House of Representatives
29 May 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2449

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr WHITTORN presented a petition from certain residents of the State of Victoria showing that because of uncontrolled slaughter of kangaroos for commercial purposes Australia’s largest marsupial faces the danger of becoming extinct; as a tourist attraction the kangaroo is worth a limitless amount of revenue to this country; future generations have a right to see these unique animals live.

The petitioners pray that the Commonwealth Government place a complete ban on export and local sale of kangaroo meat and fur products; that a Commonwealth body to control kangaroos be formed immediately.

Petition received.

Aid to Independent Schools

Miss BROWNBILL presented from certain electors of the Division of Kingston a petition showing that a financial crisis exists in independent schools. Ever rising costs incurred to maintain the schools have now placed an intolerable and impossible burden on the parents who have borne the total cost of the private schools system for so many years. Financial help from the Federal Government has become imperative to the continued existence of these schools.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives take any action necessary to impress upon the Government the need to adopt Senator Gair’s Independent Schools (Financial Assistance) Bill 1968 as its own Bill and ensure its speedy passage through Parliament.

Petition received and read.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister reason to suppose that the President of the United States of America may soon offer to release Australia from the Fill contract and credit the whole or part of Australia’s payments for the aircraft to the purchase of an alternative aircraft better suited to our needs and our means? Was agreement reached during his recent visit to the United States that the initiative for cancellation should not come from himself but from the President whose Administration has cancelled, reduced and deferred so many of America’s own orders for various versions of this aircraft?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have no reason to suppose that the President of the United States would follow the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, nor any reason to suppose what would happen if an approach were made to him. I have no reason to suppose anything either way. Nor is there any truth in the suggestion that some talks took place under which it was agreed that any initiative for cancellation should come from the President of the United States. There is just nothing in that at all.

page 2449

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I refer to recent statements in certain country newspapers that the Australian Labor Party’s candidate for the Bendigo electorate believes in the orderly marketing of primary produce as established by the Australian Labor Party. Did the Labor Government after the war, for the purpose of helping the Labor Government in New Zealand, enter into a long term contract which involved selling substantial quantities of Australian wheat to New Zealand drastically below the ruling world price for wheat?

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– There was an incident, if my memory serves me right, in 1946 which was a matter of great notoriety at that time. The home consumption price of wheat in Australia was 5s 2d a bushel. The Labor Government then in power entered into an arrangement with the Government of New Zealand to supply New Zealand with wheat for 5 years. My memory is that it was for a quantity of 18 million bushels. The price in the first year was 9s 6d a bushel and the price in the next 4 years was to be negotiated but was not to be higher than Ss 9d a bushel. The price being received about this time for wheat otherwise exported was 17s a bushel. This was, of course, a quite incredible commercial transaction, not to be regarded as anything but an act of generosity by the Labor Government at the expense of the Australian wheat growers. This was called orderly marketing. I see that the Labor candidate for Bendigo has promised that, if he is returned and Labor policies prevail, Labor will return to the orderly marketing of the last Labor Government. God help the wheat growers. Fortunately, at the time, due to the protests of those who now sit on this side of the House but who at the time were sitting on the other side and the outraged screams of the wheat growers, the Labor Government had to beat a retreat.

Mr Whitlam:

– Why will you not let us debate the wheat statement that is on the blue sheet?

Mr McEWEN:

– I know you hate it, but you have to take it. The combined denunciation of this intolerable transaction by those of us who now sit on this side of the House and by the whole of the Australian wheat industry led to the Labor Government not recanting this transaction with New Zealand but making good from the Australian Treasury to the Australian wheat growers the millions of pounds that they would otherwise have been deprived of. I hope” that Labor will never be in a position to control orderly marketing along those lines again.

page 2450

QUESTION

LABOR POLICIES

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. Has his attention been directed to the continuing flow of preelection hand-outs announced almost daily by the Leader of the Opposition? Do these attitudes represent to the Australian people the official policies of an alternative government over the wide range of subjects upon which the Leader of the Opposition claims expertise? Has the Treasurer had any opportunity to assess the cost to the nation of the generosity of the Leader of the Opposition to the nation with the nation’s funds should he achieve office?

Dr Everingham:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit that the answer is not within the competence of the Minister to whom the question has been addressed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have seen the spate of promises made by the Leader of the Opposition which obviously have been associated with the forthcoming by-election in Bendigo. They are reminiscent of the very familiar promises made by the late Dr Evatt which involved prodigious amounts that would have led to uncontrollable inflation in this country. As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, there was considerable dispute as to whether the Leader of the Opposition had authority from his own federal conference to promise aid to independent schools. I am not sure whether that has been finally resolved. I doubt whether it can be resolved until the biennial conference is held in September this year. One must always be careful of promises made at the time of a by-election, particularly promises by an individual who has less likelihood of being the leader of this country than any other person in this House.

Mr Whitlam:

– What, below yourself?

Mr McMAHON:

– The facts of the future will speak for themselves. I have not had a detailed examination made of the cost to the nation but as the honourable gentleman now puts me to the task I will nave it analysed. I assure him that I will let him have the figure before the by-election in Bendigo in a couple of weeks time.

page 2450

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Bearing in mind his own expressed attitude in this Parliament of not allowing anything to occur which in his view would further industrial unrest, and in the knowledge that the Parliament will this day adjourn until some time in August, will the right honourable gentleman from his high office launch an appeal to all employers calling upon them to play their part in adopting a conciliatory approach in the settlement of industrial disputes instead of resorting to the machinery provided in sections 109 and 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, thereby assisting in the maintenance of better industrial relations until at least the Government decides what it can do to further industrial peace in Australia?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I think the House will know that there have been discussions between representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Attorney-General on questions which led to recent industrial unrest. The honourable member will also know that the Government has indicated that if it discovers and is convinced that there are injustices in the application of particular sections, then we would seek to remove those injustices, although we could not abandon completely the ultimate sanction because we believe that if we did we would be seriously weakening the arbitration system in Australia. I believe that at the time the statement was made to which I referred, the Ministers and the document to which they put their names called for restraint from all parties, which would include the employers to whom the honourable member refers. I would trust that there would be restraint from all parties at this stage.

page 2451

QUESTION

ARMY CONTRACTORS’ EMPLOYEES

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for the Army. Do employees of contractors to the Department of the Army at Army depots in Australia who maintain and service Army vehicles lose their long service leave entitlements, not because they have not worked at Army establishments in the one trade for the full qualifying period but because the contractors who are their nominal employers change several times in that period? Under the former system of day labour employment by the Army, did these workers qualify for long service leave entitlements?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for the Army · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member queries with me one facet of the conditions under which civilian labour is employed at Army establishments throughout Australia on a contract basis. I can tell him that this type of labour falls into a number of categories. In the first instance, the Army of course does employ casual labour on an occasional basis for periods not exceeding 3 months and, to the extent to which casual labour is employed, the Army accepts in full the normal responsibilities of an employer and any wage payments made to these employees do carry a loading for sick leave, recreation leave and long service leave.

However, where in fact the Army is not the employer, naturally the total responsibility in an employing sense rests upon the shoulders of the particular contractor who must meet the various conditions laid down in State and Federal industrial awards. As the honourable gentleman suggests, this is a matter which extends beyond my particular jurisdiction in relation to the application of the conditions relative to long service leave. I will study the answer that I have provided to see to what extent it can be completed in writing by myself and/or by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service.

page 2451

QUESTION

BONEGILLA MIGRANT CENTRE

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Some time ago, I asked the Minister for the Army as to the possibility of the Army taking over the Bonegilla migrant centre when it was vacated by the Department of Immigration. At the time, the Minister said that the matter was under discussion with the Department of Immigration. Will the Minister inform me and the House of the position as it stands at the moment?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

Mr Speaker, I can tell the honourable gentleman that, with the cooperation of my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, the negotiations to which he makes reference have been part completed. The Army welcomes the opportunity to take over sections of the Bonegilla migrant camp, particularly having regard to the rapid expansion of the Army in recent years and the consequent need for increased accommodation. I understand that two blocks of the camp have been purchased by my Department and -at the present time are utilised to house the school of survey and a section of the cooking wing of the RAASC centre. In addition, one block at the camp is utilised presently on a permissive occupancy basis to house the Army’s ordnance school. There may be other requirements for the balance of the area of the camp. This is a matter under consideration by my Department Knowing the interest of the honourable gentleman in the matter, I certainly will undertake to keep him progressively informed.

page 2452

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Social Services conscious of the serious blind spot in social service legislation, namely, the lack of provision for men who are not sufficiently handicapped to qualify for the invalid pension yet are handicapped sufficiently to prevent them obtaining work? Is he aware that these unfortunate, frustrated, forgotten men must tramp the streets looking for work that they cannot possibly perform even if it were available and that they fill in forms to get a paltry $8.25 per week unemployment benefit? Will the Minister consider creating a new and special allowance for such sad and tragically impoverished people who are some of the suppressed poor in Australia today?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member draws attention to a very real problem and one which already has engaged my attention and in regard to which I think I have made a public statement. In conjunction with the Department of Labour and National Service, my own Department has started an investigation into this matter. I agree with the honourable member that these people, who are what might be termed the hard core of unemployed, present a very real problem. We have examined the problem. We have tried to classify these people and ascertain their disabilities. We have tried to find ways to help them and to retrain them. The matter raised by the honourable member concerns a very real problem but it is a problem to which the Government has already turned its attention.

page 2452

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WATERFRONT

Mr CHIPP:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question about the Australian waterfront. Is the Minister aware of the deep concern of the Government members industrial relations committee regarding the serious deterioration of industrial relations on the waterfront, including the number of unauthorised stoppages, the erosion of discipline, the wilful breaking of the so-called Woodward scheme by the Waterside Workers Federation and the irresponsible acquiescence of the employers? Does the Minister share our concern at the rising costs in this important industry? If so, what action does he propose to take about this national problem?

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Everybody who takes an interest in these matters must feel a considerable amount of dissatisfaction about what is happening on the waterfront - especially about the matters referred to by the honourable member. I know that he has for a long time taken a close, informed and detailed interest in this subject. One might indeed say that all is not well on the waterfront. There has been criticism of rising costs and disputes on the waterfront. A few days ago I issued to honourable members a memorandum on the subject in order to put the situation in perspective.

Many interests are involved on the waterfront. Some stevedoring groups are not very happy about the new arrangements for permanency. Considerable efforts have been made on the labour side, particularly in the port of Melbourne, to disrupt those arrangements. I can say only that so far the birth pangs of permanent employment in the ports of Australia have been rather less severe than elsewhere. This represents a fundamental change in an industry which has had a number of repulsive ingrained habits over the years. We never expected the transition to be entirely smooth.

I am particularly concerned about the level of costs on the waterfront. For this reason I recently commissioned a well known and extremely competent firm of Melbourne accountants to make a detailed survey of the situation on the waterfront. In this way many of the rumours and allegations about the industry can be reduced to cold hard facts. As the honourable member knows, the scheme of permanent employment is experimental. Before the middle of next year the House will have the opportunity of considering the whole matter in legislation. The nature of the legislation inevitably will depend on the conduct of the parties concerned in the meantime.

page 2452

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY:

page 2452

QUESTION

PUBLICATIONS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Treasurer a question. Have any background White Papers been published by the Treasury in the past 2 years? If not why has the publication of these valuable documents ceased? Will the right honourable gentleman consider publishing during the recess a White

Paper on guide lines for the operation of overseas capital in this country so that this information will be available when the Prime Minister ultimately makes his controversial statement on this issue?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The real reason why more frequent White Papers have not been issued is that we do not have the personnel to do the job. I think it can be said that the Treasury has only 80% of its approved establishment on the policy side. Most of the senior officers in my Department work about 1,000 hours a year overtime.

Mr Barnard:

– Why do you not bring the staff up to establishment?

Mr McMAHON:

– We try. We have tried every means that are available to obtain these people. But several conditions are laid down by the Treasury. One is outstanding ability, the second is integrity and the third is the fact that these officers must know a great deal about economics and finance. Such people are very hard to come by. This is the reason for it. We have been looking in recent months at whether or not we can resume the publications and if we find we can and that they will serve a useful purpose it will be done.

page 2453

QUESTION

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

Mr BRIDGES-MAXWELL:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the

Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Can he report to the House whether any progress has been made in the examination of the navigational aspects of the channels and passages in and around Torres Strait?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am aware that the honourable member for Robertson has a particular interest in the deepening of Torres Strait and he has made a series of speeches to this House in regard to this matter. Of course, it is of increasing importance, with the discovery of new mineral riches in the north west of the Australian mainland, to be able to transport these materials in both directions down to the point of manufacture and consumption in south east Australia.

I think it is also of importance to deepen this passage to ensure that the port of Darwin and the port facilities of the developing parts of Australia have a reasonable prospect of being serviced by ships of an adequate tonnage. For this reason the Commonwealth Government has been concerned to see what possibilities there are for providing an adequate depth of water in Garnet passage. For this reason a departmental committee was set up to investigate the present available data on the possibility of deepening the channel. A preliminary report has been received from the committee and at this stage I have not had the opportunity to look at it, nor indeed has the Government considered it. But I understand that there is still a great deal of additional hydrographic material necessary before any official programme of extension or deepening of the channel can take place. I know that in the past there has been some difficulty in ascertaining whether or not the tide movements and the waves on sand in the passage are going to inhibit any deepening activity. 1 believe it may well be necessary for further information to be gained before the objective of the honourable member for Robertson can be achieved.

page 2453

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that he has under consideration certain changes in the personnel of the High Court of Australia but is unable to make these changes because the present judges are reluctant to relinquish their lucrative salaries and privileges to enjoy the hardship of retirement?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Any question that reflects on the judiciary would be out of order. I suggest to the honourable member that in his question he seek information only.

Mr DALY:

– I continue, Mr Speaker: If so, is it a fact that the real reason for the recent huge increases in judges’ salaries was not because of need but as an incentive to some of them to retire on their humble noncontributory pensions of $13,500 per annum? If so, in the event of this strange, expensive and appealing proposal falling on deaf ears, does it indicate that the referendum advocated by the Labor Party for a retiring age for Commonwealth judges wit) receive his support?

Mr BOWEN:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question is no. In answer to the rest of his question, may I say that the bench the honourable member referred to consists of seven judges and is one which we have to fill with a type of man who is all too rarely produced within a single generation in Australia. This Court is regarded as one of the most hard working and indeed one of the best in the English speaking world.

So far as remuneration is concerned, the Constitution provides ‘that after a justice is appointed to the bench his remuneration shall not be diminished during his term of office. There have been changes in the value of money leading to a reduction in relative terms in judges’ salaries, in the same way as has happened in the case of members of Parliament or permanent heads of departments or other members of the community. So it falls out that from time to time - not at frequent intervals, but at fairly widely spaced intervals - this Parliament undertakes, in a responsible way, to review the position in order to restore judges to the position, in terms of relative value, which they occupied previously.

page 2454

QUESTION

WORKERS COMPENSATION

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. What is the position of unnaturalised migrants in Australia who have been awarded workers compensation for death or injury? Are the dependants of such migrants not resident in Australia entitled to receive the benefit of the amounts awarded to them?

Mr BURY:
LP

– This matter has recently been raised with me, and the situation is that the position varies in each State. The dependants, or the injured person himself, if not resident in Australia can, if the injured person was formerly domiciled and working in Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania, draw entitlements without worry. The position in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland - particularly the last two - is far less satisfactory. If, at the time or later, the dependants or the man or woman who is injured are no longer resident in the State, whether or not they can benefit from workers compensation depends on a complicated system of reciprocal rights as between the States and the countries concerned, and these rights have been operative for many years. Nowadays, with our own particular interest in migration, reciprocity has rather changed in incidence. My own Department has been interested in this matter. I will correct my statement if I am wrong, but I believe that Convention No. 19 of the International Labour Organisation provides for equal treatment of workers, whether they are nationals of the country concerned or not, in everything pertaining to work, pay and remuneration. Although legally, I believe, the States meet the position, while the situation of migrants is all right in the States I have mentioned, in New South Wales, Queensland and, to a lesser extent, Western Australia, there is room for adjustment to bring the position up to date. This matter was considered at some length by the Department of Labour Advisory Council, on which the permanent heads from State and Commonwealth departments sit. I believe that the States concerned have indicated that they will do something about the matter.

page 2454

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I preface a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation by saying that in recent months TransAustralia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries have been granted permission to purchase Boeing 727’s and six DC9 aircraft, each at a cost of approximately $70m, and that the manufacturers of the Fokker Fellowship F28 have announced that they expect to sell at least forty of these aircraft for use in the Commonwealth. Can the Minister say what he or one of his ministerial colleagues has done to negotiate offset payments with the manufacturers of these aircraft to reduce the drain on the Commonwealth’s overseas reserves and to assist in consolidating and developing the Australian aircraft industry? As the Minister is aware, these three aircraft manufacturers all negotiate offset payments with other countries purchasing their aircraft. Why is not the Government able to negotiate similar offset payments to assist the Australian aircraft industry?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This matter has received a considerable amount of publicity lately, and no doubt the honourable member is referring to some Press reports that have been published in relation to it. AH I can say in relation to the latter part of the question is that this matter of offset arrangements is under consideration by the Government at the present time. The matter has been raised on several occasions by my colleague the Minister for Defence. These arrangements, of course, affect the military situation as well as the civilian situation. The matter is generally under consideration by the Government at the present time and at a later stage a statement may be made in relation to it. The question of reequipment of the airlines, of course, is one on which a decision has recently been made.

A decision was made to re-equip the major airlines with further Boeing 727 and Douglas DC9 aircraft as the basis of their major airline fleet. Approval has been given for the purchase of aircraft which will carry through the re-equipment programme up to 1972. In addition, approval has been given so far for two F28 aircraft to be purchased by MacRobertson-Miller Airlines Ltd in Western Australia. No other applications have yet been received to purchase this type of aircraft although I have seen some public statements made by other airlines in relation to it. If applications are received they will be considered in the normal way. The situation regarding offset arrangements i« quite an important one and is under active consideration by the Government at the moment.

page 2455

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: COMMUNICATIONS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. The Minister is no doubt aware that only last week, due to rain in the Oodnadatta to Ayers Rock area, the north-south road was on the verge of being closed once again. In view of the urgency of maintaining surface communications between the Northern Territory and South Australia, can the Minister advise me of the present position regarding the relocating of the railway line or the upgrading of the road?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I am delighted for the sake of the people in the centre of Australia that rain should again be falling .in a region which has been renowned over the years for its low rainfall. However, I also appreciate the disability the rain places on local people by severing communication links with the south. There are several things the Commonwealth is doing to rectify the situation. The first is a very substantial increase in allocations under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement, including a 50% increase in the amount allocated to South Australia. This, of course, includes a supplementary grant of about $9m. There is no specific requirement for this $9m to be spent on any particular road category.

The South Australian Government has the sole responsibility of deciding on what roads this money should be spent. The South Australian Government may see the developmental importance of the east-west and north-south highways. It may consider that these, being two substantial highway outlets from the State, and needing reconstruction, are those on which the money should be spent. However, there is an interdepartmental committee assessing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the construction of the rail link or a reconstruction of the road link between Alice Springs and the south. This committee is well advanced in its consideration of the problem, but it has so far made no official statement to the Government. However. I can assure the honourable member that the problems he has raised will be taken into account by the Government when the interdepartmental committee has concluded its investigations.

page 2455

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTY: FINANCES

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the AttorneyGeneral a question. Has he received any request for assistance in investigating the apparent loss of party funds of approximately $70,000 by one of Australia’s leading political parties? Could he give any information on this matter, and would he be prepared to offer the assistance of his Department should he be so requested?

Mr BOWEN:
LP

– No request for assistance has been made to me, nor am I aware of any aspect which would require assistance from me. But if such a request were received it would no doubt be considered.

page 2455

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Hayden having addressed a question to the Prime Minister)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you give some indication why the honourable member’s question is out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order. The Chair is not obliged to give reasons for its rulings.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Government members can ask questions of any kind. Give us a fair go.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honourable member for Newcastle is reflecting on the Chair. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Sir, I withdraw.

page 2456

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for External Affairs. Did he recently tell a Liberal Party conference at Albany that there is no alternative to using national servicemen in Vietnam? If so, can he now tell the House whether his Government has made attempts to meet its Vietnam requirements with volunteers? If it has, can he say when the attempts were made, what was their nature and what were the results? If no such attempts have been made, how does the Minister justify his claim that there is no alternative to conscription?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for External Affairs · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– During the course of an address to a Liberal Party conference at Albany I referred to an assessment by the Army that we could not meet the strength required for our armed forces without national servicemen, and that it was quite impracticable to induct servicemen into the armed forces and to send the armed forces to Vietnam without including in those contingents national servicemen who had been inducted into the various units.

page 2456

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are the reports correct that no statement will be made during this session of Parliament on Australia’s policy on overseas investment? If these reports are correct and this merely means that such a statement is to be made later this year will the Prime Minister in the statement pay due regard to the traditional and successful policy of this country on overseas investment and to the latest information from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics which suggests that overseas penetration of Australia’s manufacturing industry is much less than was expected and that the Vernon Committee’s estimates of overseas ownership in the early 1960s were greatly inflated?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– It does not appear that I will be able to make a statement on this whole matter during this session of Parliament. I would remind honourable members of a question I answered on this matter before in the Parliament when I indicated that I would want to have every aspect of the matter thoroughly studied and thoroughly analysed before any such statement was made. That is still in the process of being done. In regard to the other parts of the honourable member’s question, what I would wish to pay due regard to would be that there would be a continuation of overseas capital flowing into Australia coupled with a requirement that there would be an opportunity for Australians to participate to the fullest extent in the investment in and ownership of the development of Australia.

page 2456

QUESTION

MAXWELL NEWTON PTY LTD

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I thought that he might have been asked the question from his own side. My question arises from a statement by Mr Maxwell Newton which has been published, I think, by all the newspapers, that he has been given many confidential documents relating to Government business. He used these words: . . including a document still in my possession marked ‘Urgent, Personal and Confidential’ from a very senior official of Mr McEwen’s Department. It was given to me, according to the writer of the letter, on Mr McEwen’s instructions, for your very confidential guidance’.

Would the right honourable gentleman like to have the opportunity, before the House rises, of refuting or correcting this account?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I intended to take the opportuinty to explain what I think must be behind this. Mr Newton was the financial and economic writer for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. He was the editor, or something, of the ‘Australian Financial Review*.

In that capacity he came to my office from time to time to ask me whether I could help him in comprehending some of the issues in which I was involved. They might have been overseas negotiations, the intricacies of GATT or the Kennedy Round, or all kinds of other complexities touching economic affairs that the House appreciates I am involved in. Mr Newton had no priority in coming to me. I suppose I could look up at the Press Gallery and name at least a dozen leaders of the Gallery who have come to me, in the interests of themselves, their writings, their proprietors and their readers, to seek my help in getting some guidance to comprehend policies. This is quite common. I have no memory of furnishing or directing that Mr Newton should be furnished with some particulars, but it would not surprise me at all if I did so. If I were about to become involved in negotiations - I have no memory of this incident of which he is speaking, but I am not denying it - I might well explain what the issues were as seen by me and as seen by the Government to help the journalist in his writing. I might well ask that this guidance should not be attributed to me personally.

I hope that every honourable member will understand the situation that I am describing. I hope that members of the Press Gallery will understand it. I have probably furnished fifty pieces of paper to people of the Gallery giving factual information, because so many of the things that I am engaged in involve statistics, facts and historical incidents. It would not be unusual for me to ring up an officer in my Department and say: ‘Please furnish Mr So and So with such and such’ and the officer perhaps would head it ‘Confidential’. I would be astonished if other members of the Gallery put their pieces of paper away against the possibility of producing them, maybe 10 years later, and upgrading a minute to the description of a confidential document. If the Gallery, which by and large supports Mr Newton very thoroughly, approves this tactic then it will be locking the door against legitimate information from myself and, I would think, every other Minister. What I say is that I helped Mr Newton in the days when I was under the impression that he was an honourable gentleman.

page 2457

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr MACKAY:

– Yes, grossly. I refer to an article in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ which purports to give an account of what transpired in the Government member’s Party meeting yesterday. The whole article is garbled and inaccurate, but I must correct two statements. Firstly, the lead statement was not one made by me, but I quoted words spoken to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship last week by a pastor who was tortured for 14 years by the Communists and who made the statement that the World Council of Churches is fast becoming a most effective Communist front’. Secondly, I made no reference to nor do I know of the existence of a body, which I am supposed to have discussed here, with a name like the Parliamentary Christian Democracy, but I did on the contrary draw attention to ‘the World Council of Churches calling for Britain to be ready to wage war to crush Rhodesia.

page 2457

ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY

Ministerial Statement

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - The problem of crime in the community and particularly the rising incidence of crime in Australia in recent years has been a matter of concern to the Government. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the problems involved in crime, the methods to be used to prevent the incidence from becoming higher and the best means to rehabilitate those who are dealt with by the law.

While the matter of crime and crime prevention is primarily a matter for the States, the Commonwealth Government believes it can make a real contribution in a co-ordinating role directing research into the problem. Crime does not respect State boundaries and many of the problems faced by the different States are common. As a result, the Commonwealth and States have now reached agreement upon a joint scheme which involves the establishment of a national institute of criminology. This proposal will be the first national effort to inquire into the extent of crime in Australia and the best methods to deal with all aspects of it. In addition, the States and the Commonwealth will join in the formation of a Criminology Research Council and the establishment of a Criminology Research Fund. We have hopes that New Zealand will also join in the scheme.

The Government feels the establishment of a co-ordinating body will be of great benefit to the nation as a whole. Little work has been done to discover the true extent of crime in Australia today. There is a need for us to re-examine some of the assumptions we have always made when discussing the problem of crime. Overseas evidence suggests that, whereas it was once thought that poverty was the father of crime, the thinking now is that this is not a necessary contribution at all. The evidence suggested that the growth of big cities and an affluent society were equally big contributors to serious crime. The mere raising of material standards itself is not a cure for crime.

One recent estimate put the cost pf crime to the Australian community at $350m annually. This makes crime a very large problem and if that is even an approximate figure - I cannot vouch for it - it would justify the spending of money in an effort to keep crime down and reduce its proportions. But this is only one of the problems. No-one has made a detailed examination of the ‘dark area’ of crime that is unreported crime in Australia. Some estimates suggest it could be almost twice the reported rate in some offences. It is hoped that by the establishment of an organisation such as the Institute of Criminology we will assess the size of the problem before we set out to deal with it.

The first move towards some coordinating effort to deal with the problem on a national basis was a seminar held in Canberra early last year under the sponsorship of the Commonwealth. This was attended by senior police, magistrates, probation and parole officers, child welfare officers and psychiatrists. There were two results of this seminar. First, all those attending found a greater appreciation of the work being done by each other in the whole field of crime prevention and rehabilitation. The second result was a recommendation made by the seminar. This was that there should be increased research into crime. The seminar saw this as being achieved in a central body, such as a joint Governmental venture, with the active participation of the States and possibly New Zealand. With this in mind, the Commonwealth raised the matter with the States and it is following upon exchanges with the States that the Commonwealth is now able to announce the project.

Arrangements about the financing of the project and details of the allocation of functions are still being considered, but the Commonwealth has agreed to finance the setting up of the Institute. The Criminology Research Council will be comprised of members from the States and the Commonwealth, and we hope New Zealand, and will evaluate the research needs in this field. This Council will then allocate amounts from the Criminology Research Fund to specific research projects. The proposal is that once a project has been approved for study, the Council will select the most appropriate and best equipped body in Australia to undertake the work and then make a grant from the Research Fund for that purpose. It is proposed that the Institute of Criminology will provide advice and recommendations to the Criminology Research Council in relation to research needs and act as a secretariat to the Council. The Institute will also undertake research on a national basis and provide training courses for officers. The Institute will, in addition, act as a clearing house for research, collate and analyse research and disseminate research results and recommendations to governments joining the scheme.

So far as the Criminology Research Fund is concerned, the Commonwealth’s proposal is for a partnership arrangement with the States under which part of the fund will be contributed by the Commonwealth and part by the States. As I have mentioned, the establishment of the Fund will give effect to the view that has been taken that existing resources in Australia should be utilised in both universities and government departments where there are experts in many fields whose services might be made available for specific projects. The arrangements proposed will not interfere with particular State planning in the same field such as the proposal for a State Bureau of Crime

Statistics and Research in New South Wales. The bodies in question will be able to act in consultation to ensure there is maximum use of resources and no duplication of effort.

