of May 1976 there were 103 000 persons under the age of 2 1 years registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service, including 20 100 school leavers. The severity of the unemployment amongst the young is amply revealed in the following: The unemployment rate for those under 20 years of age in May 1976 was 12.5 per cent, or more than four times the rate of 3 per cent for those aged 20 and over. The unemployment rate for the under-20 age group has been in excess of 10 per cent since November 1974. Although persons under 20 years of age comprise only 12 per cent of the labour force they account for 36 per cent of the total unemployed. There were 35 young persons registered as unemployed for each vacancy registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the end of May, compared with the adult unemployed to vacancy ratio of 8.7. The need for employment of the young unemployed is most important and therefore the need for improving the apprenticeship situation is also most important.

Apprenticeship as a means of teaching the skills of the artisan to young workers dates back at least as far as 2100 BC. The modern system had its origin in the mediaeval guilds and was confirmed in English law under an Elizabethan Act- the Statute of Artificers- in 1563. When the Industrial Revolution created a multiplicity of new trades and the domestic system of production was superseded by factory production, the Statute of Artificers was repealed. That was in 1814. The practice of apprenticeship was not revived until technical education began to develop in the 1870s. In the intervening period ‘apprentices’ were Poor Law charges on the parish who were sent to work in the cotton mills in the north of England. The apprenticeship system developed by negotiation between union and employer but there was no system of registration and no requirement that the apprentices be indentured or that they undertake work at a technical college. Until 1964 each industry determined its own apprenticeships and, although this was the method of training in the engineering and electrical trades, there was no government regulation. The Industrial Training Act of 1964 aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of skilled men and women and at improving the quality and efficiency of training and sharing costs more evenly between firms.

Talking more specifically now of the situation in Australia, in the early days the term ‘apprentice’ was applied to orphans and poor children who were used as cheap labour in farming occupations, husbandry and domestic service. The laws of England covered the apprentices and masters in the colony. The first Australian legislation relating to apprenticeship- the Appren- ‘tices Act- was passed in New South Wales in 1894 and it was expanded in the Apprentices Act of 1 90 1 . This was followed by legislation in other . States. Apprenticeship commissions- which exist in 3 States, directorates or executives have been established as statutory authorities in each of the States to control and administer the apprenticeship system. The combined list of apprenticeable occupations under State and Commonwealth awards is over three hundred. The apprenticeable trades are those in which employment as a junior may be undertaken only through a recognised apprenticeship. The Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee provides an interstate forum consisting of the permanent heads of the State labour departments and the directors of the technical education and apprenticeship executives in each State. The AAAC operates largely through working parties which make recommendations on various aspects of apprenticeship training.

Apprenticeship is the normal avenue of entry into a skilled trade. The apprentice is indentured to a master craftsman or tradesman. He receives his practical training on the job and his theoretical training at a technical college or school. In the past such theoretical training was normally on a system of day release or evening classes, but block release for longer periods of full time schooling is becoming more common. During those periods the employer is required to keep the apprentice on full pay. Most States provide technical correspondence courses for country apprentices in remote areas.

The educational qualifications for entry into an apprenticeship vary among the States and the trades, but normally the equivalent of Grade 10 or Grade 9 schooling is required. The State legislation sets no age limits to entry into apprenticeships, but Federal awards govern the age of entry. The length of apprenticeship is 4 or 5 years. When the apprentice completes his articles he may undertake specialist certificate courses or technician courses. The Australian Government also provides through the Development Bank a number of apprenticeship and scholarship awards for more advanced courses. Since 1971 the Australian Government has assisted the States to employ apprenticeship training advisers who visit industrial establishments and advise employers on apprenticeship training.

The problems of apprenticeships are extremely difficult and complex. Unfortunately Australia is suffering as a result of a shortage of skilled tradesmen and this is one of the reasons why we have such high unemployment among the young. We must look at this problem most closely. Next year and the year after governments should work to this particular aim of improving the apprenticeship system. An increasing shortage of skilled tradesmen in Australia has become apparent in recent years. The report of the Tripartite Mission of 1968-69 on the training of skilled workers in Europe has made it clear that this shortage is world wide. The Mission pointed out that Australia faced strong competition from developed European countries which offer firm working contracts and the ability to return home regularly. Australia therefore cannot expect to overcome its shortage by increasing the intake of skilled migrant labour. The report recommended that in Australia we update our training methods with a view to meeting from within our own country the greater part of this demand for skilled workmen.

Some years earlier the. Report of the Committee of Economic Inquiry in 1965, the Vernon Report, pointed out that immigration was a more costly source of skill than training additional craftsmen in Australia. The Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training points out that although immigration has been a valuable source of skilled labour in the past it is not clear that intakes have always been sufficiently closely related to labour market needs. It also mentions the inflationary pressures that may arise from immigration.

The shortage of apprentices and, thus, of skilled workers seems to lie rather with the failure of employers and organisations to train apprentices than with the lack of school leavers applying for apprenticeships. In Victoria alone last year 10 000 applications were unsuccessful. Small companies think they are at risk with indentured apprentices as they are unable to guarantee employment over the period of training. Allied with this is a general feeling that the training periods are too long. More work is let out on contract which means that the range of skills which can be taught is reduced. Subcontractors do not take on apprentices. There has been a tendency to upgrade semi-skilled labour rather than train apprentices. There is a general belief that apprentices are uneconomic and costly and employers prefer to employ newly qualified tradesmen from other firms and organisations. Such activities do not generally improve the situation for young people who are trying to find employment in Australia today.

In order to encourage employers to train apprentices a number of national schemes have been used. They are good schemes, schemes which we should support and hopefully modify to suit changing conditions in Australia today. I could talk at length of the apprenticeship system but I will not do so. I complete my speech by saying that we need to look firmly at our apprenticeship system and improve it. By doing that, hope- . fully, we will overcome the unemployment situation.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) probably has been deeply involved in the question of apprenticeships for long enough to be able to give the House a pretty fair summary of its great difficulties. He has spelt out for us one of the sad facts of education progress and policy- that we nearly always arrive at these programs too late. One of the great misfortunes for the people who are tipped onto the labour market at this time is that they have run into a time of great social change, of economic challenge, and almost philosophical difficulty, I suppose, as far as the state of the nation is concerned and we have not found the answers. I think on the whole that economically we have lost our nerve and these people are partly the victims of this fact.

I speak as one who was a victim of a similar situation of about a generation back, about 10 000 or 12 000 yesterday’s ago. I sympathise with the people and worry about the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be talked into this situation. It is some comfort to us on this side of the House that there are people on the Government side who recognise the difficulties.

My colleague the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) spelt out another difficulty- that of dealing with the State governments. Perhaps the difficulty of dealing with State governments is more apparent or more generic for a Commonwealth Labor government than a Liberal government. However, the fact is that it is very difficult to get State governments to come to the party for a general national policy on anything, no matter the political philosophy of the prevailing Federal government.

Mr Martyr:

– Why?

Mr BRYANT:

-Because so much of the State governments of Australia is in the hands of people who on any consideration at all would have to be placed on the list of reactionaries from way back. I do not think all that highly of the philosophies of people in this place. I recall that after the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made his maiden speech somebody wrote an article and said: ‘Mr Wentworth move over, there are people here further to the right than you.’ The State governments are not only reactionary in so many regards; they are also obstructive. Honourable members opposite are finding some of this in regard to their own policies.

When I look at this battery of Bills that is before us I ask myself how the Bills answer the problems of Australian education, how they protect the initiatives that the Labor government took in its 3 years of office and how they follow on the programs developed over the 20 years of education debate in this Parliament. I think I should say, with deep regret, that I see this important issue of education, involving nearly $2,000m from our Budget, in one way or another, in Commonwealth funds alone, is reduced to an omnibus debate in this place in which 8 Bills are being considered and in which there are three or four speakers from each side. That is not good enough. This is a major social issue. It may well be that we say the same things now as we said years ago. It may well be that there is not all that much difference between the speeches from one side or the other. But if this Parliament is to be a forum for political philosophies and the aims and aspirations of the people of Australia, education debates must not be reduced as they are today.

Perhaps it is time we produced an omnibus education Act which covers all the principles that are in these Bills and spelt them out and then each year made proper appropriations in a different form of legislation. The machinery of the Parliament is now getting to the stage where it is unable to cope with the necessities of decent public debate.

Labor’s revolution covered a number of fields. Firstly, we stressed the need to deal with the needs of the community for education and we placed needs at the top of the list. The first area of assistance was to go to people who had the greatest need. However we also did other things which were relatively revolutionary. We undertook to support people in initiatives in the schools. One of the unnoted and, I think, not highly enough regarded areas was that related to the innovation programs. As far as I can tell from the figures I have been given they were economic in their administration, they were effective in the school room, in most cases, and they certainly produced a new dimension as far as the schools to which I have been attached were concerned. I hope nothing will be done to reduce that area of initiative.

The other thing that we stressed was the priority of education in the Australian scene. During our period in office the vote for education exceeded the vote for defence for the first time in our history. I am a fairly optimistic sort of person, as honourable members opposite would be aware. I was one of those people who were involved for many years in education debates in this House. I used to say that the time would come when education would take as high a priority as anything else and I used to quote the defence figures. I did not expect to see the parliamentary day when it actually happened but it has happened and on the whole, give or take a few bits of hypocrisy here and there, honourable members opposite have accepted the same principles.

One of the revolutions for which I think we were responsible was free university education and I hope that honourable members opposite who may have had the advantage of it or whose children may have had the advantage of it will protect it. I regard it as a great social advance. I am the first to admit that great debate was generated not only in the ranks of my own Party but also, I guess, throughout the community generally when it was suggested that universities were for a special son of people. On the whole, it was the advantaged people who got there. From my own experience, of course, I know that that is not the case. From the experience of the people whom I represent, I know that that is not the case. We opened the doors of Australian universities to thousands of students who would have been denied admission if we had not taken that action.

One of the features of our regime, of course, was the consistent attacks made on everything that we- did. It was not necessary for our opponents to be specific. They only had to say that there was enormous waste in the education programs. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), as he does now, only had to talk in generalities. I heard him one day talk about the ‘mad extravagance’ of the Labor Government. What exactly did he mean by that? If we transfer that phrase to the education system, does he mean that the money that went to the Hamilton High School in his electorate was wasted? Does the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr

Bourchier), who is trying to interject, mean that all the money that went into his electorate by any means whatever to education institutions was wasted? Of course he did not mean that. I think honourable members opposite did Australian education a great deal of damage.

Now I turn my mind to the Bills which are before us, to the principles which are espoused and to the fact that one has a brief opportunity only in this debate to take part in the discussion on education. I want to see whether the programs are continuing with the effort upon which we embarked to remove the great disadvantages from Australian education. In what way will the financial programs which are spelt out in these Bills remove the inequalities in Australian education? Some of these inequalities were spelt out by my friend, the honourable member for Fremantle, my colleague, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), and also the honourable member for Franklin.

Great disabilities exist among the States. There is great disability in education opportunity if one lives in certain areas of Queensland. There is also disability in opportunities and effort between suburb and suburb. I represent 2 industrial suburbs of Melbourne. They do not get the same sorts of educational advantages as do people who live in some of the other areas. There are all sorts of historical reasons for that state of affairs. There are also sheer physical difficulties involved in trying to replace and rebuild schools in electorates such as mine. Disabilities flow from city to country and country to city. I notice that some of these disabilities are being taken up here. Unfortunately assistance is almost completely confined to programs for non-Government schools. There are inequalities in the areas of sex, economic status and race. This is particularly so for Aboriginal people and migrants.

As has been spelt out on apprenticeship, the Australian educational system is still too conservative and too slow to change. There is probably still too much centralism in it. This brings me to indicate where I think the Commonwealth can be most effective. Our task as an Australian Government is to remove the disabilities which flow to people because they live on one part of the continent and not on another. I think a general philosophy which may well be espoused by all political parties is that, wherever one lives on this continent, one is entitled to advantages equal to those enjoyed by others living on the continent. So, it is only the Australian Government which can achieve that end.

It is our duty to set programs in train which will open new horizons in education. I suppose that this is the moment to establish the system to encourage people to take up new programs which will force these developments and which will initiate change in the relevant direction. Our education system is basically much as it was 30 years or 40 years ago. Perhaps the internal workings of the schools are a little less authoritarian. In some ways, perhaps, professionalism in the classroom is not as good as -it was when most honourable members in the House attended school. But I think that is changing as programs of teacher training and continuing education have increased over the last few years.

There is only one way in which we can bring a proper drive and real dynamics to education and that is through a Commonwealth input. All State instrumentalities are bound up in the conservatism of their arrangements, in the centralism by which they are controlled and through the whole basic arrangements of the education system. It is only by taking financial initiatives and by allowing them to be developed through individual schools that we will generate enough attitudes towards change which result in Australian schools becoming appropriate in outlook for the next couple of decades. After 2 1 years in the Parliament I am convinced that it is from the Commonwealth only that we can expect that initiative.

We may get quite radical developments through various areas of the State system. On the whole, as I see it, in various parts of Victorian education, there have been more radical developments and more progressive attitudes than there have been in most of the rest of Australia. I think that in its general education program South Australia has been more progressive and has geared itself better to the future than have most of the other States. But it is a patchy development. It is only through curriculum development programs, by grants for innovation programs and by special attacks upon the disadvantages areas of education and so on that we will overcome these problems or get anywhere near overcoming them. As I look at the legislation before us and see the whole battery of it, and as I have listened to the speeches on it, I have not seen anything flowing through the proposals except in odd spots a real recognition of what these difficulties are. I think it is time that we all recognised that the Commonwealth can no longer talk about States’ duties in these matters. Every citizen has rights and every State has duties rather than rights.

Mr Bourchier:

– Fancy you saying that States have rights.

Mr BRYANT:

-The States are simply part of the corporate structure of society. As governors and governments they have no rights. They have duties to people. People who talk about State rights are incipient fascists. I know that the honourable member for Bendigo is not. Sometimes I think he is a real one. But that is not what he meant by his interjection. But the fact is that to talk about the rights of governments is to deny what we are here about. Our duty to the Australian school and the Australian child is just as overwhelming and demanding as is that of any State government. It is our job to intervene in those areas where we think the States are not making the distance. There is no doubt in my mind that the Australian State education systems are totally inadequate in administering new schemes. During the life of our Government we ‘found that very little was done for the disadvantaged schools in my electorate. I do not know where all the money went which was put into the Victorian education scheme. I know that most of the schools in my electorate were on the list of disadvantaged schools for various areas. I know that they were all overloaded with migrants and that they had other problems in education. I know that very little of that money flowed to them even though people such as myself had been responsible in a large measure for the creation of the Australian Labor Party policies on education.

So, in relation to the point being made here about non-Government schools, it seems to me that the theme is to place more reliance on nonGovernment schools. Perhaps I should say that more thought is given for non-Government schools than is given for Government schools. We adopt the attitude that Government schools are somebody else’s responsibility. In my electorate there is a number of schools which need rebuilding completely. I shall cite two, namely, Moreland High School and Brunswick Technical School. It seems to me that the Victorian Department of Public Works and Department of Education have no capacity whatsoever to take up this challenge. Both schools are built on very small areas. Moreland with, I think, 700 or 800 students, or a few more, is a most progressive school. It has an area available of approximately one and a quarter acres. Brunswick Technical School has perhaps 2 acres for 500 or 600 day students with hundreds more under the apprenticeship scheme. There is nowhere to rebuild on that land while the schools are still occupied. So, there is a very difficult challenge which is continually ignored by the Victorian Government.

However, if we developed a program for direct assistance to Government schools, as we have for non-Government schools, we could call upon the initiative of the people on the school councils. There is no reason on earth why the school councils which administer- or would administer if we put enough faith in them- the Moreland High School and the Brunswick Technical School could not handle the rebuilding, reequipping and remodelling of the schools as effectively as the non-Government school councils do when we make the money available to them. So I see just a glimmer of hope for a decentralisation of the school initiatives in this legislation. Perhaps I am being unduly optimistic in thinking that that is what would happen, but the time has come for us to make direct grants to the government schools, bypassing the State Departments if necessary. However, I think it would be better if we came to a continuous agreement with the States and if the programs were included in the Act in schedules of some sort. I make an appeal for a better system of parent participation and school participation, both student and teacher, in the management of government schools. We recognise that there are great difficulties involved and that the professionalism and the free movement of teachers may well be disadvantaged if we turn the schools into so many autonomous republics, but I do not think that the solution to that problem is beyond the wit of man. The principal issue over the next few years in relation to school management is the development of the schools assistance program set out in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the development of greater initiatives in the schools by dealing more directly with them in a financial way.

In conclusion, I should like to challenge a few of the thoughts which are consistently flowing around the education system. One of these thoughts- I heard it expressed only the other day- is that there are too many teachers. Have we trained too many teachers? I have great doubts about the validity of that statement. The fact is that there are enormous numbers of students in the schools who are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways. They are disadvantaged not only in the physical environment of the schools but also in their home environment, with all things that go with that. Many of the homes of Australia are perhaps a little less literate than they used to be. Therefore the child goes to school less well equipped to take up the challenge of modern education, and that applies particularly to migrant children. I do not regard it as being totally conclusive, but a lot of the evidence of the last few years has shown that there has been a collapse in the standard of what might be called literacy- the capacity to read and write and do the things for which schools train people. These people are transferring into the work force ill equipped, and I hope that we will not surrender in any way to the view that some areas of education have been adequately served and that we will maintain a continual flow of funds.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

-The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) made some play of the fact that he was not given sufficient opportunity to address the House on these education Bills. I would point out to the House and to those persons listening that the Opposition was given a very clear opportunity to object to these 8 Bills being debated cognately. There was not a murmur from them. I should also point out to the House and to those listening that when the speakers’ list was drawn up the Opposition could find only 2 speakers. Since then it has found the honourable for Wills, and I understand that it is now trying to find yet another speaker to take part in this debate. So much for the claim that the Opposition is being denied the opportunity to debate these Bills.

The 8 Bills are most significant and indicate clearly the support that the Commonwealth Government is providing for secondary and post-secondary education. Within that context of post-secondary education I include apprenticeship education, to which my friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) referred. At the outset I want to say that I think there are enormous problems in apprenticeship training when one considers the situation that has occurred with the wages explosion and the level of wages being paid to young people. I have found it very difficult to persuade an 18V4 year old to take up an apprenticeship, to be indentured for a long period of time, when that 18 ‘A year old can go and work in an abattoir in my electorate for a base wage of $196 a week, with an additional $20 to $30 a week in overtime, and effectively doing some 32 hours work in that week. That is a sad reflection on the state of the economy and on the situation in which we found ourselves when we took office last December.

This Government is committed to education and these Bills amply demonstrate that commitment. Contrary to the criticism- criticism often ill informed or in some cases purposefully orchestrated, I believe- there has been no cutback in education funding by this Government compared to the previous Government’s funding. The cutback occurred in 1976, and I point out very clearly that this current year’s funding resulted from the previous Labor Government’s Budget, the 1975-76 Hayden Budget, when the Labor Government suddenly realised that its extravagant education programs, its multifarious programs, its wasteful programs, could no longer e financed. The cutbacks came between 1975 and 1976, and in fact this Government has restored and increased the level of education expenditure over and above that of last year. Previously we had the luxurious, wanton and wasteful programs which were instituted by the previous Government. I find it quite remarkable that a small country school can be battling to survive because it has perhaps 14 children, and if it drops below that number it will be closed. It has one teacher, it has very poor toilets, playing fields and recreational facilities, and yet it has a multitude of electronic equipment, closed circuit television and the like. This sort of thing has done untold damage to parents and friends associations which were working for the smaller schools. It destroyed any incentive they had to raise funds for the benefit of the school, and I believe that that sort of thing is an example of the wasteful programs which were set up.

In relation to the post-secondary education sector, I have had some first hand experience with some of the difficulties involved in trying to plan, to budget and to administer within the rigid programs established by the previous Government. There was a situation, which has now been rectified, where it was almost impossible to substitute between recurrent funding and capital funding. For example, if one could make savings in the current funded areas through salaries or through the employment of part time staff and one wished to use that saving for a capital purpose, it could not be done. The matter had to be referred to Canberra for decision because of the rigidity with which the programs were implemented. For example, there was no prospect of being able to carry over finance from one triennium to the next, or in some cases within years of triennia, and there was in fact no incentive for good housekeeping within the education system.

What was the situation when this Government took office? Inflation was running at record levels which threatened the real values of recurrent and capital programs in the education sector. Unemployment was at a level of 300 000 people, 40 per cent of whom were young people under the age of 21 years. A decision was made in August 1975 by the Whitlam Government to cut the programs of the 4 education commissions for the calendar year 1976 by a total of $ 105m compared with the allocation for the 1975 calendar year. That is where the cutback came. The Whitlam Government set aside the principle of triennial funding’ and planning, and that was disastrous from the point of view of any logical and well designed program for educational development, both in terms of physical facilities and in terms of course-planning and programming. We did not know if we could appoint staff. In relation to staff appointments, anybody who has been involved in this area will know that there is a long lead time between the first indication that additional staff are needed, through the process of advertising, selection and appointment, to the time when the member of staff first takes up the appointment as an effective member of the operation.

The Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education were amalgamated, and I sympathise with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who was at that time the Minister for Education. He is a man for whom I have some regard, and a man who was genuine in his efforts to provide a high level of quality education for this country. But he was so often thwarted in his efforts to do that by his own Prime Minister. The classic example of that is when the Prime Minister declared that the 2 tertiary commissions would be amalgamated. I doubt if the Minister for Education was properly consulted on that decision. We also saw the freezing of students’ allowances by the Whitlam Government even though no changes had been made since 1 January 1975 and the allowances at that time were based on June 1 974 values.

I think that we also saw a substantial change in attitudes of young people towards work, towards examinations, towards pass rates and towards the whole education system. There seemed to be an attitude developing that as long as they attended or in fact were enrolled there was no real necessity for them to perform in order to take a qualification, in order to have some right to bear that qualification and to use it. We saw extraordinary attitudes developing, where in the free hand-out society students believed that they should have their student representative council fees paid for them by the government. They even believed that their Australian Union of Students’ subscriptions should be paid by the government. Everything had to be free. They thought that they deserved it, that it was their right and entitlement and that they did not have to contribute for anything.

I should like to refer to the accusations of the cutback in the expenditure programs of the 4 major educational areas. Reference can be made to the recent speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate in which he made it quite clear that compared to allocations made in 1976 as a result of the Hayden Budget the allocations for education programs in 1977 in all cases have increased giving a total of $ 1,537m for 1977 compared to $l,490m for the 1976 program and honourable members will recall that that was a cutback of $ 105m on 1975, the previous year.

What has been done since this Government took office besides making increased allocations to the 4 education areas? Firstly I applaud the inquiry that has been instituted by this Government into the whole sector of post-secondary education, and secondary education for that matter, as it relates to the needs and demands of the workforce. I believe that we have tended to become too academic, too out of touch and too unrealistic as to what the workplace demands. I think that we have been in danger of overeducation too many and leaving a great hiatus at the lower levels of post-secondary education, particularly as my colleague the honourable member for Franklin mentioned, at the apprenticeship levels and at the technical and further education levels. I think that as a result of this many people who graduated with postgraduate degrees or undertook research have found it very difficult to find meaningful employment and, in some cases, any employment, within the workforce. I recall some of my colleagues at university who were not game to face visits by people representing the industrial organisations that financed their post-graduate scholarships. They in fact found an excuse to not be there because they were not prepared to be publicly scrutinised as to the value of the scholarships they held in relation to the work that they were meant to be doing and the contribution they were meant to be making to industry or the university.

What else has been done? This Government, as I mentioned before, has restored education funding. It has provided for an increase in real moneys to universities by 2 per cent, to colleges by 5 per cent and to the technical and further education area by 7½ per cent. This is very commendable at a time of such extreme economic difficulties and the need for severe economic restraint. The principle of a rolling triennium has been reintroduced. This will allow institutions and States effectively to forward plan and effectively to administer their programs. Only recently in October this year the Government announced substantial increases in all 10 different categories of students’ allowances amounting in total to an additional $50m a year in expenditure. This was an issue that was mooted far and wide in the Press as indicative of how much this Government had cut back education funding. In fact it is this Government, rather than the previous Government, that has restored student allowances.

In addition, the Government is committed to undertaking an investigation into the coordination and rationalisation of a number of our institutions. I think that these matters need some examination. I make reference to the college sector where there has been an escalation of what I would call ‘academic respectability’. There has been great pressure to increase the length of courses, to upgrade courses, to go for higher and higher degress, to push associate diploma courses to diploma and degree course levels, and to make application for more postgraduate and graduate diploma courses. Staff believe that they are entitled to be called ‘professor’, make substantial demands for sabbatical leave entitlements, and increase the basic theoretical content of many of their courses. In so doing I believe they lose sight of the original function, purpose and role for which colleges of advanced education were originally established.

I think that examination needs to be conducted of the college and technical education sectors of education. There needs to be a clear definition of the roles of colleges vis-a-vis the roles of technical and further education institutions. If there cannot be a clear definition of these roles let us accept the fact that there may need to be some overlap at the interface between the two. Why is it necessary to compartmentalise institutions into tertiary versus non-tertiary or tertiary versus sub-tertiary? One of the results of doing this is that we have in this country probably the most inadequate provisions for the transferability of students between one sector and another of the post-secondary education system. I think that through doing this we also basically deny opportunities to so many young school leavers who may have left school for a variety of circumstances which in many cases are beyond their control and who have not gained their higher school certificate. In many other countries there are ways and means and opportunities for people such as those who do not have full secondary qualifications, to acquire those qualifications in later life and to follow through to achieve the level of post-secondary education that they desire or that suits them best.

I think that also has implications for the way in which we select applicants for our institutions. Personally I believe strongly that we should insist that students who seek to attend universities and colleges should do so only after waiting for a period after leaving school. They should have a period of life and work experience so that they can enter the institutions as more motivated students and probably more able to undertake and succeed in their courses.

There would be many members of this House who would recall how successful returned servicemen from World War II were in completing university courses. Those servicemen were described by one professor at Sydney University, with whom I remember discussing this subject, as by far the best students, the most motivated students and the most contributing students of whom he had ever taught. Look at the record of some of our adult students who have entered institutions such as the University of New England through external studies programs. They have entered the university with provisional matriculation and have graduated as university medallists. I can think of one extraordinary case in which a husband and wife were both university medallists in the one year. So let us look not only at the selection of our students with a view possibly to getting more motivated students and with a view to reducing first year wastages and the like but let us look also at some of our learning processes. I think that these are the sorts of things we can do with more motivated and more experienced students. Let us try to accept that the learning process is not simply one of communication from staff to students. Let us look at the situation where students might be able to learn from each other. Let us look at the situation where staff might learn from students. Let us look at the situation where students might learn from the practitioners of arts, crafts or professions, the people who have to survive or die by their ability to conduct their profession or their craft.

I mentioned earlier the rationalisation that is necessary, I believe, in some areas. We see, for example, a university, a college of advanced education and one or more technical and further education institutions in the one centre. This may or may not be a regional centre. I think there is a great need to look at this dispassionately and intelligently to see whether there cannot be a much greater degree of co-operation and interrelationship amongst the 3 sectors. At the same time I think there are dangers in assuming that because an institution is bigger it is better or because an institution is bigger it is cheaper to operate. Each institution has to be regarded on the basis of its own merits, the particular philosophy that it might have developed, its reputation or its particular specialty.

I make mention of the Katherine Rural Training College to which the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) referred. How on earth could one apply a criteria of this sort to the establishment of that type of institution. Katherine is a relatively small settlement. The student draw in the whole of the Northern Territory is relatively small. At the same time there is a necessity to provide that type of post-secondary educational facility. Since I have had some association with that rural training college I make a plea to this Government that before it proceeds to establish the college there is an examination of the role, function and purpose for which this college should be established. In the initial stages of planning it was considered that this college might provide training facilities for people to work in the pastoral zone and in the rural industries as rural labour or as rural managers. Of course it then became clear that this college might become basically a training college for Aborigines. I think that also is a worthy motive. But let us be quite clear on its purpose before we embark on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I rise to support the amendment. Particularly I would like to deal with the area of specific learning difficulties and to draw the attention of the House to the problems of the children disadvantaged by these difficulties. I hoped to have had an opportunity to debate these matters earlier in the House in connection with the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. This most important report was tabled on Thursday, 14 October 1 976, which is almost a month ago. Still the Government has not seen fit to provide the House with an opportunity to debate the report Why the Government should be so reluctant to allow debate on this is not known to me. I urge the Government, however, to bring on the matter as early as possible before the end of the session as a number of unknowns urgently require elucidation. We need to know, for instance, whether it is the intention of the Australian Government to establish a list of priorities in relation to the recommendations and, if so, when such priorities will be implemented. At a more general level we need to know the Government’s position and the nature of its commitment to the recommendations in this report.

Allow me to mention just one or two examples of the sort of thing I have in mind. Firstly, teacher education in Australian tertiary institutions needs to include training in the methods of procedures available to reduce learning difficulties. Such training should be given to all trainees and qualified teachers by both pre and in-service training. The Select Committee’s report makes several critical recommendations about these aspects of teacher education. We need to know whether the Australian Government is prepared to endorse and implement such change through the various tertiary education commissions and, if so, when will it occur. These are important matters and- members on both sides of the House, I am sure, will want to know the answers to these questions before another month has passed. Secondly, many pre-school children who have learning difficulties do not go to pre-schools or any other educationally orientated place at which such difficulties may be remedied. This includes such categories as linguistically disadvantaged migrant children, in whose welfare I have a particular concern, the economically disadvantaged and so on. The report clearly states that if learning difficulties are not identified and remedied early, overtime such difficulties become harder to remedy.

I asked about the Government’s intention in this area in a question without notice on 3 November. I am still patiently waiting for a response. We need to know how and when the Government intends to provide services in order that such children with difficulties will not be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. Delay is inexcusable. For every month that passes more and more children reach that point of no return where it becomes too late to take such remedial action. Those children are condemned to a life with little prospect. The Australian Council for Educational Research found that 29 per cent of Australia’s 10-year-olds and 27 per cent of 14- year-olds cannot understand written material of greater complexity than their classroom textbooks. Some 20 per cent of 14-year-olds cannot comprehend the meaning of passages taken from daily newspapers. Some 26 per cent cannot write a letter applying for a job. There are twice as many students in need of remedial help in reading or arithmetic as there are places. These figures are beyond dispute. They are not the findings of an educationist with his own barrow to push but the findings of research undertaken under the auspices of the Education Research and Development Committee of the Australian

Government. They clearly show that a quarter of our children pass from primary to secondary school and on to the job market without ever acquiring the basic educational skills needed to take their place as functional members of the work force and citizen body.

This country has a long history of assistance for those struggling to compete successfully in other market situations, but the labour market is the most cut-throat of all markets. There are no subsidies or superphosphate bounties there. So the situation is critical. It is interesting and a little saddening to see that response to this situation includes 2 sorts of reaction which are not helpful in the least. One fairly typical response is to try to minimise the problems of basic educational skills. What has been done to meet the crisis of literacy by pointing out that in some comparable countries such as New Zealand or the United Kingdom things are even worse. I would like to know how that helps the situation in Australia. Of course it does not. There has to be an end to the shoddy rationalisation and unceasing defence of the indefensible. Normal children should be able to read by the time they are seven. Teaching a child to read is the most fundamental responsibility which is owed to him by his school and the education system generally.

Mr MacKenzie:

– What about his parents?

Mr INNES:

-If he had one like you he would never learn. The rebirth of literacy should be adopted by governments forthwith as a major national priority. The second misleading response, and one which members might think I am about to embrace myself, is the return to the golden age syndrome which has become a great rallying cry for conservatives in this country. Modern educational techniques, it is held, have destroyed standards of literacy and we need to . return to a concentration on the sit up and shut up, strap across the buttocks, rote learning of the 3 Rs system of education. Such stone age authoritarianism certainly fails every educational test except, just possibly, that of literacy. It teaches mindless obedience rather than the truly educational value of inquiry and questioning. It teaches fear of blank servility towards authority rather than the democractic value of civic interest and participation.

I am not saying for one moment that I condone some of the programs that are outlined. Plenty of evidence suggests that there ought to be establishment of a proper and efficient program. If there is a necessity to return to some basic notion of education to achieve that, it ought to be done. I simply raise the question. The problem is here with us. In the far distant future children from my electorate of Melbourne will still be lamenting if the Minister does come to grips with the problem and lets the recommendation of the Committee go unheeded or shelved for the purpose of procrastination. The Government has become certainly not in the true sense of the word objective in its approach, nor has it been challenged on many occasions for shelving reports and not letting them become public. This one is public. It has been tabled. It contains recommendations. What we are calling on the Government to do is to give effect to those recommendations. The Committee was unanimous in its attitude on the issues to which I made reference. There was no argument, there was consensus, about the fundamental principles which I have outlined.

The reason why I said that these approaches just possibly do aid literacy is that there is no firm evidence to suggest that it does. No one has been able satisfactorily to prove that there was ever a golden age in Australian education when standards of literacy were more satisfactory than they are at present; nor is it likely that we will ever have evidence to suggest that those in the generation of our grandfathers were better readers than those in our children’s generation. What is needed is action, not a lot of words. What we can say with certainty- and this can be confirmed by the House of Representatives Select Committee of Specific Learning Difficultiesis that an enormous number of today’s children who clearly have the capacity to read are missing out on the learning process. In this context, whether there has been an actual decline in reading standards is supremely unimportant. What matters is the decline which has occurred in literacy and the aspiration held by our community for all its children.

We have to establish a re-birth of literacy as a major national priority. In this sense we need to reject efforts to divert discussion away from our present problems and practical ways of overcoming them in favour of an historical debate of a sterile and most inconclusive kind. It is time to tackle the real problems. It is time for a major shift in educational resources to enable the problems of literacy to be tackled head on. To do otherwise is to sell out our children on the basic freedoms of access to information, vocational choice and even political choice which literacy alone can confer. The experience of those who served on the Committee- and I am sure this will be supported by those who have experience in the field- would suggest that recommendations from the Committee’s report should be adopted to deal with factors which are external to the classroom and lead to a failure to achieve. Any review of the adequacy of current measures is unsatisfactory if it fails to consider the importance of broader environmental factors.

It is readily obvious that the high proportion of Aboriginal and migrant children- particularly Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, as was indicated by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley)- who suffer from learning difficulties is seriously contributed to by general rather than specific problems. This fact has been firmly established in a number of reputable investigations apart from that carried out by the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties on which the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and I served. There have been a number of other investigations such as that by the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the migrant task force report. It was mentioned also in the submission by a Mr Bell who had practical experience as a school teacher in the Alice Springs area. It was he who submitted in evidence to the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties that the influence on educational under-achievement of other factors such as cultural and linguistic difficulties, basic housing and health problems in a domestic environment, the pattern of alcohol consumption and problems of frequent family movement should be recognised. The importance of these factors in Aboriginal learning disabilities is well documented.

There is a whole range of investigations taking place in all areas where migrant children go to school. It is true that there is a dire need for bilingual teachers in these areas. There is a screaming need for community relations officers who are bilingual. In this respect what has been the achievement of the present Government in the schools mentioned by the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie)? There is a dearth of teachers in those schools and, if additional teachers are not forthcoming, these schools will not be able to carry on the programs in the Northern Territory for which this screaming need exists. At the Stuart Park Primary School in Darwin there are 2 bilingual- Greekspeakingcommunity relations officers who are fundamental to the children in that area achieving to the maximum. But what happened? Due to the many Budget cuts and the pressures applied in the area, the services of these 2 individuals were dispensed with. This action was to the detriment of the capacity and entitlement of the children in that area to be on equal ground with other children. It was only after a scream from the community that they were put back in the service for a limited period.

In Melbourne, where there is another screaming need for community relations officers, there are blocks of flats in which children are living in shocking circumstances. In one block of flats in Collingwood, 80 per cent of the inhabitants are either unmarried or single mothers or deserted wives- women who are on their own trying to bring up their children. If one goes into the schools seeking to discover what is missing in the link between the education situation and the home environment one need only speak to community relations officers. The honourable member for Moore can smirk for as long as he likes but why does he not indicate whether what I am saying is correct and whether he will support me in a demand that the recommendations in the report be implemented as soon as possible? We should not put up with the procrastination that we have tolerated in the immediate past. I have asked questions on this issue of the report and still have not received an answer. This morning I asked a further question without notice on the same issue and I hope that it gets better treatment.

We appreciate the problem of resources and are not opposing the Bill in general. If we are to go along with this elitist concept, ignore what is in our mind ‘s eye and in our hearts, and turn our attention to the silk department or the tertiary education area, we will be turning our back on those who need greater help. It might well be that what is needed is a redistribution of resources for some period at least to catch up with and endeavour to relieve the plight of those in the underprivileged areas of our society- the Aboriginal children and the migrant children in particular. We encourage migrants to come out here and immediately set for them standards which are inferior in many respects to the standards we set for the community generally. We find migrant children in schools trying to cope with 2 languages- their native tongue and English. They are losing their mother tongue and cannot find a text book which adequately covers their requirements in their struggle to equip themselves to look after themselves and thenfamilies in the future.

I have endeavoured to stay some distance away from the specific provisions of the report of the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) should think again if he believes that these are the only areas with which I intend to deal in the debate on the report. I believe that the specific matters raised by the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties ought to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. A whole range of issues is screaming out for attention. If we are not prepared to do something about a redistribution of resources between now and the time when children from the primary schools are moving into the secondary school area, we will commit a number of these children into the wilderness in which other children find themselves. If we allow this to happen, it will be a disgrace to our society.

I am not talking about whether the previous Government was right, how much money it spent on education or whether the present Government will do something better in this area in the future. We have to come to grips with the fact that the problem exists now. I nope that the opportunity to debate the matters contained in the report of the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties will be provided in the very near future. Today I have merely attempted to bring the current crisis concerning literacy to the attention of the House. I hope the lesson will not be lost on honourable members opposite and that the Government will accordingly bring on a debate on the report of the Select Committee at the earliest opportunity.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I am obliged to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) for permitting me to make some comments on a matter which is of particular concern to the electorate of Denison and to the people of Hobart. It relates specifically to the proposal to transfer the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, which has been situated at the Mount Nelson campus for several years, to the Newnham campus in Launceston and, in fact, to close down what has been, I believe, a very worthy addition to tertiary education in southern Tasmania. It will be well known, I believe, by most honourable members who are interested in the field of education that the Karmel report dealt specifically with the field of tertiary education, which included the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education and the University of Tasmania.

In essence, the Karmel report recommended that the Mount Nelson campus of the TCAE be closed down and that a college of advanced education, which would be an autonomous body, be established in northern Tasmania. That report has been generally accepted in spirit but, from a practical point of view, I believe it presents very substantial problems. The State Government of Tasmania found difficulty in the implementation of the report and referred it to the Cosgrove Committee to advise the Government as to the practicality of the transfer of the TCAE. From the very day the report was released I made it quite clear publicly that I did not wish to see, and that I would do everything in my power to prevent, the transfer to northern Tasmania of the School of Art which was attached to the TCAE at Mount Nelson and which in fact has existed in Hobart since 1891.

Mr Goodluck:

– It is a very fine school.

Mr HODGMAN:

-I completely agree with the honourable member and I believe that it would be nothing short of a tragedy if the School of Art was transferred to northern Tasmania. I have said publicly in Hobart, and I feel that it is my duty to put it on record in this Parliament, that I can no longer remain silent on the question of the dismantling and abolition of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education at Mount Nelson. I am opposed to the disbandment of the College of Advanced Education there and I hope that while it is a matter for the State Government, the State Parliament of Tasmania will give very serious consideration to deferring the implementation of the recommendations of the Karmel report, perhaps by way of a moratorium for at least 12 months, to enable all the implications to be carefully examined and assessed. I do not want to remain silent on this issue. Indeed, I believe I would be in breach of my duty as the member of Parliament representing the electorate of Denison if I remained silent and witnessed the dismantling of this College of Advanced Education. I believe that Tasmania needs 2 colleges of advanced education in conjunction with the other tertiary education facility available in Tasmania, namely, the University of Tasmania. I find it very hard to accept the proposition that because there is a College of Advanced Education in Hobart and a smaller college at Newnham campus, the Hobart College should be abolished and transferred to Launceston because there is a Universty in Hobart. I do not wish to extend the indulgence which the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has allowed me in permitting me to intrude into the debate but I wish to say that not only should the School of Art not be transferred to Launceston but also that the School of Environmental Design and Planning must be kept in Hobart.

Mr Goodluck:

– It would be a scandal.

Mr HODGMAN:

-I am reminded by my colleague that it would be nothing short of scandalous if the facilities of the Department of Physical Education which were specially set up at Mount Nelson were to be transferred to northern Tasmania. Those facilities are the result of many years planning. They represent a multimillion dollar project. They are perhaps the most magnificent physical education facilities in the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia. It would be nothing short of a scandal if those facilities were put to some other less significant use and the department transferred to northern Tasmania. Finally, I refer to the question which has been recently drawn to my attention and to that of my colleagues, namely, that the facilities for engineering training in northern Tasmania will not provide young persons with the opportunity of qualifying to the same standard, as they have been able to qualify at Mount Nelson. A number of young people who wish to take these courses will no longer have that opportunity. They will be deprived of the opportunity of developing in the field of engineering. Having made those remarks, I emphasise that the decision on this matter is one for the Tasmanian Parliament. I commend publicly that State Liberal spokesman on Education, Mr Mather MHA, for the time and trouble he has taken on this matter. I appeal to the State Government not to take precipitate action, and I recommend publicly that there should be a moratorium on the implementation of the Karmel report for a period of 12 months in order that all the implications can be assessed and irreparable damage will not be caused to tertiary education in Tasmania.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– in reply- I wish to take the opportunity to reply briefly to some of the remarks made by Opposition speakers and to pick up some of the comments made by Government supporters. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to comments in a number of the education commissions’ reports about the inadequacies of the funds to be provided, as indicated in the guidelines for 1978 and 1979. Under the arrangements for the new rolling triennium the Government will be reviewing the rate of growth in the funds provided for the commissions’ programs when it determines the guidelines early next year for the 1 978-80 triennium.

In doing this, the Government will give careful consideration to the comments contained in the reports of the commissions and, in particular, to the needs of technical and further education, as indicated in the statement tabled in the House yesterday. The honourable member spoke of cuts which he alleges the Government has made against the requirements of the Commissions. The figures that he cited were taken from the reports of the commissions for the triennium 1976-78. 1 remind the House, as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) pointed out, that when the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and his colleagues were in Government, and the honourable member was a Minister, their Government rejected the commissions’ reports for the 1976-78 triennium. In their place it instituted a one year program for the year 1 976. With regard to that point, not only did the previous Government reject the commissions ‘ triennial reports, but also it reduced the funds available for 1976 by $105m compared with the amount provided in 197S.

To take this matter further, I add by way of example, that the Schools Commission in its report sought approximately $720m for 1976 but received from the former Government only $498m, in December 1975 prices, Labor Government prices, which represented a reduction of $222m, quite apart from the loss of value of Labor Government money as a result of inflation generated by that Administration.

How hollow is it, then, for the honourable gentleman to come into the House during this debate and seek to charge the Government with a dereliction of responsibility in education by stating that the money which we are to provide is less than that which the commissions reported for the triennium that I have mentioned? We have given clear undertakings to the education commissions that there will be real growth in the funds that they are to receive and we have provided them with a planning basis upon which they can put forward programs to the Government under the new rolling triennium proposals. I would have thought that, by any standard, that is a constructive measure and is one upon which the commissions can plan constructively for the future.

The honourable gentleman also referred to the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on 4 November when the Minister said that he would be asking the commissions to convey further details of the supplementation arrangements to the institutions. It was alleged that this would lead to uncertainty about whether the Government would be providing the full real growth that it had announced for the commissions’ programs. I refer the honourable gentleman to page 2 of the Minister’s circulated statement, where he said: … I wish to emphasise that the Government has no intention of retreating from its undertaking to support real growth in the education programs on which the commissions make recommendations.

What the commissions will be doing is simple enough. They will be conveying procedural details of the new arrangements to make them more certain, which is quite the contrary to the allegation that the honourable gentleman has made. So, if the honourable gentleman was properly briefed, it is hard to understand how he could make the charge that he did. I invite the honourable gentleman also to carry forward his reading of the paragraph from which he quoted and which refers to the adjustments which have been agreed for cost increases to be made in each quarter following certification from each commission of the supplementation required to maintain the real levels of expenditure approved for the 1977 program.

The honourable gentleman spoke at some length on technical and further education. We all agree on the importance of this field and the importance of giving the States more support in their programs for technical and further education. We all agree that there is a great need in Australia for expanded programs of training. Like the allegations which were made previously by the honourable member and to which I have just referred, he made remarks with respect to the need for training in the face of eventualities and he gave as examples the closure of copper mines, the difficulty in the electronics industry, the difficulty in the textile industry and the difficulty in the shipyards. It sounds rather hollow to hear him say that in this House when a short but ample analysis of the situations confronted by the industries that he mentioned shows that they are the product of the former Labor Government’s administration. We know as a fact that the problems that all these industries are facing are the results of cost increases which were all generated under the Labor Government. In regard to the need for expanded programs of training and their relationship to the work force, it is this Government which has instituted the recommendations of the Williams Committee inquiry into the relationship of education to the work force. We realised that, as there is a restructuring of industry in Australia, and as there is a need for some restructuring of industry in Australia, our education institutions will have to tailor their programs to the needs of the work force.

In respect of technical and further education, I refer to the statement of the Minister for Education in the Senate on 4 November. I take up here the points made by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) when he spoke of the difficulties, as he saw the situation, of getting the States to bear their proper share of the responsibility for the expenditure on technical and further education. The Minister said:

It should be emphasised that the Government continues to give technical and further education a high priority and it is of central importance that the States continue to support technical and further education from their own funds, so that the Commonwealth Government grants will be a real addition to resources. It is especially important for the States to maintain their efforts on capital programs if rapidly increasing enrolments are to be accommodated in coming years.

In respect of what the States have been able to achieve, I am advised that the States have made considerable advances in their performance in the current period. Their forward planning of major building projects has improved greatly and is continuing to improve. Virtually the whole of the funds available to the end of 1976 will be expended before the end of the year. A number of contracts for projects to be constructed next year have already been let.

The Opposition proposes to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill. Whilst the Opposition says that it does not oppose the Bill, it proposes that the House is of the opinion that insufficient resources are being directed into the technical education area. I think it is enough to refer the House to the complete passage in the statement made by the Minister for Education in the Senate on 4 November as a complete answer to the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Opposition with respect to the funds to be provided for technical and further education.

The honourable member for Fremantle commented in his introductory remarks upon what was said by the honourable member for Brisbane, who expressed some pleasure at being able to read to his young children some of the educational material available today. It is regrettable that the honourable member for Fremantle should have made such a gratuitous observation. It was intended obviously to score off my colleague. If the honourable member for Fremantle had appreciated that the youngest child of the honourable member for Brisbane is only 3 weeks old and that his other children are all under school age he would have understood the pleasure which the honourable member for Brisbane gets from reading stories to his children- as, I might say, I do to my own children.

The honourable member for Fremantle sought to score a point by saying that the proposed growth rate for expenditure in 1977 would not be enough in real terms because it would not match even the anticipated growth rates in enrolment. Let me give to the House some figures which show that what the honourable gentleman has said is wrong. I have been supplied with the following figures: The proposed growth rate for funds for universities is 2 per cent. The expected increase in enrolments will be 1.8 per cent. For colleges of advanced education the increase in money provided represents a S per cent increase and the total increase in enrolment is 5 per cent. In technical and further education the proposed rate of increase in funds is 7.5 per cent and the expected increase in enrolments is of the same measure. For schools the rate of increase in funds will be 2 per cent and the expected increase in enrolments is 1.1 per cent. Thus the increase in funds more than matches the increase in enrolments.

The honourable gentleman referred to the need for vocational training and particularly mentioned Katherine College in the Northern Territory. Regrettably I have to advise the House that when this Government came to office and looked at vocational training in the Northern Territory, particularly for Aboriginals, we found quite a sorry story. There had been no real advance in this field under the former Labor Administration. I and my colleague, the Minister for Education, now have the job of pulling the situation together, investigating what is required and putting into operation on a sound administrative basis some forward planning which will provide Aboriginals and others in the Northern Territory with vocational training opportunities that can fit the needs in Aboriginal communities. It is abundantly clear that whatever vocational training is carried out must be tailored to the needs of the Aborigines in their own communities.

The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) made a most valuable contribution to the House when he spoke of apprenticeship. Probably this is the first time that the historical position of apprenticeship and the position of apprenticeships generally in Australia has been laid out in such a careful and valuable manner. As he said, it is important that Australia lift the level of its trade training so as to supply the trade skills that are required for its development from its own people rather than rely so heavily on what has been said to be the more expensive method of supplying trade skills from overseas.

The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) spoke at great length and vigorously on the needs of special education in the migrant field- literacy and numeracy. He referred to the report on specific learning difficulties which was presented by a committee of this House. We all acknowledge that it was a most valuable report. The honourable member asked 2 questions on this matter. I can assure him that my colleague the Minister for Education has had the matter under consideration. I might remind the honourable member that the major recommendation of that committee was for teacher training and that is a responsibility of the colleges of advanced education. I would expect that the colleges would be taking special note of the recommendations of the committee in that regard and that in due course they will be making recommendations to the Government. I understand that one of the particular points made by that committee was the need for better use to be made of resources than hitherto. That is something which the honourable member for Melbourne needs to bear in mind.

I noted with some interest his reference to the need for bilingual teachers. He referred to this particularly in the migration area. I have a special interest in this subject because of the work being done in the field of bilingual education for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. It is a most important initiative and it has been operating for some years. It is being evaluated continually. I find it absolutely logical that the easiest way to communicate with people is through their own language. If knowledge is power, and we must be able to communicate in order to acquire knowledge, it is abundantly clear that the best way to communicate with people is in their own language. If that language is not English they ought to be taught in their own language so that they may become bilingual and be able to communicate in English as well as in their own language. What is often not realised, only because of ignorance, is that Aboriginal languages are not written languages and this makes the task of the teacher all the harder. A great deal of work is being done today to put the oral language of the Aboriginals into writing. We are teaching the children to read their own language for the first time. I cannot help but think that as this program develops we will see marked advances in the field of Aboriginal education and, I venture to suggest, a much more rapid advance in Aboriginal education than we have experienced in the past.

I thank other honourable members for their contributions to this debate although I have not dealt with any particularity with some of the matters they raised. I foreshadow that the amendment to be moved to the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill by the Opposition will be opposed by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2632

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I move an amendment to clause 16 which reads in part:

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the principal Act are repealed and the following Schedules substituted:

I move:

In Schedule 1 , Part II, omit the Part, substitute the following Part:

It is necessary for the figures appearing in Part II of Schedule 1 to be amended. The new figures have been circulated. I wish to emphasise that these amendments have no effect on the total amounts available to the universities concerned since they form part of the grants appearing in Part I of this Bill. It is merely to see that there are correct figures in the Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– We have no objection to that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2633

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2633

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2633

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– We propose to move an amendment to the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1976. The amendment has been circulated. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘while not opposing the Bill the House is of the opinion that insufficient resources are being directed into the technical education area ‘.

We are disappointed to learn that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) is very critical of us. I remind him that if he looks at the statistics in relation to education, as far as they apply to the Labor Administration, he will see that we increased the funds for education from some 4.3 per cent of the gross domestic product to 6,3 per cent of the GDP within a space of 3 years. That is a 2 per cent growth.

There is a great need in the area of technical education. I do not propose to delay the House but the real factors m technical education relate to retraining. The Minister made a nonsensical attack on the Australian Labor Party. He said that we were responsible for the problems in Whyalla, Mount Lyell, and in the textile and other industries. I remind him that the cause of these problems can be identified. The problems at Mount Lyell arise from the London metal price of copper. The problems at Whyalla are attributable to the fact that Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd placed its orders for ships elsewhere. The textile ‘industry is in difficulty because the Government has increased quotas. In not one case can he make a point indicting the Government of which I was a member.

In regard to technical education, there is a great need for retraining. I refer to the summary of conclusions which shows that the amount of money now allocated is insufficient to meet the needs of technical education in those skills, particularly as regards those skills which are lacking. We should educate people to fill the vacancies resulting from this lack of skills. They cannot be met from migration or from other sources; they have to be met from within Australia. The need is there.

I emphasise 2 cases. The New South Wales Government wishes to build technical colleges at Granville and Mount Druitt. It still cannot get the green light to do so because of the failure to program these buildings. Unless this is done now, the buildings will not be constructed next year. Unless they are built next year, they will not be available for 1978. We see these problems revealed in relation to the above conclusions. I emphasise the need for these extra financial resources. I reiterate the great necessity for the Government to have another look at this problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Uren:

– I second the amendment.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has developed a reputation, very justifiably, for careful and analytical statement and for the recognition of the fact that no political parties can stunt in this Parliament with any veracity on the subject of the position of the Aborigines. The Minister made very serious misrepresentations. The honourable gentleman did not come down in the last shower. He was in this Parliament in 1972. If there was no vocational education for Aborigines in the Northern Territory, that was after 23 years of the previous Administration. I draw the attention of the honourable gentleman to the fact that every Aboriginal child in secondary education in Australia was put on a scholarship by the Australian Labor Party when in government and that the bilingual program was started for the first time in an attempt to communicate with them in their own languages. It could not have gone under 3 years much further than it has, the practical problems being what they were.

Yirrara College was opened and it gave vocational training. There was the extension of vocational work at Kormilda and various other colleges. We also assumed responsibility for the total funding of all mission schools in the Northern Territory, treating them as if they were State schools. These were fairly generous moves into the field of Aboriginal education. I quite agree that there are tremendous problems with vocational education among the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. In many areas there are problems in getting any education at all to Aborigines. It is not common for the Minister to try to score Party points on Aborigines. Our puzzles about policies on Aborigines are likely to be such that those who attempt to will usually find very great disappointments as they try to find what is the best thing to be done for a community which has a background very different from our own.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2635

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Ministerial Statement

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

– by leave- The Government has received the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry which comprised His Honour Mr Justice Fox, Professor C. B. Kerr and Mr G. G. Kelleher as the Commission of Inquiry. The Government wishes to express its deep appreciation of the work of this Commission. The principal findings and recommendations of the inquiry, which relate to the development and export of Australia’s uranium resources, have been considered by the Government and their thrust is broadly acceptable and provides a basis for future decisions on the industry. In particular the Government strongly supports the inquiry’s view on the need for the fullest and most effective safeguards on uranium exports and the strict regulation and control of uranium mining and milling. This environmental inquiry has been long and exhaustive and has presented opportunities for all interested individuals and groups within the community to put their views. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said on 7 November, there will shortly be a debate in the national Parliament on the first report of the inquiry, and this will reflect the views being expressed in the community. The Government will take decisions on the further development of the Australian uranium industry in the light of public discussion and that debate. The second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry should further illuminate particular issues.

The preparation of environmental impact statements for uranium mining projects outside of the Northern Territory may now proceed but the Government will not make final decisions until the Commission of Inquiry has made its second report. The environmental impact statements will need to take account of any physical and environmental safeguards appropriate to mining sites set down in the inquiry’s first report. The Government and the previous Labor Government have both repeatedly stated that export contracts approved prior to 2 December 1972 will be honoured. This Government had decided that no exports of uranium from Australia would be made until the first report of the inquiry had been received. Mary Kathleen Uranium, the only mine now producing uranium in Australia, is stockpiling production and contract obligations have been met by borrowing uranium from the United Kingdom. Other Australian firms with contractual commitments, also approved prior to 2 December 1972, Peko-Ez and Queensland Mines Ltd, will be able to meet those commitments only by making appropriate arrangements for export from the Government’s stockpile.

The Government is most concerned that rigid control and safeguards be applied to uranium exports, along with the lines of the recommendations of the inquiry. It will not permit the export of uranium unless it is satisfied that there are adequate and proper safeguards on the handling, transport and processing en route and in respect of the ultimate consignee. The Government is satisfied that appropriate controls would apply to the shipments under existing contracts, which will be used for electric power generation in Japan, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, all of which are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The material will be processed in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, which are also parties to the NPT and require safeguards on the material which they process additional to those of the NPT. Also these countries are well known to have a responsible attitude to safeguards questions. The handling and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from nuclear power generation lies with the countries concerned and, we are advised, are subject to the strictest regulation and control in these countries within existing technology.

The Government is therefore setting in hand, subject to environmental requirements, action in relation to:

Export permits necessary to allow Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd to export its production; and

Export arrangements, on an appropriate basis, for the Government’s uranium stockpile in respect of export contracts of Peko-Ez and Queensland Mines Ltd.

The Government believes that a strong national safeguards policy for uranium exports should be complemented, at the international level, by Australia continuing to contribute actively to constructive multilateral efforts to strengthen safeguards and restraints on nuclear weapons proliferation. In this context the Government welcomes any international initiatives for strengthening the international non-proliferation regime. The safeguards measures proposed in the report largely coincide with the preliminary thinking of the Government as given in public testimony to the inquiry earlier in the year. The Government will now be carrying forward more detailed consideration of safeguards in order to further develop Australia’s national policy on the safeguards to apply to any future contracts for uranium exports. I present the following paper:

Uranium Exports-Ministerial Statement, 11 November 1976

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The only way I know of by which you can do that is to seek leave of the House to ask a question or to make a statement.

Mr Chipp:

– Can I not speak to the motion put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Unfortunately, the question before the Chair is that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Chipp:

-Can I speak to that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Stewart:

– I move:

That the honourable member be heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think that is also out of order. I will put the question, and then if the honourable member wishes to seek leave to make a statement perhaps that would be acceptable. The question is: “that the debate be now adjourned and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-I seek leave of the House to make a statement of about 10 seconds.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHIPP:

-I thank the House. I should just like to ask the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) whether he has had any indication from the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) as to when the debate mentioned in the statement is likely to come before the House.

Mr Newman:

– The answer is no. As the statement says, the debate will be held shortly.

page 2636

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now reada second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2636

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

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

– I have 2 amendments and I seek leave to move them together.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The amendments refer to clauses 7 and 12 which read in part:

Clause 7.

  1. At any time, and from time to time, during the year to which this Act applies, but subject to sub-section (4), the Commonwealth Education Minister may, at the request of the State Education Minister for a State, direct that this Act has effect as if the amounts specified in columns 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 opposite to the name of the State were varied in accordance with the direction, and, where the Commonwealth Education Minister gives a direction with respect to the variation of those amounts, then, for the purposes of this

Act (including this sub-section and sub-sections (2) and (4) ), there shall be deemed to have been specified in that Schedule (as from the commencing day), in substitution for those amounts, the amounts as so varied.

Clause 12.

  1. The financial assistance to a State constituted by a payment of moneys under sub-section (1) (in this sub-section referred to as the “relevant financial assistance”) is granted on the conditions that-

    1. the relevant financial assistance will, as soon as is practicable, be applied by the State, according to the respective needs of the schools concerned, for the purpose of meeting recurrent expenditure in respect of the year to which this Act applies in connexion with government primary schools and government secondary schools in the State and, in particular, will ensure that such part of the relevant financial assistance as is not less than the amount specified in column 2 of Schedule 3 opposite to the name of the State is applied in respect of recurrent expenditure in relation to migrant education provided at those schools;

I move:

  1. In clause 7, sub-clause (3), after “State”, insert “but only after consultation with the Schools Commission and report to the Parliament,”.
  2. In clause 12, after paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2), insert the following paragraph: (aa) after consultation with the Schools Commission, the Commonwealth Education Minister may permit the allocation of a specific amount from a school’s allocation to be spent at the. discretion of the school board;

Clause 7 as it stands allows a variation of the amounts specified in Schedule 1 by agreement between the Commonwealth Minister and a State Minister. It leaves the Schools Commission right out of that. We do not think that is proper. We consider it is fair and reasonable that at all times the Schools Commission should be consulted and further that this Parliament, which is responsible for the allocation of funds, should be informed and a report should be made to it.

Likewise, in respect of the amendment to clause 12 where there can be recurrent expenditure and there can be the suggestion that variations could apply to that expenditure in respect of Schedule 3, we are saying that there ought to be some provision to permit the allocation of a specific amount from a school’s allocation to be spent at the discretion of the school board. We believe that it gives some community involvement. This is a matter that we have raised before. Lip service has been paid to it on the basis that the statement that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) made on 4 November welcomes this sort of arrangement. We believe that some specific weight should be given to advice in respect of the allocation of funds.

I do not wish to delay the Committee further because the matter I am raising was the subject of discussion in the cognate second reading debate. But we urge that the amendments be agreed to. I might indicate that, whilst we strongly urge that the amendments be agreed to, we will not be putting the Committee to the difficulty of having a division.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

-The first amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) which relates to clause 7 is not acceptable to the Government. The provision referred to in the amendment relates to transfers of funds between recurrent and capital expenditure for government schools within a State. There are similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill, together with provisions for the Minister to transfer funds from one State to another. The Bill does not refer in any of its substantive clauses to the Schools Commission since the Bill is concerned with the approval of grants which must be the responsibility of the Minister. In giving such approvals he has adopted the practice, as a matter of course, of seeking information and advice from the Schools Commission, in accordance with the Commission’s charter, as set out in the Schools Commissions Act 1973. The State Minister has to provide reasons for any transfer of funds that is proposed and the Commonwealth Minister needs to be satisfied about the transfer before agreeing to it.

Again, the second amendment proposed by the honourable member is not acceptable to the Government. This amendment is directed towards the encouragement of community involvement, a principle with which the Government is very much in sympathy. In drafting the Bill the Government gave careful consideration to the question of whether the Commonwealth should have the power to impose a legislative requirement that part of the general recurrent grants for government or non-government systemic schools should be made available to school community bodies. It reached the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to introduce a provision whereby the Commonwealth could direct a State or non-government system to make funds available in such a way. That is the key factor.

It is our intention to encourage as much decentralisation of decision making as possible to permit maximum responsiveness and local involvement in education. We will continue cooperative discussions with the States and nongovernment school systems on ways of increasing local decision making for schools. I refer honourable members again to a statement made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate on 4 November, particularly to the passage in which he refers expressly to the attitude of the Government to encourage a more active role for parents, teachers and local communities in school management and decision making. In this respect we note that the Schools Commission, in paragraph 19 (3) of its June 1975 report took the view that devolution of decision making ‘should not be coerced through legislation’.

For these reasons the Government had the Bill drafted so that it would be quite open to a State or a non-government school system to use its own discretion in allowing funds to be allocated direct to school community bodies, but it would not be incumbent on them to do. Because the amendment is worded in such a way as to make it permissive rather than directive that certain funds be spent at the direction of the ‘school board’, it would not add in any way to the capacity for community involvement that is already provided for in the Bill. Moreover, in the case of government schools, by not involving the State minister in the arrangements, the proposal would be offensive to State governments. As a concrete indication of our interest in community involvement, the Bill provides in clause 30, under the definition of ‘approved development and service activity’ for the participation of parents and other members of the community in developmental programs.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I would simply say in respect of the first amendment that if a provision to report to Parliament is part of the Act, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has skirted around that. The Minister, of course, carries out his work according to his charter as a member of this Parliament. I want to refer to the general principles of the second amendment. The Minister assumed there was an assumption behind his statement- that in fact government schools of any State belonged to the tate Minister and that if we start to deal directly with State schools we will be offending the State Minister in respect of some proprietary interest that he has. I think it is time that we broke this mystique. The schools do not belong to the State; they do not belong to the Minister- they are simply their responsibility. It is no good passing the initiative back to most of the State systems. They are not geared to devolve authority, to decentralise the system or anything else. My own view is- and it is not necessarily specific to this clause- that if we can entrust the expenditure of funds, the management of many aspects of administration and so on to non-State schools, we can do the same in regard to the State school system. This is an interesting contradiction inside the Australian schools system. I recognise that all sorts of conflicts can develop inside the community, with the school and the community itself, if we make the system totally autonomous. But the time has long passed when the management of schools- and this theme is developing in the school councils and so on in Victoria- should have more to say and more capacity to do things. It is time that not only more initiative was laid with them but also that they took more of the responsibility.