Statistics were another matter mentioned at the seminar, and again it is hoped that the Institute will be able to provide advice on the development of crime statistics, including the standardising of such things as court figures throughout Australia. New South Wales has made a considerable contribution already in this field and there have been discussions between Commonwealth and State Ministers and officials on the establishment of uniform crime statistics in Australia.

In summary, the cost of crime to the community in terms of governmental expenditure, individual loss and waste of human resources is, of course, considerable. Concern is felt at the increase in the incidence of crime that has occurred in Australia during recent years, and it is felt that if overseas experience in this regard is to be avoided in Australia it will be necessary for action to be taken now. There is a need for systematic research to be conducted and sponsored on an Australia-wide basis to help determine the policies that should be adopted to combat the problem of crime. An examination needs to be made on a national basis of the effectiveness of methods of treatment and many other matters. There is also a need for specialist national training programmes for police, prison and parole officers and others working in this field, especially courses in which members of different professions are represented. It is proposed that these courses will keep officers informed of modern methods and techniques and enable them to share their experiences and consider their work within a larger frame of reference. It is pleasing to see co-operative federalism operating in a field which is of such importance to the welfare of the community.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - On behalf of the Opposition I most heartily welcome the initiative which the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) has announced. The Opposition appreciates the terms in which he has outlined this subject. I speak all the more warmly because the honourable and learned gentleman is responsible in this place for some things which I find most obnoxious. Others I find to be most admirable. Just as I deplore the answers and statements by the Attorney-General on matters like raids and riots and just as I resent his stalling private members’ Bills like the Death Penalty Abolition Bill, the second reading of which I moved here last June when it came from another place, and the Adulthood Bill which I introduced last November, so it is only right that I should on this occasion, as I did quite recently on another matter, do what I can to encourage him in more fruitful works.

It is wise to plan expenditure in any field. This is becoming increasingly wiser as expenditure on crime prevention is expanding. The expenditure on crime prevention is not yet so large when compared with other expenditure in the public sector that the States should not still be regarded as primarily responsible for this expenditure. In fact, crime prevention bulked much larger in State budgets at the time of Federation than the expenditures which now bulk most largely in their budgets, such as education and health. It is most appropriate therefore that, in this field, the Commonwealth should practise co-operative federalism. There are however many fields in which the Commonwealth inevitably will be more involved in regard to crime prevention.

Crime has become not only more interState, as the Attorney-General says, but also more international. International crime prevention, like international crime practice, requires the use of facilities for which the Commonwealth is responsible, such as telephones, cables, radio, ships, aircraft and patrols. Accordingly, I applaud the fact that the Attorney-General is inviting New Zealand to join the scheme, just as he has encouraged New Zealand to participate through its Attorney-General in the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. Might I suggest that the Attorney-General should also consider an invitation to Singapore. Singapore, of all our neighbours, has the political, judicial and economic system with which we are most familiar. It is, moreover, a centre through which and with which many crime problems are experienced in common with Australia. It is quite possible that persons on lawful as well as unlawful occasions pass through Singapore on their way to and from Australia, more than through any other centre. Moreover, Singapore has a very efficient, honest system of administering justice.

May I conclude by encouraging the Attorney-General to pass from this cooperative federalism in crime prevention to co-operative federalism in the rehabilitation of prisoners. On 27th March last, for the first time, Federal and State Ministers and officers in charge of penal systems met. The answer that the Attorney-General gave me yesterday week shows that their proceedings hold out much hope for the good of society and for many of the victims or rejects of society. Not so long ago - in January and March 1963 - the predecessor before last of the present Attorney-General - I refer to the present Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick - wrote to me that he would not feel in a position to sponsor a move for the establishment of a national research organisation into the treatment or rehabilitation of offenders and, again, that this proposal should be directed to State authorities. Matters in the field of law are moving. The movements are accelerating. I wish the Attorney-General well in all the efforts he may make to accelerate these movements, solve these problems and seize these opportunities.

Motion (by Mr Bowen) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Killen) adjourned. [Quorum formed.]

page 2460

POST OFFICE: CONDUCT BY PUBLIC CORPORATION

Appointment of Joint Select Committee

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I move:

That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the desirability and practicability of establishing a public corporation to conduct the business of the Post Office.

I do not know any department of the Commonwealth or State which comes in for so much criticism as does the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The criticisms come from so many sections of the community, including business houses, the public, unions and workers employed in the Department. 1 have in my hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, a public apology from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. This public apology appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 4th March of this year. After announcing that it is a public apology, the statement continues:

As the volume of mail increases the standard of services declines.

It asks:

Why?

The answer is given:

Because of the inept policy decisions taken by the Federal Government, the PMC’s Department and the Public Service Board.

Further down, this public apology states:

Supervisors apologise to the business community and private citizens for the present deplorable services and invite them to bring to the notice of their Federal Parliamentarian the thousands of instances of service failures. Supervisors regret that the provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and the Public Service ‘gag’ inhibit them from revealing facts concerning the mismanagement and malfunctioning of the postal services.

Another advertisement - this time from the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union - appeared in the Press on 23rd March of this year. It is headed: ‘The Postman Only Knocks Once! - or Maybe Not At AH!’ lt is critical of the Redfern Mail Exchange and the electronic sorting machine that has been introduced there. Part of it reads:

Mail officers have loyally tried to serve the public with all their acquired skills, but are being completely frustrated over the years by the failure of the Administration to remedy its mistakes . . .

The justification for spending this enormous sum of money on the ‘Monster’ was that it would speed up the mails and reduce staff requirements.

The fact is that the opposite is the case.

Most honourable members will have received complaints about the inefficiency of the Postmaster-General’s Department. There have been complaints published in the newsletter of the Australian Automobile Association about the delays to mail deliveries. The most recent was in the issue of March 1969, which read:

For the fourth time in these Newsletters we make adverse comments on the state of Australia’s mails.

Examples are given and the article continues:

What is the Postmaster-General doing about these delays?

We might well ask what the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) is doing about these delays. No doubt he will tell us something about the matter when he speaks in the debate. He may draw some satisfaction from a recent gallup poll which could lull him into falsely feeling that all is well with the Department. The ‘Brisbane Telegraph* commented on the situation with the headline ‘70% happy with the PMG’ under a photograph of the Postmaster-General with his dog. The newspaper could just as easily have said that 30% of people were unhappy with the Postal Department - a pretty big percentage of dissatisfied customers.

Last August the Postmaster-General advised the House that letter deliveries were to be reduced from three to two a day wherever they were operating at three a day. Since then there has been a further reduction in letter deliveries so that now once daily delivery conditions apply to all centres outside the inner capital city areas. There are some very big cities outside the inner capital city areas where commercial and industrial concerns are well established and growing and where deliveries have been reduced to one a day. Then, of course, there is the cut in service to the householder and the shopkeeper in the metropolitan areas. With the exception of the big users the people are paying more for a less efficient service. In 1967 postal charges were increased by 25% for the small user. At the same time large users were given discounts ranging from 5% to 25%. Most are now getting a less efficient service. Postal charges go up but the service goes down.

Another great source of discontent is the electronic letter sorting machine such as the one installed at the Redfern Mail Exchange. Such devices should be installed only after close consultations with the unions concerned. The Postmaster-General decided to install this machine at Redfern in 1962 but according to our advice refused to consult the unions. He said that it was none of their business; it was not necessary to consult them. Before electronic sorting machines were introduced into the United Kingdom Post Office I should say that close consultation took place between the unions and the United Kingdom Post Office. Here in Australia the machines are to be installed elsewhere. Surely the unions should be taken into the confidence of the Postal Department with a view to sorting out any problems that may arise as a result of their installation. The unions claim that the Redfern mail monster, as it is referred to, is chewing up between 700 and 1,000 letters a day. The Postmaster-General admits that there have been some initial problems with the equipment. When opening a public relations convention on 18th April 1969 the Minister said:

There have been some initial problems with this equipment - I will not attempt to deny it - but I believe that it will speed the mail handling process and cut costs. What I do deny are the claims that the Redfern equipment is mutilating beyond repair hundreds of letters a day. There is some damage to letters, caused mainly by bulk enclosures in letters, but I can assure you that at the most only one or two letters daily are so damaged that they cannot be delivered.

The Minister has always claimed that all is well with the Redfern mail sorter but we now find that a special officer has been appointed to manage the Redfern Mail Exchange. In the Melbourne ‘Herald* of 25th April Mr Knott is reported to have said:

Mr Roach will report direct to the First Assistant Director-General, Mr R. J. Page, and if necessary to myself.

This is because we are determined to get Redfern right.

So, despite all the claims that everything was going well with the Redfern Mail Exchange and the electronic sorting machine, we now have an admission that the electronic machine installed more than 3 years ago is not functioning as expected. Mr Roach, who is to take charge of the Mail Exchange, is reported in the Australian’ of 29th April to have said:

People may still have faith in the old motto: Post today deliver tomorrow - anywhere in Australia’.

Well, we have plenty of evidence to show that this is not the case at the present time, but we all hope that Mr Roach is right for the future. However, it will take more than words to re-establish the old efficiency of the Post Office. According to a report in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ a First Assistant Director-General, Mr Smith, said:

We have received 350 to 400 complaints for the whole of Australia in the past 3 months.

He agreed that this was five to six times more than normal. It would be useless to quote from the many complaints that I have received but I will read from a letter that appeared in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ on 27th March, lt read:

I feel sure that many businessmen will share my dissatisfaction with the deteriorating postal service.

Nearly 40 years ago, in my experience, it was unthinkable that mail, whether local, interstate, country or overseas was not delivered, distributed and ready for prompt action by business people by 9 a.m.

Today, in an era of faster, more frequent and varied transport facilities, we find that it is impossible lo start the business day effectively before 9.30-9.45 a.m. when, if we are fortunate, the first postal delivery is made.

Our business is only one of thousands located in the centre of a city of over two million people.

May I solicit the views of other enterprises on what I feel to be an impossible situation.

The letter is signed by Mr D. J. Locke, Managing Director of D. J. Locke Pty Ltd. It indicates that business interests are certainly not satisfied with the Postal Department and the way it is functioning. The letter claims that postal deliveries are worse than they were 40 years ago. The Bankstown Chamber of Commerce and Industry has complained about postal services. The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures has complained about Australia’s lack of an efficient postal service, which is seriously affecting the economy, lt has stated that businessmen are sending more of their correspondence by private carriers to ensure delivery rather than trusting to the haphazard care of the Post Office. It has pointed out that in Australia’s present condition of affluence there are only two daily deliveries in the city and one in the suburbs compared with four deliveries a day in the city and two a day in the suburbs during the depression years. lt is clear that all is not well with the Postmaster-General’s Department. In our motion we suggest that a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the desirability and practicability of establishing a public corporation to control the business of the Post Office. This would be merely an inquiry. The committee of inquiry would make recommendations, and then this Parliament would be able to make up its mind whether a public corporation should be established. The PostmasterGeneral is opposed to any inquiry in the Postmaster-General’s Department, unless he indicates a change of mind in today’s debate.

He prefers to dither with Post Office reorganisation while other countries are coming to grips with the problem of postal and communication services. Some countries have already reorganised the Post Office into a public corporation. Others are considering doing so. But the PostmasterGeneral has shown a narrow conservative view in handling the problems of the Post Office. The only reform, if we could call it such, has been to establish a fund in which profits, if any, can be paid into Consolidated Revenue. There is no power to borrow. The Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs must continue to go cap in hand to the Treasurer for funds. The shackles remain - the Post Office continues to be hamstrung.

The British Government some years ago established a Post Office trust fund similar to that which was recently established by the Postmaster-General. But the British Government went further and gave the British Post Office power to raise loans. The British experience did not solve the problem so a public corporation was established. On Tuesday last President Nixon asked the United States Congress for legislation to convert the United States Post Office into a government owned corporation. The Melbourne ‘Herald’ yesterday published a report of what President Nixon said when he asked Congress to introduce this legislation. The article reports President Nixon as saying:

Traditions die hard and traditional institutions are difficult to abandon.

But tradition is no substitute for performance, and if our postal system is to meet the expanding needs of the 1970s we must act now.

The article continued:

The President’s proposal is largely based on recommendations submitted by Mr Frederick Kappel, head of President Johnson’s commission on postal organisation.

The Opposition is recommending that the same sort of inquiry be carried out in Australia. Among some of the points President Nixon made in support of this matter was the creation of an independent postal service wholly owned by the Federal Government and administered by a nine-member board of directors and wide new collective bargaining rights for postal employees. This is a very important point.

Now that the United States has taken steps to establish a corporation, this Government may feel more inclined to go waltzing along with President Nixon or more appropriately, dance a slow foxtrot to the tune of the post office blues. During the debate on the controversial increase in postal charges on 10th May 1967 and in subsequent debates I drew attention to the document relating to the reorganisation of the Post Office in Britain. It was presented to the House of Commons by the PostmasterGeneral in March 1967. Paragraph 3 of this report states, in part:

The Government concluded that the process begun in 1932 should be carried to its logical conclusion. A public corporation should be created to run these great businesses with a structure and methods designed directly to meet their needs, drawing on the best modern practice.

Paragraph 6 of the report had this to say:

The Post Office is a major Department of State. Practically the whole of it is involved in the constitutional change. This is an undertaking without precedent. Moreover, Post Office services are an integral part of the nation’s life. In addition to communications, the Post Office provides part of the machinery of the Social Security system, and many other kinds of business are transacted at Post Office counters. The Government’s objective is to create an authority which will-

And these points are very important - be responsible for developing the most efficient service possible, at the lowest charges consistent with sound financial policies; carry on in a worthy manner the Post Office tradition of service to the public; develop relations with its staff in a forward looking and progressive way.

The last point is very important bearing in mind the position of staff in the Australian Post Office at the moment.

On page 12 of the report, under the heading ‘Staff Relations’ the report stated:

Without detriment to the responsibilities of managers to manage, the Government will expect the Corporation to promote the most constructive relationships between the management and the staff. The new Corporation will not be taking over an industry marked by bad industrial relations: On the contrary, a fine tradition of co-operation and consultation between the management and staff has been built up in the Post Office. The Government will expect the Corporation to ensure that this develops further in the new conditions and to set the highest standards in relationships with the staff.

This section of the report is important and I have quoted it because I want to emphasise how important it is to have good staff relationships. Unfortunately we do not have those relationships in the Post Office in Australia. Mr F. P. O’Grady, who retired about 2 years ago, believes that the Post Office should be a public corporation. Since his retirement he has been able to come out in the open and make public statements that he could not make as the head of a department of the Government. He is now in the position to criticise the existing organisation of the Post Office, and he has done so. In regard to the Post Office becoming a public corporation, Mr O’Grady had this to say in the ‘Australian’ newspaper of 13th October 1967:

I think a public corporation would have a different approach to the public if it were given truly wide financial powers. It could arrange its business in a different way. At present a purely government department must adhere to the budgetary system of the Parliament. In effect you must not anticipate parliamentary approval for years ahead.

Later in the article Mr O’Grady said:

This lack of knowledge of the future has always plagued the engineer in the Post Office in Australia.

He said:

The Post Office has always been debarred from long term planning.

Mr O’Grady went on to say:

A statutory corporation given proper financial powers would be able to make long term arrangements with banks or other suppliers of funds and it could so arrange its affairs that it could commit itself to very high capital cost projects which would not come into use until 5 years ahead and would still have sufficient funds for bread and butter items.

Mr O’Grady then pointed out how the public corporation might be empowered to raise money through the Commonwealth loan fund system; it could raise money as electricity commissions do in some States, with approval to go to the market separately. It could also borrow from banks. This is one of the powers that President Nixon proposed for the corporation that he recommended to the Congress of the United States.

Last January the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) referred to ‘an underlying malaise’ in the Post Office. Nothing has been done by the Prime Minister or the PostmasterGeneral to tackle this situation. It has been clearly demonstrated that the present structure of the Post Office is inadequate and needs modernising. It is no use blaming the unions as the Postmaster-General has been inclined to do in past debates on this subject. The unions are anxious to give the public an efficient service - this is indicated in advertisements contained in newspapers that I have quoted - but cannot do so within the existing framework. Staff relations in the Australian Post Office have become deplorable. To a large extent this can be attributed to the existing setup. The Post Office does not offer any hope of better industrial relations between staff and management because the PostmasterGeneral will not do anything about changing this setup.

The stoppage in January 1969 could have been avoided, lt is well known that the management of the Post Office would have liked to make an offer on wages and would have liked to negotiate a settlement before the stoppage occurred, but that was overruled by the Postmaster-General. There is a staff of over 100,000 in the Post Office, but the administrators have no power to deal with the wage claims of their employees. The unions must first place their claims before the Public Service Board, then before the Public Service Arbitrator and, as a last resort, before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. During this tortuous route the Department of Labour and National Service has its say as well. We have delay pyramided on top of delay. No wonder there is grave discontent in every union associated with the Post Office.

The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, which placed in the Press the public apology to which I have referred is now threatening direct action. Yesterday’s Press, under the heading ‘Civil Service Strike Call’, had this to say concerning a meeting which was held in Perth:

A lunch-time meeting of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in Perth yesterday called on their Federal executive to consider militant industrial action over delayed pay claims.

The Association is made up of employees of the Commonwealth Public Service. It has about 26,000 members throughout Australia and 1,800 in Western Australia.

This is important:

The Association lodged claims with the Commonwealth Public Service Board last September for pay increases from $800 for base grade workers to $3,900 for top second division members.

It has not yet received a reply from the Board.

What a deplorable state of affairs. Last week in this chamber we had quite a debate on the penal clauses. During that debate the importance of conciliation was emphasised. I pointed out that although the Conciliation and Arbitration Act emphasised, as one of its main objectives, the importance of conciliation - and, indeed, in the title of the Act ‘Conciliation’ precedes ‘Arbitration’ - obstacles were placed in the way of conciliation. Unions could not take part in conciliation because of the obstacles which were clearly apparent. Here we have a glaring example. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association lodged a claim with the Public Service Board in September, but still no reply has been received. Other unions are complaining about the same sort of treatment which they are receiving from the Public Service Board. Clearly the Public Service Board is one of the worst offenders in this direction. The Government should insist on its own departments adopting a more conciliatory attitude towards the claims of unions. It should certainly say that these deplorably long delays should not be allowed to take place.

I shall refer again to what Mr O’Grady had to say about this very subject. He said: 1 have found myself completely humiliated when union deputations called on me. No matter what my views, I was required to keep a poker face and not let them think by nod or wink that I was sympathetic to their case.

He had to wait until his retirement before he could say this. The present Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs no doubt feels just as humiliated when he is discussing claims with the unions. Mr O’Grady said:

It would seem that if the Post Office is to be made into a truly business undertaking, the number of outside bodies having a say in such important matters ought to be reduced to a minimum. I believe the Post Office should have only two bodies concerned - the Post Office managers themselves and the Full Court. There should be no other intermediary because this at best results in prolonged delays and at worst causes unnecessary friction between employees and management. ls that not the cause of a lot of industrial trouble? Mr O’Grady also said that if the Post Office is to be put on the basis of a true business undertaking in reality and not just in name, divorcement from the Commonwealth Public Service Board would be quite essential. From discussions with unions associated with the Post Office, all but one of them support the view that the Post Office should be divorced from the Public Service Board and made a separate department controlled by a public corporation. The union which objects to this reform - it is the one which I said is threatening strike action again at the present time - is concerned with its lines of promotion in the Public Service. This is important, naturally, to that union and to its employees, but it should not be an insurmountable obstacle to any reform in the future. I am certain it is an obstacle which could be overcome. The other unions consider that if the proposed reform took place there would be better service to the community and industrial relations would improve. No-one could be too certain about who is right or who is wrong in the assertions that are made. However, we can be certain that all is not well with the Australian Post Office. Our proposal provides for an investigation. We ask for the appointment. of a joint select committee to inquire into and report upon the desirability and practicability of establishing a public corporation to conduct the business of the Post Office. If this committee is appointed we could then determine what action we should take after the recommendations have been made.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Mr Devine:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– When notice of this motion was first given by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) I welcomed it on the basis that it would give an opportunity to the House to have a philosophical discussion on the advantages or disadvantages of the Post Office being a government department or a statutory corporation. But I must confess that to my surprise all we have heard from the honourable member for Stirling this morning has been a political speech of the worst possible type. 1 do not propose to follow him along the by-ways which he tried to open up. He seemed to come to the unusual conclusion that because there were some problems there must obviously be an assumption that the establishment of a statuory corporation was the solution to them. This morning I want to take up a little time in dealing with some of the aspects which would have to come under consideration. I am not saying that there might not be some advantages in a corporation operation, but 1 think it is something which has to be analysed. Therefore we should look at the various aspects requiring consideration.

I want to make one comment regarding the political aspect raised by the honourable member for Stirling. He said that the machine at the Redfern Mail Exchange was chewing up - that was his term - 1,000 letters per day. I say quite deliberately that that is an untruth or a flight of imagination of the honourable member for Stirling. I have made public statements recently to indicate that the undeliverable letters out of the Redfern Mail Exchange machine number no more than 1 or 2 in every 1,500,000 letters. I draw attention to that particular aspect.

I want to come now to the motion which has been moved. As 1 understand it, it is in two parts. The first is that we should establish a joint select committee and the second deals with what I might call the philosophical aspects to which I referred earlier. Let us have a look at this question of the appointment of a joint select committee. I think that the honourable member for Stirling has made his position fairly clear this morning. He did so in this House on 6th September 1967 when he said that the establishment of a corporation would make for more efficiency’ in the Post Office. In the same speech he said:

During the last debate on this matter 1 pointed out that the establishment of a corporation was part of the policy of the Labor Parly. . . . recently it has been included in our platform.

Members of the Labor Party are saying: In our platform we have determined that there shall be a corporation.’ Against that they say also ‘We as members of the Labor Party should sit on a joint select committee to determine whether there should or should not be a corporation.’ What would be the attitude of the Labor Party in a joint select committee? It adopts the attitude obviously from beginning to end that there must be a corporation. That is the attitude of the honourable member for Stirling, and that is supposedly the official attitude of the Labor Party. But the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has also spoken on this matter, and on 1 st May 1 968 he had this to say:

Candidly, ] have always been a great admirer of the Public Service form of operations lor the

Post Office and not a great lover of what is called a public corporation device. Many angles and aspects of the matter need to be considered.

On 18th September 1968 he said also:

I for one have always expressed my great admiration for the efficiency of the Post Office.

That is a little different from the attitude expressed by the honourable member for Stirling in the speech which he made in this House this morning. The question of efficiency was raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the honourable member for Stirling. The honourable member for Stirling referred to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. Let us have the view of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association as set out in its journal for June 1967. It said:

The Association finds itself completely opposed to the policies of the Opposition party of the Federal Parliament when they advocate the Post Office be made into a Commission similar to that proposed by the British Post Office. The disadvantages to the public are the invasion of parliamentary responsibility, the alienation of Parliament’s rights to control the largest undertaking of the Commonwealth.

So we find that there is not unanimity as between the honourable member for Stirling, the Labor Party and people outside. But the question of efficiency has been raised. I do not look for a comment from somebody within the Parliament, I look for somebody who has had a good deal of experience in relation to the development of efficiency within industry in this country. I refer to Sir Walter Scott. In the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 24th February 1968, he was reported as having said:

The Australian Post Office has an outstanding performance in managerial efficiency . . . indeed, in one area where it was possible to obtain exact comparisons with private industry, the Post Office had higher productivity and less surplus staff than many of the most highly thought of private organisations. … In one outstanding and very important case which I know personally, it was the Australian Post Office which led the way in making the technical breakthrough. … In short, the Australian Post Office is a giant in a country where giants are rare. Everyone can see what it does. All of us can point to small flaws. . . . But few ever have occasion to assess it as a total national asset. When we take the big view, the Australian Post Office becomes very impressive indeed.

One must come to the conclusion that there is not necessarily justification for the criticisms levelled at the Post Office, which have given rise to this corporation complex. It is important also to consider the staff of the Post Office. What will happen, of course, if we make the Post Office a corporation as against the present system is that we will set up an organisation in which any officer who enters the Post Office must follow his career. In the present Public Service complex officers can transfer out of the Post Office into other departments and out of other departments back into the Post Office. In a corporation this opportunity would be taken away from these officers as a right or as a privilege, and I believe there are many public servants in Australia who see this as a great disadvantage. I do not think it is only a case of some public servants seeing it as a disadvantage. Let us have a look at what is said outside. The publication ‘Victorian Viewpoint’ stated: . . But once having remained with the Post Office under a Commission, gone are the rights or benefits of transfer or promotion to other Commonwealth Departments. Gone too, is the right or opportunity of transfer or promotion to the PMG by members employed in other Departments.

I come now to the Australian Clerical Officers Association journal of June 1967. It stated:

Further, if the Post Office became a Commission, members would lose the mobility which enables them to further their careers in any Department of the Commonwealth Service.

In another edition of the journal, in August 1967, the statement was made:

The interests of the Officers and employees of the Post Office will not be protected by its establishment as an independent Commission.

So here is one area in which surely there ought to be analysis and discussion. But I do not suggest that the Labor Party - having adopted the principle of a corporation in its platform - is the appropriate body to take part in this discussion. If in fact a committee is appointed I would prefer to see a committee outside the Parliament made up of people who can bring an objective view to bear on the various problems which do arise.

I come now to another point. The honourable member for Stirling could perhaps have indicated what he considered would be the charter of this proposed corporation, even if only in the broadest of terms. He has not done so. If a corporation were to take over the Post Office it would have to accept the making of a profit as being the very basis of its operation. There are, of course, areas in Australia which are uneconomic in the sense of services being rendered by the Post Office, whether they be postal services or services in the telecommunications area, and a pure consideration of profit will mean less service to large numbers of the Australian people. The honourable member for Stirling made no comment in relation to this, or how one would develop a charter for the corporation which would allow it to take these things into consideration.

I do not believe the honourable member for Stirling understands the real depth of the problem which he is discussing, and it is wrong to suggest that because the British Post Office does something, or because the United States Post Office does it, we must do it here. We would be looking frantically for any solution if we had the United States situation where the Post Office makes a loss on its postal services of no less than $l,800m per annum. The honourable member is trying to compare the Australian Post Office with the United States Post Office, but this is just too absurd for one to discuss at any great length. I do not believe that the honourable member appreciates the geographical problems associated with this country, where 54% of our population live in six capital cities and the population in the rest of this country of 3 million square miles has also to be serviced. In some places it costs no less than 53c to deliver a mail article from a local post office to a person’s letter box, and I ask honourable members to show me any other country in the world which has a problem comparable with that. There is no mention of this by the honourable member for Stirling as one of the things which must be looked at. We must weigh the advantages of a department bound to render service to the total Australian public against a corporation which, on the basis put to us, may in fact have a fairly open charter giving it the right to contemplate profit before it contemplates service.

I come now to another point. It was only a few weeks ago that, when under criticism, I asked to see the manager of one of Australia’s principal daily newspaper organisations. Into the discussion he brought the editors of the two newspapers which were under his control. During this discus sion the editor of one of the papers said to me: ‘Why do you not make the Post Office a statutory corporation?’

One probably does not have to go through all the detail, but let us look at one of the major problems associated with a statutory corporation. The Commonwealth Government today goes on to the public loan market to raise money supposedly for Commonwealth and State purposes. Under the Financial Agreement of 1927, 20% of such money goes to the Commonwealth and 80% to the States. This Government has been in office for 20 years, and during that period not one penny of that money which has been raised has come to the Commonwealth; it has all gone to the States. Insufficient money has been raised by the Commonwealth for State and Commonwealth purposes. Also raising money on the public loan market are the semigovernmental authorities such as electricity commissions. I think it is right to say that every capital city municipality, if I can describe it in that way, goes on to the public market for money. The Commonwealth, the semi-governmental authorities and the local government bodies do not raise on the public market sufficient money for all their purposes. Superimpose on the amount that is raised an additional $200m to $300m per annum and go out and ask the public whether it will subscribe to a loan for that additional amount. Does any honourable member think that the extra $200m or $300m would be raised?

Mr Graham:

– It is not likely.