As I have said often before, speaking from my own experience in schools and school administration and with members of the school councils and so on, often these bodies are much better geared and equipped to carry out all sorts of operations, rebuilding programs, reconstruction programs and so on than is the education system. We will not produce any kind of equality in this country, any manner of advance in the progressive areas of education, unless we are prepared to take the bit between our teeth and do it ourselves.

I do not know why the Minister and the Government should be so delicate about the question of coercing the State Ministers when what is being implied is that State Ministers and State departments are allowed to coerce the schools. We are not being coercive in interfering in this matter. The reverse is true. We are trying to break up the authoritarian nature of the whole Australian schools system, particularly the government schools. I am bothered if I can understand why the Government is so diffident about this. Government supporters talk about new federalism, evolving power, decentralisation and all the rest of it, but when the initiative lies directly with them, when the responsibility is here with them and the chance to do something is here with them they back off. This is one area in which these things can be done with a great deal of advantage I think to the education systems.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2639

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr McLeay :

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2639

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 2639

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the Christmas Island Agreement Bill. However, there is a number of matters upon which our views ought to be taken into account by the Government at the time that this issue is finalised by adoption of the Agreement. The purpose of this Bill is to ratify an undertaking made jointly by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to amend the 1958 Christmas Island Agreement in such a way as to enable Asian residents of long standing on Christmas Island to resettle in Australia. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) stated in his second reading speech that it is a matter of simple justice that the Commonwealth Government has obligations to those who have given long and valuable service in the working of the phosphate deposits of the Island. Apart from one misgiving which I will outline later, the Opposition completely supports these sentiments. It agrees with the Government that justice demands no other response.

The major regret of honourable members on this side of the House is that the Minister could not resist the temptation to mar the bipartnership of the occasion with a little sly politicking. He accused the Labor Government of going back on its promise to introduce the resettlement scheme announced in April 1973 by Mr Morrison, the then Minister for External Territories. The Minister knows that this is a totally baseless charge. He knows that the regrettable time lapse in the implementation of this scheme was not the fault of the Labor Government. He knows that the scheme could not be implemented unilaterally because it had to be negotiated between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand. He knows that negotiation of this agreement was plagued by political difficulties. Australia faced double dissolutions in 1974 and 1975. The second double dissolution occurred in politically troubled times when the country’s legitimate Government was summarily thrown from office. Of course, today is the anniversary of that occasion of which we should never be proud. In New Zealand, an election was held in 1 975. So it was difficult for the 2 Governments to arrange a mutually convenient time. Throughout much of this period, one or other of the Governments was either at the polls or soon to go to the polls. I was elected to this Parliament 3 times in 3 years. It seems to me that that is a waste of much time and energy.

Mr Street:

-Hear, hear!

Mr INNES:

– It seems to me that that is a waste of much time and energy. It holds up issues such as this. We will live to regret that occurrence. The Minister at the table says: ‘Hear, hear’. If he can condone such actions and be party to them, he will live to regret them because he will bring upon himself the wrath of the Australian people either now or sometime in the future. Perhaps honourable members opposite might begin to see from this problem the sort of effect that the carelessly wrought mischief in those years had on the conduct of government. Their actions were irresponsible in the extreme. I hope that I never have to witness the like of them again. In any case, despite the existence of overwhelming political distractions during this period, the Whitlam Government managed to open negotiations with its New Zealand counterpart. Some honourable members opposite who are trying to interject would never understand this. If they can spare a little time afterwards, I will explain it to them in some convenient spot.

Mr Baillieu:

-Where-in the bar?

Mr INNES:

– No, I never go to the place. As I say, the Whitlam Government managed to open the negotiations with its New Zealand counterpart. Under the circumstances, rather remarkable progress was made. In fact, officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State were on the verge of reaching important agreements when the Whitlam Government was overthrown. This being the case, one only wonders why it has taken so long for the 2 new Governments to complete the task and get the agreement signed. Had government in Australia not changed hands, it is a safe bet that the resettlement scheme would have been under way months ago. But the procrastination of the Government is indicative of its methods. Once again, honourable members opposite, including the Minister at the table, must answer for the actions of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) in another place. Honourable members opposite are the ones responsible for this delay. The Government’s aspersions are without foundation. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister at the table should have taken advantage of this occasion to make them. It was a churlish action and one unworthy of the Minister. However, it is not my wish to dwell on this fact. I have no doubt that the people of Christmas Island recognise the immense difficulties under which the Whitlam Government toiled and will not be fooled by the misleading utterances of the Minister or the lightweight champions of the back bench who prattle along and are unrecognised by their ‘God’ who sits at the table during question time.

As I said earlier, I have one misgiving about this legislation. I have said that the Opposition welcomes this Bill as providing simple justice for the Asian community on Christmas Island. This community, as honourable members well know or some of them know- some of the back benchers on the Government side would not know but they may learn about it if they listen intently- has been subjected to some quite shameful discriminatory practices in the past. The most well known- perhaps I should say notorious- was the existence of differential rates of pay by which the Asian workers were paid about one-fifth of the wage of their European counterparts. My support for this Bill and the principle of justice which it enbodies is based on the understanding that this is what those concerned want. It is assumed that most Christmas Islanders wish to resettle in Australia. There are no indigenous Christmas Islanders. Christmas Island’s economic lifespan is limited. For those reasons, they have taken that position.

The Minister told us in his second reading speech that, given existing technology and current rates of extraction, the phosphate is good for another 20 years. Therefore, the Island will provide a limited living for those people. However, it is an important period of their life and it is important to see what flows from here on in. There is still a responsibility for the implementation of the agrement. What exists now in respect of industrial legislation is part of our responsibility. I put it to the Minister that that is one serious consideration we ought to be taking into account.

On 20 October, Senator Georges, in another place, cast some doubts on these assumptions. His experience of Christmas Island was of a well established community which in no sense saw itself as impermanent. If this is the case, 3 questions require answers. Firstly, has the Government taken steps to establish whether the Christmas Islanders wish to maintain their community after phosphate extraction has finished? That is a good question. If so, has it undertaken to find out what other economic measures, if any, might be set in train to provide Christmas Island with a viable economy beyond the lifespan of the existing phosphate extraction?

Mr Baillieu:
Mr INNES:

– The honourable member would know all about it! The honourable member would not be consulted even upon the time of the day, let alone upon matters such as this. Secondly, -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! Bearing in mind the title of this Bill- the Christmas Island Agreement Bill- I do not think that this would be an appropriate debate for me to take action against any members -

Mr INNES:

– For interjecting?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It would not be an appropriate debate for me to take action against any honourable member. It might be against the spirit of the title of the Bill that we are discussing. If* honourable members could enter into the spirit of the debate on this Bill having regard to its title, perhaps we may be able to get through it quicker and easier.

Mr INNES:

– I bow to your great experience, Mr Deputy Speaker. Secondly, if the Christmas Islanders wish to maintain their community, what effect is the present legislation likely to have on the realisation of that wish? Surely there is a very real danger that qualified people would be drawn from the island to the mainland- and, after all, they can make more than one fifth of the European award there which is great stuffthus making the viability of Christmas Island much more difficult to sustain. Thirdly, as phosphate deposits will continue to be worked for the next 20 years, what effect will this legislation have on Christmas Island during that period?

Mr Corbett:

– Don ‘t you want the legislation?

Mr INNES:

– I hope that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) will take time out to consider what I have said and answer my comments in the honest way that I always expect of him. As people move to the mainland from Christmas Island under the resettlement scheme, what effect will this legislation have on Christmas Island? That is something to which every one of us must give serious consideration and not be flamboyant about. As people move from Christmas Island under the resettlement scheme, will they continue to be replaced by exploited and underpaid labour from Singapore? If that is to be the case, I give notice that we on the Opposition side will harry the Government mercilessly until that shameful position is rectified. It is not good enough for Australian superphosphate to be subsidised by the use of cheap sweated labour from Singapore. If the Minister wants to talk of simple justice he should reflect on these matters. He should not simply pass them off in the way he has done. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) is now giving the Minister some riding instructions. That is about the last gasp.

The Opposition is supporting this Bill in the absence of firm information about these matters. If the Minister can allay our fears we can give unqualified support to this Bill. Ideally, however, the Opposition would like to see matters such as these become the subject of a wide ranging inquiry. These are not the only matters which we believe should properly be dealt with by a duly constituted general inquiry. What I wish to do in the time remaining to me is urge the Government, if possible, to set up a general inquiry into the operations and management of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the British Phosphate Commission. Great changes took place on Christmas Island during the 3 years of the Labor Administration. For the first time unions on the island were registered, teaching was standardised so that Asians can now receive the same schooling that was previously available only to Europeans, and educational standards have been brought into line with the level of excellence currently obtaining in the Commonwealth Teaching Service. A number of students travelled to Australia on re-settlement scholarships and enormous improvements were made in technical education and health standards. Despite these advances there is much about Christmas Island which requires the attention of the Government. To simply negotiate the agreement, sign it and then to discharge further responsibility would be a miscarriage of justice but, in view of the son of things that happen under the Government’s standard of simple justice, one would probably expect the Government to do just that.

The substance of many of these matters can be determined only by a properly conducted government inquiry. Some of them I have already referred to but there is a number of others. One in particular concerns the charges which have been made against the company for breaches of the award. The honourable member for La Trobe nods his head and tut-tuts in a very cynical way, but he is an individual who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The Baillieu family would huff and puff all over the place about these things and the honourable member has never had any experience with them.

Mr Baillieu:

– I rise to order. I was at the table speaking to the Minister in some confidence. The remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne are quite out of order and reprehensible. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he should not be allowed to pursue them and I ask that they be withdrawn because I find them offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-The honourable member for Melbourne commented that the honourable member for La Trobe was speaking to the Minister. I think the House is prepared to accept what the honourable member for La Trobe has said and that he was talking to the Minister about a completely different matter. The honourable member for Melbourne should continue his remarks on the Bill.

Mr INNES:

– We get a little testy about these things but if honourable members opposite give it they also should take it. The substance of many of the matters can be determined only by a properly constituted government inquiry. We should not shy away from it. There are many skeletons in the closet but the Government has to front up to the situation eventually. The matter of administrative efficiency, for example, is one that we ought to consider when looking at the future of the people on the island. Whether we are speaking in terms of the immediate future or the next 20 years that the deposits will be mined, or even in the event that the people elect to stay there, these matters are still our responsibility. The matter of administrative efficiency involves the organisational structure under which the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the British Phosphate Commission run. There is a sharp difference between the two. The people on Nauru have done remarkably well. They have taken steps to organise themselves and to protect themselves and in that way their future is secure.

In regard to Christmas Island, however, there has been a sleight of hand trick played on the people and a secretive attitude has been adopted so that we cannot really get to the gist of what is going on there in respect of profits, the exploitation that is rife on the island with people duping individuals and playing Malays against Singaporeans or whatever labour is available, with others putting their fingers in the bickie barrel and with inspectors being charged with breaches of the award. These matters now are out in the open. If for the next 20 years we are to have that sort of administration it is high time we had an inquiry into it. If we are to have protection for Australian workers against exploitation by people who breach the award deliberately to the extent that they steal money from individuals, it is high time we considered our position. We have to consider what we are to do during the next 20 years. We have to consider the near future also in determining what we should do from here on.

Mr Shipton:

– Are you going there?

Mr INNES:

– I would not send the honourable member to look after the workers; he would look after the Phosphate Commission instead. The organisational structure of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and of the other company I have referred to have remained virtually unchanged and they have been doing exactly the same things for almost 30 years. An inquiry could bring new ideas and methods to light and, depending on its terms of reference, could plot a program for the progress of Christmas Island.

There is the related matter of portability. Why has the small island of Nauru found phosphate mining a much more profitable venture than Christmas Island? Per head of population there is no comparison for Nauru is one of the world’s richest communities. There is investment in that country amounting to millions of dollars. It has secured its future. But why should the Christmas Islanders be treated differently? Why should they not be able to secure their future? Of course, we really do not know whether the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the British Phosphate Commission have not done as well out of Christmas Island phosphate as the

Nauruan people have done out of Nauruan phosphate. The whole financial operation of those commissions is shrouded in secrecy. That is one of the problems. If an inquiry is justifiable on no other grounds it is certainly justifiable on that one. I believe that the Parliament should know just what is going on. The whole deal ought to be unfolded here. We all ought to know what is going on and who is reaping the benefit of the exploitation of which I have made mention.

Mr Giles:

– What about the Australian farmers?

Mr INNES:

-One of the Deputy Speakers made reference to what we should let the Parliament know. I do not think that he would have any doubts about this being an issue that ought to be debated here. If the people of Christmas Island, in relation to whom we are putting our name to an agreement, are being taken for a ride and exploited is it not right and proper that that should be highlighted here so that we can take whatever action is appropriate in their interests?

Mr Giles:

– What about the interests of the Australian farmer?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that interjections cease. I also suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne not answer any interjections.

Mr INNES:

– I am sure that we would be in a better position to determine the island’s future if we were to carry out that sort of general inquiry. While this mysterious veil of secrecy enfolds the island we are really in no position to do other than to make inspired guesses. I do not believe that this Parliament ought to act on inspired guesses. We know on whom honourable members opposite rely for support at election times and for whom they carry out wishes and determinations. Their policies reek of the philosophies of vested interests in this country. It is no problem for them to make decisions on that basis. But we on this side of the House believe that justice not only should be done but also should be seen to be done. For those reasons we ought to know the facts.

Thirdly, an inquiry needs to be held into management-worker relations, which is the very point that I made earlier. One of the most important periods for which we are to take responsibility in relation to the implementation of this agreement is the period during which the workers are going to be at the mercy of the individuals who run the Christmas Island phosphate operations.

Mr Street:

– That is nonsense, Ted, and you know it.

Mr INNES:

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations says that it is nonsense. I say that it is not nonsense. There is a lot of evidence to support my contention that it is not nonsense. If the Minister is so confident about the bona fides of the management I challenge him to answer this question: Why is action being taken against the management for fleecing the workers on the Island and for not meeting its commitments under the award? Does the Minister think that that is an appropriate act by an honest employer?

Mr Street:

– Why did your Government not appoint an inquiry?

Mr INNES:

-If that is not the case -

Mr Street:

– Why did you not do something about it?

Mr INNES:

– We were in and out of this place like a fiddler’s elbow fighting elections as a result of the pressure that was applied by the Minister and his mates in another place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Melbourne that somebody else will be in and out of this place like a fiddler’s elbow in a moment.

Mr INNES:

– I hope you have taken note of the fact that I was provoked by the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! After my earlier comments the Minister started it all over again. If the Minister and the honourable member for Melbourne want to have a private argument they can go outside and have it after the House has finished debating this Bill.

Mr INNES:

-The standard of the management-worker relations there is dubious. We know little more than that about the situation. We know that the workers felt sufficiently frustrated to give the Minister a very stormy meeting when he visited the island last April. But we need to know the ins and outs of the volatile labour relations. An inquiry could ascertain why the commissions have refused even to discuss the logs of claims presented by the union, although the claims have never been denied. We need to know whether International Labour Organisation conventions are being disregarded by the British Phosphate Commission. We need to know more about the British Phosphate Commission’s agency arrangements with Guthrie Bousteads and Co. of Singapore to ensure that the arrangements are equitable and that the recruitment procedures being used by Guthrie Bousteads and Co. are in conformity with ILO conventions. Is that not the Minister’s responsibility? Does he think that that is something to be laughed at. An inquiry could look into the adequacy of the facilities. The air services and the banking facilities, for instance, are frequently the target of criticism.

Finally, a number of sundry issues might properly be included within such an inquiry’s terms of reference. There have been reports that the British Phosphate Commission has continued to bring to Australia phosphate which contains high cadmium contamination and which the Japanese refused to accept some 5 years ago. There is agitation to have the financial details of the British Phosphate Commission’s trade store on Christmas Island investigated and the results of the investigation made available to interested parties. What is there to hide? Why should we not have a look at this situation if we are going to take the terms of this agreement unto ourselves? The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would charge about $2.80 to haunt a house. The pulling of faces like those he is pulling now is probably his best performance so far. If he does not understand what it means to endeavour properly and adequately to protect workers when there is a dire need to do so, I will once again bow to your wishes, Mr Deputy Speaker, and discuss the matter with him later. I can explain in a moment just exactly what it is all about.

The people of Christmas Island are being exploited. Those people, who are of different nationalities, are played one against the other. There is a difference between the pay of Europeans and that of the other nationalities who do not have the organised strength and the industrial muscle to protect themselves. Does the honourable member for Denison not think that it is our responsibility to ensure that that is done? The honourable member nods his acquiescence. I am very pleased that he does. We cannot move out just by the simple negotiation and signing of an agreement. The fine words contained in the agreement may be well principled. I agree that it is a well principled agreement. That is why we support the general principle. But it is another thing to police it.

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has the same problems in relation to the general situation concerning industrial affairs in this country. The Government employs a number of arbitration agents to carry out the duty of ensuring that people are not exploited, although it cut down on the Budget provision for them and they have not been able to do their work properly. If they are not able to do it properly here, how the devil will they be able to do it in a place where individuals are open to that sort of exploitation? I ask the Minister to answer that question.

Mr Street:

-I will.

Mr INNES:

– What is the Minister going to do about it? I also ask the Government to inquire into the activities of the commissions. Is the Minister going to send arbitration inspectors there regularly to ensure that the terms of the ILO conventions are being carried out? These matters should be investigated by a wide-ranging Government inquiry. I know that the Minister likes everthing to be peaceful and that he regards those who raise these matters as ungrateful stirrers or dole bludgers- one can take one’s pickbut there seems to be substance in them and they seem to merit investigation. I urge the Government to act accordingly. In the meantime, with all the misgivings to which I have made reference, the Opposition accepts the Bill and wishes it a speedy passage.

Mr Street:
Mr INNES:

-If the Minister laughs at the plight of the people on Christmas Island and if he turns his back on a public investigation he is acting as weakly as he normally does. I put this proposition to the Minister in strong terms: Whilst the Bill will be passed with the concurrence of the Opposition, he should stand up on the basis of principle and put forward a proposition for an open investigation and thereby protect the people of Christmas Island in the immediate future and until the phosphate runs out, and after that if they want to stay there.

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

-In listening to the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) and his flights of fancy and imagination I get the feeling that if he really believed what he said the Labor Party would be moving amendmentssubstantial amendments- to this Bill. However he indicated that the Opposition was not going to take such action. One gets the impression that the Labor Party, which has been so successful in wrecking Australia, is now also intent on wrecking Christmas Island. I have referred to the flights of fancy and imagination of the honourable member. To be a member of his Party and support the puerile demonstration which took place outside this place today one would have to have a very vivid imagination.

This Bill seeks to ratify an agreement, already signed, between the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government. It will allow the use of the special fund set up under the existing

Christmas Island Agreement of 1958 to meet the resettlement costs of Christmas Islanders in Australia. As was pointed out in the second reading speech by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), a number of Christmas Islanders already have settled in Australia on a permanent and private basis. The Minister said in his second reading speech that about 450 Christmas Islanders were here. I understand that that has happened since 1973. In 1958 something like 685 Christmas Islanders have settled in Australia and, most importantly for Western Australia six hundred and forty-five had settled there. I am reminded that a substantial number settled in my electorate. Of the present population of Christmas Island, which is about 3300 people, long term Christmas Islanders who are eligible for entry to Australia number one thousand three hundred. Short term workers number about one thousand seven hundred and are mainly drawn from Singapore and Malaysia and there are about 300 other people. In effect about 1300 people are eligible in due course to resettle in Australia or some other country of their choice. It is significant that most of them are seeking to resettle in Australia.

I can report to the House that the Christmas Islanders who have resettled in Australia to date are quite happy. The phosphate rock on Christmas Island is expected to run out in 20 years or so and resettlement is to go ahead as soon as possible. I find it rather strange that I was able to get from the Western Australian Parliamentary records and the Western Australian Hansard details of the projected number of people to be moved from Christmas Island to Australia over the next few years whereas this was not mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech. I want to refer to those figures which were projected yesterday in the Western Australian Parliament. They indicate that over the next 9 months some 219 people will come to Australia and in the following 3 years they will be coming here at the rate of about three hundred a year. The final group of about three hundred and eighty is expected over the following 2 years. It seems strange to me that I had to get these figures from the Western Australian Parliament and that they were not made available to the Minister’s second reading speech. This seems to me to be just puerile secrecy for no reason. Either the Minister is being secretive or the Department is being secretive for no good purpose so far as I can see. There is nothing to be achieved from secrecy about small things like this. Everyone should well and truly know the program.

Most of the Christmas Islanders have settled in Western Australia. A substantial number, three hundred or so, have settled in Katanning. A number have settled in the Pilbara area and I guess that the next area for resettlement is to be Geraldton. These people have settled very well into Katanning. They have been readily accepted in the community and have become very fine citizens. Most of them work in the Southern Meat Packers Ltd abattoir and have made a substantial contribution to its operations. They are highly regarded as efficient and dedicated workers and have enabled that abattoir to kill and prepare meat to meet the Middle East market where there are Muslim populations.

A number of problems are associated with this scheme. Additional help over and above that which has been suggested may be required for the Christmas Islanders. I read in the Minister’s second reading speech that the resettlement scheme embraces resettlement allowances, free fares and other assistance such as scholarships for further education and training. The Government will also assist these people in finding employment and housing. I would point out that housing is a particular problem in Katanning. It may well be argued that there would be housing problems following the establishment of an abattoir in a town such as Katanning and that is right. However it must also be borne in mind that when people are brought into a completely new environment there needs to be special consideration so far as housing is concerned if they are to fit adequately into a community. There have been several other minor problems but generally these people have been very well accepted.

I have some reservation about suggesting that more Christmas Islanders come to Katanning. I think that three hundred in a population of five thousand is quite enough although they have been very well accepted. There have been no complaints and they are happy there and the people they work for are happy. However I hesitate to suggest that additional Christmas Islanders should be concentrated in a small country town such as Katanning. I think it is important that there be a proper attempt to integrate them and I doubt whether concentration in areas like that would effectively achieve that aim.

The debate on this Christmas Island Agreement Bill permits us to raise several other long term matters to which I particularly want to refer. The phosphate on Christmas Island is expected to run out in 20 years or so but there is a substantial amount of C grade phosphate rock there which is not being used at this time. In the future it may be possible to use these deposits. Certain research work is being undertaken by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture in calcinining phosphate and using it for agricultural purposes. There has been a favourable reaction to this in Western Australia. This product may be able to be used in the future. This emphasises the need to place more stress on the development of the Duchess deposits in Queensland and other deposits very soon. Australian agriculture depends on superphosphate and there is no way that this can be avoided at this stage as far as I know. The Government should take active action to ensure that Australian phosphate deposits are used, particularly in view of the running down of the supply expected from Christmas Island.

I have been limited in the amount of time for which I can speak but there is one other point that I want to make quickly. I hope there will be some discussions about the future of Christmas Island once it is vacated by its present inhabitants. I do not want to see Christmas Island traded to some other country. I want to see it remain part of Australia because at some time it may have strategic value for us. This is something which must be considered. I want to see the Australian flag remain on Christmas Island. I certainly-do not want to see the red flag which was flying over the demonstration outside Parliament House today flying over Christmas Island or any other Australian possession in the future. I support the Bill.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I rise to associate the National Country Party with this Christmas Island Agreement Bill. I was very surprised when I heard the speech by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). It seemed that he was not over-anxious about the Christmas Islanders coming to Australia and wondered what had been done over there. His Party, the Labor Party, was in Government for 3 years and had ample opportunity to do something about Christmas Island. There was no need for him to come into this House tonight and say what should have been done and what sort of working conditions should have applied there. Those things could have been handled at any time previously. It has taken the Labor Party a long time to decide that something is wrong on Christmas Island.

This Government has brought in this Bill which is designed to assist the long term residents of Christmas Island in establishing themselves in Australia in accordance with a long-standing agreement which the Labor Party accepted when it was introduced in the first place in 1972. It was endorsed in 1973. The Labor Party has had ample opportunity to do what it felt should be done regarding Christmas Island. I think that some crocodile tears have been shed. As to what might be done regarding Christmas Island, not so long ago as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works, I was at Christmas Island investigating the possibility of establishing an offshore quarantine station there. The Committee decided against this proposal because of various factors involved. But at least we showed that we had an interest in the Island. My colleague, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey), who spoke previously, has made a good point. He suggested that we should retain Christmas Island even though the phosphate deposits will certainly be worked out. There is no doubt about that fact. The Australian Labor Party in government and in opposition has had ample opportunity to voice its opinion on what should be done with regard to Christmas Island.

It is clear beyond any doubt at all that this Government has an obligation to resettle long term Asian residents presently on Christmas Island. That is accepted. The fact that there is no opposition to this proposal indicates that the Opposition accepts it too. The proposal is introduced in accordance with an undertaking which has been given by both sides of the House. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) recently gave an assurance that legislation would be introduced when the necessary amendment to the Christmas Island Agreement was agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand Governments. That was the only delay in recent times from our side. That has been done. I point out that the resettlement scheme applies only to long term residents. At the present time, as residents leave Christmas Island they are replaced by restricted term workers who will return to their homelands at the end of the term of employment for which they have been engaged on the Island. It is with those long term residents that we are concerned.

I believe it is very pleasing to note that those people who have already come here from Christmas Island- this was mentioned by my colleague, the honourable member for Canning, in the speech which he has just delivered- have settled in very well. There is no doubt, as I saw when I was there, that these people are prepared to work. I believe that they form a very well ordered community. They seem very satisfied with their surroundings. Perhaps those surroundings could be improved. I do not know the industrial conditions under which they are working or under which they came to Christmas Island. Nevertheless, I did not see any degree of concern about the way in which they were living in the area at that time. There is no doubt that, if the conditions needed improving, there was a responsibility to have a look at what was being done. As I say, there was plenty of opportunity for the Opposition to have looked at that aspect if it felt something should have been done. Another point is that these people are Australians. We have a responsibility to them as such to see that they are cared for. It will be necessary for them to move out. They do not seem to be over anxious to move out. But they will have to move out when the phosphate deposits are exhausted. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) stated in his second reading speech, there will be no occupation or employment to enable them to continue working on the island.

I will limit my remarks on this Bill with the object of expediting the passage of legislation which has yet to come before the House in the few weeks we have left. I repeat that there is an important obligation on the Australian Government. The obligation has rested on governments for some considerable time. This Government can take credit that at least it has reached agreement with the New Zealand Government. The Government has brought this Bill forward to enable its obligation to be fulfilled. I do not believe that the people on Christmas Island deserve the criticism which might have been levelled against them. Judging from the record of those who have preceded them, I believe that they will make very worthy citizens of this country when they come out to Australia. The Australian Government will do its duty by those people on Christmas Island. I am sure that it will look at the future of Christmas Island after those people have to leave because, as I say- and it has been said before- it is quite clear to anyone who has been there that it will be extremely difficult to try to build up a viable industry, other than working the phosphate deposits. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Having been to Christmas Island and having seen people, I am very pleased that they are to get the justice to which they are entitled and will be relieved of the worries which have occupied them over recent times. When the Minister for Administrative Services was there, he demonstrated that they would obtain justice. This is something which we, as a Government or a Parliament, have been somewhat slow to provide. But at least it is being done now. I commend the Government for that fact.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not detain the House for more than 5 minutes -

Motion (by Mr Donald Cameron) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Donald Cameron) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Street)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker, very briefly -

Motion (by Mr Donald Cameron) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2647

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The Labor Party supports this Bill but is concerned with several aspects implied by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech. We are concerned about the economic and environmental consequences of the continuation of agreements like this and we are concerned that the studies undertaken by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Forestry and Timber Bureau are not public and may have overlooked many important issues. We are concerned that this legislation has ignored the findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. We are concerned that this agreement will lead to a possible over-commitment to softwood and its products. We are concerned at the possible desecration of our native forests. We are concerned about the future of our flora and fauna in this country. We are concerned about the introduction and spread of exotic diseases. We are concerned that no research has been conducted into the long term hydrology, soil structure and nutrient values of soils subjected to monoculture forestry. We are concerned that clear felling and intensive forestry operations may destroy our watersheds. We are concerned about this Government’s commitment to the environment.

Our Party is concerned because in the early days of settlement Australia had a thick band of native forests running down the east coast. These forests stretched from the dense rain forests of Cape York through the red cedar forests of northern New South Wales to the magnificent 300 foot high eucalypts of Tasmania’s Florentine Valley. In Western Australia dense karrimarri and jarrah-marri forests were a green enclave in a largely barren State. Their existence safeguarded the water supplies necessary for the development of the south-west. Now 200 years later much of these forests have been stripped in the process of settlement and the consequent development of agriculture. Today most of the remaining forested areas are threatened. They are threatened by rapid growth of the woodchippulpwood industry. They are threatened by the destruction of complex native forests ecosystems in order to establish fast-growing hardwood timber monocultures. They are threatened in varying degrees by softwood pine planting programs throughout Australia.

This Bill is concerned with softwood pine planting programs. It is not concerned with the other closely related threats to our existing native forests. But because of the nature of the forestry industry in Australia and the uses to which forestry products are put, we cannot really look at each problem in isolation. There must be a commission of inquiry established under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act to review the entire forestry industry in Australia. There are too many questions that need to be answered, questions that we and others have raised already. In the 1960s clear felling was restricted to several regional areas supplying local pulpwood industries. In the 1960s there were 2 major changes in this pattern and clear felling became the rule rather than the exception. These changes now threaten the very existence of those substantial natural native forest areas that remain. The sources of this problem were the commencement of export woodchip schemes to supply Japan, and the pine planting programs to provide softwoods for Australian use.

The woodchip problem is one which has only recently gained public notoriety. The pine planting program in the past has been the subject of much public discussion and involvement. On 23 July 1 974 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation resolved to inquire and report upon:

The operations of the Softwood Forestry Agreement Acts of 1967 and 1972 with particular reference to their environmental, social and economic impact and make appropriate recommendations as to the form of any future softwood industry agreements legislation.

The Standing Committee was concerned that the existing program did not pay enough attention to economic and environmental considerations. In my opinion, the more important recommendations of the House of Representatives inquiry are:

  1. As a general rule, money should not be loaned to the States for the planting of softwoods in areas where native forest is to be clear felled. The only exceptions should be where a thorough and stringently supervised independent research program has been conducted into the flora and fauna of that area as well as its soil quality and where the planting plans allow for their protection.
  2. An increasing proportion of the finance loaned to the States should be dedicated to the purchase of land already cleared for other marginal pursuits.
  3. 3 ) Plans for the planting of exotic softwoods should be made available for public scrutiny. Full consultations and discussions should be held with interested parties before they are implemented.
  4. Greater encouragement should be given by the Australian Government for the declaration of more extensive areas of Australian native forests as national parks.
  5. Additional funds should be made available to the CSIRO and other relevant bodies for research into the many areas of forestry management about which so little is known.
  6. An immediate study should be carried out by a body such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to determine the economic viability of the softwood program on both strict financial grounds and on the broadest possible cost benefit grounds.
  7. Stringent conditions should be imposed upon the lending of Federal money to ensure that forestry management procedures designed to protect the environment are strictly observed.

Each of these recommendations raise complex issues with which we have not yet come to grips. We do not feel that the Government or the bureacracy have faced up to these issues. We have called for an inquiry because of this and because we are worried by the power that the forestry lobby has in the governments of this country.

In recognition of some of the issues raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the Government has asked the States, and apparently the States have agreed, that new plantings under this agreement will, in the main, be established on land which has already been cleared for agricultural purposes. While this is a step in the right direction, I believe that on this particular issue the Government should take a firmer line. I know that most State forestry commissions have become more progressive in recent years, but I am still concerned that some of them, and particularly the New South Wales Forestry Commission, still persist in clear felling native forests to establish pine monocultures. The Government’s decision to waive the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) legislation for monies expended under this agreement causes this side of the House concern. We feel that the Government has made a mistake. We believe that an environmental impact statement should be called for from the States before they are allowed to clear fell native forest areas for the planting of softwood forests. It is not good enough for the Government to announce that if future agreements of this nature are made, it will be necessary for the States to comply with the administrative arrangements of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. They should be complied with now in cases where clear felling operations are to be used.

In this House on Tuesday I pointed to the need to declare more national parks and reserve areas in our country. I used as an example the necessity to declare large tracks of our native forest that were under threat from the integrated sawlog pulpwood industry as reserves- reserves to protect our flora and fauna and particularly our endangered species. I do not believe that enough is understood about the delicate nature and fabric of our environment or the conflict that arises between development proposals and the need to preserve our heritage. This is a conflict which comes to a head in all the forestry proposals which destroy our native forest and the natural habitat of our wildlife. A balance has to be struck between development and conservation. We have a duty to ensure that adequate measures are taken to safeguard the environment and to protect our flora and fauna. We have a duty to ensure that clear-felling of parts of our native forests is rationalised and that enough areas of native forest are left to preserve our natural environment.

On this question I would draw the Minister’s attention to another important recommendation of the Standing Committee’s report:

Immediate consideration should be given to providing financial assistance to the States for the regeneration of hardwood areas in a way that ensures maintenance of forest diversity and other environmental values.

This without doubt was a major recommendation. But I can find nothing in this agreement or the Minister’s second reading speech to show that the Government is even aware of that recommendation. Why do we not have a policy to regenerate native hardwood forest areas for environmental purposes? Why is not money lent to the States to plant native hardwood forest to restore our heritage and protect ecosystems that support our wildlife? This is just another reason why an independent inquiry should be held.

As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech the Standing Committee considered that there was a need for softwood planting programs. But it rejected the doctrine of softwood self-sufficiency used to justify the previous agreements. The Committee rightfully expressed doubts about the economics of pine planting in Australia and called for a study to be conducted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. This study apparently has been finished already. It has been made available to the members of the Australian Forestry Council but it has not been made available to this House.

According to the Minister, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has indicated that, from an economic viewpoint, it is in Australia ‘s interest to continue the pine planting programs. A complementary study conducted by the Forestry and Timber Bureau has apparently supported these conclusions. Without seeing these reports I question their validity. There have been numerous private studies into the economic rationale behind the softwood forestry industry. The Routleys’ study made out valid arguments which show that Australia is currently self-sufficient and the industry is heavily subsidised in the production of softwood. Their study was also supported by Ferguson and Parkes who published similar data in 1975.

In view of the forward projections of Australia’s population and the use to which softwoods are to be put in this country, and without having seen the reports now available to the Minister and the Government, I must accept the views expressed by the Routleys and Ferguson and Parkes. In saying this I recognise that we need significant softwood resources. I realise that softwoods have certain advantages over hardwoods with respect to their use in the building industry because of the different natures of the 2 timbers.

I appreciate that due to the different growth rates between hard and softwoods, that threequarters of the sawn wood used in the world is coniferous. These coniferous timbers are important to the whole building industry. The main reason for the supporting softwood planting programs is to supply the future saw-log needs of Australia.

As I have said saw-logs are used in the main in the building industry. Australia’s need for softwood saw-logs is controlled by our need for new and replacement housing. The Borrie report and other population projections conducted in recent years have shown that demand for this type of timber will stabilise after 1985. All of these studies show that the household formation rate in the next decade will be much the same as for the last 10 years. After that the household formation rate will slow down considerably. This is why I question the validity of the two reports available to the Minister and his state counterparts and not available to us. When such discussions as this are going on before the House I ask why that paper is not available to either Government supporters or members of the Opposition. This is an important issue. It is one that should be the subject of full and open discussion. Without this information it is impossible to know what our requirements are.

The Minister is aware that we can meet all our softwood requirements by negotiating long term contracts under the Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand. It has been asked for some time why it is necessary to continue to grow softwoods in this country when we know that on econmic grounds alone it would be better to obtain our softwoods from New Zealand where the rate of growth of softwoods, particularly in the southern island, is much faster than in any area of Australia. New Zealand is an abundant world source of softwood products. We could continue to support softwood pine planting programs in this country for two reasons. The first one concerns the question of Australia’s needs, the future security of overseas sources and the likely world demand for softwood products.

If there can be no guarantee that New Zealand or other countries could meet our long term requirements because of demand from other countries it will be necessary for Australia to become self-sufficient if we are not already selfsufficient. Softwood plantings have been made to meet a projected population of some 22 million people by the year 2000. But we already know as a result of the projection of the Borrie report that at the present rate of growth there will be only about 17.3 million to 17.5 million people by the year 2000. On that basis alone there already appears to be an overproduction of softwood in this country. As I said earlier, in terms of economic viability there does not seem to be a necessity to continue the present rate of planting. If planting is to be carried on we say that there should be a full inquiry into every aspect of the timber industry so that we can clearly understand where we are going.

When I say that we could obtain our softwoods from New Zealand, I do not mean that we should close down the softwood industry, but we must not expand it However, I say that with reservation. It may be necessary but we do not know this because we do not have access to the same report as the Minister. I might say that we are playing a game of blind man’s bluff in that the House of Representatives is discussing an agreement which has only another year to run but it does not have the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which would enable us to assess the true situation. As I said, the report prepared by the 3 individuals I mentioned questioned the whole concept. If it is necessary we would support softwood plantings but only if these plantings occurred on already cleared land. By adopting such an approach, because of the labour intensiveness of the industry we could have an opportunity to create a viable rural industry.

Today there are very few rural industries with a fairly high labour content. The Opposition admits that within the rural sector this contribution can be made. This is one of the reasons why, at this stage, the Opposition does not oppose this proposition. I question whether the report of the Forestry and Timber Bureau has looked at many of the issues and doubts surrounding the rotational aspect of forestry management. To my mind, there are many problems and many areas of research which should be looked at. These are problems such as nutrient requirements, diseases which may be introduced and the changes in soil structure that occur as a result of rotational monocultural forestry techniques.

All of these issues are matters of concern. They highlight the need for an independent inquiry into the forestry industry to look at the economics, the environmental aspects and the effects on our soils and watersheds. We must do this now. We must do it to preserve our natural forests, to protect our flora and fauna and to protect our forest ecosystems. We must all realise that acceptable forestry management techniques must be found and implemented to prevent the possibility of major and irreversible damage to the country’s ecology.

I am concerned at the great tracts of Australia that have been taken over by the northern exotic trees which were introduced into this country because they were not only softwoods but also faster growing. My concern is that the northern exotics smother everything beneath them. The flora and fauna are completely destroyed. If one walks through a pinus radiata forest, one notices that there is no natural undergrowth at all and that native flora and fauna cannot exist in these northern exotic forests. It is better to ensure that we preserve our natural forests. The Opposition 0is concerned, if I might say so, not only about the loss of our own sovereignty but also about the loss of sovereignty of flora and fauna to foreign monoculture.

It seems to me that this situation should be looked at with a great deal of concern and reservation. I believe that though the growth of native forests might, in many cases, be slower, we should be looking at our own natural timbers. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have stated that we should be looking, at the use of our natural cypress for purposes for which pinus radiata has been used. ° In the last couple of decades we seem to have lost a great deal of our national heritage, not only to foreign capital in the exploitation of our industries, but also by the introduction of these exotic species. In our own gardens, as I recall from my early days, we planted too many northern exotics. A particular example is the city of Melbourne where northern exotic species such as rhododendrons, azaleas, camellias and other surface feeders were planted. An enormous amount of water is needed for these plants. We have tried to introduce a foreign culture into our harsh and difficult land.

We should study more and more our own natural habitat to ensure that we use the best of Australia for Australians. We are dealing with our own natural environment and the more we study our environment the more we understand it, whether it be in our gardens, whether it be in our forests or whether it be the people themselves. We need to try to understand, study scientifically and have some confidence in what is Australian. In the long term, it seems to me, we would be far better off.

While the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, I say to honourable members on the other side of the House that the Opposition would like to see a great deal of rethinking done. It would like to see some understanding and pride in what is Australian so that we can develop our own natural being, whether in our forests or in ourselves. If we had more faith in our own beliefs, I think we would have a much better country and, if I might say so, we would even have better forests.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-This is the second occasion this week on which I have followed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) in a debate on environment and conservation issues. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stands there in a pious and authoritative way telling this nation that the Government knows nothing and cares nothing for the environment. I assure him that the Government is deeply committed to these issues. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made many statements tonight with which I and all other Government supporters agree. But I assure him that he does not have all of the knowledge in matters of this kind.

He stated repeatedly that the Government should give the States more money for this or that project. I think he referred tonight to providing further money to the States for hardwood forest plantings. His speeches are studded with references to spending money. He reminds me of the man who receives $200 a week and spends $300 every week. He is broke in no time. That is the very thing which he and the government of which he was a member were doing to this nation when it was in power for 3 years.

It is rather unusual for me to speak in debates on Bills concerning rural industries. It is not out of disinterest for the rural community. I am well aware of the plight of many of the farming and grazing industries but I leave these matters to more capable people with much more expertise in the area. There are 2 of them in the House now. I refer to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) and the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), who both come from rural communities.

Although the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, the matters that concern me are twofold. I am concerned, firstly, with the environmental aspects of this Bill and, secondly, with the fact that it is providing employment that is so needed today in this country. Although I am interested in the environment, I am not a rabid environmentalist. Nevertheless, I hope that I can present a fairly balanced view on matters concerning the environment and conservation. This BUI, of course, provides a maximum amount of $6m to be loaned to the States for a one-year period to continue programs that have now extended over 10 years for the planting of softwoods. It will provide some 17 000 hectares of softwood plantings in the 6 States. It will boost the program which was formerly pursued by the States. I make it clear to the House that the States had been pursuing quite vigorous programs of softwood plantings for many decades before the Commonwealth Government came into the area. In effect this BUI is a holding operation for 12 months pending further investigations and negotiations that will be carried on with the States to provide for future agreements.