Mr HULME:

– I am sure it is not likely. I am sure that it would be impossible. Can anybody tell me that a corporation which might be set up can have complete responsibility it if does not have the responsibility for raising the money which it invests and which it uses? It must therefore come back to the Treasury. The Treasury must provide the money finally for the purposes of the Post Office. If the Treasury - that is the Government, the Parliament - provides the money, where does the final responsibility as to the level of supply of funds remain? Is it with the corporation? I do not believe anybody in the community would accept that under those circumstances the corporation was working quite independently of the Parliament. The Parliament is in control of the situation. This is a matter which would have to be resolved.

The honourable member for Stirling quoted Mr O’Grady, saying that the Post Office should be programming ahead and should know in advance what it will need by way of capital funds year by year. The Post Office in the planning sense plans for up to 20 years ahead, but it has short programmes of 5 years or 3 years for the more important things. It so happens that when Mr O’Grady was the Director-General I asked him to let me have a 3-year capital works programme indicating the amounts of money wanted in each of the 3 years. When it came to the third year and officials in the Post Office were asking me to go to Cabinet at Budget time saying that they wanted so much money, I said: ‘Please show me the documents which you prepared for me 3 years ago. I would like to compare the amount you asked for then with the amount you are now asking for’. They had two amounts that varied by 20% to 25% in this attempt to judge only 3 years ahead. This is the problem. This is where I believe the British Post Office will fall flat on its face.

The Government says that it willi provide the Post Office with so many hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of from 3 to 5 years, and then costs increase and wages rise. Of course, it is impossible over 3 to 5 years to have an accurate measurement of what funds will be required. So this has to be looked at; it has to be investigated. We have to be sure about a corporation. It is all right for the honourable member for Stirling to agree with me now. Why did he not put this to the House when he spoke? Why did he make a political speech. The Australian Labor Party asked to be included in a select committee, but that Party’s policy has already been determined outside this House. Everybody in the community knows that the members of the Australian Labor Party in this place are bound by the platform of the Party that is determined outside. The Party does not make any decisions in this Parliament on fundamental policy issues. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the honourable member for Stirling to ask that the Australian Labor

Party be associated with this inquiry, when its mind is already made up as to what the position ought to be. I invite the honourable member for Stirling to come into the Post Office and talk to the senior officials and see whether he gets confirmation of many of the things he has put before the Parliament this morning, which have flowed out of criticism by some of the unionists. I do not understand why the newspapers take the word of some unionist who cannot understand and who has never consulted the Post Office in relation to its policy.

There are many other matters that should be referred to. If we had the time my colleagues would follow me and bring to the light of day other important problems that require consideration. The Government does not close its mind to the possibilities of a corporation, but the Government would adopt the attitude that it is not a task for an inexpert committee which would flow out of the Parliament itself. Rather should such a committee come from within the management area of the total community, perhaps with a chairman from the parliamentary sphere in the way that I was the chairman of the Depreciation Committee that was set up some years ago. Nobody can convince me that there are many experts in relation to the Post Office sitting on the Opposition benches.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr DEVINE:
East Sydney

– I rise to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). The Australian Labor Party is asking that a select committee be set up to inquire into whether a statutory body should run the Post Office. Whilst it is all right for the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) to stand up here and contradict some of the statements that were made by the honourable member for Stirling, I do not think there was much substance in what he said. His speech has not convinced us that we that we should not have this inquiry. The Postmaster-General rambled on and said that as far as he was concerned he did not think that a statutory corporation could be run as efficiently as the present administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department. Of course, the present administration leaves much to be desired. Many members of Parliament, who have over a period of years made representations to the PostmasterGeneral on many matters that have been put to them by sections of the community, are aware that there are inefficiencies within the Postmaster-General’s Department. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General realises that we have statutory corporations operating in Australia at the present time. We have Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans-Australia Airlines, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and other hydro-electric authorities. These are statutory corporations. Whether they be Federal or State statutory authorities they are pretty efficient and they are run, so far as I know, with just as much efficiency as any other organisation in Australia.

The Postmaster-General put the main emphasis on the fact that any corporation would have to be able to raise its own money if it were to operate successfully. We know that the Government at times raises loans throughout Australia, and it is marvellous to know that these are always over-subscribed. There would be no problem in raising finance for the operations of the Post Office. The Postmaster-General criticised the fact that the Post Office in the United Kingdom and the Post Office in the United States are controlled by statutory corporations. He made the blatant announcement that the postal department in the United States incurs a loss of $l,800m per annum, but of course he failed to tell the House that in the United States the postal department does not operate the telephone and telegram services. These sections of the Australian Postmaster-General’s Department are making money. The PostmasterGeneral should at least state the truth when he stands up in the Parliament. In Japan, Sweden and Indonesia the post offices are run by statutory corporations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Motion (by Mr Erwin) agreed to:

That the time for discussion of notices be extended until 12.45 p.m.

Mr DEVINE:

– I am amazed that the Leader of the House (Mr Erwin) should propose such a short time in which to debate this matter. I am trying to enlighten honourable members opposite. I realise that this is a difficult task. Probably if I had a hammer and chisel I would be able to get through to them. In other countries statutory corporations can run the post offices, and a statutory corporation could do the same in Australia. Most people oppose the Postmaster-General’s Department being used for tax raising purposes. About 2 years ago an attempt was made in this Parliament to use the Post Office to raise $64m. However, as a result of the disallowance of regulations in the other place, the attempt failed. Later provision was made in the Budget to secure this revenue from the operations of the Post Office.

There is no doubt that the services of the Post Office have deteriorated. Recently mail deliveries have been limited to one a day. This met with much resentment from many sections of the community, especially those engaged in industries which depend on mail services for orders. There had been a great outburst within the community, and whilst the Minister has agreed to two deliveries in some areas most people do not enjoy a second delivery. We know that as a result the postmen have suffered. There has been lack of finance and consequently the mcn have not been able to obtain the overtime that they need because of the poor wages they are paid. If we examine facts and figures we find that in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department there is the greatest turnover of fourth division officers in the Public Service. This is because of the inadequate wages that are paid to them. This situation results from the bad industrial relations that exist between the Public Service Board and the Department itself. I do not blame the Department, because it is honest and genuine in its negotiations with the trade unions. The Department recommends to the Public Service Board that a decent remuneration be paid to employees in certain sections of the Post Office but the Board rejects the recommendations and consequently we see industrial unrest and turmoil within the Department.

As a parliament we can hold only one man responsible - the Postmaster-General. There are no good industrial relations between the Minister and the trade union movement. Because of the blunders and decisions he has made we have bad strikes by men seeking economic justice. One of the biggest strikes occurred last January because the Department employed scabs during the Christmas period. I am well informed that the Postal Union in New South Wales wrote to the Department naming certain people who had been employed during a strike the previous year and who were being re-employed by the Department just to create an issue for a strike. Something is radically wrong with the industrial relations within the Department. I do not know whether the Minister has been using the Department for political purposes but I do not doubt that the Government would issue directions that could result in industrial unrest in order to get public sympathy. Most people who are affected by a strike protest against strikes without knowing what has caused the trouble. Industrial unrest probably could be eliminated if a statutory corporation were running the Department.

I have often raised the question of private enterprise encroaching upon the activities of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I am referring now, of course, to the red telephones and easy telephones that are available in the community. The people who operate these telephones are engaged in a $lm industry. They get this Sim and the Department does not get anything. They are using public equipment and public lines and are not paying a cent.

Mr Hulme:

– That is quite untrue.

Mr DEVINE:

– It is correct, and the Minister knows it. It is only the person who makes the agreement with the telephone company who pays the Department for the use of the lines. He also has to pay the company $96 a year for the use of the little red telephone. The company does not pay the Department a cent for the use of the lines or the use of the equipment.

Mr Hulme:

– That is wrong.

Mr DEVINE:

– Well, get up and give me the figures. Indicate what amount is involved. How much do the companies pay the Postmaster-General’s Department? The Minister has refused to supply this information on other occasions. When we had a debate on the red telephones in this House the Minister did not mention figures during the course of that debate. If he has figures he should make them available. I still say that the companies do not pay a cent to the Postmaster-General’s Department. They should be paying, and we should be getting something for allowing them to use equipment that has been provided from the taxpayers’ money. The Minister may shake his head: he should rise and give the figures.

Mr King:

– I reckon he ought to know whether they pay.

Mr DEVINE:

– I do not think he does know, and that is the point. I have heard the Minister say: ‘I can give you facts and figures showing that it costs us 53c to deliver a letter’. We accept that, as do most Australian people, the same as we accept that subsidies are paid on wool, wheat and other primary products. We know that the people in the cities pay most of them. We accept that position, because at least a service is being provided. And why should the Department not give a service to the people? What difference does it make whether the people who need the service live in the country or in the city? The people in the country are entitled to a service just as the people in the cities are. I do not think the Minister should try to make a point such as that in the Parliament. No doubt the majority of supporters of the Australian Labor Party would agree that country people should receive a service. I make these points because it is clear that the Minister needs to be put straight on these matters.

I would like to raise another matter. The Postmaster-General’s Department claims to provide special services for the community, if an extra fee is paid. However, a company has complained to the Postmaster-General that, after paying the amount of the excess required by the Department for express delivery of mail, the mail was delivered late, and it wanted to know why the mail was delayed. The Managing Director of the firm received a reply from the PostmasterGeneral. I mention this, because people in the community are being misled. The Department is being paid excess money and is not providing the service. The letter from the Postmaster-General stated:

All mail which is eligible for conveyance by air is handled as expeditiously as possible and the payment of extra fees would not provide a faster service.

The people are told that they will be given a service if they pay extra, but the speedy service is not then provided. The Department is taking money from the Australian people under false pretences. If these matters were the responsibility of a statutory corporation we would not have the same trouble.

I would also like to raise a matter relating to telephones. A firm in Botany was allocated a telephone number by the Department on 29th November. It was told that this would be its new number and the telephone would be installed as soon as possible. Two months later it received a letter from the Department saying that the telephone number had been changed. The firm had made arrangements to have circulars printed informing its clients of the new telephone number and it wanted to know why the number had been changed. It was told by the Department that this telephone number had been allocated to another firm 2 years previously. Surely this reveals inefficiency within the Department. Other honourable members could spend the rest of the day and night telling the House of complaints they have received. I content myself with the few I have mentioned. I know that other honourable members wish to speak, but time will not permit them to do so.

Mr King:

– We have only three-quarters of a minute left.

Mr DEVINE:

– Then I had better talk it out. I would do the Parliament a service if I saved it from the necessity to listen to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), although he would like to say a few words. I think the honourable member for Stirling was justified in raising this matter for discussion. Some inquiry should be held to determine whether a statutory corporation would be able to run the Postal Department. I am sure it could do so efficiently. A statutory corporation would run the Department as efficiently as private industries run their affairs. A corporation would plan as efficiently as private enterprises plan their developments. Private enterprises do not plan for a short period only; they usually provide for long range developments and give a good deal of consideration to them. There would be nothing to prevent a statutory corporation from act ing in the same way. However, the present arrangements require the Department to wait for a handout from the Treasury. This means that we have a penny pinching Department which is always wondering whether it will have enough money to spend on developments, such as increased telephone services. This is important.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for East Sydney will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2471

CORAL SEA ISLANDS BILL 1969

Bill presented by Mr Barnes, and read a first lime.

Second Reading

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the government of certainislands in the Coral Sea. The islands are situated in the areas described in the first and second paragraphs of the preamble to the Bill. They lie tothe east of Queensland between the Great Barrier Reef and the meridian 157 degrees 10 minutes east longitude. One of the islands in the Willis Group has three members of the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology stationed on it. The others are all uninhabited. All are very small. Some of the better known are Cato Island, Chilcott Islet in the Coringa Group and the Willis Group. The islands were acquired by the Commonwealth by acts of sovereignty over a number of years. A lighthouse has been erected on Bougainville Reef and beacons are operating on Frederick Reef and Lihou Reef. A meteorological station has operated in the Willis Group since 1921 and there is an unmanned weather station on Cato Island. They have been regularly visited by Royal Australian Navy vessels. Survey parties from the Division of National Mapping in the Department of National Development have completed a survey of most of the islands.

When the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1967 my colleague, the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn), foreshadowed that at a later stage the offshore petroleum legislation would be extended to these islands in the Coral Sea and to their adjacent submerged lands. This will be the subject of a separate Bill. The possibility of exploration for oil on the Continental Shelf and the increasing range and scope of international fishing enterprises illustrate the desirability of establishing a framework of administration and a system of law in the islands that will be certain and adequate. The Bill constitutes the islands a Territory of the Commonwealth by the name of the Coral Sea Islands Territory. It provides for the Governor-General to make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory but does not, like the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act, apply a set of Australian laws. No one set of Territory laws entirely meets the requirements of the Coral Sea Islands and an Adoption of Laws Ordinance will be made setting out specific legislation which is to apply. Any Ordinance made by the Governor-General under the Act shall be laid before each House of the Parliament. Commonwealth Acts will not apply to the Territory unless otherwise specified in an Act.

Provision is also made for the Supreme Court and the Court of Petty Sessions of Norfolk Island to have jurisdiction in relation to the Territory. The Bill will permit these courts to sit in the Territory, in Norfolk Island or in Australia for the dispatch of business concerning the Coral Sea Islands Territory. Under the Norfolk Island Act Commonwealth judges may be appointed judges of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. Regulations have been made under that Act permitting Norfolk Island business to be dealt with in Australia. The arrangements proposed for the Coral Sea Islands adopt this principle but extend it to the subordinate court. The provisions of the Bill which apply the judicial system of Norfolk Island to the Territory are designed only to make provision forlaw enforcement in the new Territory and will have no consequential effect on the Territory of Norfolk Island. The Bill will establish no administra tion on these islands. It will, however, provide the means of controlling the activities of those who visit them.

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 2472

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14th May (vide page 1786), on motion by Mr Kelly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill before the House at the moment is a small Bill relating to the powers of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. Whilst it is a small Bill, to us on this side of the House it is an important Bill. For the first time, the Government is taking a step in the direction which we have advocated for some considerable time in this place. That is that the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission shall be a participant in the stevedoring arrangements and the business in which it takes part. Even if the Commission is not the complete owner of the proposed arrangements, at least it has a share in them commensurate with the amount of trade which will be carried in the Australian ship under the agreement with the ACT Lines.

The proposition is to buy into three companies. The first company is TransOcean Containers Ltd. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will hold a one-third interest in this company. TransOcean Containers Ltd is the management company formed to control the container operations for the ACT Lines group in Australia. In particular, Trans-Ocean Containers Ltd will be responsible for the documentation, arranging the movement of containers by road and rail and the booking of space on coastal feeder ships as well as contracting with inland depot undertakings for inland depot services and with ocean terminal operators for the provision of necessary marine and shore receiving facilities and the handling of claims for loss or damage to cargo.

The next company is Freightbases Ltd. Once again, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will hold a one-third interest in this company. Freightbases Ltd has been formed to operate inland container depots at which cargo is received for loading into containers and where full inwards containers are unpacked for delivery to importers of less than full container lots. The holding company - I think it is right to call it that - is Terminal Properties Ltd. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will hold a one-sixth share in that company. This company will own or lease the land and buildings housing the inland depot operations carried out by Freightbases Ltd.

As the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly), when he was Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport, said in his second reading speech, the cost of this venture will be approximately $250,000. We on this side of the House think that it is money well spent. It will allow the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and, in turn, the Australian Department of Trade and Industry to know what are the costs involved in the stevedoring arrangements in the various depots throughout Australia. This is an important part of the whole costing structure. As this is the case, we cannot be engaged in the shipping side of it without being in the stevedoring section of it as well.

As I said earlier, the members of the Opposition are pleased with the venture because it is a major step on the part of the Government - I will not say for the first time - to move into stevedoring. I hope that the same provisions will apply when the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission moves into the Australia-America trade and that similar arrangements will be made either through this arrangement or by a separate arrangement. At least, I hope that we will be full participants and not just part participants in the venture of overseas trade. It is to be regretted that the Government has not extended the provisions of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act to permit the Australian National Line to carry out these specific arrangements regarding interstate trade on the Australian coast. If it is worth while moving into the overseas trade it should be worth while moving into the local trade.

Take the position at the Balmain depot where the ‘Empress of Australia’ berths. The supervisory staff at the depot is employed by the Australian National Line. All of the equipment is owned by the ANL. But the wharf labour is engaged by Patrick Stevedoring Co. Pty Ltd. What is the role of the Patrick organisation? What is the need for the organisation? Where does it fit into the picture? Surely this is a matter of perks for the boys. The Opposition believes that in each of the major ports the ANL should be permitted to carry out its own stevedoring operations. This is particularly desirable in the field of local operations; the present system may be satisfactory in respect of overseas operations. The same arguments apply to the berths from which other conventional Australian ships operate. The position of Balmain is repeated in Brisbane and Melbourne and in Tasmanian ports where permanent labour works only on vessels operated by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. I cannot understand why the Government adopts this attitude with respect to wharf labour. For many years we have advocated that the ANL should be permitted to carry out its own stevedoring operations rather than operate through other companies. It does not operate through only one company, it operates through various companies. In different ports there is a different company carrying out the stevedoring work. I hope that the Government’s decision to move into stevedoring will be extended to cover not only the Australia-United Kingdom-Europe trade but also the Australia-America trade and even operations interstate and, where possible, intrastate.

One of the matters which concerns most of us who are interested in shipping is the failure of the container shipping consortium to give a clear indication of its intentions with regard to freights. On 3rd February 1967 the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) said that there would be no differential in freight charges throughout the Commonwealth but one uniform rate. We find that since that time somebody has had a change of heart: The only ports in Australia which are on a common freight rate are Fremantle, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle and Brisbane. At least the people of my electorate can be grateful for participating in the common freight rate.

We have heard honourable members from Tasmania expressing concern because Tasmanian exporters and importers will have to pay freight between the Tasmanian port and Melbourne. I understand on very good authority that a common freight rate applies in England. If an importer or exporter formerly paid £Stgl a ton to ship through a particular port, such as Liverpool, and he is now required to ship through London, he still pays the same amount notwithstanding that his goods must be carried between his factory and the docks in London. If it is good enough for this system to operate in the United Kingdom surely it could be applied in Australia. I hope that the Minister and the Government will take strong steps to rectify the present anomaly and to bring about a common freight rate so that Australian traders will not be at a distinct disadvantage compared with their overseas counterparts.

One of the unfortunate consequences of containerisation, as I see it, is an extreme over-centralisation in the three major container ports of Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney. Under the present arrangement the tendency will be to take everything to those ports. If this system cannot be broken there will be a considerable amount of double handling of freight coming from Tasmania, from ports north of Brisbane and from ports north of Fremantle. People who operate through these ports will be at a distinct disadvantage because the container ships will call only at Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney. Conventional and Scandia vessels called at the port where the business was located. Now everybody will have to ship through Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle. This is a matter of particular concern in my electorate. Newcastle has for some time been a major wool exporting port. In 1966-67 224,745 bales of wool were shipped through Newcastle. In 1967-68 the number was 265,757. Through Sydney in 1966-67 1,099,720 bales were shipped and 1,126,107 in 1967-68. Roughly speaking, Newcastle handles about 25% of the amount handled in Sydney. It is well known that wool will be one of the major back loading cargoes for containers. If the container consortium cannot capture completely the wool trade many containers will be carried from Australia to the United Kingdom empty. Wool that is to be carried in a container must be compressed in a special machine.

In view of the fact that Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle will be the only ports at which container vessels call, centres such as Newcastle, Goulburn and Port

Kembla could find that they handle less wool because it is being sent direct to the container ports. I am concerned about this matter because it has come to my attention that the New South Wales Railways Department and a number of wool brokers in Sydney are endeavouring to set up a wool selling centre at Yennora, about 15 miles from the port of Sydney. If this is done it will mean complete over-centralisation of wool selling and the location in Sydney of the entire wool trade. I know that there are advantages in such a set-up because the container vessels operate from Sydney. To take the wool to Newcastle, unload it into warehouses from trains or road transport, go through the process of selling it, and then carry it to Sydney where it is compressed into containers will add to costs. The wool industry cannot afford to stand the increased handling charges which will ensue as a result of these operations. What concerns me is that the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Railways is pushing this proposal obviously with the approval of the New South Wales State Government. It will add to the congestion which already exists in the port of Sydney. It will create additional centralisation, which I believe any fair thinking Australian would oppose.

Whilst I know that it is a pretty forlorn hope, I do point out that the facilities in the port of Newcastle are ideal for container shipping. The State Government has done a good job in reclaiming islands in the delta of the Hunter River. A large industrial complex known as Kooragang has been provided with a deep water anchorage for some distance on both sides of the island. There is sufficient space for deep water anchorages for ships of the size of container vessels. This would be an ideal place for the establishment of a wool selling centre. There is almost unlimited amount of virgin land there. There would be no congestion. The wool could be brought by rail direct to the island over a bridge and a line which already exists. All that is needed is the traffic. The commodity could be brought there direct, put into the warehouses and loaded from the warehouses straight onto the ships. If anyone can tell me of a better arrangement than that then I will be prepared to listen, but I do not think you can get a better arrangement for the New South Wales wool growers than that to which I have just referred.

The establishment of a wool selling centre in Sydney will mean that the wool will have to be taken to Yennora, transhipped into the warehouses, sold, put into containers and the containers taken by rail to the container terminal. It would be necessary to have a second handling of the commodity whereas, as I pointed out, it would be possible to build warehouses right alongside the wharf in the Newcastle district with the result that the container could be taken directly from the warehouse to the ship. As I said, the waterfront land is available and there is nothing to prevent this from being done. It will be said that the container ships will call only at three ports - Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney. It will be argued that the commodity would have to be loaded onto feeder services to be taken to Sydney.

Mr Sinclair:

– Have any wool brokers moved there yet?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Not under this new setup. But as I pointed out to the Minister and as I stated earlier, Newcastle is a substantial wool selling centre at this very moment. In 1967-68 wool equal to approximately one-quarter of the number of bales of wool exported through Sydney was exported through the port of Newcastle. In other words, 265,757 bales passed through Newcastle as against 1,126,000 through Sydney.

This is a matter which involves the Federal Government, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Shipping and Transport. Australia is now part and parcel of the container consortium; it has one of the nine ships which will be operating in the container field. I feel it is partly the responsibility of this Government to ask the wool industry to give serious consideration to the proposition I have put forward. Both the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Shipping and Transport are members of a Party which espouses a policy of decentralisation. This is an ideal opportunity for them to implement that policy. I know that because of its population they will not regard Newcastle as being entitled to any form of decentralisation. However, I believe it would be better to locate the main wool selling centre in the Newcastle district than in Sydney which is a growing district. Everyone agrees that Sydney is growing at an alarming rate - a rate which is costing the people of this country, including the citizens of Sydney, a large amount of money because of the need to provide adequate transport systems and the necessary facilities for development. I hope that serious consideration will be given to this proposal.

As I mentioned earlier, now that we are participating in the container trade I hope that serious and sympathetic consideration will be given to removing the anomaly which affects shippers north of Brisbane, north of Fremantle and on the island of Tasmania. I hope that before many years pass the Government will extend to the Australian National Line the opportunity to carry out its own stevedoring by setting up its own wholly owned company or one worked on a partnership basis. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We feel that it is a step in the right direction.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– All honourable members realise the importance of shipping, especially overseas shipping, to Australia. Australia relies almost entirely upon shipping to transport its goods overseas and to obtain the necessary supplies from overseas. We are a long way from the Northern Hemisphere, with which most of our trade takes place. The Bill now before the House would appear to be quite a small measure, but it is not a small measure. Because of the magnitude of the new arrangements in container shipping shore facilities are just as important to the shipping world as the ships are. I have some figures available to indicate how important the shore facility issue is. In 1966 the Japanese committed themselves to container vessels. At that time about 29 container ships were ordered and about 40,000 standard size containers. This commitment amounted to about $US300m. At the same time Japan committed itself to a like amount of money for capital purposes for the building of shore facilities to handle these container ships.

It is pleasing to note that Australia has now entered into the container stream. I have spoken previously in this House in relation to this particular method of shipping. Indeed, I did so many years ago when I first came here. To me it was of paramount importance that Australia should enter the container stream. Until it did this there was no chance at all of our meeting commitments in relation to freight costs. This only deals with general cargo. To move into this properly we have had to move into runs such as the United Kingdom to Australia run. From this point we will eventually move across the Pacific. In so doing we will enter container trade around the complete circle of the globe. When we look at what is happening in Europe today and on the Atlantic run, what has been going on for some years in America, at Sealand and the Matson line in the Pacific, and when we see the way in which the Japanese, Australia and Britain are committed, we see that we have got into the stream. This is what the container concept is all about. It is not a matter of moving goods from one port to another port. It is a matter of a ship moving boxes full of goods from point A to point B, refuelling and then moving on to another point. When one goes to Europe today one sees boxes of goods which have come from all over the world. We will live in a completely new world so far as shipping is concerned.

Under the old concept it was usual for shipping companies to have their own berths. This was the general pattern around Australia. It did not apply in all ports, because on the west coast the port authority itself was the stevedore in many cases. But generally, each shipping company had its own berth and it did its own stevedoring. Today, with the large amounts of money which are being invested in the container trade to purchase big machinery and large areas of land, it is necessary that that capital investment be utilised to the fullest extent. These facilities cannot be provided by one shipping company. In my book they must be provided by a number of shipping companies which are engaged in this field. A number of companies can provide the facilities or the port authority itself can build the facilities and lease them to the companies concerned. These are the two ways in which it can be done. Under the Bill which we are discussing, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will be permitted to enter into the overseas container shipping trade in conjunction with other shipping interests. I would hope that we will utilise capital investment to the fullest extent.

It has been stated that Australia should have entered the overseas shipping field some years ago. I think that members of the Australian Labor Party have said that Australia should have been in the overseas shipping business 15 years ago. lt was approximately 15 years ago that we started to learn the facts of life about the shipping concepts used at that time. In fact, a lot of these concepts are still being used in this country. We realised in no uncertain fashion that the system which was operating at that time could not continue. This is what I have been saying in this place for years. We had positive proof in Australia that the old concept of taking one piece of cargo at a time and loading it into a ship could not continue. On the 2,000 mile run between Fremantle and Melbourne there were two other forms of transport running parallel with the coastal shipping lines. There was a railway line which was owned by different States and by the Commonwealth. It was not a standard gauge line. Therefore, it was not an efficient line. Also running parallel with the shipping service between Fremantle and Melbourne was a road which was not really a road. The greatest part of the road was across the Nullarbor Plain. The biggest leg of this load, which is in Western Australia, is now being greatly improved. At that time there was a road system, a rail system and a shipping system running parallel with one another. It was about 15 years ago when we and the shipping companies realised that the shipping service could not compete, even though the railway line was not of standard gauge and that cargo had to be transshipped. It was realised that the shipping service could not compete with the road hauliers who were working on this very unworthy road which was operating at that time and which is still operating. The shipping companies which were operating the coastal service knew that they had to change their ideas because of the competition from the other services. This was probably the only place in the world where for 2,000 miles there was a shipping service running parallel and in competition with two other forms of transport. The shipping companies realised that if they did not change their whole concept they would simply go out of business.

It was about this time that the small 3-ton boxes were being carried in conventional ships. Soon afterwards the ‘Kooringa’ was operating the first real container service between Fremantle and Melbourne. The shipping companies realised that they would go broke by operating parallel with other forms of transport over this long haul of 2,000 miles. This gives some idea of the shipping freights which Australia was and is paying overseas where there is not the same competition. It was quite evident to me that we had to persuade those interested to move into the container field. At the time when the ‘Kooringa’ was put into service shipping companies had to build special shore facilities, in addition to a special ship, to do this job.

I am looking forward to this container concept which will operate around the world. It is interesting to note that if we had bought ships at the time about which I have been speaking we would have bought about 5 ships to do the job which will now be done very efficiently by one ship. Had the Australian Government entered the shipping business at the time when these old ships were operating the capital investment involved in buying those ships would have been a great burden at the present time. Now we have a different concept in shipping, and I think this is important.

As I said previously, it is not a matter of shifting cargo in pieces from one port to another port. It is a matter of shifting cargo from a point inland to a port. In Britain at the present time, where this new concept is operating, there are inland depots which are used for the purpose of packing and assembling cargo. The cargo is then brought down to the port of London, Tilbury, and then it is shipped to Australia and elsewhere. This concept has to be developed in Australia, and in fact it will be developed over the years. At the present time there are only three ports in Australia at which ships will be able to call. This matter is important to the question of decentralisation in Australia. There will be depots within Australia at which cargo will be assembled and then moved to certain ports around the coast of Australia. It will take a long time to develop this concept. It took a long time for Britain to reach its present stage, and it has taken America a long time to reach its present stage.