I want to refer, as did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I know that one of the following speakers, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), wishes to refer to this report as well. It is gratifying me as the Chairman of this Committee and no doubt to the honourable member for Scullin who was the previous Chairman of the Committee to see that some of the recommendations that come out of the hard work that goes into the inquiries and the reports are being implemented by the Government. In this case the Committee looked extensively into the problem, heard many witnesses and travelled throughout the nation. It even travelled to New Zealand to look at its softwood forests. The report was presented in May of last year I think. It reported on the operations of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Acts of 1967 and 1972.

I want to refer to some of the recommendations of the report, as did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Probably one of the most important recommendations- I would imagine that in future negotiations with the States this recommendation will be taken into consideration; it is indeed my wish that it Will be- concerns clear felling of native trees. Recommendation (vi) states that money should not be loaned to the States for the planting of softwoods in areas where native forest is to be clear felled unless, of course, a thorough environmental impact study is produced and various other aspects, such as sou quality, show such areas to be suitable for the planting of softwoods. The next recommendation to which I refer was dealt with by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He was rather critical that the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was not available to the House at the time of debating this Bill. I remind him that in spite of that this is a Bill to provide further funds for only 12 months. Recommendation (ix) states that an immediate study should be carried out by a body such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to determine the economic viability of the softwood planting program, etc. The Minister in his second reading speech made it clear that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has decided that it is economic to plant softwoods in this country.

I refer to 2 other recommendations. The first concerns the planting of softwood forests on marginal farming land. Recommendation (xii) states that an increasing proportion of the finance loaned to the States should be dedicated to the purchase of land already cleared for other marginal pursuits. No doubt a deal of land which is not currently very productive in this country could be better used for planting softwoods. Many farmers throughout the nation would, I am sure, dearly love to have their land taken over for softwood planting.

The other recommendation to which I refer concerns small wood lots. Recommendation (xiii) states that financial assistance should continue to be made available to owners of agricutural holdings for the planting of small wood lots on their properties. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that an environmental impact statement was not required on this occasion before these agreements were to be entered into with the States because the time taken would halt the industry. With our current high unemployment rate I think it is vital that we see a continuation of this program because it is fairly labour intensive. If, however, further agreements are to be entered into I would sincerely hope that environmental impact statements will be required. The matter should be examined at an early date bearing in mind that this Bill provides finance only until June 1977.

Once plantings are made one must remember that irreversible damage may be done. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the rather sterile environment that results from the planting of many species of softwoods. A number of people may refute this but I think the findings of the Environment and Conservation Committee clearly illustrate that a sterile environment is produced by the planting of many of these trees. The fact is that birds in particular and most of our fauna will not thrive and will live in only very small numbers in softwood planted areas whereas in native forests they will thrive and their numbers will be far greater. I restate that environmental impact studies and statements should be produced by the States for the various areas that they wish to plant with softwood forests in the future.

I refer now to the section of the report that deals with fauna and flora. Paragraph 58 refers to the clearing of native forests. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition dwelt on this important point. We should be looking at the planting of the types of trees that we have in our native forests. I can recall clearly when I was a child in north Queensland thousands of hectares of beautiful scrub country- a lot of people refer to it as jungle country. Such exotic timbers as blackbean, maple, red cedar and so forth were cleared for farming purposes and in many instances the logs were burnt. We do not want to see this sort of thing happen in the future in other areas. At least we have controlled logging by most of the State government forestry departments. An excellent program to be looked at in the future would be the planting of some of our exotic and better trees from our native forests.

Certain species of our fauna are termed in the report as non-dependent species. The report says as the adjective suggests that these may survive in an altered habitat. There is also the dependent category. These are the ones to which I referred earlier and about which I am particularly concerned. Another aspect I mention briefly is the important one of employment. Apart from the . purchase of land for the planting of these softwood forests the industry is, of course, highly labour intensive. We know the Government’s concern in its approach to the employment position in this country and to the economy in particular. We have heard a deal today about the Fraser Island issue. The Government is most deeply concerned about the high unemployment rate. The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) shows a deep concern for environmental issues. I refute the statement that is freque’ntly made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this Government is not interested in this area of the’ environment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Very interested.

Mr HODGES:

-It is very interested, as the honourable member for Griffiths interjects. The employment position is important. The $6m will provide a lot of jobs in the months until the end of the financial year. To sum up, I believe the Government is taking a balanced view. The industry will continue. We are in a holding position for one year until new agreements are negotiated. I again stress the employment situation as being extremely important. The provision of the $6m will provide many jobs. Finally, I state again that the Government is firmly committed to the protection of our environment.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-It is obvious from the attitudes expressed in this debate that honourable members accept this as a holding piece of legislation and that the more vital debate will take place some time in the future. That is in contrast to the spirited debate that accompanied the 1972 renewal of the softwood forestry agreements. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) has been wise in expressing the concern he has. I believe that such concern must always be in the forefront of consideration of these matters.

I have some concern. The Government has referred a number of factors contained in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the softwood forestry agreements for examination by bodies which previously had a preconceived view of the matter in that they had prepared material for the Forwood Conference and, indeed, had given evidence before the Committee. I am not suggesting that there was any conscious act on the part of those people examining it. But I suspect it would be rather difficult, having made up one’s mind that a certain course of action was right and that certain facts were beyond question, to sit back and remove oneself from that opinion and express a fresh opinion because of the recommendations that were made.

In discussing the softwood plantings, perhaps we should realise that much of the debate in regard to this matter is like much of the debate with regard to other agricultural products. The questioning in the community of the need for further clearing of land for plantings of other crops applies just as much to softwood plantings as it does to many of the grains. After all, in those crops we are dealing with material that is used for food. Many members of the community are interested in the very versatile material that comes from this crop- timber- in the building of their homes. That is a versatile material that can be put to many uses. The foresters have shown that they are extremely competent in growing the crops, particularly softwood. The softwoodspinus radiata and so on- enjoy an excellent prospect of growth in Australia because of the freedom from pests found in their countries of origin. During the course of the inquiry into this matter, the parallel was drawn constantly between the growth of eucalypts in California imported from Australia and the growth of softwoods in Australia. Eucalypts are growing very well because of the lack of their natural predators. With the rapid rate of growth of softwoods, we are talking about a 20-year to 25-year cropping instead of the 80-year cropping in trying to regenerate hardwood forests.

Added to this concern and questioning that has built up in regard to the clearing of further areas for the growing of crops, with these agreements we have the fact that most of the growth is taking place on public land. The farmers growing the crop are public fanners. They are employees of the various State governments. There is a massive injection of public money. Of course, the end product goes into private industry. I suppose that that is fair enough in the economy where it is used for useful purposes, provides employment and so on. But it means that there must be a heightened public interest in the programs that are carried out. I referred to the rather spirited debate that took place in 1972 with the renewed agreement. I remind honourable members that, at that time, we were in Opposition. It was before the Australian Labor Party became the government. An amendment was moved to the Bill which sought to establish the agreements. The spirit of the amendment was not in opposition to the Bill but criticised the failure of the then Government to prepare and to publish in consultation with the States a national plan for: (a) The full use and development of Australia’s forest resources; and (b) the conservation of existing hardwood forests and associated flora and fauna in relation to softwood plantings. At the time, the first Government speaker, who followed the mover of that amendment in the debate, referred to it as frivolous. I do not think that present honourable members would accept it as a frivolous amendment. What was being said was what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put today which I think would be accepted, that is, that we cannot look at the softwood agreements in isolation from the other forestry resources.

At some stage we have to consider what we do about the total timber industry- the total forestry industry- for economic and resource reasons in addition to the environment and conservation aspects that have been mentioned. I make passing reference to that debate. I think it is well worth reading. One point shines through in it and that is the importance of economic considerations in making judgments on these matters. The Tasmanian members of the Australian Labor Party Opposition at that time were most vocal in discussing the legislation because so much of the economy of that State depended on the softwood plantings that took place there. I think that they properly talked of those matters.

I turn now to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation which dealt with the reference on the operation of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Acts. It was a report in which I had a great interest as Chairman of the Committee at that time. After some months of consideration of the matter, I must admit that I was becoming pretty sick of pine trees. I would not have cared if I never saw another one. We took the trouble to see how these plantings were carried out in the various States. We examined not only the principles being used in the growth, actual farming and harvesting of the crops but also what measures were taken to ensure protection for the natural environment and the natural flora and fauna. There was a great difference among the States on that matter. Of course, because of the importance of our overseas suppliers, we visited New Zealand to look at that country’s resource. I think that honourable members who have read the report of that Committee will have noted the summing up contained early in the report of the need at the time for that type of inquiry. There had been an intense polarisation between the timber industry and those who were talking on the conservation side. The Committee summed up that argument on page 2 of the report in these words:

The Committee’s report will attempt to be fairly representative of this debate.

That is the debate that was going on at the time.

It hopes that by placing the issues in perspective a national approach to the future legislation can be reached. Due to the complexity of the problems connected with forestry and the paucity of knowledge on its environmental and social effects, this approach may appear to be cautious. It is hoped that by considering all the elements adverted to in this report, that caution will be seen to be justified.

I believe that that statement is just as valid now as it was then. It is a matter for caution because of the involved nature of forestry, and because of the difficulty in divorcing from a consideration of softwood forests consideration of hardwood forests, the preservation of native forest and many natural features of our environment.

If we examine Australia’s timber resources we find that Australia really has very little quality forest for its area. If we take a liberal view- I spell that with a small ‘1’, not a political ‘1’- Australia has less than 6 per cent of its land in forest. I made the point earlier about public involvement, and there should be when of that 6 per cent, 78 per cent is publicly owned and some 35 per cent of that is dedicated to timber production of all sorts. So there should be still greater scope to use our native forests if we apply proper principles to that use. There must be an appeal when talking of softwood forestry plantings for consideration of proper use and the proper use of alternatives. One of the great arguments for the softwood program revolves around the demand that without softwoods would be made on our native forests which, as I mentioned before, have an 80 or 90 year regeneration cycle and would be incapable of regenerating and keeping the flow of timber going.

Along with this we are told that there is an impending shortage of softwoods from overseas. In relation to that suggested impending shortage, the Committee was given varying views, and it depended on which side of the Tasman you were, about the availability of New Zealand softwood resources for Australian use. Because this matter is so tied up with the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement and the general economic structure of both countries the Committee was unable to make a firm decision. This is one area in respect of which the Parliament should ask the Government: What is the situation from the Government’s point of view with regard to the future reliability of softwood from New Zealand? We believe that substantial encouragement could be given to Australian companies to get long term contracts for supply from New Zealand. We were assured in New Zealand that it had the capacity to supply and would look for such long term contracts. New Zealand certainly can grow softwoods very well. Admittedly it can do so because it has just about completely destroyed its native forests, in the North Island at least. I hope that we would not want to follow New Zealand’s example in that sense. I would like further information about the supply of timber from New Zealand and what firm commitments we could get before we make a final decision on the new agreement.

Arising from that would be factors which determine the extent of our future softwood planting program. Obviously when talking of a crop that takes the length of time that this takes to grow there must be a deal of forward planning to see that we would have a harvestable crop at the time when it will be needed to be used by industry. In looking at this question the Committee suggested that the predicted planting rates were too high, and here again it took the cautious approach. Against that it felt that the financial commitment under the old agreement was too short to be effective and that if the softwood program was to continue at the diminished rate further consideration should be given to more certainty of finance. Certainly more frequent examination should be made of the predictions for use, the progress of the plantings and the likelihood of the material being available. These are the sorts of things that we need to be informed about if we are to make a proper judgment on the fresh agreement when it comes up.

I do not think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) was being too harsh when he asked that this sort of information be made available to the House, because it is basic to the whole question of land usage and the proper financing with public monies of a public crop that will be used by private industry. My colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) made some comment about the environmental hazards of softwood forestry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the obvious- the lack of undergrowth, the lack of secondary growth in softwood forest areas and they are the features one can see when examining these areas. The things that do concern us are more hidden; for example, the effect on, say, the quality of water in these areas. In fact, the areas might be quite stable and there may be no effect on the water quality but to date one has the impression that too little examination has been done in the way of environmental impact statements for the foresters or the public bodies concerned to be able to say with certainty that water quality, the habitat for our native fauna and a number of other matters would not be affected. So the appeal for environmental impact statements is a reasonable one.

Another matter that arises, and this was exhibited fairly well in Victoria, is the necessity for the States to give some consideration to appropriate land use bodies. There was intense public interest in how the determination for the use of land for this and other purposes was made. I mention in passing the importance of proper land use bodies at State level which are able to specify the areas and to ensure that there is proper use. As I said earlier, we must also consider the clearing of native forest for other crops. There is a lot of land being cleared for taxation advantage and its clearing is quite ineffective in respect of the growing of productive crops.

Reference has been made to marginal farm land as being an appropriate type of area for softwood planting and that view requires further encouragement. All in all, I welcome this legislation and hope that answers to enough of the questions that have been raised seeking further information will be given before the next agreement comes forward, and that there will be a sound inquiry into not only softwoods but also the whole of our timber resources and the general question of forestry to give us guidance in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time-

Message from the Governor-General recom mending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2655

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-I support this Bill. It is only a machinery measure and the Opposition has no hesitation in supporting it. It is a Bill which apparently clarifies the legality of a collection by a State authority of a levy which is used for research and promotion activities. The levy is collected by the New South Wales Dairy Industry Authority on behalf of the Commonwealth. It is incredible that there should be any doubt about the legality of the New South Wales Dairy Industry Authority acting within the law in making these deductions. Although these measures are supposedly prepared by experts and are carefully debated before they are enacted we so often find at some later stage that there is some doubt about their legality, which does put a question mark against the efficiency of the people drawing up this legislation. We should not have to come back and make sure that an enactment is legal.

The Opposition is very happy to support this Bill because it is concerned with the obtaining of money to finance dairy research and promotion activities. As a matter of general principle, we support it because it is a positive approach to the problems of the dairy industry. It is much better to have a positive approach- to put money into reseach and promotion- than to carry on continually with the negative approach of subsidising our various rural industries. If we had put a proportion of the subsidies of the past into reseach and promotion I am sure that all of our rural industries would be much better off. The adoption of that sort of positive approach will improve our industries and make them more efficient. We have always supported the principle of improving the dairy industry through research. I must say that if the dairy industry had spent as much on promoting milk and butter as the breweries have spent on promoting alcohol and as the margarine companies have spent on promoting margarine the dairy industry would be in a much sounder position. The industry should not regard this as a levy. It should regard it as an investment in the industry. There is no doubt that the industry gets very adequate returns from the money that is well applied to research programs.

There is huge scope for improvement in the industry through research in the area of nutrition. We are now looking at our resources much more closely. I have no doubt that there is great scope for making more efficient the use of the food used by the industry. We have made great progress in the poultry industry in this area. In a few short years we have just about reduced by 50 per cent the amount of poultry food required to produce 1 lb of chicken meat. It used to require about 5 lb of food do so. It now requires about 2.5 lb or 2.2 lb. We have not made the same sort of progress in the dairy industry. But with a more sophisticated approach and greater application to research into nutrition we could improve the nutrition standards of our hand feeding of dairy herds so that we use a lesser quantity of food and get a greater return from that food in terms of the amount of food used to produce a gallon of milk.

There is also great scope in the area of genetic research. It takes a lot longer with stock than it does with chickens, but here again we have made tremendous progress in selecting animals for rapid maturing, quick growth and higher production. Genetic research is a very costly business. It takes a long time and requires a lot of detailed application to research. It is very expensive, but if one applies the cost in a long term basis it pays off. The returns are there.

Disease is always a very costly element in any rural industry- particularly in any stock industry. It is still costing the dairy industry quite extensive sums of money to control disease. I have no doubt that this area could be improved considerably if we were to invest in more diagnostic research laboratories and to have a better veterinary service whereby we could identify a disease more quickly and apply the latest techniques to controlling that disease or eliminating it. There is plenty of range for improvement in these areas. As I have said, it represents a positive approach as against the negative approach of the subsidy to which we have become so accustomed.

I refer briefly to the proposal that was discussed in the last report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the dairy industry concerning a national herd improvement program. This is another area in which great improvements could be derived by the dairy industry throughout Australia. No State has a complete scheme for dairy herd improvement, although there are dairy herd improvement schemes within the States. There is no standardisation between the States on the objectives for dairy herd improvement, there is no co-ordination of programs as between the States and there is no national pool of genetic resources for dairy herd improvement. We have been in this game for a long time; yet we have not got around to developing a national herd improvement program.

The IAC estimated at that stage that it would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $ 10m, which is not a great amount when one considers the huge amounts that go into subsidising the dairy industry. The IAC promised in its initial report that there would be another report early in 1976. 1 do not know whether it has come to light. I have not seen it. I certainly hope that the IAC is working on that report and that it will continue to try to develop a scheme for national herd improvement which will bestow great benefits on the dairy industry throughout Australia. Of course, some benefits would be derived by the consumers as well if that improvement were to lower the cost of production, and there is no doubt that that is what it would do.

The only other thing I wish to do in respect of this matter is to appeal for a more positive approach or a less negative approach to be adopted to all of our rural industries, for more emphasis to be placed on research into and promotion of our products and for less emphasis to be placed on subsidising them. I think that we are tending to get into the groove of looking at rural industry as being something that does not have any future, something that has to be cut back and something whose prospects are very gloomy. I do not agree with that. Although there are difficulties in particular sectors of the industry at this stage there is always room for improvement in all sectors of rural industry and, of course, there is always scope in rural areas for new industries.

Twenty years ago there was virtually no chicken meat industry in Australia. It is now a very extensive industry. People are now eating quite a lot of chicken, which, is something that they did not do 20 years ago, because we have applied science, research and promotion to that industry and we have been able to establish quite a substantial industry. Consider the vegetable oil industry. Twenty years ago very few vegetable oil crops were grown in Australia. This industry is still in its infancy and has a long way to go. We still do not produce much soya bean oil in Australia, or soya bean meal. There is still scope for improvement in those areas and therefore I think we should take a more positive approach. I think that in 20 years time we will find in the rural sector another three or four new industries that we do not know anything about today.

I make a plea for a more positive approach towards our rural industries and for more confidence in the future. We can show that confidence by putting more money into research and promotion and looking ahead. We should not look back historically and cry about things now not being what they were 20 years ago, or about not having markets in Europe or somewhere else. We should look for new products, we should look to fashion our markets to suit new demands in the field in order to meet changes in the way of life of people, such as changes in their eating habits which no doubt will open up new avenues for rural industries. If we have a positive approach we can profit from it. We should not look only at subsidies to prop up industries which are ailing and which have no future. I appeal for a more positive approach to our rural industries.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-The Bill before the House amends the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act to clearly impose a levy on whole milk or butterfat vested in State milk authorities. That Act, to quote the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), requires that the levy be used to finance the research activities of the Dairying Research Committee and of the administration and promotional activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation. It may be of interest to inform the House of the manner in which the levy is spent. I deal first with the Dairying Research Committee. The report of that Committee for 1975-76 will be tabled in the House in the next few weeks. Therefore I shall refer briefly to the third annual report which is for 1974-75. The broad objective of the dairy research scheme is to raise productivity and improve and advance the welfare of the industry. The enabling Act provides that expenditure from the research funds should be within 4 broad categories- scientific, economic, or technical research; the training of people; the dissemination of scientific, economic or technical information and advice; and, finally, publication of scientific, economic or technical reports, periodicals, books and papers. The research program deals with the farm, the manufacturing sector, the question of marketing of dairying products and requisite education programs.

To demonstrate the value of research to the industry I shall refer to one example undertaken by the Committee in 1974-75. In Victoria one project was concerned to obtain information on how best to maintain or improve the productivity of pastures. The results from the investigation will, for example, enable dairy farmers to use fertiliser more efficiently with a resultant boost in winter feed production in non-irrigated dairy farms. It could be argued that any increase in the productivity of dairy products will only propound the problem which has been experienced m the past 12 months with over-production of dairy produce. I would submit, however, that the problem of over-production will not be solved by a cut-back or cessation of research. This Government has emphatically stated its commitment to the value of export earnings from the manufacturing sector of the dairy industry. To compete on world markets Australian dairy farmers must maintain their high standard of efficiency and quality. The application of research findings by the dairy farmer will help in maintaining that standard.

I turn now to the application of the finance raised from the levy to the administrative and promotional responsibility of the Australian Dairy Corporation. In 1975-76 the income derived from the butterfat levy rate was $774,390 for each fund compared with $802,035 for the previous year. Other sources of income for the ADC are derived from the Commonwealth Government’s export market development grants scheme and from processed milk manufacturers. The annual accounts of the ADC for 1975-76 disclose that $1,567,506 was paid from the dairy produce fund and $804,779 from the sales promotion fund. Honourable members will be aware that the dairy industry in Australia at present is in a depressed state, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, States whose dairy farmers rely heavily on the sale of manufactured products overseas. The promotion of dairy produce by the ADC therefore is of utmost importance to the farmer and all those who are indirectly reliant on the industry.