Sealand has 23,000 containers operating round the world. The containers are much larger than ours; they are 35-footers. It is interesting to see these containers in operation. One can go to Edinburgh and see a Sealand container from the United States of America being filled with 5,000 gallons of whisky. It is all in bulk. This is the business of the day. These containers can be moved round the world and, if need be, they can be picked up by different ships. Ships which have been coming to Australia have in fact been carrying containers belonging to Associated Container Transportation Ltd and Overseas Containers Ltd. This particular concept has a lot in its favour. I believe that it is not coming in too soon so far as Australia is concerned.

It is interesting to note some of the experiences of the Matson Line, which was one of the first lines to enter the container business, and of the Pacific Line. Originally these lines used conventional ships which were changed, to some extent, but not a great deal, to come into line with the container concept. Of course, these shipping lines had land holdings in America and in the Pacific. They had shore bases at San Francisco and Honolulu. Now they have found that if they want to stay in this business, with all the present competition, they have to build new, fully container ships. Also it is interesting to note that those shipping lines are moving from their present positions in San Francisco to areas which are larger and much more flexible to handle the goods. I say to the Government and to those responsible for the industry in this country that when money is spent on an area to be used for the handling of these containers the right thing must be done the first time because once the money is spent it is a bit difficult to get it back. Experience around the world has shown - and Sealand, the company which I just mentioned has had a lot of experience in this - that one must find a place for a port where one has plenty of room and plenty of access and which is not congested with traffic, railway lines or something else that blocks it in. This is most important. All the evidence points to it.

If one goes to New York, Rotterdam, Tilbury or anywhere else one finds that this is the case. We cannot afford to spend this amount of money in a place where we have been used to the old concept. The areas involved are simply not suitable, in many cases, although they could perhaps be made suitable in some cases. This is one lesson that has been learned throughout the world. Although the container concept is not very old, containers have been in use for long enough to allow us to learn this lesson. In some countries it has been very expensive to move to places in which there has been a sufficient amount of elbow room. This container concept is an entirely new one. Earlier today we were speaking on moneys being spent on roads in this country over the next 5 years. I have noticed that in the countries that handle a lot of these containers the container terminals are located where they have almost immediate access to highways. The terminals are really little more than large parking lots - in fact that is what they are called - with cranes and computers that are expensive to buy and to operate. Immediately a container is picked up from one of these terminals it must have access to road or rail haulage. It must be fairly obvious that road haulage is in fact the most economical.

The Sealand company has 22,000 or 23,000 containers, and each has its own trailer. The container is put on a trailer as soon as it comes off a ship so that it can be hooked up to a truck and moved away immediately to any point in America. I repeat that all the evidence I have been able to gather shows that it is important that when capital is spent, as we are proposing to spend it in this Bill, it is spent with foresight and we must allow for the expansion of operations.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– The measure before the House has the approval of the Opposition, as the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has said. We welcome this further evidence of the process of evolution. It appears that it is necessary not only for us to be engaged in an overseas line but also to have a partnership in stevedoring operations in this country. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) stated that the companies in which we are becoming a partner have been formed recently and are not yet fully operational or fully capitalised. He further stated that the total cost of our obtaining a one third partnership in TransOcean Containers Ltd and a one sixth equity in Terminal Properties Ltd will be of the order of $250,000. When he said that the companies are not fully capitalised, I take it that the $250,000 will be the full requirement to purchase our interest, even if the full amount may not have to be paid at this time.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is not quite right. They have in fact been established as companies but there is still a process of expanding them in relation to assets that they will hold. They are subsidiaries of the other groups.

Mr HANSEN:

– There will not be a further requirement by the Australian Shipping Commission?

Mr Sinclair:

– Not beyond the estimated amount stated here. It will be of the order of $250,000.

Mr HANSEN:

– We on this side of the House welcome this measure, but I wonder whether it is going far enough. The honourable member for Newcastle touched on some of the problems of stevedoring, and even today at question time the honourable member for Higinbotham (Mr Chipp) mentioned that the committee of which he is chairman is dismayed at the problems that are likely to arise in stevedoring on and around the Australian coast. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury), who is involved with stevedoring operations, saw fit recently to answer an article in the Australian Financial Review* of 6th and 7th May and to correct what he believed were some wrong impressions given about the operations of stevedoring in Australia. There are in Australia a number of stevedoring companies, some of them very small, but between them they carry out a multitude of services and they duplicate their services.

One of the problems of employees on the waterfront has always been the casual nature of the work. The employees have found that because of this they have had to stand solidly beside one another whenever one of their union members has been victimised or discriminated against. In the early days some waterside workers were known as ‘pink eyes’ because they were favourites of the bosses. In the days before the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority men who were known to bc militant were always being passed over while the favourites were being picked for work. The men very quickly realised that they had to act swiftly and strongly to safeguard their employment. They have not hesitated to act, and in some cases even to fine their own members who were found to be breaching safety regulations. This unsatisfactory state of affairs occurs in practically every industry where men are employed casually, and in such cases they band together to watch each other’s interests. Now a system of permanency has been introduced and this will eventually do away with most of the difficulties that have plagued the waterfront. But under the casual system men may be working for part of a week for one employer and for the remainder of the week with another.

I notice from the pink pages of the Sydney telephone book that there are twelve stevedoring companies listed in that city. In Brisbane there are six, and no doubt in other cities there would be numbers of these companies. I have no doubt that the high cost of stevedoring today could be reduced if a single authority were carrying out all stevedoring operations. The Stevedoring Bill which was introduced in 1949 by the Labor Government was entitled:

A Bill for an Act to provide for the Prevention or Settlement by Conciliation or Arbitration of Industrial Disputes, extending beyond the limits of any one State, in connexion with Stevedoring Operations; to regulate Industrial Matters in connexion with, and to regulate and control the Performance of, Stevedoring Operations in the course of Trade and Commerce with Other Countries or among the States; and for other purposes.

One of the functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board which was then set up was: to develop, or (subject to the approval of the Treasurer) to make advances to port authorities for the development of, port facilities used in connexion with stevedoring operations-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member is getting a little wide of the Bill. He cannot allow the question of stevedoring to usurp the position of the main subject of the Bill. He may make passing reference to it, but I think that at this stage he is a little wide of the contents of the Bill.

Mr HANSEN:

– I will bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the Australian National Shipping Commission’s investment in shore based facilities will be effected by taking a one third share of the ACT Lines’ equity in three companies. This would normally be considered to be a stevedoring operation. I believe that one authority could carry out these duties at far less cost than could a number of private companies which are operating at present.

The honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) spoke of containerisation - I have heard a number of speeches in this House from honourable members and the Minister on this subject - as the answer to our problems. Containerisation is not an entirely new concept. However, containerisation as it exists today is far in advance of the containerisation, or shipping of articles in containers that we considered to be waterproof, pillage proof and so on. I can recall hearing about watertight containers with a capacity of 130 or 150 cubic feet which were used for the transport of goods from Europe to Australia. The containers were transported in ships certainly not designed as container vessels. Those containers were used to ship breakables, haberdashery and the like so that the goods would not be spoilt during the voyage. I can recall that in 1936 some of the transport companies in Australia used containers of a much larger capacity for the transport of goods that they were consigning to places in between the principal ports. In those days we did not have the lifting facilities at the ports, and no doubt that limited the size of these containers. So I say that containerisation in itself is not a new concept.

But we still have a problem. Whilst we hail the benefits of containerisation for shifting articles in bulk, the person who will be affected by this method of transport will be the small shipper - the person who ships between the capital cities and north Queensland. A protest has already been lodged with the Minister on the ground that the cost of freight from the northern ports of Queensland and also freight from Tasmania will not be included in the charge to major Australian ports. People who ship small quantities will find that the container will have to be taken to an agent who will then unload the contents of the container and ship the articles again. The result of this process will be additional handling charges.

Whilst there are undoubtedly benefits to be obtained from containerisation, this concept can mean that some small shippers will be paying actually more than they were paying previously for these articles. Mr Speaker, whilst I agree with the concept of the Australian Government, through the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, participating as a partner in these companies, I still would like further thought to be given to the spreading of stevedoring operations. I would like to mention one operation launched under the previous Labor government where assistance was undoubtedly given to a stevedoring interest. I refer to the Allied Materials Handling Standing Committee which in 1946 was taken over by the Commonwealth Heavy Equipment Pool which introduced into Australia in the immediate post-war era machinery for the handling of equipment which had never been seen here before. No doubt this played a big part in the turn round of vessels, particularly those engaged in the food for Britain trade in the immediate post-war era.

Once again I welcome this further phase of evolution in the thinking of the Government, first of all in the partnership of Australian ships flying the Australian flag, manned by Australians and secondly in a partnership in the stevedoring industry.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– As a representative of a State which is vitally concerned, more than most other States, with shipping, I should like to say a few words on this Bill. Tasmania is entirely dependent on shipping for its very economic existence. Airways carry only about 3% to 4% of the island’s total exports and imports. The matter before the House is a revolutionary concept, more so because a Liberal, tory conservative Government brought it in. Had it been prophesied IS years ago that this Government would ever go into the overseas shipping business I would have said that the person who made the prediction was on the wrong track.

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

– This was the case even some years ago.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is right.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This was the position 3 years ago.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I thank the honourable member for correcting me. This was an unheard of proposition even 3 years ago. Yet, the. Government on the eve of an election is to enter a new field of shipping. This is a very small entry into a government enterprise, but it is a start. When the Australian Labor Party becomes the Government after November it intends to enlarge the Commonwealth shipping line. What the Government has done is just a beginning. We are grateful for this. But consider the years it took to convince this Government that an overseas shipping line was the answer for this country. We started this line in 1949, just before we were defeated. We brought legislation down to create a Commonwealth shipping line and we went out of office before we could implement it. The legislation we proposed never hit the light of day after this Government came into office in 1950. However, the Government is now - about 18 or 19 years later - doing something.

I guess that the containerisation revolution was the main spark that made this decision necessary. If the Government was not concerned about containerisation the establishment of an Australian line would have been left high and dry. It is an expensive venture, but it is far more expensive now than it would have been some years ago. When the Labor Party sought the establishment of a line during the 1930s costs were so much lower. Now they are very high. Therefore, it will be a costly venture for the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. But 1 have no doubt whatever that the Commission can handle this new enterprise on behalf of the people of Australia. Our national line has done a magnificent job. In my opinion its work has been second to none. I have had a great admiration for this organisation. It has been a tremendous help to Tasmania. The Commission has built special ships - such as rollon roll-off vessels - for trade to the island. This has been handled by the Australian National Line. It has been a wonderful performance. The Commission has been able to put on special ships when we have needed them in a crisis. This too has been a great help to us. The Commission now has the experience in shipping to handle this new venture.

The Bill before us gives Australia the right to participate in the shore base areas for loading and unloading. Without this, of course, we would be in great difficulties. The purpose of acquiring a shore or land base facility is to ensure that the Government has access to all costs and revenue details of container ship operations.

We will have two ships in this trade within 18 months or 2 years, and a third ship a little later on. Therefore we will be in it in only a small way, but the unloading and loading facilities apply whether we have one or a dozen ships, and it is necessary to have this financial interest in the companies handling the loading and unloading. They are Trans-Ocean Containers Ltd, Freightbases Ltd and Terminal Properties Ltd. Already private enterprise has moved into this field in a great hurry, because it is a profitable venture for them. Their work will be based in one small area around three ports. Because they will have their goods brought to them on land by rail and by road and also by coastal shipping their work is pinpointed in this close area alongside the unloading wharves, lt is a very expensive enterprise for them, but it is only right that this Government should have a foot in the camp and a financial interest in the venture so that it can be recognised as a proper operator and can have a say - only a small say perhaps - in what is happening at the waterfront end of the containerisation revolution.

I mention that the companies operating the land base facilities are substantially owned by shipping interests. This is only natural. The stevedoring section is owned by the shipping interests, but we must have a say too. It is terribly important to have a government enterprise running in conjunction with a private enterprise so that we can have a say in all aspects of the shipping venture, from the beginning of it to the end of it. It is at the loading point where time will be lost or saved. This will be the crux of the success of the whole scheme, and here we will need smooth, planned organisation. It will need to be uninterrupted. This will be vital to its success. The public relations angle of this venture will be the important aspect. Nol the size of the trucks or the expensiveness of the equipment, but the human factor will be the saviour or otherwise of this scheme. There will need to be good public relations between management and men, between the waterside workers, the drivers and the men in charge of the complex problem of sorting out these huge containers and so on. Therefore, the stevedoring angle will become very important, as the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Hansen) said. This will decide the managementmen relationship, and all men working in this new, expensive and revolutionary venture must have all the conditions they require for their operations. They must be properly catered for, and I urge the Government to play its part in creating the right atmosphere and the right relations between these important segments of the scheme. One day 1 hope that Tasmania will be brought into the containerisation operations, and the sooner the better.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2481

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 May (vide page 2045), on motion by Mr McMahon:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition supports this measure because we regard it as one of the inevitable annual events of this Parliament that a States Grants (Special Financial Assistance) Bill will come up at some time or other during the course of a financial year. All that the Bill does is to highlight the inadequacies of the existing formula arrangement that is supposed to regulate the allocations by the Commonwealth to the States. If honourable members consult the very voluminous information that is brought down in the Budget document ‘Commonwealth Payments to or for the States 1968-69’ they will see clearly illustrated that in every year from 1942-43 up to and including the current financial year it has been necessary for the Commonwealth to make some special grant to the States - either to all of the States or to some of the States - because of exigencies that have arisen in the course of the year.

We of the Australian Labor Party maintain that the overall financial arrangement known as uniform taxation is the most satisfactory system nationally for Australia. We support also the proposition that loan market allocations can feasibly be regulated only at the central level, but the great problem that has not been worked out in Australia is how to make adequate reimbursement to the States. One must include in the reference to the States the local authorities as well. I suppose in some respect it is the local authorities that are the poor relations today in the existing Commonwealth and State financial relationships. I want in the course of my speech this afternoon to illustrate the situation by some tables that have been prepared, based on the document National Income and Expenditure’ 1948-49 to 1967-68’. These figures have been compiled in a percentage form by Mr Daryl Dixon of the School of General Studies at the Australian National University. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate the tables in Hansard.

These figures illustrate one or two of the important aspects of overall financial relations as they apply in Australia. The figures can be consulted in greater detail when they are finally published, but I wish to point out a few matters first. The figures cover a run of years virtually from the time that this Government came to office. The first year that is mentioned is the year 1949-50, which was a sort of bridge year in which the Chifley Government presented its last Budget and the first financial year of the present Government, which unfortunately has governed Australia since, began. The figures are expressed as a percentage of the gross national product. For 1949 and 1950 the total revenues of the Federal Government were 20.13% of the gross national product. In 1967-68, the last year for which full figures are available, the total revenues of the Federal Government had risen to 20.83%. In other words, there has been a fairly regular pattern of the percentage of the gross national product taken by the Federal Government in the form of taxes of one kind or another. The table does break down the collection of revenue into the various taxes and I do not want to go into that in detail.

Secondly, the table shows the collection of taxes by the State and local government authorities including, of course, the very important item of reimbursement - that is what this debate is about - payments under the formula, and special grants from the Commonwealth to the States. Over the same period, from 1949-50 to 1967-68, the total revenue available to the State and local government authorities rose from 6.91% to 10.15%. If we exclude from the State and local government picture the Federal grants and look only at the revenue that they have raised themselves we find that whereas in 1949-50 the total taxes levied by State and local authorities were 2.9% of the gross national product, in 1967-68 they had increased to 4.59%.

I contrast that with the picture in the Federal sphere where there has been scarcely any increase in the level of taxation as a percentage of the gross national product in the last 19 years. It rose from 20.13% in 1949-50 to 20.83% in 1967-68. In other words the States and local authorities have increased their total tax yields - although they are on smaller bases - to a greater extent than has the Commonwealth. This gives the picture that whereas in 1949-50 the total taxation levied in Australia at all levels of government was 23.03% it has now risen to 25.43%, an increase of 2.4%. In current terms, an additional sum of about $600m per annum is being raised in taxes at all levels than would have been the case if tax yields had represented the same percentage of the gross national product in 1967-68 as they did in 1949-50. By far the greatest proportion of that increase is attributable to the taxes which the State and local authorities are raising rather than to any great increase in taxation at the Federal level. The other two tables only amplify these figures and I do not want to talk a great deal more about them at the moment.

I want to contrast briefly the situation as we find it in the federal system of Australia with the situation in the two other federal systems with which we like to make comparisons at times - the systems of Canada and the United States of America. The first figures I shall give relate to the grants that come from the central level of government, or the federal level as it can be described for want of a better common term. In Australia in 1949-50 the proportion of the gross national product that was distributed by the federal authority to the States and local government authorities was 4.01%, or near enough to 4%. In 1967-68 the proportion had risen to 5.56% - an increase of 1.55% or about $400m. Although in Canada the financial year corresponds with the calendar year, in that country in 1949-50 the proportion of the gross national product distributed by the federal government to State and local authorities was 1.14%. It has now risen to 3.21%. This means that there is less reimbursement in the Canadian system than there is in the Australian system, and in a moment I want to indicate some of the reasons why that is so. In the United States of America in 1949-50 the proportion of distribution from federal to State and local authorities was .87% and it had risen in 1967-68 to 1.9% or near enough to 2%. It is clear that there is a greater reimbursement from the central government to the periphery of State and local government in Australia than in the federal systems of either Canada or the United States of America.

I repeat that in 1949-50 in Australia 2.9% of the gross national product was collected as taxation at State and local government levels and this has now risen to 4.59%. In Canada the proportion of the gross national product raised by the State and local authorities in 1949-50 was 6.72% and in 1967-68 it was 12.92% or nearly 13%. There is a far greater collection of taxes directly by the State and local authorities in Canada than is the case in Australia. This, of course, has to do with a much more flexible arrangement of sources of revenue available to State and local authorities in Canada than is the case in Australia. In Canada, for instance, certain taxes can be levied at the State and local level which could not be levied in Australia by reason of constitutional arrangement and which could not be levied as long as the uniform taxation arrangement applies. In the case of the United States of America the proportion of the gross national product collected by State and local government authorities, not including federal grants, was 6.24% in 1949-50 as against the Australian position of 2.9%, and it has increased to 8.5% as against the Australian position of 4.59% and the Canadian position of 12.92%. So whilst in the United States the State and local government taxes represent smaller proportion of the gross national product than is the case in Canada, they represent a considerably higher proportion than is the situation in Australia - 8.5% as against 4.59%.

The final figure that I shall quote deals with total taxation at all levels of government in Australia, Canada and the United States. As I have indicated, when this Government came into office in Australia, 23.03% of the gross national product was collected in taxation at one level of government or another. That has now risen to 25.43%. In 1949-50 the total of taxation in Canada at all three levels was 21.95%. That has now increased to 29.56%. In the United States of America the level in 1949-50 was 20.36% and it has now risen to 26.29%. So the percentage of the gross national product taken in taxation in both Canada and the United States of America is higher than in Australia. If, for the sake of argument, we had the same percentage of taxation to total resources as the United States has - that is, 26.29% instead of 25.43% or a difference of .86% of the gross national product - the additional collections over the present collections of taxation in Australia would be about $200m.

What an analysis of the figures does show primarily is that the additional amounts of taxation collected in the other two countries have gone to the States and the local authorities for their final expenditure rather than to the centre. It is the comparable situation in Australia that I want to deal with. Again the figures are brought out in the total picture, and if honourable members are interested they should look at them. There is more flexibility in the other two systems and the flexibility gives greater equity to the State and local authorities. It is true enough from the figures that I have given that the Commonwealth Government in Australia can say that the degree of subvention from the centre to the State and local authorities is higher in Australia than it is in either Canada or the United States. But of course this is necessary, because there is less elasticity in Australia. The other two systems provide to the States and local authorities direct access to sources of revenue not available in Australia and there is not the same need for reimbursement as there is in Australia. I make the reservation that uniform taxation is the most satisfactory system and that overall control of the loan market at the Federal level is best. Bearing that in mind, it is all the more necessary for us to develop better working relationships between the Commonwealth, the States and local authorities in Australia than we have at present.

Anybody who looked closely enough at the Supplementary Estimates when they were presented the other day would see the present situation. I happen to be the chairman of a body in Victoria known as the Council for Adult Education. I would submit that in the period of technological change in which we are living now, there is a greater need to provide for adult education in the future than there was in the past. But this year the Council faces the situation that, if it is to continue with the same level of work as it was undertaking at the beginning of the year, it will have to obtain supplementary assistance from the State Government of the order of $21,000.

This is another reason why we take issue with the other device that is creeping into the financial mechanism, in which the Federal Government chooses certain channels that it regards as desirable for social development. We had three of these yesterday when we debated Bills relating to the care of the aged, home nursing and para medical services. The Minister decides that additional expenditure is desirable throughout Australia in this field and he says to the State: ‘We the central government are willing to allocate $ 1 if you will find a matching grant of SI.’ To my mind this simply shows that the Commonwealth Government fails to understand the very real difficulties that face the States at the moment. The fact is that if a State must find another $500,000 to provide a matching grant, it has $500,000 less for some other activity that it may be conducting already and would like to expand. I take as an example the $21,000 that I have just mentioned and contrast it with the amount set aside for an item in the Supplementary Estimates which I questioned and for which I have not yet received an answer. A sum of $61,000 is allocated there for publicity on the opening of the new Washington Chancellery. Why the Government wants to spend $61,000 on publicity for the opening of its new embassy in the United States of America, I do not know. There may be an explanation but it certainly has not been given to me.

Mr Swartz:

– I am writing to you.

Mr CREAN:

– I thank the Minister for that advice. All I am doing is to contrast the ease with which that sum can be raised at the Federal level with the difficulty that a State has in finding $21,000. If I were told I could have one or the other, that 1 could spend this money on publicity or have a quiet opening of the Washington Chancellery and use the money to extend the activities of adult education in Victoria, I would not have much doubt about my choice. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth does have luxury at its margin and the States have starvation at their margins. This starvation results in many of the cultural levels of State activity being cut off at the moment. Nowhere is that more evident than in the provision of public library services in the States, which must be compared with the way in which services can be provided by the Commonwealth. 1 have already referred to some of the problems. Others can be seen in such matters as the shortage of school buildings.

These are the problems of creeping paralysis or marginal starvation. They affect the States but to an even greater extent they affect the local authorities, which provide the services in the areas which most directly affect the people. Their advancement is being stifled by the rigidity of the current financial relationships. Part of the rigidity, it seems to me, comes from the curious historical basis of many local governing authorities. Earlier today I was looking at the statistics that are contained in Bulletin No. 4 relating to State, Territory and local governing authority finances for 1965-66. In 1964-65 there were some 900 separate local governing authorities. Whether there is need for that number I do not know. I am sure that in some of the cities, if we cannot get agreement about the amalgamation for total facilities, there ought to be amalgamation for some of the greater provisions that fall upon local governing authorities. I have in mind road development, sewerage and so on. In most big cities these are covered by more comprehensive arrangements.

Whether we like it or not, the aggregate population of the two cities of Melbourne and Sydney is getting close to half the total population of Australia. If we take into account what are called the conurbations, we would find that they hold far more than half the population of Australia and they are growing more rapidly than the rest of Australia is. Again, if this Government, for purposes best known to itself, wants to spend millions of dollars in a place like Woomera or some other place such as Pine Gap, of which nobody had ever heard until it came into the news the other day, there is no difficulty whatsoever in doing so. But there is difficulty if the Government of the State of my two South Australian friends on the other side of the House - I refer to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) and the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop) - wishes to spend $2m or 3m to bring about decentralisation financially for peaceful purposes rather than associating it with military installations.

I am not arguing that we do not need to have both. What I am arguing concerns the ease with which the Commonwealth Government can do these things. If honourable members look at the supplementary estimates they will find that a mysterious sum of nearly $5m has been thought of between August, when the Budget for 1968-69 was brought down and the present time. The sum of $5m is appropriated for the acquisition of sites for military buildings. But the Government of South Australia could not find Sim if that amount was required to introduce some new industry to an outer part of that State in the interests of decentralisation.

I think sometimes that what is being stifled in the process is an equitable and developed arrangement about national expansion as distinct from too much of the initiative lying with the Commonwealth which has the money but which is not consulting enough with the States and local authorities which are responsible for the welfare of the majority of cities. While that unco-operative kind of Commonwealth approach prevails I think that we will continue to have the sort of measure that is before us now.

In total, including the special grant of $2m to South Australia, $14m is being provided for purposes that, I have no doubt, the next speaker will outline but which I think only highlight some of the difficulties about which I have been talking today. Excluding the special grant, the rest of the money - $12m - is provided mainly to cover certain contingencies in the States for which the States were not responsible at the beginning of the year. These include wage adjustments. I certainly do not resist wage adjustments. I still think that higher wages are the only basis for distributing to the most of the people in the Commonwealth - I refer to the wage earners - their share in the gross national product, particularly when prices do not fall but rather tend to rise. We are to have more and more of that in the future. At least, this measure is to provide for the sort of contingency which was unseen or could not be anticipated at the beginning of the present financial year. As I say, this will increasingly be the case.

It seems to me that the great problem that is not being faced up to in Australian financial arrangements at the moment is this recognition that, to a great extent, both State boundaries and local authority boundaries tend to be historical and, to some degree, anachronistic. Also, the initiative to reform local authority boundaries still lies with the States themselves because local authority is a devolving kind of responsibility. Historically, I think, the devolving process was willing enough on the part of the centre but rather unwilling on the part of the local authorities that had to be established. I mean by that statement that most local authorities were simply easy ways of relieving the cities of their responsibilities to provide the bridges and the roads. The cities farmed these responsibilities on to somebody else to do. This is the origin of many of the shires in Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and, I suppose, South Australia. Nevertheless, those sorts of authorities have devolved and their powers come from the sovereign level of the States.

Any sort of regrouping that is to take place must find its initiative in the States where that initiative lies. But the financial initiative to overcome what are the real problems in building a better quality of life in Australia, both in the cities and in country towns, lies with the Commonwealth. This initiative cannot be undertaken without the expenditure of money to borrow the resources and the skills that are required. The financial initiative for that improvement lies with the Commonwealth.

We have said over and over again that the stage must be reached in Australia when the so-called financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States are not approached on the basis of a nasty annual wrangle as is often the case but are approached from the angle that, whatever the level of government responsibility may be, they look after the welfare of people who are the citizens of Australia today and who will provide the future citizens of this country.

We have not at this moment a national perspective. We have a rather crippling and stultifying financial dominance, where the power is exercised from the centre, and, to a greater extent, operated brutally and in a bludgeoning fashion. Rather we should approach the national problems that are afflicting us or are upon us as they ought to be approached, believing that they are capable of solution if people will sit down in co-operation together. We should do this rather than adopt the attitude of the States, which is that it is a battle to decide how many millions of dollars more they can get, or adopt the attitude of the authority in the centre which wonders how little it will provide.

Every year more money has been provided. More must be given each year if the population is increasing, as it is in Australia, and if our resources are growing, as they are. If those things are happening, we always will have this problem of distribution. We will have it as long as the situation of dominance is as it is. I cannot see any easy way of removing this financial dominance. In many ways, it may not be desirable. But I do think that a great deal more tolerance and co-operation could be practised between the parts of government than currently is the case.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I find it is always a pleasure to listen to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) even if we ultimately do not arrive at the same conclusion. I do find a sincere pleasure in listening to him and his rational arguments. However, I think that they do tend to highlight our philosophical differences. I feel that I should remind the honourable member that the policy of the Australian Labor Party is ultimately to abolish all State governments. In fact, one of the active political leaders in South Australia, the present Leader of the Labor Opposition in that State, the Honourable D. Dunstan has drawn up a plan - I have not read it in detail - which divides Australia into a number of geographical provinces with a sort of commissar in charge of each province. This illustrates the fundamental philosophic difference between the Opposition side of the House and this side of the House. We believe in the retention of the sovereign rights of the States and of local government. I think that all the people involved at both local and State government levels also would believe in this philosophy. I wish to make one comment on one point that the honourable gentleman mentioned. He criticised the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth for future military purposes. I make the plea that we must establish a series of priorities and, in this particular case, the acquisition of land is a priority.

What I would like to say in this debate, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports suggested, does concern South Australia primarily. In the first instance, I wish to say that it concerns Federal members, probably from both sides of the House and certainly from this side of the House, who come from South Australia. Unfortunately we are finding it increasingly difficult to take part in debate on these issues. Already time is running out today. I understand that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Andrew Jones) will have an opportunity to speak on this Bill but the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) will not be able to take part. I deplore this situation because my colleagues could make a worthwhile contribution.

I am critical of the way in which the House has been sitting lately. Anybody now in the public galleries might wonder why more honourable members are not in the House this “afternoon.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– It is because you are speaking.

Mr McLEAY:

– 1 am sure the attendance will be improved by my contribution. The poor attendance this afternoon is because my colleagues and I were sitting in this chamber until 2.4S this morning, hoping to be able to take part in the debate. This is a deplorable situation. The vote on the South Australia Grant (Tailem Bend to Keith Pipeline) Bill was taken at 2.20 this morning. The honourable member for Grey commenced his remarks on the Bill at 1.08 this morning. It is difficult enough to stay awake at that time of the morning without having to make a useful contribution. The honourable member for Sturt was not able to commence his remarks on the Bill until 2.07 a.m. This is not fair to back bench supporters or anybody else wishing to take an active part in the debates. In this connection I would criticise the Opposition for the way it has continually introduced for debate so-called definite matters of public importance. During this sessional period twenty such debates have been initiated by the Opposition. These have occupied 40 hours of the time available for debate.

Mr Bryant:

– It is the Parliament’s time, and we belong to it.

Mr McLEAY:

– I do not remember seeing the honourable member for Wills in the chamber at 2.4S this morning. I do not believe that the matters which have been raised by the Opposition are of public importance. Take the matter introduced recently by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). In introducing the matter the honourable member informed us that the Opposition deplored the Government’s continual refusal to plan expenditure on roads of an amount at least equivalent to the proceeds of automotive fuel taxes. That is not a matter of direct public importance. All of these matters have been introduced by only four front bench members of the Opposition. These people have been referred to by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) as rajahs. The only rajah I saw in the chamber at 2.4S this morning was the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). The other front bench rajahs would have been home in bed. I appeal over the heads of the front bench members of the Opposition to the occupants of the Opposition’s back benches and say: ‘Can you not do something to discipline your front bench? Let us keep reasonable hours because you are the ones who complain most about late sittings’. We have even lost Grievance Day during the last fortnight as a direct result of the lack of control which the Opposition’s back benches have over the so-called shadow ministry.

Having drawn attention to this weakness in the Opposition I would like to pay some attention to the Bill now before the House and in particular to the financial arrangements that will apply to South Australia. In doing so I would place on record on behalf of all of my colleagues from South Australia, both in this chamber and in another place, our appreciation of the work done by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). He has consulted with the Premier of South Australia, the Treasurer of South Australia, Treasury officials and back bench and Ministry members on this side of the House from South Australia. He has been all over South Australia-

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order. The honourable member is a liar when he says that front bench members of the Labor Party were in bed when the House was meeting early this morning.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Order! I ask the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw his remark that the honourable member for Boothby is a liar.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I withdraw the statement. I now ask that the honourable member for Boothby withdraw the statement that he made.

Mr McLEAY:

– What statement?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member said that the only member of the Labor Party front bench who was in the place during the early hours of this morning was the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr McLEAY:

– That is right.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member also said that all other members of the Opposition front bench were home in bed. If he says that he is a liar.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 request the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw that remark.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Again I withdraw it and ask that the honourable member for Boothby withdraw his statement, otherwise he is a liar.

Mr McLEAY:

– I have not had an opportunity to withdraw anything.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Do you?

Mr McLEAY:

– I do not think I said that all members of the Opposition front bench were home in bed. I said that I suspected that they all were home in bed but that only one of them was in the chamber. I was here all the time. If I have offended the honourable member for Newcastle I withdraw my remark.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to a remark made by the honourable member for Adelaide, referring to the honourable member for Newcastle, that if anyone is a liar, he is. He said it just now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did not hear the remark.

Mr McLEAY:

– I withdraw any reference to the honourable member for Newcastle and any suggestion that he was home in bed, but I reaffirm that the honourable member for Dawson was the only member of the Opposition front bench in the House.

Mr Turnbull:

– I take a point of order.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What happened to mine?

Mr Turnbull:

– It appears to me that both the honourable member for Boothby and the honourable member for Newcastle are out of order. The honourable member for Newcastle is prepared to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point taken. 1 call the honourable member for Boothby and ask him to return to the Bill before the House.

Mr McLEAY:

– I would like that opportunity. I regret that the honourable member for Newcastle is so sensitive, because 1 have a lot of affection for him. I am glad to know that he was working while the House was meeting early this morning. [Quorum formed.]

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W J Aston:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Before the debate resumes I would like to point out to honourable members that they should behave in a dignified manner in this chamber. I would remind them also that the essence of good parliamentary behaviour is temperate language. The honourable member for Boothby has received some leniency from the Chair to date. I suggest that when he resumes his remarks he speak to the matter before the House.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Newcastle has properly withdrawn a remark that he made and the honourable member for Boothby has properly withdrawn a remark that he made. When I drew the attention of Mr Deputy Speaker to the fact that the honourable member for Adelaide had said of the honourable member for Newcastle, ‘If anyone is a liar he is’, no action was taken.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not aware of that. I did not hear that comment. I have appealed to honourable members and I will see that the procedure that I have suggested is strictly enforced.

Mr McLEAY:

– I think the Chair has been very fair. I had reached the stage where I was referring to the work of the Treasurer and was congratulating him on the way in which he had gone about his investigations into the financial problems of South Australia, his discussions with the

State Treasury officials, back bench members and Ministers, and the way that he has travelled all over the State including the west coast areas within the Federal electorate of Grey and my own area. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work he has done and the sympathetic consideration that he has given to our submissions. I want to briefly refer to the reported remarks by the Premier of South Australia following the announcement of these grants. He did say that these were a big boost to the State Budget. He added:

While the grant was less than the Government had hoped for- 1 suppose all State Premiers, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports pointed out, had hoped for more - and less than appeared justified in relation to the other States, it would probably enable SA to balance its 1968-69 .account.

Let me say something about the general principle of revenue grants underlying the distribution of Commonwealth assistance to the States to enable each State to provide government services at a standard broadly similar to the standards in other States, provided it makes a broadly similar effort in raising revenue and controlling expenditure. The wealthier States, New South Wales and Victoria, receive lower amounts per head pf population because, with higher levels of income in their States, they have a greater capacity to raise more revenue from people who live within their borders, and they can usually achieve a similar standard of government services with lower expenditure per head than the other States.

It is interesting to note that according to the last published figures which are available personal incomes throughout the Commonwealth ranged from $1,561 per head in New South Wales, which was 5% above the average for the six States, down to $1,294 in Tasmania, which was 12.9% below the average, and that South Australia was half way up the ladder at $1,342 per head. This distribution arrangement means that the residents of New South Wales and Victoria are contributing indirectly, by way of higher per head payments of Commonwealth taxation which is redistributed through the grants system, to the cost of providing government services in the poorer or less wealthy States. If there were no such redistribution, the governments of the wealthy States, New South Wales and Victoria, would be able to provide a higher standard of government services without increasing the severity of taxation of their residents. In that event there would be many serious effects on the economic and financial position of the poorer States, and this could bring into question the very basis of federation.

Because the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) touched on this point I thought it would be interesting to refer to the shares of combined Loan Council borrowings and capital payments per head of population which we did receive in the year 1967-68. New South Wales received $98.84 per head, which was 15% below the differential. South Australia received $130 per head, which was 11)% above the differential. Tasmania received $209.89, which was 79% above the differential. The Premier of South Australia also said in the Press report I referred to that that State had originally budgeted for a balance - I imagine he meant a credit balance - but has since had to meet an extra $4m in the form of an increased wages bill and another Sim because of the passing of new tax measures. He went on to say:

This $5m seemed likely to be offset by previous Commonwealth grants totalling $2.35m and nearly $lm in added economies.

This must have been a mistaken report or a mistake on the part of the Premier, because the total of the previous amount was $1.35m over and above the special revenue assistance and the general revenue grant arranged at the Premiers Conference, and to that must be added the sum of $2m which we are debating today. He went on to say in that Press item:

We have a long-term need that must be met by a permanent increase in South Australia’s reimbursements.

At least this $2in tends to bring us closer to the interstate standard.

In the time that is available to me I shall deal with the formula by which financial assistance grants are determined. Firstly, the betterment factor has been trebled from an effective 0.4% per annum in 1961 to 1.2% for the year 1964-65. This is the improvement in the formula. The time lag in dealing with average wages and population trends has been reduced. The position has been improved by making a S5m special assistance payment during the year 1966-67 as part of the formula base for the purpose of determining the grants. The formula is designed to provide assistance to State governments which is related to movements in the cost of carrying out their responsibilities. Thus, the grant for each State is raised each year by the percentage increase in the population of the State and the percentage increase in average wages. It is raised further by the betterment factor to which I have just referred.

The position in South Australia is exactly as the Premier could reasonably, at any rate, wish to have it. The Commonwealth has injected a significant amount - SI. 35m - into the South Australian grant, which will increase proportionately every year under the formula. I believe the Government of South Australia has done a very good job and that the South Australian Treasurer is also doing a good job. So is the Federal Treasurer. I wish to express South Australia’s appreciation of his work in these matters in South Australia. We should remind the State authorities that an extra sum of $9m has been allocated to South Australia under the roads legislation and that that money can be spent on any road. The extra money provided by the Commonwealth for urban roads will enable the State to allocate additional funds to highways, such as the Eyre Highway, which is the road to which the honourable member for Grey has referred in this House on many occasions.

Mr Peacock:

– He has made the strongest possible representations.

Mr McLEAY:

– He represents the electorate of Grey very efficiently, and in some ways he is an embarrassment to the Government because of his persistence. We should remind the South Australian Premier that he is also to receive an amount of $6m for the Tailem Bend to Keith pipeline, which was the subject of the Bill which was passed by this House at 2.20 a.m. today.

In the short time I have left I should like to refer briefly to a letter which I think all members of Parliament have received from an alderman of the city of Hobart who complains bitterly about local government finance. The letter includes a booklet which is headed: ‘What Every Ratepayer should know’.

Mr Jessop:

– The people in Tasmania should do better under the new State Government.

Mr McLEAY:

– I think we must realise that this booklet was prepared under the regime of the former Labor Government in Tasmania. Irrespective of what government has been in power in Tasmania, I am sure all Tasmanians will agree that that State has done extraordinarily well in the carve up of capital grants and borrowings. Amongst other things, this alderman said:

Local Government cannot directly approach the Commonwealth Government for additional finance. It is therefore essential that the State Government recognises our need.

I suggest to honourable members that this matter has nothing at all to do with this Parliament. Local government is the responsibility of State governments and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, Tasmania receives 79% above the State average in capital payments from the Commonwealth. It receives 90% above the State average in general revenue grants. I realise that the whole basis of Federation is that there should be an equal distribution throughout the Commonwealth, but if we compare New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia we find that in New South Wales, which has 38% of Australia’s population, the combined total per head of capital payments and general revenue from the Commonwealth grants is $168. It is $222 per head in South Australia and $362 per head in Tasmania.

Mr Peacock:

– The honourable member for Franklin works on that.

Mr McLEAY:

– I believe this is true. Tasmania is superbly represented in this House by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Pearsall) and by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), except on the occasions when he is harshly critical of me. If we compare the position in New South Wales with the position in Tasmania, the difference is significant. It means that under the two headings to which I have referred, a person living in Tasmania receives double what is received by a person living in New South Wales. New South Wales has 38% of Australia’s population,

South Australia has 9% and Tasmania 3%. I think this demonstrates perfectly how well the Federation is working, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. Every person in this country has a reasonable opportunity to live as well as the next person, irrespective of which of the States he lives in. I believe that every citizen shares equally in the Commonwealth. Where that is not so it is no reflection upon the Commonwealth Government. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill. I am sorry that I disturbed the honourable member for Newcastle. I look forward to some further improvement in the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and South Australia, at the instance of the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Swartz) who is sitting at the table.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) did disturb quite a number of members of the Opposition and, in particular, members of the front bench of the Opposition. I inform the honourable member that it is a rule of our Party that all members of the front bench of the Opposition stay within the precincts of the House until the conclusion of its business. In addition to that - and I give this fatherly advice to the honourable member - if he hopes to achieve the respect and affection which his father got in this place for his tolerance and understanding, he could well alter his tune.

To return to the subject matter of the Bill, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) had dealt with most of its general features. There is a deepening crisis in Commonwealth-State financial relations. It can be fairly said that at no stage in the history of Federation have relations been more exacerbated than they are today. The primary cause for that exacerbation is the inflation which can be directly attributed to the advent of this Government to office in 1949. That inflation in turn has caused a succession of wage increases, with wages attempting to catch up with prices; never hoping to do so, but at least trying to keep within striking distance of them. As economists say, this has had a definite ratchet effect on income tax collections. There are major groups of taxpayers today who are clamouring, and rightly so, for relief from these ratchet effects. 1 suppose that one of the greatest illustrations of the unfairness of the present system of income taxation is the effect of a wage increase awarded by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Let us go back to the increase of $2 which was awarded in the basic or general wage. It represented to New South Wales, as a case in point, an increased expenditure of approximately $1,200,000 for every 10c of the increase. At the same time the Commonwealth, in direct and indirect taxation, raked off in the year the equivalent of $7Sm. When we look further at matters of tax relief we must look very closely at the advent of major international corporations which are coming into Australia. Many of them are already here. We have seen, in the case of overseas oil companies, protracted litigation over a period of years between the Shell Co. of Australia and the Commissioner of Taxation. It has been clearly demonstrated, and is well understood now in Australia, that some of these major companies prefer to take their profits outside Australia by selling their crude oil and its derivatives to an Australian subsidiary at an inflated cost.

With the development of Australia’s other mineral resources we are getting further refinements, and in the future there will be more need than ever for the Federal Government to watch some other forms of tax evasion, or tax minimising, which is the euphemism generally used. Charges are made for royalties on patents and procedures. There are charges for management. There is the orthodox payment of income tax on dividends and interest - and no-one can object to that. Before we get to the point of assessing what dividend is payable, I say that there would be very great dividends for the Commonwealth Government if it examined the manipulations of a number of companies. I remember one meat company - a worldwide combine - which for years never made a profit from its operations within Australia. Today some of the major mineral companies are selling overseas to their subsidiaries, at or near cost, the results of their mining operations within this country. The Commonwealth needs to have a very good, hard look at these matters, and we will be raising these issues very strongly in the forthcoming election campaign.

We suffer under the limitations of a horse and buggy Constitution in an age of jet propulsion and modern technology and it has been necessary to distort to the legal limit interpretations of the ideas of the founders of the Constitution, those responsible for its drafting. I do not criticise those men because they belonged to another day and age, but the end result of it all is that today the States of Australia are tied financially to the chariot wheels of the federal administration. The prophesy of Alfred Deakin has been well and truly fulfilled. Finance, of course, is government, and today the Federal Government has the real financial power in Australia. The States have the major if residual sovereignties, but when it comes to financial matters the Commonwealth predominates. In other words, unless and until we get some relationship, which is non-existent today, in the terms of our Constitution between the exercise of sovereign powers, whether by the States or the Commonwealth, and the allocation of appropriate revenues we will have a continuation, a perpetuation and an intensification of the degrading procedures of the average Premiers’ Conference and Australian Loan Council Meeting.

I want to say something, too, on the general effect of the anachronistic State boundaries to which the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) made reference, and later in my address I will refer to these and the problems of my own city, which is the seventh city of Australia with a population of well over 180,000, and its sister city of Newcastle. Today there are in New South Wales major provincial cities exceeding in population and in economic significance some of the capital cities of Australia. The Federal Government - to use the homely metaphor - is the big pig at the financial trough, and today more than ever, when the conventional conference takes place the end of the haggle results in the spreading of financial scarcity evenly. The States of Australia are in fact scraping the bottom of the fiscal barrel. Their present legislation is regressive and the emphasis is more heavily than ever before on indirect forms of taxation. The State taxpayer is, so far as State legislation permits, literally being wrung dry. If one wants to get the measure of the true relation between the States and the Commonwealth today one should refer to the recent Budget speech by the Premier of Victoria when he accused the Federal Government of being usurious. That is harsh language from any government, from any party, but when it comes from a party of the same persuasion as the Commonwealth Government and from a gentleman of the stature of the Premier of Victoria, there is something radically wrong.

The resentment of the Liberal State governments of Australia of their financial treatment extended to the point where, quite frankly, before the planned snap election, which was subsequently abandoned, both the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria stated quite openly and publicly - and to this effect letters were circulated, in particular by the Premier of New South Wales - that under no circumstances would their State parliamentary colleagues support the Federal Government in an election. To return to my own area, quite recently we had the benefit of a visit to greater Wollongong and the adjoining area of Shellharbour by no less a personage than the Federal Treasurer (Mr McMahon). He dilated at some length on the developmental prospects of our city and its heavy industries. In the course of a television interview which I saw he was asked whether any proposals had in fact been submitted by the State Government to the Federal Government for urgent and direct assistance to meet the expansion programme of heavy industry. Honourable members will recall that the BHP-AIS group have announced a programme of expansion, with the construction of a No. 5 blast furnace, the cost being of the order of $150m. The Treasurer said that no proposals had yet been submitted and he was correct in saying that. That programme of expansion is to be phased in over a period of 3 years, and in the case of Port Kembla harbour, the deepening of which will be of vital importance to the efficient operation of the steel industry, the present planning of the State Government is for minor deepening of the area adjoining the flat products plant to a depth of 36 feet only, and over a period of 6 years. Honourable members will notice the differences between the respective proposals.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred to the overlapping of economic interests and State boundaries. We in Australia must gradually evolve a new system of government and of regional development. We have a situation, I repeat, in which the Commonwealth Government has the financial power. It has only such sovereign powers as were grudgingly conceded to it as a result of Federal constitutional conventions. The State governments have the necessary infrastructure for national development but lack the financial powers, and local government in its turn, and particularly in an area such as mine, is in a pathetic plight, attempting within its limited field of revenues and with its serious limitations of powers to cope with the needs of probably the greatest and most rapid expansion of heavy industry in Australia. Within the city of greater Wollongong, I repeat, are 180,000 people. Within its economic orbit is a population equal to that of the State of Tasmania. The population of the city of Newcastle, together with the Hunter Valley, would be 50% greater than that of Wollongong. Are regions of this order and importance - in our own case with an industrial production equal in value to that of the Australian wheat crop - to be subordinated and subjected to the vagaries of State governments or are we to be given, on the basis of regional development, some measure of local planning and local development? The case, I say, Sir, is an unanswerable one. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), in reply to the debate on the second reading of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill, stated a general truth, which I welcome and which is capable of application to regional development. He said:

Substantially what we have, done in this legislation is to bring forward for the first time the beginning of a national road policy.

My proposal is for the beginning of a national regional development policy. The Minister then said: through this legislation that the amount of money that is to be allocated by the Commonwealth is to be spent in specified areas. This to my mind is a remarkable advance, because we will be able to plan comprehensively the type of road development that is needed and so underpin the developing needs of a country such as Australia. So far as this programme is concerned, there is a specific requirement that Commonwealth money be spent in certain areas and henceforth we will be able to ascertain the relative needs and results of forward projections of finance to a greater extent than has been possible hitherto.

Precisely those principles that were so eloquently and capably enunciated by the Minister are capable of application to the city of Greater Wollongong and its economic hinterland.

As a State parliamentarian, I very deliberately sought and achieved the utmost severance of State administrative functions and their location as far as possible within my city. Without going through the details, I would say that there is in my city a definite administrative infrastructure which is capable of underpinning such a proposal. There would be no better area in Australia than the city of Greater Wollongong for such an undertaking in regional development. To achieve this there is the necessity to co-ordinate Federal, State and local governmental activity. In my area we have two Federal representatives, five State parliamentarians and two mayors. There ought to be in such a set-up representatives of the Federal Department of National Development, the State Department of Decentralisation and Development and representatives of Federal and State Ministers for Works. Direct allocations can be made under section 96 of the Constitution and dispersed through the New South Wales Government. But cities such as Greater Wollongong and Newcastle are too big and too important just to be lined up in a queue and left to the vagaries and the whims of State parliamentarians from capital cities for the allocation of capital moneys.

The city of Greater Wollongong is a centre of Australian metallurgy. It is the largest centre of heavy industry in the southern hemisphere. I believe that this city can make a greater contribution to national development than any other part of Australia, proportionate to its size. The expansion proposal recently announced in the steel industry will take us from a production of 3) million tons to Si million tons a year. There are 19,000 employees in the steel industry alone at the moment. The expansion increase will add 4,000 to that number. With employees’ wives and dependants and the associated trades and professional groups there will be another 30.000 people coming to reside in the city of Greater Wollongong in the next 3 years. The New South Wales Government, frankly, is incapable of financing this expansion. We will need 7,000 homes as well as roads, electricity and additional schools. At the moment only 30% of the city is sewered.

There is also an urgent need for the harbour at Port Kembla to be looked at. If we are to function efficiently and provide facilities for vessels of at least 100,000 to 120,000 tons - 1 am referring to bulk carriers - something will have to be done to allow such ships to use Port Kembla inner harbour. At present use of the inner harbour is limited to ships between 50,000 tons and 60,000 tons. Vessels of the larger capacity, which I have just referred to, are already visiting ports of Western and north western Australia. I cannot tolerate a situation in which vessels that come to Port Kembla with a full load have to partly off-load and then go to Newcastle to discharge the bal’ance of their cargo of iron ore.

The next matter I wish to raise particularly concerns the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) who is at the table. I point out to him that our needs for air transport have yet to be met. I have been reluctant to raise this matter until I saw a further development in the field of one type of aircraft. I particularly refer to the VETOL or vertical take-off and landing aircraft. I have also been interested in short take-off and landing aircraft which are now reaching the stage of perfection. Need I instance that in the recent trans-Atlantic air race from London to New York a VETOL aircraft left a location in the heart of London and landed on Manhattan Island. With the limitation of area in the city of Greater Wollongong I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that special consideration be given to the establishment of an aerodrome and to the application of this type of aircraft to the aircraft needs of my constituency.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) also referred to the general growth of Sydney and Melbourne and their associated conurbations. For that reason alone special attention and special regional planning are needed for our area. The people of my constituency received a great shock from and are deeply resentful of the recently published plan of the State Planning Authority for the region of Sydney for the year 2000. The plan was simply cut off at the County of Camden which was the southernmost boundary. We are equally resentful of the bypassing of the claims of Port Kembla for its establishment as a container port in substitution or relief for the development of the port of Botany Bay. We are equally concerned to secure balanced development in heavy industry in my electorate for the alleviation of female unemployment.

In conclusion I. repeat that our needs are very real. Today there are cities in Australia which transcend in importance other major cities. Special assistance for the special needs of these special areas, which are of vita!1 national importance, must be given.

Mr Andrew Jones:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I speak in support of the Commonwealth’s grant of S2m to South Australia which was announced in the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) on 2 1st May. I follow in the debate to support to a certain extent the comments made by my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), and also the comments and statements made by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop). There is no doubt that South Australia over the last 4£ to 5 years has suffered some injustice, not necessarily at the hands of the Commonwealth but rather, in particular, for three reasons. Firstly, South Australia had a government that was not sufficient to support the needs of the State economy. Secondly, there was the fact that a general rundown was evident, and had been evident, for some time. This situation was voiced all the more by the alternative government. Thirdly, there was the fact that South Australia, while having many major heavy industrial projects, was not able to support a sudden depression or an economic downturn in real terms. This was exaggerated by the fact that at that time South Australia did not have a supporting industry or in fact a satellite industry capable of maintaining and sustaining its general economic growth.

The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) raised some very good points in his speech. He spoke particularly about New South Wales. Tt has been known for some time, of course, that South Australia is certainly not dependent on the Commonwealth for extra grants. This is the second grant since the Australian Loan Council meeting which took place in June of last year. The total grant to South Australia is

S3. 35m and this sum consists of $ 1.35m, which was provided under section 96 of the Constitution last June, and $2m which is provided by this Bill. The Government is vitally concerned with the development of industry and the welfare of the community as a whole. I am a little regretful of the statement made by the Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Steele Hall, who did not know that the Commonwealth was to make this $2m grant. Let us face it that the grant was a tax free gift from the Commonwealth to South Australia. Mr Steele Hall was a little reticent about coming forward with his praise for something that I would consider, along with my colleagues, that the Commonwealth has most tangibly done in the face of criticism, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, the Hon. Don Dunstan, who at one stage was Premier and who precipitated a general industrial strike and chaos in the industrial community in South Australia.

South Australia’s problems are wide and varied. They cover everything from the Keith to Tailem Bend pipeline and road building in the north-western and northern areas of the State all the way through to trying to match up a very sizeable part of secondary industry. Twenty-one per cent of all those employed in South Australia are either employed in, or are directly or indirectly concerned with, the motor vehicle industry. This industry has done much for South Australia. There is not a great deal to be said about the supporting industries, but those that are in South Australia have certainly given the State some benefit. The position in South Australia has not really appreciated a great deal in the last 12 months. The Premier on his visit to the United Kingdom, certain European countries, North America and Latin America in recent weeks, was obviously successful in attracting eight positive proposals, out of thirty-three potential ones, for industrial development in South Australia. This will enhance the economy, because as these industries grow they will bring balance to the economy.

My main point in speaking on these three Bills is to congratulate the Commonwealth on giving this $2m grant to South Australia for its additional needs. I impress upon you again, Sir, that South Australia must bring pressure to bear at the next Loan Council meeting for an even greater proportion and percentage of the funds allocated by the Loan Council. The State must receive more if it is to achieve an equilibrium in terms of economic productivity coupled with industrial development and with community welfare services. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that in the two postwar decades South Australia has led Australia in many fields, for instance, in the field of social services, to a certain extent in the field of education and in the field of science. Many notable scientists have come from South Australia. But most important of all the State has progressed because of the ambitious designs of a very famous and a very great man in Australia. I refer to the former Premier, Sir Thomas Playford, who by his own individual efforts was able to attract major economic and industrial activities to the State in the shape of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and Chrysler Australia Ltd. Even more significant is the fact that these two firms combined represent 67% of the total automobile industry in South Australia. Of course, the automobile industry as the largest single component industry in South Australia is of vital concern.

The honourable member for Grey mentioned the steel industry at Whyalla. He has taken a very great interest in this industry over the last 2i years and prior to his election to this place in 1966. The establishment of this industry was yet another marked achievement by the Premier of South Australia at that time, Sir Thomas Playford. But the point I want to make tonight and the factor which I consider to be vital to South Australia’s continued development and progress is that this $2m grant and the S3. 35m grant that was made after the Loan Council meeting of June 1968, represent a Commonwealth contribution to the industrial development of South Australia. I do not think it would be politically wise or expedient for any politician on either side of the political fence in South Australia to criticise the Commonwealth for the amount that it has put in because, in terms of pro rata amounts and subsidies, South Australia is second only to New South Wales in the amounts which the Commonwealth has granted since June of last year. As a State we can benefit very much from the additional grant of $2m that was announced in the week before last. It will help in many fields. Most importantly it will tend to alleviate a climbing State budget which was a legacy from the previous Labor Government which was in office for only one term. This money will contribute significantly to the industrial growth of South Australia and will beneficially affect the lives of most South Australians, particularly those in the northern areas of Adelaide.

It would be worthwhile to record the State’s appreciation of the Commonwealth’s concern for and understanding of its need at this time. The $2m grant which has recently been given by the Commonwealth will not doubt benefit South Australia not only by pegging to a certain extent the increasing deficit which we have inherited from the previous government but also by giving additional industrial stimulus. As most of us on both sides of the House know, industrial stimulus boosts public morale. If public morale is indicative of the Australian community’s thinking, then South Australia as a result of this grant of an additional $2m can do little else but benefit.

It would be expedient and wise of the Government of South Australia to record at the earliest opportunity its appreciation, and not quite in the way that the Premier recorded it just after the grant was announced. The State Government should express its appreciation of the Commonwealth grant. It will assist South Australia and is something for which many members of Parliament in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have been plugging for quite a long time. In this respect, I refer to the honourable member for Grey who represents the northern areas, myself, the honourable member for Kingston (Miss Brownbill), the honourable member for Boothby and those of us who have realised the position in which the State finds itself. It is not a particularly enviable position. South Australia, next to Tasmania, would probably be in the worst position of any State in Australia, but at least some tangible justice has been obtained from the Commonwealth. For my part I would like to record my appreciation of this small attempt by the Commonwealth to give South Australia something which it urgently needs. Dairy production has been affected by the recent drought. In terms of general industrial activity and dairy reconstruction South Australia has not made quite the headway that it possibly could have made over the last 4 years. I lay the majority of the blame on the Walsh and Dunstan Governments for their general inability to stimulate economic and industrial thinking in the State.

The point on which I would like to conclude is that it has been most noticeable not only to my colleague but also to myself in recent months that as a result of renewed activity, renewed industrial morale, renewed construction and additional industrialisation in the State, and as a result of the Premier’s recent trip abroad when he was successful in pulling probably some of the biggest chestnuts out of the fire, there is in fact an increasing confidence in South Australia.

For this reason it is important that we do express our appreciation officially to the Commonwealth Government for giving South Australia - I am not particularly concerned with other States at the moment because I come from South Australia and am more worried about its position - that added impetus, that opportunity to plan ahead for the Loan Council meeting in one and a half months time. I am sure that the Commonwealth is aware of the position that South Australia is placed in at present. I have spoken with Ministers and they are quite clear in their minds as to what is needed and what must be done. The South Australian Government is aware of what the Commonwealth has done but, more importantly, the people of South Australia are appreciative of what has been done. The taxpayers of South Australia are now to receive what they had, in fact, paid out. This show of confidence by the Commonwealth in the State of South Australia is welcomed. If it helps maintain the economic trend, more power to our elbow. Within the next 6 months I can see industrial developments that will benefit not only my home State but Australia as a whole. I congratulate the Commonwealth Government and I am jolly sure that not many members from either side can complain.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2500

MAPPING SURVEYS BILL 1969

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

Second Reading

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · Farrer · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

For many years now the officers of my Department have been engaged on various types of field surveys, including topographic, geological and geophysical surveys, undertaken in the course of preparing maps for Commonwealth purposes. This has necessitated their entering upon private property and Crown lands for the purpose of making observations and measurements, taking photographs, placing marks and carrying out various other operations. In the course of these activities they are required from time to time to clear timber in order to obtain lines of sight and to place marks.

The officers concerned have always been careful to do as little damage as possible and to consult land owners in advance, and their duties have been carried out with tact and courtesy. So far, very little trouble has been experienced in gaining entry to property but there has been occasional destruction of survey marks which has necessitated re-surveys and has held up the progress of mapping operations.

It is very rare for a field or survey party to encounter antipathy among property owners or local authorities and in point of fact they are normally welcomed. The possibility that the operations of these parties may ultimately lead to local economic development evokes interest and an atmosphere conducive to co-operation. Consequently party leaders normally have little difficulty in achieving their purpose by the exercise of courtesy and reasonableness. However, each season or so a party encounters a property owner who objects to government employees per se and who objects to the proposed survey. If avoidance ot the property of such owners is not possible if the aims of the survey are to be achieved then the power to issue an authority to enter upon the land may be necessary. The mere existence of a power to authorise is expected to be sufficient to obtain co-operation without formal recourse to its invocation.

The main purpose of this Bill is to empower the Minister for National Development to authorise survey parties to enter property, and there carry out survey operations, establish survey marks and, if necessary in the course of these activities, to trim or cut down bushes and trees. The Bill provides that due notice shall be given to the land owner in advance of any cutting down or trimming of trees and bushes and requires the surveyors to avoid as far as practicable the causing of damage to property, and where it is unavoidable as far as practicable to repair the damage. There is provision for payment of compensation where a person suffers loss or damage to property as a result of survey operations. The amount of compensation may be determined by agreement or, in the absence of agreement, by action against the Commonwealth in a court of competent jurisdiction. Penalties are provided for the persons hindering activities authorised under the Act and for the unlawful damage or removal of Commonwealth survey marks.

Maps in some form or other are required for a number of Commonwealth purposes; indeed much modern governmental administration and management must be referenced to a mapping background. With the increased activity in exploration for minerals there has been a strong demand by industry for various types of maps produced by the Commonwealth. Maps are essential for the collection of statistics and the Division of National Mapping is currently engaged on the preparation of a very large number and a very wide range of maps for the next census to be conducted by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. These maps range from the individual collectors map of a small area to statistical maps of the whole of Australia and between each census they must be revised and brought up to date to show developmental changes.

Much statistical information can be grouped under the general term of geostatistics where the prefix ‘geo’ refers to the earth and geostatistics are those which are recorded against a particular position on the earth. This in effect means determining their map position. My Department is most active in collecting or arranging the collection of geostatistical data and in cooperating with State authorities in these fields of activity. The Bureau of Mineral Resources procures and records geostatistical data in respect of geology, mineral resources, the earth’s gravity and magnetic fields, all of which is recorded in terms of geographical position.

The Department’s Water, Power and Geographic Branch arranges primarily through State authorities for the recording of statistics on surface and underground water and produces maps showing the geographical location of this data. It also produces an atlas of Australian resources and is active in the production of geographic maps showing the resources of particular regions. The Forestry and Timber Bureau collects and collates information on forest statistics for timber inventory surveys, and advises on forest management including fire fighting. In all of these activities map positions are required in varying degrees of significance.

Many other Commonwealth agencies are involved in the collection of geostatistical information and therefore making continuing use of maps. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is notable in this respect through the activities of its Divisions of Land Research, Soils and Wild Life Research. The Division of National Mapping provides aeronautical charts for the Department of Civil Aviation.

Good maps are, of course, essential for defence planning and defence operations. Close liaison exists between the Division of National Mapping and the Royal Australian Army Survey Corps. Maps are produced by both agencies to a mutually agreed basic specification and when each map is printed enough copies are provided both for civil and defence use. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department has found maps essential for the cartographic determination of coastal boundaries and of the limits of territorial waters.

Topographic maps are of particular importance. These show the shape of the terrain, the location of natural features such as streams, swamps and timber coverage and additionally the works of man such as railways, roads, airfields, buildings, reservoirs and the like. They are extensively used in themselves and are also used as a background to the portrayal of geostatistical data in map form - for example, geological maps, soils maps, resources maps and population statistical maps. Because of the basic importance to so many other activities the Government has authorised a 10-year programme to map and contour the Commonwealth at a scale of 1 : 100,000 - approximately 1.6 miles to I inch - with 20 metre contours - approximately 66 feet.

This is a task that will require every modern aid and a very concentrated effort if it is to be finished on time. My Department has acquired and will in the future acquire much modern and up to date equipment for this task. Special air survey cameras have been introduced that from a height of 25,000 feet can photograph as much as 140 square miles on a single photograph. In recent years, electronic distance measuring equipment using modulated radio waves has been employed to measure distances and last year laser equipment was introduced to give increased accuracy by timing the passage of light flashes back and forth over lines that have to be measured.

The whole country is being covered by a dense network of levelling surveys and additional heights are being obtained by contractor operated airborne radar equipment in the large areas of very flat country in Australia. In order to provide the accuracy necessary in country of greater relief the Weapons Research Establishment of the Department of Supply has developed special laser equipment that will provide the necessary elevation data from an aircraft flying at a constant height above sea level. The modulated radio type of distance measuring equipment has been extended to an airborne version that will allow lines of 200 miles length to be measured and with this equipment we are well on the way to establishing a coordinated survey with stations at 70 mile intervals over the whole of Australia to provide the geodetic framework within which the mapping surveys are made.

Electronic computing equipment is being used to process all the field data and I have recently authorised the purchase of electronically operated stereo plotting equipment that, when supplied with a stereoscopic pair of air photographs and set up to fit the ground survey data, will proceed automatically to extract contour data and to produce a rectified air photograph showing the detail of the ground in its correct map position. This data is being converted directly into a map which is shown as an orthophotomap and is in effect a perfectly positioned air photographic map with contours superimposed. From these the normal type of topographic map will eventually be produced but in the meantime they produce a useful map in about one quarter of the time usually taken.

As a result of the introduction of these modern and sophisticated technical aids in producing more accurate and better maps the number of ground stations that has to be established has been reduced considerably, but it is still necessary for field parties to establish these stations in appropriate locations and for geophysical parties to establish baselines for their various operations. This requires that survey parties be permitted to enter on private property and in certain cases it may be necessary for trees or bushes to be lopped or trimmed so that surveyors can carry out the necessary observations. The establishment and preservation of the lesser number of stations now required is of much greater importance to the mapping programme because of the greater amount of survey work that will be referenced to them.

The provisions of the Bill are not intended to alter the existing practice whereby survey parties moving into a district or on to particular properties take steps to advise representative persons by advance letter or personal contact of their intention to carry out the proposed operations. Where the possibility exists of damage to trees or crops, the cutting of fences or interference with stock, the alternative possibilities of location of the operations are discussed. Where any damage requires making good, such as damage to roads, filling in of holes or repairing of fences, local arrangements satisfactory to the property owner or local authority are made. However, the use of the powers set out in the Bill will prevent any hitches in what must of necessity be a tightly scheduled and close knit operation, if the 10-year mapping programme is to be completed on time. It will also serve to ensure that the rights and property of landholders are adequately protected. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2503

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May (vide page 1861), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister assisting the Treasurer · Darling Downs · 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 second reading debate covering this Bill and the six related Bills. Separate questions of course may be put on any of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter’ of the seven Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

- Mr Deputy Speaker, rather ironically it seemed to me, this afternoon there was introduced into this House the Coral Sea Islands Bill 1969, the title of which stated that this was: ‘A Bill for an Act To provide for the Government of certain Islands acquired by the Commonwealth’, when in fact it seems that the measures that are before us are indicative that the Government does not know how to provide for the government of Canberra itself. It is the intention of the Opposition to oppose two of the measures that are before the House. 1 refer to the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Cheques) Bill 1969 and the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Hire-Purchase Business) Bill 1969. I will outline in a moment the reasons why we oppose the Bills that seek to impose a duty on cheques and a duty on hire purchase transactions.

In many respects, the measure is a peculiar one. After scrutiny, it is found that it proposes taxation without consultation as far as the people of the Australian Capital Territory are concerned. These are money Bills but no explanation has been given of the amount that is likely to be raised or the purposes on which such money will be expended. Finally, this is an example of voting blind as far as the Parliament is concerned about matters that concern people whom we do not represent in this Parliament. I think that these matters are of fundamental concern to this House. It is for these reasons that the Opposition will take the course that I have announced on these measures.

I wish first to deal with the reasons that were given by the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Swartz), who is sitting at the table, when he introduced this measure on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). The Minister said: it is no more than fair and proper that residents of the ACT should bear certain taxes comparable with those levied on the residents of the States.

The Minister went on to indicate that there was a second barrel, as it were, that made these measures necessary. He said:

In addition, there is the special consideration that, in spite of efforts on the part of State governments to prevent this happening, the ACT is being used as a ‘tax haven’ for the avoidance of certain State stamp duties. Some of the State governments have made strong representations to the Commonwealth seeking its co-operation in preventing this loss of State revenues.

The Opposition, in essence, has no objection to steps being taken to correct what might be described as the tax haven circumstances that are said to apply in the Australian Capital Territory. But we do take strong exception to the rather simple view that: i it is no more than fair and proper that residents of the ACT should bear certain taxes comparable wilh those levied on the residents of the States.

Our argument is that it is not so much that there should be comparability about what is levied only, but that there should be comparability also about the circumstances of participation on the part of those upon whom the taxes are imposed. We regard this as one of the fundamental rights of the people who will bear the taxes if they are imposed as a result of this legislation.

If I might dispose of the second aspect, which is the question of the tax haven, I state that we will not oppose the general administration measure. That is the measure that allows for the setting up of the machinery to impose the provisions of some of these measures. We do not at this stage raise objection to the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Bill. We oppose, however, the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Cheques) Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Hire-purchase Business) Bill. We do not oppose the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Insurance Business) Bill, the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Sales of Marketable Securities) Bill or the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Purchases of Marketable Securities) Bill.

I do not think anybody would complain about a State protesting against a company shifting its activities to Canberra in order to avoid a prosecution in that State for nonpayment of taxes. This is done by certain companies, particularly from Victoria and New South Wales, because Canberra allows certain transactions to be made free of tax. But it seems to me that the Government is taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut, and I am not sure which is the sledge hammer and which is the nut. This approach is wrong. Not only are you closing the door to the activities to which I have just referred and preventing companies from evading taxes that they would have to pay in a State but at the same time you are imposing upon the citizens of Canberra a tax which you say is comparable to the tax they would have to pay in a State. But you are not taking into account the fact that this Territory is not a State and that the processes of getting sanction are therefore very different.

When the Opposition first examined this matter we were disposed to say, taking the easiest course: ‘Well, if everybody else in Australia pays duty when he uses a cheque, for example, why should the people of Canberra not pay a similar duty’? This is really the Government’s argument, but it seems to beg a number of questions. There may be legitimate arguments as to why one tax rather than another should be imposed but surely it is fundamental that the people upon whom the tax is to be imposed should have a say as to what they would like to have taxed, if a case can be made out for raising additional revenue. These issues have not been examined by the Government in this measure. One has the greatest difficulty in getting information regarding taxes paid by the people of Canberra as compared with taxes paid by people living elsewhere in Australia. There can be quite large variations in taxes paid by people living on the one hand in Western Australia or Queensland and on the other hand in Victoria or New South Wales. To try to get a fair appraisal of the situation I thought it necessary at least to try to ascertain what the people of Canberra pay.

These arguments were well set out 2 or 3 years ago in a series of articles that appeared in a journal called ‘Public Administration’. It is not a very accessible journal. It is what might be termed a journal of learned opinion. But the journal did publish some arguments by Professor Arndt, Professor of Economics at the Australian National University, and Mr R. W. Archer, who at one stage was a resident of this city and has something to do with the Government. The subject of the articles was the costs of Canberra. Professor Arndt took the view that it is quite easy to adopt the attitude that the people of Canberra comprise a pampered section compared with people living elsewhere in Australia; that everything is done for them and that they pay nothing for what is done. I suppose also that anything done in Canberra is presumed to be done for the benefit of the people of Canberra rather than the reality that most of what is done in Canberra is done because this is what is described constitutionally as the seat of government. Professor Arndt’s contention was that when you examine the finances very carefully you find that Canberra is just about paying its way.

This argument appeared in the December 1964 issue of the journal. It was contested by Mr Archer in a subsequent issue of June 1965, to which Professor Arndt made a final rejoinder in the issue of September 1965. I will not go into the detailed arguments but will simply point to the difficulty of determining how much taxes the people of Canberra pay and therefore the difficulty of making the simple assumption that what they pay should be equated to what is paid by somebody else, irrespective of the differences and the constitutional arrangements somewhere else. I finally tracked down a document called ‘Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for Year 1967-68’. The preamble to the document reads:

The attached statement has been prepared in accordance with these provisions of the Act-

That is, section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act - and does not purport to be a Statement of Income and Expenditure in the accounting sense. For example, the first page of the statement shows that expenditure on Australian Capital Territory Services (excluding expenditure of a capital nature) exceeded total receipts by $3,763,843 and the final page discloses that total expenditure (including capital) exceeded total receipts by $64,773,593.

The document states rather cryptically:

Neither of these can be taken as a reflection of the state of Territory finances.

Certainly both of the figures could not be taken in that way but neither of them can be taken as a reflection of the state of Territory finances.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– If a club treasurer produced figures like that he would be thrown out.

Mr CREAN:

– Exactly. Taking those figures on the one side, one is obliged to look at the other side of the coin. This is where I turn to a document tabled in the House entitled ‘Self-government for the Australian Capital Territory - a Preliminary Assessment, May 1967’. I do not know how many honourable members have read the document. I commend it to those who have not read it. It was issued as a progress report by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), who was Minister for the Interior at the time. The document shows the difficulty of determining with any degree of equity what is being done in Canberra because this is the seat of government or the national capital as against what is being done for the people of Canberra. One of the things that struck me rather forcibly was a quotation from the Chairman of the Federal Capital Commission, Sir John

Butters, in the 5th Annual Report of the Commission for the year ending 30th June 1929. Sir John Butters said:

The particular difficulty in Canberra is that the Commission-

That is the Federal Capital Commission - as originally constituted was responsible to one democracy - the whole Australian public - but it had to serve also and more intimately the small local democracy at Canberra.

Since those words were written the population of the city of Canberra has risen to about 120,000. It seems to me there is very little democracy in the process at all, and this is what the preliminary inquiry was about. Paragraph 8 of the progress report goes on to say:

To extend to the Australian community the full range of authority normally exercised through State and municipal governmental organisations would be to place that community in substantial control of the national capital, whereas the national capital was always intended to be the responsibility of the people of the Commonwealth as a whole and to exist for the benefit of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, to consider only the position of Canberra as the seat of government and national capital at the expense of all community participation in government would unjustly deprive the members of the local community of their fundamental democratic rights and responsibilities.

This measure, in the way it has been introduced, ignores the fundamental democratic rights and responsibilities of the local community. I hope that the House will see it in that light. Surely it is not regarded as a serious explanation of the imposition of a tax, in which they have no say whatever, upon the people of Canberra. I do not think my colleague the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory, who is to speak shortly on this matter, will claim that he represents the people of Canberra to the degree of what might be called State and municipal responsibility. He is here as other honourable members are; he is here as a member of the Federal Parliament. He is participating in the imposition of taxes that are levied throughout Australia on Australians equally, or at any rate circumstantially equally, wherever they happen to live. What the Government is doing in this legislation is to impose upon the people of Canberra taxes which in the rest of Australia are determined by either local authorities or State parliaments. The people upon whom those taxes are imposed are given a say in the participation of them.

In recent times there has been some discontent amongst the people of Canberra as to how things should be done within the Australian Capital Territory. I think everybody received a copy of the noble document entitled ‘The People’s Rights Denied’ which contains a background to the crisis between the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council and the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). It has an almost Miltonic sound about it. It is like another document entitled ‘The Monstrous Regiment of Women’. On page 2 of the document The People’s Rights Denied’ and under the heading ‘Other areas of conflict between the Council and the Minister’ there is this suggestion about powers which the local people thought they should have:

Power to examine and comment on all draft ordinances and regulations affecting the ACT and for the Council’s comments to be submitted with the draft legislation when it goes to Parliament.

The only comments available upon the legislation that has come before the Parliament is the very technical document entitled Explanatory Memorandum’. It is not explanatory of anything but the technical arrangements of the taxes. It contains no indication of the attitude of the people who are to pay the taxes. There are no channels at the moment for that kind of expression to come before the House.

The view of the Opposition is that if these taxes were to be imposed there should have been an indication as to why they were necessary, and indication of how much was to be raised by the taxes. At least that would have given us some idea of the magnitude of the proposed taxes. A few days ago I was talking to some local residents about this matter and I said that I use between 16 and 20 cheque books during the course of a year and, that each book costs me $1.50, which is 5c for each of 30 cheques. That means that a tax of at least $20 to $30 per annum will be imposed on persons in the Australian Capital Territory who use a similar number of cheque books.

The people of Canberra, up to now, seem to have made their transactions very well without these additional taxes. If these taxes have to be imposed, I suggest that there is very good argument for them to be of a direct nature rather than of an indirect nature. I suppose it can be said about the tax on cheques that it can be avoided by not having a cheque account, but it is convenient for people to have a cheque account. Perhaps some abstruse economic argument is taking place in this Territory to the effect that people are using cheque accounts who might not use them if they had to pay a tax on each cheque and that the tax will be a sort of deterrent. I am a citizen of Victoria as well as of Australia. In Victoria a tax on cheques is imposed. I take part in that State in choosing a member of the State Parliament that makes the impost. The people of Victoria argue as to whether the tax is desirable or undesirable.

One of the reasons why the States are so reliant on indirect taxes is the niggardly way in which they are treated by the Commonwealth Government when it comes to the reimbursement of revenue. The States perforce have to resort to indirect taxes because there is no other avenue available. As far back as 1965 the then Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) advanced the curious doctrine with which we are now confronted when he said:

It is no more than fair and proper that residents of the Australian Capital Territory should bear certain taxes comparable with those levied on residents of the States.

No argument is put forward as to whether the money is necessary. It is argued that if someone pays a tax in one place somebody else in another place also should pay it. That is a curious sort of doctrine. Would the same people suggest that because the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, imposed a 1% tax on the people of Victoria it should also be imposed on the people of Canberra? We in Victoria object to this tax, and I think the present Prime Minister has objected to it as a form of levy; but presumably because people in another State pay it, irrespective of what it might yield, some would argue that the people in Canberra should have to pay it too.

I submit that what ought to be done in Canberra is that there should be a serious attempt made on the part of the Government to do something to implement the sorts of things that are very finely argued, in my view, in the preliminary assessment of the question of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory which was carried out in May 1967. That assessment was made 2 years ago, but nothing has been done in the interim to make anything like the vestiges of self-government available to the people of Canberra. For the reasons that are outlined in the assessment, it is not easy to decide what the equitable balance should be, so far as constitutional responsibility is concerned, between what might be said to be things that have to be done in Canberra because this is the seat of government and the national capital and the things that could be said to be comparable with State and municipal functions in some other areas of the Commonwealth.

On the question of finance I commend the remarks which are contained in paragraphs 84 to 88 of the assessment. One. statement was made in paragraph 85 - and I repeat that the assessment was made 2 years ago - was:

In a separate study, attention is being given to the problem of settling the basic financial principles applicable to the government of the city and the territory.

At least the results of that consideration ought to have been released to the House before it was decided to impose these taxes upon the people of the city of Canberra. They should have been given the opportunity, as is given in other cases, to examine the legislation which could have lain on the table of the House for a period of 6 to 12 months, representations could have been made by the people who were to be involved. When looking through the earlier documents which have been presented I found a submission on proposed stamp duty in the Australian Capital Territory, which was made on 3rd November 1965 by the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Committee to the Right Honourable Harold Holt, who was then Treasurer, not Prime Minister. Paragraph 4 of that submission states:

The Minister for the Interior has stated publicly that the Government is investigating possible selfgovernment for the Territory.

That assessment 1 have referred to was made in May 1967, 2 years after this submission was presented. The submission continues:

In the opinion of the committee, until selfgovernment in a suitable form is introduced, taxation in the forms paid by self-governing States should not be imposed.

Again I think that is a fair comment. If we are to make a comparison between the people of Canberra and the people in the States or municipalities, we should not make it on the narrow ground of what can be levied in Canberra in the form of taxes. The comparison should be made on the fundamental right of the people as citizens to participate in the democratic processes of government. I submit that that very fundamental right has been denied to the people of Canberra by the way in which this legislation has been introduced. For those reasons we intend to vote separately on the Bills we are discussing. We propose to support the Bill which seeks to prevent Canberra from becoming a tax haven. We have no sympathy for the skilful financiers who organise in millions of dollars and want to save in hundreds. Presumably that is called prudent finance. But surely it is imprudent to cover that sort of loophole by mulcting the people of the community who have committed no other offence than to demand some say in the processes of government as it falls upon them in the situation in Canberra. I suppose that logically we could have singled out for opposition other parts of the Bills. But at least to highlight our fundamental difference about the way in which these taxes are being imposed we will oppose the Bill which imposes a tax on cheques and the Bill which levies charges on hire purchase transactions, because at least those matters are local to the people of Canberra.

So far as insurance is concerned, some insurance business with non-citizens of Canberra is being transacted in Canberra because there is no stamp duty on the transactions. Equally, many of the share transactions which normally would take place in Melbourne and Sydney are being handled in Canberra by cover offices which are used to evade the taxes which should be properly payable in Victoria and New South Wales. We do not give any support to that kind of tax dodging. I think it is tax dodging, although some people say it is legitimate to so order one’s affairs so as to pay as little in total taxation as possible. I think that sometimes consideration must be given to the constitutional difficulties which exist in Australia by reason of a federal system. I have no sympathy whatever for the so-called clever person who evades taxes, because this means that so much more has to be borne by the rest of the citizens. If certain transactions of government have to take place I have no sympathy whatever for that kind of goings on.

The Government, in introducing these Bills, is mixing two issues together in a dreadful sort of confusion. One is the legitimate effort to plug something that ought to be plugged, but at the same time the Government is using the National Parliament as a vehicle by which to impose taxes upon people whom no member of this Parliament really represents in the sense in which the taxes are being imposed. I draw a distinction between other honourable members and my colleague the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory who has represented this Territory admirably for as long as I can remember. He and I came into this Parliament on the same day some 18 years ago, and he has been indefatigable in the carrying out of his proper duties in this Parliament. I am sure that when he speaks shortly he will indicate that he does not want to take the responsibility for taxing the people of Canberra, because that is what we are doing. We have no responsibility whatever for taxing the people of Canberra as citizens of Canberra. This is what these two measures purport to do.

I hope that a sufficient number of members of this Parliament will see the legislation for what it is and that they will withdraw the legislation which affects the two particular items that we have singled out, namely, cheques and hire purchase transactions. If some day, it can be shown that additional taxes ought to be imposed in the city of Canberra in order that the citizens of Canberra will pay their way for what are normal civic responsibilities in this area, then the people of Canberra themselves should choose which particular items they want to tax, and which particular items they do not want to tax.

Debate (on motion by Mr J. R. Fraser) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

page 2508

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE SITE

Ministerial Statement

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– The debate on the siting of the new and permanent parliament house has now proceeded over something like the last 9 months. It resulted initially from the Government’s decision of last August to have a free non-party vote on the question of a site. That debate provided a full opportunity for members and senatorsto express their views, and most of them did. The original proposal for the lakeside site was clearly unacceptable to the majority of the members in each House, and that site was abandoned. Subsequently, the Joint Select Committee, representative of all parties and both Houses, after hearing and studying public and expert evidence from all those wishing to come forward, overwhelmingly recommended to Parliament that the new parliament house should be sited on Camp Hill as was originally planned by Burley Griffin, the designer of Canberra. In the resultant debate the House of Representatives voted to agree with the recommendations of that Committee while the Senate voted to disagree with it, and the Senate has also voted against the proposal for a joint sitting. The position therefore remains quite unresolved. It should not be allowed to remain unresolved because of the need for planning and construction of other works, both road works and construction which depend on the making of a decision as to the site of Parliament House. Therefore the Government, feeling that a decision must be made, has decided to inform the National Capital Development Commission that Camp Hill will be the site of the new and permanent parliament house.

Mr Buchanan:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Buchanan:

– If the Government is not-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat for a moment. The honourable member has asked for leave to make a statement but he has not informed the House of the subject on which he wants to make a statement.

Mr Buchanan:

– On the same subject. If the Government is not prepared to move that the paper be noted there should be some-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Luchetti:

– I ask for leave to make a brief statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Leave is not granted.

Mr Daly:

– I move:

That the paper be noted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member is not in order. A Minister must move that motion.

page 2509

COMMONWEALTH TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHEME

Ministerial Statement

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– by leave - Under the Technical Training Scheme the Commonwealth is providing $70m at the rate of $10m per year for the 7 financial years 1964-1971 as financial assistance to the States for buildings and equipment for use in technical training in State technical colleges and similar institutions. The allocation of grants to particular institutions is a matter for the States to determine within a general programme agreed between the States and the Commonwealth.

Distribution between the States was based on population according to the most recent figures available from the Bureau of Census and Statistics at the time the distribution to the States was determined. Actual expendi ture by the States up to 30th June 1968 is shown in schedules which will be made available for the information of honourable members. For the current financial year I am not yet in a position to give detailed expenditure but I expect that the States will be able to take full advantage of the money allocated up to 30th June 1971.

page 2509

SCHOOL SCIENCE LABORATORIES

Ministerial Statement

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– by leave - Honourable members will recall that on 27th March 1968 I provided information about assistance available under the science facilities scheme to State government and independent schools for the period 1964- 1968. On 18th September 1968 I provided additional information about the grants available to independent schools for the period 1968-1971. At that stage I was not in a position to provide information about individual State government schools selected for new laboratories in the 1968-1971 triennium. For the information of honourable members I present a schedule which now provides the information about State government schools selected for new laboratories from the inception of the scheme on 1st July 1964 to 31st March 1969. Copies of this schedule will be made available to honourable members. Under the 1968 Act a total of $37,721,400 is available over the 3-year period 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1971. As I told honourable members on 18th September 1968 the allocation between government and independent schools is as shown in a table, which with the concurrence of honourable members I in corporate in Hansard.