What then are the functions of the Australian Dairy Corporation? They are to promote and control the export of dairy produce from Australia, to control the sale and distribution of produce after its export from Australia, to promote trade in dairy produce among the States and Territories, and to improve the production and encourage the consumption of dairy produce in the Territories. In the past year the ADC’s activities have been wide ranging. The Corporation has had to operate against a background of uncertainty on both Australian and domestic markets. In the past 6 months it and the entire dairy industry has experienced drought conditions over a wide area of the best dairy producing farm lands of Australia. In the previous year there was a build up around the world and in Australia of surplus dairy products, particularly skim milk powder.

The international markets are dominated by the common agricultural policy of the 9 member nations of the European Economic Community. In April 1976 the price for skim milk powder trade on the international markets was reduced to the GATT minimum of SUS350 per tonne freight on board with a consequent flow on to depress the price for butter and cheese on the world markets. This gloomy feeling was further depressed by the effect of inflation in Australia. A few examples published by the Bureau of Agriculture Economics in October 1976 will prove this point. Fuel increased by 19.8 per cent in 1974-75 over the previous year and by a further 30.1 per cent in 1975-76. Replacement parts for agricultural machinery increased in 1975-76 by 20.2 per cent on top of an increase of 21 per cent in the preceding year. Fencing materials in 1974-75 increased by 22.6 per cent and in the year just past there was a further increase of 23.1 per cent. Wages in 1973-74 increased over the previous year by 20.4 per cent, in 1974-75 by 37 per cent and in 1975-76 by 13.6 per cent. The Bureau pointed out that prices paid by farmers for their inputs in aggregate have risen at a faster rate over the past 3 years than the consumer price index. To cope with these sharp increases farmers have sought to increase productivity. Hence we come full circle back to the statement I made earlier- that research which assists productivity directly assists the dairy farmer to cope with inflationary on-farm costs.

I would like to consider the current state of the dairy industry, particularly in Victoria. If ever an industry needs leadership in the areas of promotion, marketing, research and general assistance it is now. Rural poverty has been identified by Professor Henderson in his poverty report and further identified in a number of other surveys. The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria has approximately 12 000 members out of a total of about 13 800 dairy farmers in Victoria and is the largest State dairy farmer organisation in Australia. A survey conducted by the UDF throughout that State showed an urgent need for off-farm income for dairy farmers and further reported that there were no prospects for on-farm employment. These findings are supported by another survey undertaken by the presbytery of the Latrobe Valley of the Presbyterian Church of Australia in Victoria. The presbytery reacted to the rural depression it found in central Gippsland since conducting a survey into the extreme anxiety and discomfort being experienced by rural people in central and west Gippsland in Victoria. The submission was published in June this year and has subsequently received recognition as an invaluable contribution to an understanding of the effects of the depressed dairy industry on farming and rural communities. The presbytery survey found that 43.6 per cent of families in June 1976 had at least one member of the family working away from the farm. I quote from the submission:

In some cases the family member is working in full time employment in an urban centre. Some farmers are travelling 1 60-220 miles each day to work in production line industries, for example, GMH, International Harvester, Heinz factory at Dandenong. This means leaving home in the early morning, arriving home late at night or alternatively, working night shift, wives have been forced to milk dairy herds of up to 120 cows, and family life is shattered.

A further 22.5 per cent of farmers stated that one member of the family was seeking employment away from the farm.

The Industries Assistance Commission report on the dairy industry marketing arrangements, the subject of the Crawford report, underscores the depressed state of the dairy farm, particularly the farm relying on income from the manufacturing sector. In Australia the net farm income for a dairy farmer in the manufacturing sector dropped from $5,532 to a loss of $1,401 in 1975-76. As mentioned earlier, we can see that the decline was principally due to cost increases. In the liquid milk sector the average net farm income showed a small decline by comparison; that is, from a net income of $6,800 in 1973-74 to $5,160 in the past year. The projection for the current year will, in all probability, be lower.

The President of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria, Mr Bill Pyle, recently commenting on the Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures for 1975-76 on Victorian dairy farms projected the situation for the current financial year in the following terms:

The BAE’s estimates reveal an appalling situation. If the position was as bad as the estimates indicated in 1975-76, one shudders to think what has been happening in farms this year, with production and returns both down and costs up still further. One can only conclude that the situation in the dairying areas of Victoria is even more serious than most people m the industry imagined.

The people concerned with the dairy industry in Victoria are in trouble. The mood of dairy men and women in the McMillan electorate is one of depression, particularly in those areas where farmers supply the manufacturing sector of the industry. The Government has done much to assist the dairy industry over the past 10 months. Notwithstanding that assistance, there is a depression in the industry.

In this Bill the Government has once again demonstrated a commitment to the industry. Research and promotion demand time before results are apparent. There is, therefore, a long term commitment to the dairy industry in the terms of the Bill which is before the House. The responsibility which the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Dairying Research Committee are presently shouldering is considerable. With respect to the Australian Dairy Corporation, its responsibility is further demonstrated from the Crawford report in that section which refers to the administration of the proposed new marketing arrangements. It states:

In a previous report the Commission recommended that the administration of manufacturing milk marketing arrangements should be integrated within the one organisation, the Australian Dairy Corporation. This body would regulate exports, act as the agent for equalisation and coordinate domestic promotion. The Commission is still of the view that the Australian Dairy Corporation should be responsible for all national aspects of administration of dairy marketing arrangements.

The Commission’s report went further and stated:

As the Australian Dairy Corporation is involved in national promotion of manufactured dairy products it could, in co-operation with State authorities, complement their promotional activities in these areas. In addition, if the recommendations for production levy on fluid milk were accepted the Australian Dairy Corporation could act as the agent of the Commonwealth Government for the collection of that levy.

The Government has a responsibility in relation to the implementation of the terms of the Crawford report. The ADC and the Dairying Research Committee will be able to play their respective parts in assisting the dairy industry through its present crisis. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bryant) adjourned.

page 2659

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first tune.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is the second of the measures required to give effect to the obligations Australia will have under the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations with Papua New Guinea. The Agreement requires that the incidence of sales tax on goods produced in Papua New Guinea should be no greater than that on like Australian products. This equality is provided in the present sales tax except for one group of products for which exemption is limited to the Australian products. This group comprises cordials, concentrates and food flavourings containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juice, or its equivalent in concentrated form, and non-alcoholic beverages consisting wholly of Australian fruit or vegetable juice.

The Bill will provide for a corresponding exemption for juice products produced in Papua New Guinea from juices of that country. A minor amendment is proposed to the exemption provision for works of art produced in Australia or abroad by Australian artists to reinforce the established interpretation under which exemption is applied to all works of art produced in Australia and to those produced abroad by Australian artists. This Bill will also ensure that works of art produced in Papua New Guinea will be exempt as required by the agreement. It is also proposed to make a number of other amendments which are of a drafting nature only and do not affect the operation of the present Act.

The Bill is to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, the intention being that it will operate from a date which will coincide with the date on which the Agreement comes into force. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill in detail is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2660

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2660

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I take up the theme from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) who perhaps overstressed the gloom of the industry in the speech which he made to the House. It is true that the dairy industry in Australia, as in the rest of the world, is in trouble. We are dealing with the question of research. If we look at the report of the Dairying Research Committee we find that it covers an immense range of activities in the scientific area. Although the Committee is charged with research in the economic area, I do not see all that much evidence of such research in the report or the results of that research. It is that aspect to which I wish to address myself. The facts are that we are living in a world in which the dairying industry is essential. In this debate I represent the consumers rather than the producers. It is important to the people whom I represent that the products of the dairy farm be available at an economic price. It is important to their social and political philosophy that the people who produce that milk do so with reasonable comfort and with reasonable returns. So, we are speaking about a product which is essential and regarded as a vital food.

We are speaking about an industry which is in trouble in an economic sense. We are speaking about a product which is needed by many people in the world. About 1000 million people will go to bed hungry tonight because they lack this product. So, I suggest that the economic charter of the Dairying Research Committee should receive more attention. We are speaking about an industry which I think is basically efficient. My association with the industry came, of course, through being Minister for the Capital Territory for a couple of years. I was faced with the problem of reorganising the consumer end of the dairying industry in this city. Let me say a word of two on behalf of Australian primary industry. I think it is efficient and becoming increasingly more efficient. I will not write any charters or guarantees, of course, for the political philosophy of many of the people on the farms. But the facts are that statistics show that, although the number of cows in production is falling, the amount of milk they are producing is increasing. In general, although it is not absolute from year to year, the productivity of each cow on an average is rising. It has done so from 1968-69 when 2300 litres was produced to 1972-73 when 2600 litres was produced, as shown in the latest statistics available.

I think it is a good thing for people to consider the dairy industry and its relative efficiency, particularly in the marketing area. In this city milk is now costing 1 7c or 1 8c for what used to be a pint. It is brought to the city from hundreds of miles away. Some of the milk sold in Canberra comes from the other side of Wodonga. It is produced on the farm, transported to Albury, bulk handled, reprocessed, brought to Canberra and processed again, put through the whole system, put into bottles and delivered to the doorstep 6 nights a week for about 17c or 18c- for what the Post Office tells us is the cost of delivering a letter. In this case one gets the milk, the bottle and the lot for the price of the delivery of a letter. I have no real complaints about the general efficiency of the postal system, but if one considers the immense amount of effort in the production of milk, and the health requirements involved in the transport and processing of milk one will see that that aspect of the dairy industry is very efficient. The citizens who consume the milk ought to be grateful for that.

A good deal of the efficiency comes from the orderly marketing processes. It has been a long and tortuous process to get orderly marketing into any part of Australian primary industry. I think the first moves towards having a levy or a research system in the dairy industry started in 1958. That did not become a reality until about 1972. As my colleague the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) remarked, this is not a levy, it is an investment. There are 2 points I want to make. First, I think that much more research and much more effort must be put into finding ways of processing milk and marketing overseas that processed milk. There is no doubt in my mind, following my travels overseas and visits to underprivileged parts of the world, that processed milk which can be reprocessed at the other end into full milk is an important contribution Australia can make. We have not resolved the general problems, although the Dairy Board has made some effort in some parts of South East Asia. We should not allow ourselves to be conned out of a system simply because our competitors in Europe use all sorts of rather underhand economic exercises in order to get their products on the market. I hope that in the next report we will see some evidence from the research committee that it has examined this aspect.

The other point I want to make relates to the economics of the farm itself. I do not have at hand any figures on what the capitalisation of his farm is costing the average farmer, but I presume that at current interest rates, if people have $30,000 or $40,000 on mortgage they are paying $3,000 or $4,000 a year in interest-that is $60 to $70 a week- before they start. Somehow we have to find a better method of financing the people in primary production, as indeed we finance other productions. If this were a normal company operation with an investment of $250,000 there would probably be equity shares and people would receive dividends in accordance with the profit made. Unfortunately, in the private farming area most of the capital has to come from very high interest areas, and I believe that that is one of the killers of the system.

I suggest that the Committee turn its attention to the question of financing the farmer, financing the marketing and processing of milk for overseas, particularly for the underprivileged parts of the world. I would remind the House that there is always the possibility that unless we solve some of the problems associated with financial arrangements on the farm, more and more people will go out of the dairy industry. One of the prophecies which was made at the inquiry held here in Canberra was that in the future we could easily be short of milk as greater opportunities were offered for more economic crops on farmland. The farmers would go out of dairying and into something else and we could end up being out of milk because the farms had gone out of dairy production. I made the suggestion at the time to some of the people involved in the industry that we ought to buy the farms and ensure that they are always used for milk production. They looked upon that suggestion as one of the more dangerous elements of my political philosophy, but I think that it is a logical thing to do.

Mr King:

– You could not blame them.

Mr BRYANT:

– I would not blame them because I do not expect people involved in that part of the industry who support the Country Party to do any logical or constructive thinking. In this city we see the benefits and advantages of government ownership and control of the land so that its usage can be guaranteed. I am not suggesting that we ought to run the farms, but we ought to have enough farms to ensure that there is a continuous supply of land for milk production. I will hand over now to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), who is obviously champing at the bit, if that is what one does in a dairy industry debate. I suggest that those 3 areas of research ought to get much more attention than they have hitherto received.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I must say that I was intrigued to hear of the great interest of the honourable member for Wills ( Mr Bryant ) in at least the consumption of the products of the dairy industry. I have greater good fortune than he because I represent an electorate which covers Australia’s greatest milk producing area. It is renowned, of course, for the development of the Illawarra Shorthorn, one of the great dairy cows of our nation, and it is renowned certainly as one of Australia’s richest and best producers of milk. Unfortunately, this area is suffering, as are all dairying areas for one reason or another. Regrettably, the bulk of the reasons for its suffering can be laid at the door of changes in the milk quota structure within the State of New South Wales as a result of most unfair treatment by the New South Wales State Government.

However, having listened to the honourable member for Wills and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon), there is no doubt that there is a desperate need for research to be applied not only to the maintenance of the quality of our dairy cattle but also to the use of milk protein, particularly in export markets. We have seen some endeavours to produce particular kinds of biscuits which can be sent overseas. Unfortunately, at the moment they are not all that palatable. I believe that unless we can establish some method of exporting milk in one form or another we are going to continue to have massive problems in our dairy industry. I hope very sincerely that a greater research effort will be directed towards finding appropriate methods of exporting protein to the millions of people around the world who the honourable member for Wills quite rightly pointed out are suffering from protein deficiency.

It strikes me that that is the sort of aid we should be looking at. We would be much better off spending in that way a lot of the money which appears to be going into curious hands, not only, for instance, in our local forms of relief, such as was done in Darwin under the previous Government. A lot of the money which goes overseas appears to be wasted in some of our aid efforts. I would much rather see a lot of this money directed towards stimulus in export sections of the dairy industry, say, so that we could provide real help to the people who are in need, the people who are actually starving.

Mr Martyr:

– From contented cows.

Mr BAUME:

-Yes, from contented cows, particularly in the Illawarra and South Coast regions of New South Wales. The problems which have emerged for the industry certainly desperately need immediate attention. As was recently pointed out, real farm incomes are collapsing all around Australia, particularly in the dairy industry. The gross market value of dairy products for the current financial year is forecast to fall by 5.5 per cent. Average yields will be reduced in southern dairy areas and the falling trend in cow numbers is expected to accelerate. Milk production is expected to decline by 12 per cent to S.S60 million litres, the lowest level since 1953-54. That is a great development, a great march forward! Our milk production is now down to the lowest level since 1953-54. The fall will be reflected in declines of over 20 per cent in the production of butter and skim milk powder and a slight concentration in cheese output. Fortunately, my electorate is heavily directed towards supplying whole milk to the Sydney milk zone.

Debate interrupted.

page 2662

ADJOURNMENT

Telegram Service- Rugby Union- Housing Assistance- Meat Companies-Australian Assistance Plan- Anniversary of Dismissal of . Labor Government

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1976 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-Mr Speaker, I wish to speak tonight in regard to proposals by Telecom Australia to emasculate the present successful telegram service which has for many years provided a fast, efficient and reliable service to the public I did inform the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that I would be raising this matter tonight and I should have thought that he would have been in the House to listen to me. At the present time there are throughout Australia 798 post offices with a teleprinter connected to the teleprinter reperforator and switching system which is known as ‘TRESS’. This system has been in operation successfully since 1959. The advantage of the system is that from every one of the 798 post offices in Australia there is a direct entry into the Australiawide network. What Telecom Australia is proposing to do it to discontinue the direct teleprinter network service in respect of 258 post offices throughout Australia. The post offices affected are those which do not have 40 operations per day or 10 000 operations per year. It is proposed that the telegrams from those 258 post offices will be rung through to the nearest central post office which is connected to the TRESS network.

It so happens that most of the affected post offices are in country areas where people rely on telegrams as their only means of fast communication. To date I have heard no complaint at all from the National Country Party supporters of this Government in regard to this lessening of service to their constitutents. If the National Country Party members of this Parliament are not interested in their constitutents I, as a Labor member of Parliament, must accept their mantle and attempt to protect the interests of country people.

In Australia one person in six does not have a telephone and does not have much prospect of obtaining one. There are also very many people who cannot afford a telephone and if this proposal of Telecom Australia is instituted they will have a less efficient service than is now provided. I ask the Minister why this new system is being proposed. Surely it is not because Telecom is making insufficient profit. The recently published annual report of Telecom Australia for 1 975-76 disclosed a net profit of $ 1 52.4m.

Mr Bryant:

– How much?

Mr MARTIN:

– It is $ 152.4m which is not an inconsiderable sum. How can the Minister possibly allow this present efficient telegram service to be further emasculated? Surely those people who use the telegram service have been slugged enough already.

Telegram charges were increased on 1 September 1975 by the Government of which I am proud to have been a member. They were increased from 6c per word to 9c per word. I have vivid memories of the present Government supporters when in Opposition decrying this increase. But what did they do when they became the Government? On 1 September 1976 the present Liberal-National Country Party Government increased the charges from 9c per word to 12c per word. But it did not stop at that. In April 1976 it introduced an additional charge of 40c for delivery to an addressee’s street address. It is not everybody who can afford to have a phone connected. Not everybody can have a service connected because the services are not available in many areas. So much for good government. We are told time and time again that the Liberal-National Country Party Government provides good government. If this is an example of it I do not want to see a repetition of it in the future. I again ask the Minister, who still is not present in the chamber, to look seriously at these matters that I have raised and to prevent any further deterioration in what is now an efficient reliable telegram service.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

– I would like to move away from politics to the field of sport. I draw the attention of the House to the present Australian rugby union tour of France and Italy.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How are they going?

Mr BIRNEY:

– The honourable member should have been reading the papers. It is common knowledge that the side has not fared well on the playing fields, having been beaten by France quite resoundingly in the 2 tests played to date. It is always an occasion for some remorse when an Australian side sporting the illustrious green and gold colours of the nation goes under. This side is now in Italy playing possibly 2 unofficial tests.

Prior to the departure of the Australian team one of its most seasoned test players who is also a constituent of mine mentioned a matter to me that gave me cause for great concern. What is not common knowledge, however, is that the Australian jumpers bearing the crest of Australia and of course coming in the fabled green and gold are being prostituted by commercial enterprise as a means of advertising its goods in an endeavour to boost sales. I was staggered to learn that this jumper the wearing of which is the dream of every Rugby player has sewn on to it down both sleeves the trade mark of the sporting goods manufacturer. I know that at club level in many codes of football manufacturers in recent times have profusely advertised their products on jumpers and other gear possibly as a quid pro quo for financial support. I do not criticise this. It is the sole prerogative of the clubs concerned. But when this trend spills over to embrace the national sporting scene and the Australian colours- and I emphasise the words ‘Australian colours’- it becomes my business and I hope the business of all honourable members. Unless I am mistaken I sense here a deep injury to the national pride.

Of course I appreciate the awkward situation in which the Australian Rugby Union found itself. I am given to understand that because of poor finances it was either a matter of accepting financial aid or cancelling the tour. I think we would all appreciate that if a tour of that magnitude was in fact cancelled it would have been a tremendous setback to rugby union in Australia. I say as forcibly as I can that the particular company concerned has a confounded cheek and impertinence to degrade the colours of the nation in the manner in which I have just mentioned. How dare they endeavour to push the sales of their own product in this way. I believe that this is offensive to all Australians.

The Parliament has little or no control over who may or may not wear the nation’s colours. In view of this despicable action I deem it appropriate to give a warning to any other commercial enterprises similarly minded to batten onto financially ailing national sporting bodies with a view to using the green and gold as a means of advertising. I suggest that they beware of any future encroachment in this area which I believe is sacrosanct to all Australians. Indeed the firm concerned should beware of this particular encroachment lest it incurs the wrath of the very people to whom they wish to project, with attendant consequences. I hope that I shall never hear of a similar happening again. In layman’s language, I suggest: Do not act in this despicable manner. Hands off the national colours for ever.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I want to raise a matter before the House concerning a voluntary group carrying out effective social welfare work in my electorate which has been thwarted in its progress by the inability of 2 government departments to decide on a definition. It has been brought to my attention by Mr Kevin Gould, the Honorary Secretary of the City of Heidelberg Emergency Housing Group that this organisation is experiencing difficulty in ascertaining whether it is eligible to receive any financial support, either now or in the very near future, from the present Government. Very briefly, this group’s history is that it commenced in September 1973 and decided to set up a shelter to provide short term accommodation for those in need. The group obtained a house for a rental of $25 a week from November 1973. It furnished the house and put the first couple into it on 2 November 1973. In the 882 days of operation until 3 1 March this year the group received 312 requests for shelter from 991 organisations seeking shelter for 1359 persons, I might add that the majority of the requests came from Commonwealth Government departments. The group was able to provide shelter for only 269 of those people which, as honourable members will realise, is less than 20 per cent of what was needed. The group has provided an average of almost 5 beds a night in the time to which I am referring.

It can accommodate up to 10 persons in the 4- roomed house. The present problem is that sewerage must be connected to the house which the group rented, which is in the electorate of Diamond Valley. The owners, who are believed to be land developers, will demolish the house and develop the site, which is well in excess of 1½ acres. The group has been offered land by the Hospital and Charities Commission for a quite reasonable price but needs some financial assistance in order to continue its charitable work in assisting, in a very positive way, the less fortunate members of our community.