The States use the money available to them for science facilities in government schools in accordance with generally agreed programmes. For independent schools, a total of $16,008,000 is available from 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1971, at the rate of $5,336,000 each financial year. This total amount of $16,008,000 has been allocated to individual schools either in accordance with recommendations of State advisory committees or to meet commitments for the balance of the reasonable cost of science buildings already assisted and to make grants to schools which, before 1st September 1967, have built science laboratories to approved plans, without previous Commonwealth assistance. Since 1st July 1968 I have written to all independent schools in the above categories offering them assistance in the 1968-71 triennium in accordance with these allocations. In the period 1st July 1968 to 31st March 1969 I authorised payment totalling $3,513,356 of the $5,336,000 available in the current financial year. Details of the allocations for each of the financial years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 are set out in the lists which I have circulated. In addition, I have approved the advances to State governments for their buildings and apparatus purchase programmes in accordance with the estimates of expenditure submitted by the States.

In introducing the present legislation 1 stated that by June 1971 substantial inroads will be made into the backlog of needs for science facilities in both Government and independent schools, but that more would remain to be done. As indicated in my earlier statement it is the Government’s intention at an appropriate time towards the end of the present triennium to introduce legislation proposing a further extension of the scheme beyond 30th June 1971. It is our intention in the extension of the scheme to revise the basis of allocation of grants among States and among groups of Government schools and independent schools so that the grants available will be related to outstanding needs, which we expect to vary considerably at that time. In addition to completing the present programme we will also seek to continue to make grants towards new needs that will arise from time to time.

page 2510

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) BELL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2508).

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– The House is debating a group of seven Bills by which the Government seeks to implement its decision to impose stamp duties in the Australian Capital Territory. The Opposition is not opposing those of the Bills which are obviously designed to prevent the Australian Capital Territory from being used as what has been described as a tax haven for companies or individuals normally carrying on their business outside the Territory who have, because of the fact that stamp duties do not exist here, decided to establish their headquarters in the Australian Capital Territory or conduct their business through Canberra. We are opposing the two measures which will bear most directly and most heavily on the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. These are the two measures imposing stamp duties on cheques and stamp duties on hire purchase agreements. The method by which these measures have been brought before the Parliament bear strong overtones of McCarthy ism. I am not now speaking of the well known American senator but of a rather better known and more pleasant character. What we have witnessed has been an exhibition of Charlie McCarthyism. The Treasurer (Mr McMahon) has been cast in the role of a ventriloquist’s doll sitting first on the knee of Mr Robin Askin and then on the knee of Sir Henry Bolte and dutifully mouthing their plaintive cries against the people of the Australian Capital Territory and urging this Government to impose stamp duties on this Territory.

Indeed, the second reading speech of the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Swartz), who is at the table, makes it abundantly clear that it is at the behest - not the request - of the governments of Victoria and New South Wales that this legislation has been introduced. I do not claim that the people of the Australian Capital Territory should escape just and proper taxation. I believe they should be called upon to pay the levies and taxes that are properly chargeable to them. But I claim that no government has the right to raise taxation without establishing that the revenue is required and that it is to be properly raised. The Commonwealth Government has given no valid reason to the people of the Australian Capital Territory for its decision to impose stamp duties. When he introduced the Budget in 1965 the former Treasurer, the late Mr Harold Holt, said:

With the growth of Canberra as a city and as a business centre, we think it would be no more than fair and proper that residents of Canberra should bear certain taxes of a nature comparable with those levied on residents of the States.

Mr Holt continued:

As a result, this Government has decided to introduce stamp duty on a range of instruments and transactions completed or made in the Australian Capital Territory.

I find it interesting to note that in introducing the legislation almost 4 years later the Minister assisting the Treasurer said:

The Government has taken the view that, with the growth of Canberra as a city and as a business centre, it is no more than fair and proper that residents of the ACT should bear certain taxes comparable with those levied on the residents of the States.

Later in his speech the Minister drew attention to what he described as a ‘special consideration’ that the Australian Capital Territory was being used as a tax haven by people who sought to avoid the payment of stamp duties levied by the States.

I recognise that loopholes have existed, but my understanding is that both the New South Wales Government and the Government of Victoria have legislated to protect their own interests and there is thus no justification on those grounds for the levying of taxes on the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I have no objection at all to this Government taking measures to curb probate dodgers and others who seek to use the Australian Capital Territory as a means of taking extra profit above and beyond what they could have acquired by continuing their businesses in the States. My major objection to the Government’s proposals is that in any other part of Australia the proposed tax would be imposed by a State government elected by the people and capable of being dismissed by the people. In Canberra, by contrast, taxes are imposed from above and the people of this Territory are given no say whatever in the imposition of any taxes or charges. Indeed,” they are denied any right to selfgovernment. They are in fact residents of a nonselfgoverning Territory to which, under the Charter of the United Nations, this Government should render every assistance.

The proposed tax has been opposed by all sections of the community in Canberra. It is opposed by the Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory, by all the Australian Capital Territory branches of the Liberal Party, by the Trades and Labour Council and by the Chamber of Commerce. It is strongly opposed by the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. I know of no section of the community which has voiced any support at all either for the imposition of stamp duties or for the autocratic action of the Government in imposing them. I draw attention to the fact that although the Government claims to believe that the people of the Territory should pay taxes comparable with those levied on the residents of the States, the Minister in his second reading speech said that the proposed duties were ‘confined to those that will serve to lessen the attractiveness of putting business through Canberra so as to avoid State duties, or that can be justified in terms of expected revenue yields.* We have not been told in detail what the revenue yields are to be. We have not been told why it is necessary to raise the additional revenue. I feel most strongly that taxes of this nature should not be imposed on a people without the responsible government producing the figures to show that the revenue is needed and that the tax is justified.

The Government has refused to produce any detailed statements of account for the Australian Capital Territory. Each year it produces sets of figures as required under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act relating to revenue and expenditure but it produces these figures with the warning that they do not purport to be statements of income and expenditure in the accounting sense.

Mr Nixon:

– Has the honourable member read my statement?

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I am not blaming the Minister and I will come to him in a moment. But this cannot be taken as a reflection of the state of Territory finances. I would suggest that in producing figures of that kind the Government is not honouring the obligation that is laid upon it by the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. Surely the intention of the Act was to ensure that the finances of the Territory were exposed to public gaze at the end of each financial year. This is the warning that comes with the official document. The warning adds that the figures could not be used to assess matters of financial administration.

T am pleased that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) interjected. I am more than pleased to read his announcement today that the people of the Territory are to have produced for them statements of account of a municipal type, that these accounts will be audited and that we are to have the first of these accounts at the end of the coming financial year. This is a move for which I. give the present Minister very considerable credit. It is something that the people of this Territory have wanted for a long time; it is something to which they have been entitled and something that must be produced. By placing questions on the notice paper of the House of Representatives I have sought to draw out information relating to some of the revenues the Commonwealth receives from the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I have done this as an exercise to secure the information I wanted and also perhaps to nail the impression so widespread in this country that the people of Canberra get everything for nothing and are a drain on the public purse. Nothing could be further from the truth, and any adult in the Australian Capital Territory could support this statement.

Canberra is a very expensive place in which to live and I believe we already pay dearly for the services we receive, although admittedly they are of a very high standard. But the questions I placed on the notice paper in recent weeks have produced some very interesting information. For example, the Treasurer has informed me that in the 5-year period to 1966-67 income tax collected in the Australian Capital Territory amounted to $90,250,000. I was also informed that the income tax payment for 1966-67 was $26,313,000. The Treasurer said that the figures for 1967-68 were not yet available. 1 suggest that if we apply the per capita figure for 1966-67 to the present population it would seem that in the most recent financial year residents in the Australian Capital Territory will have contributed in income tax well over $31m. It is interesting to note that income tax per capita in the Australian Capital Territory has been consistently higher than the per capita average for the Commonwealth and the per capita figure for any State. In 1966- 67 - again I mention this as the last year for which figures are available - the income tax payment per capita in the ACT was $263.13. This compares with the average throughout the Commonwealth of $156.63 and with the rate in the highest State, Victoria, of $175.58. Other figures provided by the Treasurer show that in the 5 years from 1961-62 to 1965-66 - again this is the last year for which figures are available - company tax received from the Australian Capital Territory totalled $38,810,000, and at that time the intake from this source was increasing at the rate of $2m a year.

The Treasurer was unable to give figures relating to taxes on automotive fuels, and he could tell me nothing about the amounts paid by residents of the ACT in duty and/ or excise on liquor, cigarettes and tobacco as these duties were paid at the point of entry or at the point of release from bond, which generally in relation to the ACT would mean Sydney. I point out in passing that the figures in relation to the petrol tax are figures which would be revealed in the accounts of the States because of the refund of these amounts to the States, and of course income tax reimbursements also would figure in those accounts. Any full statement of accounts for the ACT should include items representative of these taxes.

Answers given by the Minister for the Interior show figures for the premiums on leases for the 5 years from 1963-64 to 1967- 68. For the uninitiated, these are the amounts people paid at auction sales for leases. It was never intended that there should be premiums on leases, but this has grown up because of the failure by the Government to release land in quantity sufficient to meet the demand, and so competition for land has forced up these premiums. For the 5 years from 1963-64 to 1967-68 premiums on leases totalled $22,783,063. Land rent, which is charged at 5% on the unimproved capital value of the leasehold land, amounted to $7,483,423. Transfer fees on leases for the 5 years totalled $1,020,237. There were other figures of fines and costs imposed by courts of something over Sim and registration and licensing fees of all kinds totalling 53,382,000-odd. Earlier the Minister had given figures that showed that in the 5 years from 1964 to 1968 ACT residents had paid in general rates $3,505,756 and in water rates $3,120,919. I state these figures to show that the people of this Territory are paying very substantially towards the revenues of the Commonwealth. Much of it is money paid directly for services or for facilities that are provided. Some of it, of course, is paid in the nature of general taxation revenues of the Commonwealth, but I believe that any proper system of accounting would reveal a statement of receipts and expenditure for the ACT.

Just to add further to my contention that the people of Canberra are already paying very substantially, and perhaps once and for all to nail this fantasy, this belief, this myth that they get everything for nothing, I refer to what the Prime Minister had to say in the spring session of this Parliament last year, when he made it abundantly clear that Canberra was not developing into a colossus which was a drain on the public purse. He made it clear that Canberra was already making a very substantial contribution towards its development and that it was completely wrong to say that it was being supported by the taxpayers of Australia generally. The Minister for the Interior a few days later expressed very similar views. But I was interested on looking back over my files to find that the Treasurer himself - I suppose it is the Treasurer who has advised the Government on this matter and suggested that these taxes should be imposed - in 1967 in an interview with a reporter from the ‘Canberra Times’ said that receipts and expenditures in the ACT were then practically at the point of balance. He said that draft statements of receipts and expenditures had been prepared but that they could not be released publicly. If we were practically at the point of balance in 1967, I suggest that with the increase in our population since then and with the incidence of taxation on the in creased population and the extension of development out into the new suburbs where people have been paying high premiums for land, we must be at the point of balance, as Professor Arndt suggested we were 6 years ago.

We are fortunate to have in this city the Canberra Times’ which speaks out strongly for the people of this Territory, and it speaks with a reasoned voice and with a strong voice. I want to quote to the House from an editorial which appeared in the Canberra Times’ on 29th March when the Treasurer had made his announcement that the procedures of preparing the legislation was in hand and the taxes were to be introduced. The ‘Canberra Times’ under the heading ‘Cynical Use of Power* had this to say:

The Federal Government’s handling of the stamp duty issue in the ACT has been an exercise in the cynical use of absolute power. At no time has it tried to justify the decision to impose stamp duties in terms which have any relevance to the interests of those being taxed. The only explanation that has been offered was made by the then Treasurer, Mr Holt, in hil (965 Budget speech announcing the intention to raise these duties. He said that-

Again we find these famous words: with the growth of Canberra as a city and as a business centre, we think it would be no more than fair and proper that residents of Canberra should bear certain taxes of a nature comparable with those levied on residents of the States. Accordingly, the Government has decided to introduce stamp duty upon a range of instruments and transactions. . . .

The editorial goes on:

The philosophy behind this explanation is so confused and naive that it must raise doubts about the competence of the Government to fashion the more intricate policies needed to serve the wider interests of the country. That three successive Governments have stood by this sole explanation as providing sufficient justification for stamp duties is astonishing. More, it raises grave concern that this philosophy will be applied in other areas of taxation.

I suggest to honourable members opposite that this is important enough to warrant consideration. There are principles of justice in the imposition of taxation. I think these are being voided in the present legislation. The editorial continues:

It implies that the raising of revenue in the ACT will bear no relationship to the most efficient and equitable means of imposing taxation other than the methods devised and applied in the States. A measure in the proposed legislation which gives a classic example of a backward step being taken simply to bring ACT practice into line with the States is the decision to replace the one per cent transfer fee on land transactions with stamp duty, which will raise the same amount of revenue from this source. The existing transfer fee is efficiently and inexpensively raised; the payment of stamp duty will involve considerable administrative costs which could well absorb most or all of the revenue gained from, this most lucrative source.

Lamentable though this kind of wrongheadedness is, the major issue at stake is whether the Government has a right to increase taxation without justifying the act in terms of spending needs or the national economic interest. The Treasurer, Mr McMahon, has not only failed to do this, he has not even made the attempt. His statement on Thursday announcing details of the proposed duties was notable for the absence of the kind of justification expected in a democracy.

If it is the Government’s intention to imitate the States in all fields of taxation it should say so now and have done with the unique system of raising most revenue in the ACT by premiums and rents. It is obliged also to give detailed information on the amount of revenue it expects to raise from stamp duties.

I remind the House again that we have now had an announcement from the Minister for the Interior that audited statements of receipts and expenditures are to be prepared. On Thursday, 17th April, the ‘Canberra Times’ in an editorial headed ‘A Democratic Principle’ said:

The fight against the threatened introduction of stamp duties and a lavatory tax in the ACT, which the Territory’s remaining representative, Mr Fraser, has now taken to Parliament, is primarily an attempt to reaffirm the principle that no Government has the right to raise taxation without establishing justification in terms of revenue needs and the national interest. The upholding of this principle is fundamental to the maintenance of good government in this country whether at the local, State, or Federal level.

There has been no suggestion by Canberra residents that they should be given privileged treatment by being exempted from certain taxes because they live in the national capital. Despite the added burden of a cost of living higher than in any other capital city, with the exception of Hobart, the people of Canberra are content to pay their way for municipal and State-type services and to share with other Australians the cost of building and maintaining the national capital. They strongly object, however, to being forced to carry a total taxation burden which available information fails to justify. And they object to the Federal Government’s refusal to publish detailed financial accounts which are public information in every other city and State in Australia.

The editorial concludes:

The objection of Canberrans-

That is the editor’s word, not mine - to the imposition of stamp duties is based on the same grounds as their opposition to the sewerage tax. At no time has the Government justified its intention to introduce these duties in terms relevant to those being taxed and the national interest. The Treasurer, Mr McMahon, has reiterated, as if it were a fact, that it was “fair and proper” that the nature of taxes levied in the ACT should be the same as those in the States. This would be so if the system of taxation were similar but, as it is not, his statement makes little sense. The other reason given, that there is a need to close the ACT as a “tax haven” for people living in the States, is understandable. Surely, however, the door should be closed by the States, which do have the power, rather than by the Federal Government, which would simply penalise people for living in Canberra.

A full statement of accounts is necessary in order to determine whether additional taxation should be imposed in the ACT and the manner in which revenue can be raised most efficiently and effectively. The Government should publish this statement immediately. But over and above this, the arbitrary imposition of stamp duties and sewerage tax must be opposed on the ground that the Government’s method of imposing them violates a fundamental democratic principle.

I suggest, with all humility, that since we have had the announcement that we are to have the publication of audited municipal type accounts at the end of the financial year 1969-70, these taxes might be deferred for further consideration after we have had a look at the accounts. Surely the people who pay the piper should be able to call the tune. The people of the Territory are denied the right to govern themselves. They are denied the right that belongs to every other citizen of this Commonwealth. In the Northern Territory the Commonwealth Government has established a Legislative Council, and it has a town council in Darwin. But in Canberra democracy does not exist so far as the Government is concerned.

There are several other matters to which I would like to refer, but I suggest to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz), who is also the Minister assisting the Treasurer, that the course I propose should be followed. I do not know whether it is still the Government’s intention to seek to introduce these taxes by 1st July, but if that is the intention and if the Government, with its numbers, buries the opposition to the two taxes to which I have referred, consideration should be given to the banks and institutions which will have to make certain changes to their procedures and will have to acquire certain materials before they will be in a position to act as the agents of the Commonwealth in the collection of these taxes.

I personally regret that the Government has chosen to perpetuate transfer fees on land. These are fees charged on the transfer of a house and land, and they are charged at the rate of Si in every $100 of the total value of the house and land. This is a form of taxation which surely limits the ability of people to secure their own homes. In other fields, and as election bait, the Government professes to encourage people to purchase or build their own homes. It offers a grant to people who save towards the construction of their own home, but at the very point at which their finances are stretched to the utmost, when they come to close the deal for the purchase of their home, if it is a home valued at $15,000 the Government says: ‘Give me $150’. This is at a time when $150 is hard to find. I suggest that the Government ought to have another look at this one. It is an existing charge. It is simply being incorporated in this measure and will be charged as a duty instead of, as previously, as a transfer fee which, as has been pointed out, was simply and easily collected.

I hope that at the Committee stage I will have the opportunity to put a plea to the Government on behalf of the credit unions in the Australian Capital Territory and to suggest, and to argue, that they should be included among those institutions which should be exempt from the payment of duty on cheques. I conclude by repeating that 1 think it is completely unjust for a government to impose taxation on a people without producing evidence that the revenue is required and that the form of taxation is just and justifiable. I can say no more than that. 1 know that when the vote is taken on the two Bills which we are opposing - the Bills which seek to impose stamp duties on cheques and stamp duties on hire purchase agreements - the bells will be rung and all members will come into the House from wherever they are and will vote without having heard the arguments on these matters, without having heard what has been put forward so capably by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports who led for the Opposition in this debate, and what I also put before the House. They will simply come in, have a look at which side their mob is on and vote with it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I just want to give some brief support to my colleagues, particularly the honourable member for the

Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser) who is, one might say, carrying on a one-man John Hampden type of battle against the forces of taxation in this Territory. For the life of me I cannot see why a person should have to pay a tax on a cheque. I cannot see why a person should have to pay a tax on a receipt. I cannot see why a person should have to pay a tax when he transfers money to somebody when he buys a home. To me it is part of an escape from maturity and common sense in the financial procedures of Australia.

Mr Arthur:

– Where would you get your revenue?

Mr BRYANT:

– My colleague opposite asks where I would get the revenue. In Australia we live in a very well administered community, despite the bad Government. We live in a community in which every person is very well documented, is very easily found and is accustomed to filling in his tax forms. All these indirect taxes are an attempt to escape the direct responsibility a government has to say to the citizens: This is how much it costs to run the country and that is how much you have to pay.’ We on this side of the House say that this is a co-operative enterprise between all of us, between the rich and the poor, between the young and the old and between those in need and those who have the means, and the traditional attitude we ought to have is that those who have the means pay for those who have the needs.

If we look back into history we will see that each indirect tax is simply an effort by some government somewhere to raise a few more dollars either because it was not willing to exercise its right to impose income tax, as was the position in the States so long ago, or because it had a traditional attitude that income tax is a tax on wealth and you want to escape that if you are wealthy. The history of these taxes shows that this has been the way that traditionally the people who did not know how to handle communities or who were trying to escape direct responsibility handled the matter. That is one of the reasons why Charles I lost his head in 1649. It was not the only reason, of course. But it was window taxes, hearth taxes and the other funk-holes in which he tried to escape direct responsibility that caused his downfall.

My friend opposite is asking about the situation in Canberra. It has been said that because people pay these taxes in Victoria the people in Canberra should pay them, and I think that is the worst possible reason for imposing them. Bless me, if there is a Stone Age government in Australia, it is the Victorian Government. Let us carry the argument that because something is done in Victoria it should be done here, to its logical conclusion and apply it to everything. Victoria has one of those unbelievable relics of the Middle Ages called private streets. When citizens of the metropolitan area of Melbourne have their streets made they pay for every inch of them. In the area in which I live people pay $17 a foot for their streets. Should we impose that system on Canberra because it exists in Victoria? According to the argument we have heard, it would be fair to do so. In the area in which I live some 250 people found about $200m to pay for their streets.

Mr Nixon:

– You live in Canberra.

Mr BRYANT:

– I live in Melbourne and I live in Canberra. You, of course, do not live anywhere. You only take up space and take orders. By living in two places I have found out a good deal about the mismanagement of the Government in this part of the country. The fact is, of course, that if the Government wanted to raise extra money in Canberra it could do so. As far as I can see, no case has been made for raising extra money in Canberra, but perhaps the Government could make a case if it produced the accounts. I do not know the direct constitutional relevance of what I am saying now, but I think it would be fair enough to say that this would be one of the simplest places in which to impose a local income tax. The Government could have a local income tax for the Australian Capital Territory, if it wanted to raise money here. But the real offensive nature of the taxes now being imposed has been shown by my friend from the Australian Capital Territory. A tax is being imposed on hire purchase, which is used at a time when a person is m need. Transfer fees are being introduced, and these will apply at a time when a person is in need. A tax on cheques is simply an economic aberration. So I raise my voice to say that, instead of trying to prevent Canberra from becoming a tax haven we should set up some taxation standards in this community. This is one of the wealthiest communities in Australia; it is also one of the most expensive. We ought to direct our efforts not so much-

Mr Whittorn:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I direct your attention to the state of speech time clock. It has stopped.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W 3 Aston:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– We shall adjust it. I thank the honourable member for calling my attention to it.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am about to finish. The honourable member for the charge of the light brigade has directed our attention to the state of the clock. I will not be the first leader in history who has made time stand still. But this Government, of course, does not simply stop the clock; it spends most of its administrative time putting it back.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Darling Downs · LP

– in reply - When I introduced this series of Bills I gave a large amount of detail in relation to them. I do not intend to go over the material that was provided at that time. I was very interested in the comments of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). I would like to reply to what he said, but I am afraid that he did not really say anything. I will reply to the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser), because I can understand his interest in this matter and I appreciate his representation. Certainly he is in a position where he has to fight a case as he sees it. He raised one or two matters that should be answered.

He questioned the right of the Government to impose any form of taxation and especially taxation of the type being dealt with in these Bills. Of course, under our democratic system it is the right and responsibility of the Government to make decisions. The Government is the only authority that can make decisions in relation to this matter. However, under our system the measures we have introduced have to be approved by the Parliament. In other words, the will of the Parliament must prevail. If the measures are not acceptable to the Parliament they will be rejected. I rather question the honourable member’s comments in the last part of his speech. I thought they were unfortunate and rather reflected on the will of the Parliament, which is paramount in these matters. Whilst the Government has the responsibility to make decisions in relation to taxation matters of this type it is up to the House to decide whether the decisions are acceptable. Exactly the same situation prevails in each State. Victoria, which was referred to in a rather disparaging way, has an exactly similar system. Whatever the Government there decides on matters of this type must be approved by the Parliament before it becomes law.

The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory asked for the reasons why these measures were being introduced. There are three basic reasons. One is that we believe that the people and the corporations in the Australian Capital Territory should bear taxes that are comparable with those applying to residents and corporations in the States. 1 do not know whether the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory disagrees with that as a principle. From what he said I think he agrees with it as a principle, as does the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). The second reason is to prevent the use of the Australian Capital Territory to avoid certain stamp duties imposed in the States. Again the honourable member for Melbourne Ports agreed with this principle and I think I would be correct in saying that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory also agreed with it.

The third reason is to raise revenue. I will refer to that in a moment. However, the principle of raising revenue in the Australian Capital Territory is perhaps even more understandable than are the other principles. Compared to the immense amount of revenue that is devoted to the development of the Australian Capital Territory this very small amount that will be raised by these taxes - I will give an estimate in a moment - is only a drop in the ocean. So I do not think there can be any objection by the Opposition to the principle of trying to raise additional revenue in the Australian Capital Territory, as the States have to do within their borders and as we have to do throughout the Commonwealth generally.

Those are the three principles on which these measures have been based. Whilst the honourable member for the Australian

Capital Territory has raised objection to some detail, generally he and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports agree with these principles. They did specify two measures to which they will object, lt is their democratic right to do so. They have indicated that they intend to oppose the motions for the second reading of the measures which deal with a duty on cheques and a duty on hire purchase agreements. Of course, they have supported their case and explained the reasons for this proposal. Well, I have pointed out in my second reading speech the reasons for the introduction of these measures and also have referred particularly to the application of these aspects. So, we reach the position that the Opposition has put its case and we intend to press the measures as they stand.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports did suggest that there should have been some form of consultation with the people of the Australian Capital Territory in relation to this matter. The term consultation’ is not one that I would apply in a case of this type. I think perhaps information’ or ‘informing’ would be a better term to use. In fact, this is what the Government tried to do. The Government did submit the details of these proposals to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. I understand that the Advisory Council did react very quickly to them with an objection which it said it would sustain later. But no further information was received from the Advisory Council due to the fact that, immediately after this, its members resigned. The Advisory Council was the body at that time that was, from our point of view, representative of the people of the ACT. It was the body to which we would refer matters of this nature. That was done. It was done only to provide information in relation to the intention of the Government to introduce these measures so that the people of the ACT would understand fully the situation at that time. In fact, a statement was made about that time also indicating clearly the intention of the Government.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred to some of the basic principles which were involved. It has been clearly stated, as I did reaffirm in my second reading speech, that the intention to impose these particular duties was arrived at after very careful consideration by the Department of the Treasury, by the Commissioner of Taxation and by the Government of all the issues that were involved. It was a decision taken after considerable examination which went on over a considerable period. It was not a snap decision as one could infer from one or two comments made tonight. The principle on which this decision was based was that it was thought that the people of the ACT should bear certain taxes which were comparable with those levied on the residents of the States. This principle has not been objected to. I am sure that it is a principle which will be accepted by the majority of the people of Australia.

In addition to this, reference has been made - and I made it again in my second reading speech - to this problem of creating a tax haven in the ACT by which there can be an avoidance of certain State stamp duties. This again was one of the principles on which these measures were based. At the same time, the Government felt that it would not be appropriate, having regard to the costs of collection and the inconvenience to taxpayers, to impose duties on the very wide range of transactions and instruments which are usually subject to the stamp duties throughout the various States. So, the proposed duties in fact are confined to those which can be justified in the terms of revenue yields or in the terms of the need to safeguard State revenues. 1 am sure that no-one in fact would disagree with those principles.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory did ask: ‘Well what are the amounts involved? They have not yet been stated.’ The reason why these amounts have not been stated is that it is almost impossible at this point in time to have some particularly firm estimate of what would be involved. So, I cannot give a precise estimate at this time. But, for a full year, what we could classify as a fairly good guess would be about $1.3m. Initially, we anticipate that the cost of collecting the duties in the ACT may - again, I emphasise ‘may’ - also be about 3% of that amount. Of course, the proportion would decline after the initial stages.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports posed a question to substantiate his particular opposition to the reasons why there was this proposal for the introduction of stamp duty on cheques and hire purchase agreements. I think that I should point out that this decision was based on the principles that I have mentioned and secondly that, unlike some of the other duties, it is considered that it is not necessary to impose stamp duty on cheques and hire purchase agreements as a means of preventing avoidance of State stamp duties. This was one element that was introduced as a means of raising revenue. Some of the other measures were for the purpose, as clearly defined, of avoiding problems in relation to State taxation. But these two measures are related definitely to the question of revenue raising. The amount that we anticipate would be collected - again, this is a fairly substantial guess and I would not like to be held to this if the duties collected are combined, totals about §850,000. Of this amount, about $350,000 would come from cheques, other bills of exchange and promissory notes and most of the $350,000 would come from duties on cheques.

I think that I should draw attention also to the fact that we are grouping cheques and other bills of exchange and promissory notes together under the one heading. In fact, cheques are usually regarded as a particular type of bill of exchange. As other bills of exchange and promissory notes would be of negligible significance in the ACT, the proposal to exempt cheques from the proposed stamp duty would need to be extended to cover the general field of bills of exchange and promissory notes. So, we would get into another field of exemptions which would be of significance.

I conclude by referring to the fact, that, when we are dealing with the rates of duty in relation to cheques, we must remember that there are a number of exemptions which have not been referred to by the three members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate but to which I referred when introducing these measures last week. I referred to the general exemptions from all the proposed duties which are provided for public hospitals, public benevolent institutions, religious institutions, public educational institutions and visiting diplomatic personnel and their families. The extension of the exemptions to the last mentioned group is dependent upon reciprocal arrangements as far as our diplomats are concerned. I have merely referred to those exemptions as something which was overlooked in the reference by the member for the ACT to this duty. The Government stands by the measures that have been introduced. We feel that they are just and warranted. We again ask the House to support them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2519

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (CHEQUES) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Date resumed from 15 May (vide page 1861), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition intends to oppose this Bill for reasons which I hope were made clear in the debate on the Bill that we have just passed. As one who regards himself as a democrat I must express dismay at the Government’s attitude in determining what other people should pay when there has been no process of consultation with the people involved. Rather belatedly the Minister for Civil Aviation and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Swartz) has indicated that the proceeds from duty on cheques will be about $350,000 in a full year. No indication has been given in terms of the overall financial position of Canberra why it is necessary to raise this sum of money. What will be done with it when it has been collected? This duty will be an enactment in the name of this Parliament by people who do not represent the people upon whom the tax is to be imposed. The community should note that this action is being taken by a government which, when its purposes are suited by doing so, talks about lack of representation in other parts of the world.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member speaking to the second reading of the Bill?

Mr CREAN:

– I am opposing the second reading of this Bill, which is the major one of this group of Bills as far as we are concerned. I am trying to appeal to the democratic sentiments of honourable members who propose to vote to impose a tax upon certain people which is not imposed upon themselves. If this tax were imposed upon honourable members it would not be imposed directly by them but through their representatives in the State Parliaments. This is the missing link, if I may so term it, in this equation. The Government is trying to equate what it proposes to do here with some average of what is happening in other parts of the Commonwealth. I am glad to see the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) present in the chamber while we are discussing who should impose laws and on whom they should be imposed. I would have thought that, as we do not represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory, these matters might have aroused a little interest in us. In one sense, and only in a Federal sense, the people of the Australian Capital Territory are represented by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser).

The difficulty in this magnificent city is to unravel the finances and determine how much of what is spent relates to the national capital or the seat of government and how much specifically to the 120,000 citizens of Canberra. Canberra’s population would be about half that of Tasmania, which at least has all the trappings of a State government and numerous municipalities. In Canberra there is no State government and no local government at the moment. Yet this benevolent Commonwealth Government is prepared to say that because the residents of Tasmania or Victoria pay taxes on certain items, so too should the people of Canberra. The equity of the tax that is applied in the States is arguable, but the Commonwealth reasons that because it is levied elsewhere it should be levied here. The Government has not made out a case for the collection of this tax. The Government has not attempted to tell us whether Canberra pays its way but on the basis of a mythology that is a little difficult to follow the Government is prepared to launch this tax on the people of Canberra without indicating, until this evening, how much will be collected. Even now the Government has not indicated what it will do with the money that is collected. Presumably it will go into Consolidated Revenue because it is a tax levied in the name of the Parliament of Australia on the people of Canberra in particular. If the Government regards this as a reasonable exercise of its functions, fair enough, but I do not so regard it, nor would my colleagues on this side of the House so regard it. For these reasons we will oppose the Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Hire-purchase Business) Bill.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I want to make it abundantly clear that this Bill incorporates and shall be read as one with the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration Bill and specifically imposes tax only on cheques, not on promissory notes and bills of exchange.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 58

NOES: 33

Majority .. ..25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

page 2520

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (HIRE-PURCHASE BUSINESS) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May (vide page 1861), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition intends formally to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 59

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

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

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2521

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Orders of the Day Nos 6, 7 and 8 for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Insurance Business) Bill 1969, the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Sales of Marketable Securities) Bill 1969, and the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Purchases of Marketable Securities) Bill 1969 being read together and a motion being moved that the Bills be now passed.

page 2521

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (INSURANCE BUSINESS) BILL 1969

Second Readings

Consideration resumed from 15 May (vide pages 1861 and 1862), on motions by Mr Swartz:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Bills (on motion by Mr Swartz) passed.

page 2521

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STAMP DUTY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May (vide page 1862), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Clause 6 of this Bill delineates the classes of transactions which are exempt from the payment of stamp duties, and these are set out in detail in the Second Schedule to the Bill. I want to put a plea to the Government on behalf of the credit unions established in the Australian Capital Territory. I have had representations from the Credit Union League. I remind the Committee that savings and loan societies should be, in my view anyhow, specifically exempt in the Australian Capital Territory. The reason is that they are voluntary, non-profit making bodies dedicated to encouraging saving. This is their basic role. In States and Papua and New Guinea, savings and loan societies have partial or complete exemption. There is complete exemption in respect of cheques in Papua and New Guinea and Victoria. People do not pay stamp duty on cheques in other States, but there is no legislative basis for this. The most important point is that all cheques or bills of exchange drawn in favour of credit unions should be, in my view, free or exempt from stamp duty. Credit unions want to encourage regular saving. In the absence of payroll deductions, which the Commonwealth Treasury has refused to grant to credit unions for regular savings, the only means of payment is by cash or cheque. Quite obviously, cheques are the most convenient means of payment. Some people, in fact, give their credit union a stack of postdated or undated cheques to be lodged one each month.

For those people who save $20 to $40 per month, 5c per cheque makes only a small difference to the yield. However, those who can save only $5 to $10 would find the incentive to save, in the form of a good interest rate, eroded by the necessity to pay stamp duty. Yet these are the people who need to be helped to save. Even if the Treasury agrees to payroll deductions for regular credit union saving - ‘and representations have been made in this regard but they have not been answered by the Treasury - this will not help the majority of the Canberra employees who are not employed by the Commonwealth. Canberra does not have many places of employment large enough to make collectors practicable. I suggest that to help credit unions in their work of promoting savings, cheques payable to them should be exempt from stamp duty. The administration of this exemption would present no insuperable problem.

It might help the Minister to understand the position if I point out that there are about 3,500 Canberra people, or about one family in seven, in credit unions. Deposits in these unions are rapidly approaching $lm, and the average is $250 per member. The average is $400 in the case of one society which offers payroll deductions for saving. Credit unions pay about 6% interest. There is some variation from society to society, but in general the rate of interest is about 6%. The funds deposited are used to make loans to members at an interest rate of 1% per month or 12% per annum. Most surplus funds are deposited with building societies. Credit unions have countless cases on file of people who, through the work of these groups, have graduated from a situation of constant financial crisis to one of sound security. While the bulk of credit union cases are far less spectacular the overall picture is one of a worth-while job very much in the national interest being undertaken voluntarily by a quite devoted few who work in this field. I would like to suggest to the Minister an example of a member saving, say, $10 per month. He saves $120 a year and thus earns about $3.60 in interest. That interest at present is less twelve times 5c which is the present bank fee. This equals 60c and reduces his effective interest rate from 6% to 5%. If on top of that he has to pay stamp duty his return in interest will again be less twelve times 5c - another 60c per annum - reducing his effective interest rate to 4%, and this rate of interest, of course, is not high enough to encourage the marginal saver. I. do suggest to the Minister that he give consideration to the proposition that cheques payable by or drawn in favour of credit unions should be freed of stamp duty and should be included in the list of exemptions.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister assisting the Treasurer · Darling Downs · LP

– Whilst I appreciate the case that has been put forward by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser), I can assure him that all aspects of this matter have been carefully examined and therefore we must proceed with the measure as we have it before the House at the moment. I ask the House again to support the measure, but in case there are any angles that have been missed in the study that has been undertaken I will see that the points that have been raised are carefully examined.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2523

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Wentworth · LP

– by leave - I present the text of the following international treaty; Convention No. 99 concerning Minimum Wage Fixing - Machinery in Agriculture, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 34th session on 28th June 1951.

For the information of honourable members I should indicate that the law and practice in both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions in Australia are in accord with the provisions of this Convention.

The Government intends to lodge the instruments of ratification of this Convention with the Director-General of the International Labour Office during the 53rd session of the International Labour Conference to be held in Geneva next month.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– -by leave - The Opposition is gratified that the Government is ratifying this Minimum Wage Fixing - Machinery in Agriculture Convention which was adopted at the International Labour Conference in 1951 and was supported by the Government representatives at that Conference. This means that Australia will have ratified 27 of the ILO conventions out of 128. An omission is the other convention which was adopted at the same International Labour Conference in 1951, namely the equal remuneration convention. On that matter the Government representatives abstained from voting. If it takes the Government 18 years to ratify a convention which it supported, it is no wonder that it is taking so much longer to ratify a convention on which it abstained from voting. This will be the first ratification by Australia in almost 6 years. The last ratification before the one 6 years ago was made 9 years ago. We in fact attend conferences at which many more conventions are drawn up than we ever ratify. The Conference is outpacing the Australian Government. It is therefore with somewhat modified rapture that we applaud the Government for at last ratifying another ILO Convention.

page 2523

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I pre sent the Eighth Report from the Printing Committee sitting in conference with the Printing Committee of the Senate.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 2523

PATENTS BILL 1968

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 10.

Sections 47, 48, 48a, 49 and 49a of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: “47c. Where an applicant does not request the making of an examination of the application and complete specification -

Clause 37.

Section 160 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “ (8.) This section does not apply in relation to the doing of an act or the taking of a step under section forty-seven, section forty-seven a, section forty-seven b or section forty-seven c of this act.”.

Clause 41. (1.) The amendments of the Principal Act made by sections 4, 5 and 8 to 10 (inclusive) sub-section (2.) of section 11, sections 12, 14 and15, paragraph (a) of section 16 and sections 17 to 21 (inclusive), 23, 24, 26 to 28 (inclusive), 30, 32, 34, 36 and 37 of this Act apply in relation to applications for patents other than an application in respect of which a copy of the first report of an Examiner on the complete specification was sent to the applicant before the date fixed under sub-section (2.) of section 2 of this Act.

Senate’s amendments:

In clause 10, lines 33 to 44, leave out proposed section 47a, insert the following section: “‘47a. - (1.) Where a complete specification has been lodged in respect of an application and the Commissioner considers it desirable to give a direction under this section on all or any of the grounds specified in the next succeeding subsection, he may, at any time before the expiration of five years after the date of lodgment of the complete specification of the expiration of two years after the date fixed under sub-section (2.) of section two of the Patents Act 1968, whichever is the later, by notice in writing given to the applicant, direct the applicant to request the making of an examination of the application and complete specification. “ ‘ (2.) The grounds referred to in the last proceeding sub-section are -

that the Commissioner considers it expedient to give the direction having regard to the progress made in the examination of applications lodged before the date of lodgment of the application concerned;

that the Commissioner considers it to be in (he public interest to give the direction; and

that the Commissioner considers it expedient to give the direction having regard to the examination of another application. “ ‘ (3.) Where the Commissioner gives a direction to an applicant under this section, he shall at the same time inform the applicant of the ground or grounds on which the direction is given.”.

In clause 10, at the end of proposed section 47b, add the following sub-section: “ ‘ (2.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply in relation to an application and complete specification unless the application and complete specification have become open to public inspection.”.

In clause 10 in proposed section 47c, leave out ‘three’, insert six’.

In clause 10 in proposed section 47d leave out sub-section (2.).

In clause 14, after proposed section 52a, insert the following section: “ ‘52aa.- (1.) Where-

a Convention application has been made;

an application for protection in respect of an invention (in this section referred to as a “foreign application”) has been made in a prescribed Convention country, being an application that -

constitutes the basic application or one of the basic applications for the purposes of Part XVI.; or

claims a priority in that country based on an application made in another country that constitutes the basic application or one of the basic applications for the purposes of that Part;

a patent has not been granted in respect of the foreign application; and

the applicant has been directed by the Commissioner under section forty-seven a of this Act to request the making of an examination of the application and complete specification, being a direction given on a ground that is not, or on grounds that do not include, either of the grounds specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2.) of that section, the applicant, instead of requesting the making of an examination of the application and complete specification, may request, as prescribed, the deferment of the examination of the application and complete specification. “ ‘(2.) Where an applicant makes a request in accordance with the last preceding sub-section, paragraph (b) of section forty-seven c of this Act does not apply in relation to the application. “‘(3.) Where-

the applicant does not request the making of an examination of the application and complete specification before the expiration of nine months after the date on which the request for deferment was lodged in the Patent Office; and

the application has not previously lapsed under section forty-seven c of this Act, the application shall lapse. “‘(4.) Section forty-seven 3 of this Act applies in relation to an application that has lapsed under the last preceding sub-section as it applies in relation to an application that has lapsed under section forty-seven c of this Act.”.

In clause 37 in proposed section 160 (8.), leave out “or section forty-seven c”, insert “, section forty-seven c or sub-section (1.) of section fifty-two aa”.

In clause 41 (1.), leave out “and 37”, insert “, 37 and 37a”.

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill. “37a. Section 162 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (2.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply in relation to the power of the Commissioner to give a direction under section forty-seven a or section forty-seven b of this Act.’.”.

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– I move: That the Senate’s amendments be agreed to.

Certain amendments to the Patents Bill 1968 have been made by the Senate and these correspond with the alterations to the Bill which I foreshadowed in my statement to the House on 15th May. At that time I circulated to honourable members a memorandum containing the text of the proposed alterations. I do not think it is necessary to explain again in detail each of the amendments. My statement on 15th May set out the effect of them.

In summary the main purpose of the amendments is to alter the scheme of deferred examination contained in the Bill originally so that an applicant for a patent will be required to elect whether he wishes to request examination of his application at the time when his application is reached in the ordinary course of examination in the Patent Office. There is a modification to this scheme in the case where an applicant wishes to have his application dealt with under the provisions for modified examination, but does not have the equivalent British or United States patent available at the time when he is required to elect whether to have his application examined. In that case he may ask that examination of his application be deferred for a further 9 months. This provision is subject to the overriding provision that a request for examination must be made within 5 years after the date of lodgment of the complete specification or the application will lapse. That is the effect of the amendments which have been forwarded to us by the other place. These are acceptable to the Government and I commend them to the Committee.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The amendments are acceptable also to the Opposition. Between the time that the Attorney-General outlined the amendments to this House a fortnight ago and the time that they were moved on his behalf in another place, the interested professional bodies were in touch with my colleagues and me. The doubts which they had expressed when the Bill was shelved in the other place last November have now been resolved satisfactorily.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2525

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1969.

Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Bill 1969.

page 2525

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 22 May (vide page 2194), on the following paper presented by Mr Gorton:

Prime Minister’s Visit to the United States - Ministerial Statement, 15 May 1969 - and on the motion by Mr Erwin:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– This is a resumption of a -debate upon a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) concerning his visit to the United States of

America. The House this evening takes up the debate from last Thursday. I do not want to complain - as honourable members know I am not given to complaining - but I want to enter a mild complaint - and I hope I do this in a restrained sense - when I say that I think it is a pity that we interrupt our debates upon foreign affairs and defence matters. I think it would suit the temper of the House if the debates on these important issues were to have some continuity. There is my complaint, and I will now discuss the subject before the House.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) read a long speech on the Prime Minister’s statement. I say with respect that I thought he read it splendidly. I am bound to say that since his speeches on foreign affairs are being prepared for him by technical advisers, the quality of the prose has improved somewhat. I observe, nevertheless, that the same political deficiencies and the same deficiencies in policy are as readily apparent in his speeches today as they have been for many years.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition spoke for the Opposition; he spoke for the Australian Labor Party. He did not deal with the Prime Minister’s statement as such but it pleased him to embark upon a general debate, a general discourse, on foreign affairs. I thought that a little strange because the Prime Minister concerned himself with three, possibly four, major aspects of his visit to the United States. In return the Leader of the Opposition gave us a dissertation, one may so style it, on virtually every aspect of foreign affairs today.

I have tried to cull out three or four major points that the honourable gentleman made in his speech. In doing so I have taken both insult and a measure of importance as being ingredients of the culling. It will be recalled that the honourable member started his speech by scorning the reassurance given by the Prime Minister about the ANZUS agreement. The Leader of the Opposition said that he thought if all the Prime Minister of Australia could do was to come back to Australia and report that a solemn agreement entered into by this country and the United States some1 8 years ago was to be observed then his visit was a failure. That is his claim. But I think the supreme test of this is to be measured by asking the question: I wonder whether the

Leader of the Opposition, if he had been Prime Minister of Australia, could have brought back from the United States the same reassurance? That is the test. I would not have thought it strange that a new Prime Minister and a new President should seek to examine the relationship between their two countries as far as the ANZUS agreement was concerned. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition conceded that point. Nevertheless, in reply to his scorning, his ridiculing and his inclination to say Well, if this is all you can say after having been to the United States, then it is a very great pity’, I say bluntly that if the Leader of the Opposition had been Prime Minister he could not have brought back to this country the same assurances regarding the ANZUS agreement as the Prime Minister brought back. I propose to test this.

First, may I observe that I thought the Leader of the Opposition indulged himself somewhat when he referred back to the debate in this place in 1963 on the North West Cape base - that is to say, the Harold Holt base in Western Australia. He brought in as aid the authority of his former leader when he said that ‘my former “leader had stated that we supported the base’. I say bluntly that he could have fooled me on this point. My recollection of the debate in 1963 was that it was thoroughly opposed by the Labor Party in this House and was opposed by the Labor Party in the Senate. I think there is one simple test to be taken as to whether or not the Labor Party did oppose the agreement to establish the North West Cape base in 1963. That test is to be taken by having regard to the amendment moved to the Bill by the Labor Party in relation to the agreement.

The amendment moved in 1963 to the Bill on the agreement to establish the North West Cape base provided that the third reading of the Bill should be taken 6 months hence. 1 observe that there may have been some people at the time who did not quite see the import of that, but the simple truth or the significance of that amendment lies in the fact that an amendment that the third reading of a Bill should be taken 6 months hence is tantamount to a rejection of the Bill. My authority for that is Sir Erskine May, who is the authority on parliamentary practice and procedure. So it is of no avail the Leader of the Opposition saying:

In 1 963 we supported the North West Cape base agreement’. The truth is that the Australian Labor Party opposed it. The sentiments expressed are of course, open to an infinite variety of interpretations, but the decisive test is the amendment moved that the third reading be taken 6 months hence.

Imagine a conversation between the Leader of the Opposition, if he were in the position of Prime Minister of this country, and the President of the United States regarding the relationship between the two countries. I should have thought it pertinent that the President of the United States would have said, for example, to a Labor Prime Minister in this day and age: Do you still have this odd arrangement whereby you have thirty-six people outside the Parliament who dictate policy to you?’ And one can imagine the reply that would come back to that: ‘No. We no longer have thirty-six; we now have forty-seven’, as though that were to rescue the Australian Labour Party from condemnation. One could imagine the perturbation that would grip the man who has the enormous responsibility of leading the United States if he were told that forty-seven people made up in the main of those not responsible to Parliament or linked with Parliament in any shape or form were in the very ultimate sense telling the Labor Party what its policy shall be.

I am wondering what sort of look would have appeared on the face of the honourable member for Werriwa in his capacity as a Labor Prime Minister if a President of of the United States had said to him: ‘1 have in my mind’s eye a recollection of a photograph of you and your former leader waiting outside a hotel to be told what your policy is’. Then, of course, the honourable gentleman could point out that now at least he has a say. I am wondering what sort of look would have appeared on the face of the honourable member for Werriwa as a Labor Prime Minister if he had been told that he understood that the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party had described the visit to Australia of his predecessor - that is to say, the predecessor of the President of the United States - as a political gimmick.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Who said that?

Mr KILLEN:

– The present President of the Australian Labor Party. He described President Johnson’s visit to Australia as a political gimmick. One could then inquire as to whether the question had been asked by the President: ‘Do you still own him or did you disown him?’ I wonder what the honourable gentleman would have said when he was told that the policy of the Australian Labor Party, with its nuclear free zone in the southern hemisphere, brought into question the most profound strategic questions. I wonder what sort of reply the honourable member for Werriwa as Leader of the Government would have given. I say promptly that the honourable member for Werriwa could not possibly have brought back to Australia the same assurances regarding ANZUS as did the Prime Minister of Australia.

Taking the second lament of the honourable gentleman in his speech of last week, I take the House to his criticism of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. It is very easy to criticise SEATO. Indeed, I have done lt myself in recent times. But the quality of the honourable member’s criticism could come only from a person who ignored completely the textual and constitutional provisions of both ANZUS and SEATO. SEATO refers to an entirely different area of responsibility from ANZUS. ANZUS refers immediately to Australia and New Zealand, and of course to the United States, but SEATO brings into consideration a presumption of responsibility in an entirely different sphere. The honourable gentleman the other night chose to ignore those presumptions and those responsibilities. For example, he said that he thought it was disturbing that SEATO should be bracketed with ANZUS. The two are complementary. The honourable gentleman cannot see this.

Under SEATO responsibilities come into being in South East Asia and these responsibilities are of the first importance to Australia. Under Article II of SEATO the parties contract separately and jointly to assume responsibilities. It is all very fine to point to the fact that France, to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, and Pakistan are ignoring their responsibilities under SEATO, but is the honourable gentleman’s argument that Australia, as a signatory to SEATO, should follow suit? If that is his argument why does he not state it, and state it explicitly? What sort of Australian would take a sense of pride in knowing that his country had reneged on a treaty obligation? Whatever our responsibilities may have been under SEATO and whatever may have been the pattern of behaviour of other countries which are signatories to the SEATO agreement, I hope that we are not to cringe away from our responsibilities under the SEATO agreement.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition, when he came to Vietnam, had a field day. I hope that the House and the country do not ignore the fact that throughout the honourable gentleman’s speech last Thursday night there was not one criticism of North Vietnam’s aggression in South Vietnam, not one criticism of the activities of the Vietcong in South Vietnam, and not one criticism of the fact that there are today 40,000 North Vietnam troops in Laos. I wonder why it is that when it comes to Vietnam the Australian Labor Party is not prepared to put into any sense of balance the operations and the activities of North Vietnam. Is any person going to contend that there are not North Vietnamese troops operating in South Vietnam in open violation of the Geneva Accords? Why not a word of criticism about these activities? But no. The honourable gentleman said that we must proceed for the immediate neutralisation of Vietnam, of Laos and of Cambodia.

When he turned to the offer made by President Nixon the honourable gentleman said, and properly so, that this was a significant statement. But I want to ask the Australian Labor Party what its attitude will be if the proposals put by President Nixon for a settlement of the Vietnam conflict are ignored or rejected by Hanoi. To date there has been no response at all by Hanoi to President Nixon’s proposals. They will respond at their own bidding, if they do respond. But what is to be the attitude of the Australian Labor Party? Does it advocate a unilateral withdrawal of our troops from South Vietnam if there is a failure to respond to President Nixon’s proposals or, indeed, if there is a rejection of those proposals? I think the country is entitled to know this. I think that the electors of Bendigo are entitled to know this. Does the Australian Labor Party stand for a unilateral withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam? If that is the proposal let the Labor Party say so, and say so bluntly. That is the challenge I make to those who will speak for the Australian Labor Party - for the Opposition - this evening.

If there is to be a withdrawal from Vietnam, as was observed by President Nixon - no matter what are the arguments about involvement in the first place - without a settlement, it will mean assuredly a massacre on a massive scale. It will mean that aggression will get a fresh sense of impetus throughout South East Asia, lt will mean that there will be a rejection of our pledges to the people of South Vietnam and it will mean, in a real sense, that human life will take on a new and even uglier irrelevancy than has been the case in recent years. The country, 1 regret, has been disposed to ignore the way in which the tragedy of Vietnam started. Let me remind the House, if I may, that in 1954 more than one million refugees came out of North Vietnam into South Vietnam. What would all those prattling clerics around the countryside have done in 1954? Would they have turned up on the border between the two States, have given a benediction and swept these people back to a hell on earth? I wonder what the Reverend Alan Walker, who seems to know astonishingly little about Vietnam and, I regret to say, even less about Christianity, would have done with that problem. There were one million refugees. These are the people who voted with their feet, and it is to no avail anyone saying that these people did not run away from a horror as they perceived it. But North Vietnam has elected to ignore the Geneva Accords and has elected to go into South Vietnam and Laos to ensure that there is tremendous instability throughout those areas.

The domino theory is very real to those people who live in this part of the world and I invite the members of the Australian Labor Party to produce at least some authority for the proposition that the domino theory is not valid. We have people, for example, who prepare papers for the Institute of Strategic Studies and who argue in a painstaking way that if South Vietnam goes then Laos and Cambodia will go in their turn. This is the crucial question that this House and the country must answer. For my part, and I believe for the part of those who sit on this side of the House with me, I think that what the Prime Minister said recently when he reported to the Parliament and to the country showed that there is an earnestness by those on our side of politics to ensure that the strength of the American alliance is maintained. I have suggested to the House this evening that on past performances - and one is entitled to look at form - no Labor Prime Minister could have brought back to this country the assurances that the present Prime Minister of Australia brought back. This is why in the ultimate sense the Australian Labor Party will continue to spend its time in opposition.

Mr UREN (Reid) [10.41- The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) seemed somewhat concerned about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) reading his speech. I am concerned not with the manner in which he reads his speech but with the contents of the speech. The Leader’s speech was a contribution. It indicated progressive thought in relation to South East Asian affairs, world peace and restraint, particularly in Vietnam. I have heard the honourable member for Moreton year in and year out espousing hate and advocating escalation of the war. He supports the dropping of more and more bombs on North Vietnam. This has always been the attitude of the honourable member. He never argues for restraint in Vietnam, but supports restraint in respect of the white settlers of Rhodesia. He reveals his hate for the Vietcong and for the North Vietnamese and he shows his fear of the Chinese. Let me quote what Martin Luther King said in Washington in 1962:

Hate is always tragic, it is injurious to the hater as it is to the haled. It distorts the personality and scars the soul.

The honourable member for Moreton who proposed, as a matter of public importance on 17th October 1968, the discussion of British shipping in the port of Haiphong, was and has been an advocate for neutralising, by bombing, the port of Haiphong. In the 10 years that I have been a member of the Parliament I have never heard the honourable member for Moreton urge restraint in Vietnam or the de-escalation of that war.

What positive contribution did he make to the discussion of President Nixon’s eight-point proposal? Did he give it any real support? Did he encourage the acceptance of those points? All he did was to ask what the Labor Party would do if the North Vietnamese - not the Vietcong - would not accept President Nixon’s proposals. What I want to know - 1 have been wanting to know this for some years - is what the Government wants to do. The Opposition has been advocating de-escalation of the war and has urged that the bombing of North Vietnam should stop. The eight-point proposal put forward by President Nixon is in conformity with Labor Party policy. It follows a similar pattern to our policy. What is the attitude of the desperate war hawks opposite? The honourable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), who is trying to interject, is a war hawk. He has only one attitude to the Vietnamese and that is that we should bomb them out of existence. He cannot seek a political solution to the war in Vietnam, and we know that there is no military solution.

In his statement of 15th May the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) discussed Vietnam and referred to the ANZUS and SEATO treaties. He spoke about the bases that exist in Australia. He discussed a continuation of American occupation in Asia post Vietnam. He referred, very briefly, to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He discussed the present plans of the United States Air Force in relation to the Fill. To discuss properly any one of these topics would take the full 20 minutes available to me tonight. In the time remaining to me, and before I discuss the bases in Australia, let me answer the honourable member for Moreton and other members opposite by referring to the concluding words of Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty. They are:

  1. . it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. 1 challenge the honourable members in respect of the words ‘in accordance with its constitutional processes’. Before the United States could become involved in any war in support of ANZUS, according to the ANZUS Treaty it would have to get the support of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United Stales, lt is my belief that the power that was given to President Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin incident will not be given again by the Congress of the United States. I ask honourable members to ponder those words in the ANZUS Treaty and not to delude the people of Australia. Honourable members opposite should be frank about the shortcomings of the ANZUS Treaty. In his statement of 15th May the Prime Minister said:

There are some who argue that there is good reason to refuse any proposal for a joint defence establishment because such an establishment might become the target of attacks in nuclear war