The group has already had one problem with governments in that it sought registration with the Hospital and Charities Commission in March 1975 but, due to the inefficiency of that Commission, it did not obtain registration until July 1976. The group forwarded a submission for a grant or subsidy for rent under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974. This is where the strange situation starts. The group received a letter dated 3 February 1976 from the Department of Social Security which states:

As you are aware, your Group’s application for subsidy under the Homeless Persons Program was referred to the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, in order to test eligibility as a Women’s Refuge. The Commission has now informed this Department that ‘the organisation does not come within the Program’s (i.e. the Community Health Program) recognition of a Women’s Refuge as it catered for deserted wives and single parents’.

In other words, it catered for parents who were other than women. The letter continues:

Since the receipt of this advice, this Department has reconsidered your group’s proposal. However, from the information available, this Department’s central office can only regard the centre as a refuge and, therefore, outside the present scope of the Homeless Person’s Programme.

So we have a situation in which on the one hand one department denies that the group is in a certain category and, on the other hand, another department asserts that it is. Obviously both departments are incorrect, and the charitable work is unable to be carried out. As this matter is urgent I am raising it tonight in the hope that one of the Ministers interested in this area will have a look at the files and not repeat this sort of brouhaha concerning definitions, which is even repeated in a letter from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I hope that some notice will be taken of this problem and assistance given to people who are doing very valuable work for those less fortunate in the community.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-The other day some discussion took place in this chamber about the profitability of meat companies. I know that members of the Opposition take the view that profits are something disgraceful and should not be earned by anybody. In particular, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) made some comments about a company-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member refers to a debate that has already taken place in the House, he will be out of order. He can speak about the subject generally but he must not refer to the debate.

Mr BAUME:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question of profitability of meat companies is, of course, particularly interesting and was intruded, if I might say so, into a debate with which it had nothing at all to do. It seems unfortunate that that intrusion into a debate on another subject should inhibit me in this way. Nevertheless, I point out that the profitability of meat companies has been spoken of here and in other places as being something disgraceful and tables of great length and significance and complication have been presented here and elsewhere. There has been an immense amount of discussion before the Australian Meat Board recently about quota programs and quota plans. These discussions have tended to point out that some companies have been making profits, and profit is a naughty word.

I simply point out that the company of which I am a director has done this disgraceful thing. It has, in fact, made a profit. I wonder whether this is the sort of profit that it has been claimed to be by some people. It has been alleged, for example, that this profit is huge; it has been described as such. The fact, which is readily available to the Australian people, is that the company involved releases an annual report which is made public. This report is available to people if they want to know the facts about this industry. It is a report which very fully describes not only the amount of profit earned but also the amount of work done to earn the profit, and the amount of funds employed in earning that profit. These facts are totally overlooked by people who like to attack companies of this type. They show that in the latest year the profit of this company, Tancred Bros. Industries Ltd, represented a return of less than one-half of one per cent per pound of products sold.

I might say to the honourable member for Fraser that not even the chicken industry is as bad as that. The table which was presented concerning the profits of this company, for example, suggests that in the period from 1968-69 to 1975-76, the amount of profit, in real terms, has doubled. What the table does not show is that the volume of production has increased by 4 times so that the profits of the company, at its present rate of production, have been cut in half over that period, to the significant benefit of cattle producers.

The company has, in fact, reinvested as much as possible of its profits into expanding its investment to deal as cheaply and as efficiently as possible with the cattle that is processed, for the benefit of cattle producers. The company has a great deal of concern for cattle producers. If the cattle producers did not exist, the company would have no product to process. There is a great Unking, a great understanding and a great community of interest which not even the efforts of gentlemen opposite can break down between the processing and the cattle producing sections of this nation. Unless the cattle producers survive the processing industries Will not survive. It is nonsense to describe the profits of the processors as huge. They are reinvesting those profits for the benefit of the producer.

Mr Les McMAHON (Sydney) (10.49)- I refer to the Australian Assistance Plan which the Australian Labor Government instituted in 1974. In July 1977 there will be a change in the structure of this scheme. If this worthy scheme survives and if the State government, under the new federalism pOliCY of the Government, receives the finance, I shall work to help the needy and other residents of the electorate of Sydney.

Last Friday night, 5 November, I was invited to a meeting of the Inner Sydney Regional Council for Social Development at Chippendale. The Council released a report for the period from 1974 to 76. 1 must congratulate the local councils in the area: the City of Sydney Municipal Council, the Leichhardt Municipal Council, the Marrickville Municipal Council, the South Sydney Municipal Council and the Botany Municipal Council. The contents of the first report for 1974-1976 include the election of officers, the Chairman’s report, activities such as the family support program, housing, planning and community structures, and reports from South Sydney, the City of Sydney, Leichhardt, the staff, the treasurer and a financial statement. The theme of the office bearers was survival, but after reading the report and being involved at the general meeting I must congratulate them for the work in supplying this Government with the necessary data for future improvement and involvement in the Sydney electorate. The Chairman’s report sums up the feeling of the meeting. It reads:

It gives me great pleasure to present this report of our Council’s work over the last thirty months highlighting our aims and achievements. As I have only been Chairman for a short period I feel almost as if I am imposing my view on what so many of you know so well, I therefore intend it to be very brief.

I must start by saying that if there is one thing we have learned over the last few months, as we see ourselves being gently swept under the carpet by both Federal and State Governments, it is that we have not blown our trumpets loud enough.

I would draw your attention to the activities outlined in this report and would ask politicians reading it if they would pass on to their colleagues the contents of these reports. For if ever there was a short sighted policy, it is not realising the immense work that the AAP has been able to do, particularly in the Inner City, at such minimal costs.

It has acted as a liaison between Government Departments, agencies, parliament itself and particularly in helping the residents express their wishes and desires. So I would just like to briefly draw your attention to some of the areas in which the Regional Council has been most effective.

The rehabilitation Seminar (within our Housing Activities) drew participants from as far afield as South Australia with a representative of the South Australian Housing Trust here to snow us how their admirable program is working. This was a most effective Seminar in which a great number of people were drawn together to discuss the potentials of rehabilitation. The papers have now been published and are available at the Regional Council Office.

Within the housing ambit, we have been able to liaise with the Housing Commission and the Residents of Waterloo in setting up the Residents’ Committee. These are remarkable achievements indeed.

The work that is going on in Woolloomooloo is well known to everyone and our CDO in that area is preparing a book on the ‘Loo. She has also been an active facilitator in other areas such as housing for the rehabilitation of alcoholic women.

In family care we have highlighted many aspects of problems in the Inner City. It might be argued that we were among the initiators of the Child Care Program within South Sydney, and we have co-operated with many group as well as the Council in seeing that the people of South Sydney were able to express their views. Our Project Officer has indeed worked hard and tenaciously for well over eighteen months in this field. She has opened avenues whereby child bashing problems can be examined

So much is said in this report that I shall have to select some of the Chairman’s remarks. He said:

A series of Tenants’ Rights Workshops were held by Robert Mowbray under the co-sponsorship of Shelter N.S.W. and the Regional Council. These have been of immense value to people working or living in the area. The furtherance of these lectures at the local level have readily been welcomed in Darlinghurst, Kings Cross, Surry Hills and Glebe. His knowledge is slowly becoming part of the communities knowledge.

Let us protect the vision of people having an organisation through which they could be heard. To help with submissions, to explain bureaucratic jargon, to give them resources so that they have a voice of their own.

If this is lost it will be to the shame of the Federal Government, and the newly elected State Government. In winding up I would like to urge -

Mr SPEAKER:

– You have wound up. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-Today is 11 November. I want to bring to the attention of the House the importance that divisions should not be created within the Australian community by criticisms of the Governor-General which, in the words of Francis West ‘rest upon strained law and bad history prompted by political anger’. The recorded history of the events of 11 November 1975 should not be merely a distillation of rumour or a fable agreed upon, but should contain an accurate record of the events as they occurred and a proper interpretation of the law. Twelve months ago Prime Minister Whitlam was dismissed by the GovernorGeneral. This dismissal was both proper and legal. The Senate had refused to grant supply. Notwithstanding his inability to obtain parliamentary approval of the Supply Bill, Prime Minister Whitlam made it clear to the GovernorGeneral firstly, that he would never resign; secondly, that he would never advise an election of the House of Representatives or a double dissolution; and, thirdly, that the only way such an election could be held was by his dismissal by the Governor-General.

The issue of this challenge was surely an acknowledgement by Prime Minister Whitlam of the Governor-General’s powers under sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution to dismiss Ministers, including Prime Ministers, whose appointment to office is during the Governor-General’s pleasure. Despite this acknowledgement, attempts are still being made to suggest that the Governor-General had no power to determine the Prime Minister’s commission, either on the ground that his power is not greater than that of the Queen or that it is limited to acting in all matters on the advice of the Prime Minister. There are, in my view, no grounds for arguing that the powers exercised by the Governor-General could not be exercised by the Queen in her capacity as Queen of Australia, even if their exercise by her in the United Kingdom is, according to Colin Howard, unthinkable. Therefore it is not possible to sustain the view that the GovernorGeneral acted contrary to the intention that his powers should not exceed those of the Queen herself.

The second false argument peddled by spokesmen of the Labor Party is based on an assumption that the Governor-General should not act as an automaton in response only to the advice of the Prime Minister. If this were so the Prime Minister, once appointed, could, even if acting in blatant disregard of the Constitution, only to be removed from Office if he advised the withdrawal of his own commission. If this were so a government fearful of the judgment of the people could refuse to advise that an election be held and remain in office longer than the maximum period for which the House of Representatives is elected. But it must be noted that whereas the Constitution confers some powers on the Governor-General in Council it clearly gives others to the Governor-General alone. Under section 5 he has the power from time to time as he thinks fit to dissolve the House of Representatives. Section 28 enables him to dissolve it sooner than the 3 years for which, from its first meeting, it shall no longer continue and he may dissolve it along with the Senate in circumstances authorised in section 57 following a disagreement between the Houses. One would have thought that it was beyond dispute that though he will in the exercise of these powers generally act on the advice of Ministers he need not necessarily do so.

The writings of Dr Evatt on this subject are entirely based on the assumption that there are reserve powers which impose on the GovernorGeneral the duty of the independent exercise of discretion. Dr Evatt recognises that:

So far as Australia is concerned, a long course of practice tends to negative the proposition that the Governor-General . . . is a mere automation in the hands of the Ministers who have lost, or who are about to lose, the support of Parliament.

I ask honourable members to note that he referred to the loss of the support of Parliament, not merely the loss of the support of the House of Representatives. The Governor-General’s prerogative powers, powers which are essential to the preservation of Australian democracy, are the safety valve that ensures that in times of crisis it is the people exercising the ultimate right in democracy who have a say in determining the future of their government.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am reluctant to let the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) have the last word on such a momentous occasion. It is a pity that he, along with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), had to go to Oxford to learn about the Australian Constitution. It is said that when the Prime Minister was there and was asked about the Australian Constitution people thought he was talking about the effect of horse riding, the diaphragm and the wind. The Constitution is something that we all knew about when we studied law in this country. Those who have studied constitutional history in this country and all honourable members opposite know that the rules are perfectly straight. Governments are made in the House of Representatives. That is the basic rule which everybody opposite has to live with for the rest of their days. They know that in their heart of hearts. That rule was broken by everybody who accepted a commission from the Governor-General on 11 November 1975. They know that they will find no text book in law, politics or government- call it what you will- which accepts the theory of a caretaker government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2. 1 5 p.m.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2668

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aid to East Timor (Question No. 1126)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. ) Have consultations been held with the Government of Indonesia on the Government’s proposal that Australian aid to Timor should be channelled through the Indonesian Red Cross.
  2. If so, when, where and between whom, were those consultations held.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. ) and (2) Discussions on the provision of humanitarian aid for use in East Timor took place in Jakarta on 25 August between officials of the Australian Embassy and representatives of both the Indonesian Government and the Indonesian Red Cross. A cheque in the amount of $83,193 was handed to the Indonesian Red Cross on 6 October for use in East Timor and a further $250,000 will be made available as required.

Overseas Aid: Percentage of Gross National Product (Question No. 1203)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of gross national product would Australia have spent on overseas aid in 1975-76 if the 1975 Budget allocation had not been reduced in accordance with the Minister’s announcement of 4 February 1976 (Hansard, ‘ 7 September 1976, page 775).
  2. What percentage of the estimated gross national product in 1 976-77 does the 1 976 Budget allocation for overseas aid represent.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Actual expenditure on overseas aid in 1975-76 was $346.9m representing 0.50 per cent of GNP. If the reductions and deferments amounting to $2 1 . 54m announced on 4 February 1976 had been expended the figure would have been 0.53 percent.
  2. 0.49.

Loss of Productivity as a Result of Strikes (Question No. 1207)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

What was the estimated monetary value of the cost to the Australian economy of the loss of productivity caused by strikes in each of the last 3 statistical years?

Mr Street:
LP

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

No statistical data is available on the economic cost of strikes. In the last three calendar years the following estimates by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are relevant:

The above figures indicate that the absolute cost of strikes to the Australian economy is significant but there are many difficulties associated with making an accurate estimate of this cost. I understand that no overseas countries produce such statistics.

My Department will examine the feasibility of making available in the future some form of estimate of the economic cost of industrial disputes.

Australian Postal Commission and Australian Telecommunications Commission: New Facilities (Question No. 1254)

Mr Gillard:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what basis does the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission issue invitations to open new facilities.
  2. Why do the plaques commemorating the opening of a facility contain names additional to those of the person opening that facility and the name of the local Federal member.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The opening ceremony is usually performed by the Minister, a Commissioner or in the case of the Australian Telecommunications Commission by its State Manager.
  2. Both Commissions invite the local Federal member and also a Senator from the opposing political party. Both these Parliamentarians participate in the ceremony and for this reason the Australian Postal Commission has recorded their attendance and participation on the plaque. There have been no occasions on whicha commemorative plaque has been affixed to the four new facilities opened by the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Telecom Australia Tenders (Question No. 1259)

Mr Baume:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is tendering for Telecom Australia and Australia Post construction jobs open to all applicants or is it on a selective basis.
  2. If the latter is the case (a) who determines the list of acceptable tenderers, (b) what criteria is used to select and exclude contractors from these lists and (c) does this mean that some Australian-owned contractors are being denied the opportunity to tender for these Australian Government projects.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is normal procedure for public tenders to be invited in the Commonwealth Gazette and daily newspapers for building construction projects of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. However, in those situations involving large and/or complex projects having a critical time element, it may be necessary to consider calling tenders on a selective basis.

  2. (a) Each authority uses the Department of Construction in a client/consultant relationship. Telecom Australia jointly compiles the list of tenderers with the Department of Construction. Australia Post normally permits the Department to compile the list of tenderers but reserves the right of mutual compilation if considered desirable.

    1. In selection a panel of contractors consideration is given to the type, scale and location of projects and the contractor’s past performance in executing contracts of a similar type within the required time. Account is also taken of the contractor’s management, technical and financial capacity to successfully complete such a project. The tendering panel normally includes at least five contractors.
    2. Provided that any firm can demonstrate that it meets the criteria set out in (b) it would not be denied the opportunity to tender.

Brake Fluids (Question No. 1266)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Government conduct an educational campaign to inform the public, particularly mechanics, of the need for proper attention to the handling of brake fluids.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

My Department is aware of the potential problem presented by moisture contamination of Drake fluids. The feasibility of increasing public awareness of the problem is being examined.

Brake Indicator (Question No. 1268)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that a stop lamp indicator requirement be considered by the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design to inform the driver of the correct functioning of brake lamps and that the provision of a brake failure indicator be investigated for its effectiveness and possible standard use.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design is aware of the recommendation and has it under consideration.

Vehicle Colour Selection (Question No. 1269)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on

Road Safety that all Federal and State Government Departments and Authorities ensure that vehicle colour selection is made on the basis of safety.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

I have asked my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services to look into this recommendation. So far as State Governments are concerned, a copy of the Standing Committee’s report has been made available to each member of the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

Design Rule for Reduction of Fire Risks (Question No. 1270)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design be asked to investigate developing a design rule to reduce fire risks, no less stringent than the United States standard.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

See answer to 1268.

Data Collection and Analysis of Pedestrian Injuries (Question Na 1271)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that data collection and analysis be modified to more accurately relate pedestrian injuries to various vehicle designs and features in order to determine significant variations in protection performance.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Australian Transport Advisory Council has directed that progress towards uniformity in road traffic accident data collections be reviewed. As part of this review the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes currently has under consideration proposals to provide data which would be of direct value in assessing the contribution of various vehicle design features to injury production.

Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspections (Question Na 1272)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Bureau of Road Safety urgently review existing information on Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection with a view to urging the States not already using Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection to adopt a suitable form of inspection system to suit their needs.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Determination of the merits of periodic motor vehicle inspection as a road accident countermeasure has proven to be extremely difficult. Evidence from research which has been reviewed by my Department and other authorities is inconclusive. Moreover, the nature of the relationship between specific vehicle defects and accident occurrence still needs to be objectively established.

It is essential that the resources which are applied to road safety are directed to areas of maximum effectiveness. In order to obtain more information on this issue my department is supporting a major research project in Adelaide, one of whose objectives is to determine the relationships between vehicle defects and accidents.

Calaid Hearing Aids (Question No. 1286)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was a payment of $760 made to the Karolinska Institute in Sweden early in 1975, reference OA 1-122 of the Gazette, for the testing of Calaid hearing aids, and of $ 1 400 to the University of Maryland, reference OA1-123, for the measurement of Calaid hearing aids.
  2. If so, what were the terms of the reference or instructions or criteria to these bodies from the National Acoustic Laboratories for the testing and measuring.
  3. Have the reports been received from these bodies.
  4. As public money is involved, and there is the important principle of accountability to Parliament of Government organisations such as the National Acoustic Laboratories, will copies of these reports be tabled or otherwise made available to Parliament.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No.- $A928 was paid to the Karolinska Institute in Sweden in June 1975 and $A780 paid to the University of Maryland in September 1975. An amount of $A65 was paid to LEP Transport for freight and forwarding charges associated with the consignment from the University of Maryland.
  2. Evaluate Calaid hearing aids using techniques normally applied by the organisations concerned and provide comment on their characteristics.
  3. Technical results of tests and some comment have been received. Further reports are expected in some months.
  4. The reports will become available progressively over an extended period and they are technically complex. I do not consider them suitable for tabling. However, I will make them available to any honourable member who may wish to peruse them.

Anti-dumping Applications from Agricultural and Horticultural Industries (Question No. 1323)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and

Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What is the present position of anti-dumping applications against New Zealand by the processed cheese, gouda cheese and pie apple industries.
  2. What other anti-dumping applications or actions are presently before his Department from agricultural or horticultural industries against industries in New Zealand or any other country.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Bureau of Customs is currently conducting investigations in New Zealand to establish if dumping of processed cheese and pie apple is taking place. If dumping is in fact taking place and if current local inquiries reveal that the dumping is causing material injury to the Australian industry then negotiations will take place with the New Zealand Government in accordance with Article 10 of the New Zealand Australia Free Trade Agreement with a view to correcting the situation. A formal request has just been received by the Bureau of Customs for anti-dumping action to be taken against Gouda cheese, and the matter is currently being investigated.
  2. No other anti-dumping applications have been received from the agricultural or horticultural industries concerning dumping from New Zealand or any other country.

National Animal Health Laboratories (Question No. 1379)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice:

When will work on the National Animal Health Laboratories be resumed?

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is:

I can assure you that this Government remains convinced of the need for the laboratory, but in light of the present constraints on Government expenditure, it was not possible to provide funds for commencement of the works in the current year. However, it is hoped that the special team established to undertake design work for ANAHL will be able to continue with their work until the design and tender documents are complete. The position will be reviewed again during this year.

Renal Units (Question No. 888)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In which hospitals throughout Australia are renal units located.
  2. What progress has been made in the consideration of the needs of Wollongong for the possible establishment of a satellite renal unit.
  3. What volume of patient demand is required to justify placement of such a facility in the Wollongong region.
  4. What is the estimated volume demand in the Wollongong region.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I understand that renal units- that is special units staffed by fully qualified renal physicians or nephrologistsare located at the following hospitals:

State Government Facilities

New South Wales- Sydney Hospital; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital; Mater Misericordiae Hospital, North Sydney; Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children; St Vincent’s Hospital; Prince Henry Hospital; St George Hospital; Royal North Shore Hospital; Royal Newcastle Hospital.

Victoria- Royal Melbourne Hospital; Austin Hospital; Alfred Hospital; Prince Henry Hospital; Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital; St. Vincent’s Hospital; Royal Childrens Hospital.

Queensland- Princess Alexandra Hospital; Royal Brisbane Hospital.

South Australia- Queen Elizabeth Hospital; Royal Adelaide Hospital; Flinders Medical Centre.

West Australia- Royal Perth Hospital; Perth Medical Centre.

Tasmania- Royal Hobart Hospital.

Commonwealth Government Facilities

New South Wales- Concord Repatriation Hospital.

Victoria- Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital.

Australian Capital Territory- Canberra Hospital.

  1. Arrangements are being made by the New South Wales Health authorities to set up a renal unit in the Illawarra area as a satellite of the Prince Henry Hospital. This unit will be established at Wollongong for first preference otherwise at Port Kembla.
  2. and (4) It is estimated that 30 services a week are necessary to justify installation of a renal unit and the demand in the Wollongong area has now reached this figure.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19761111_reps_30_hor101/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant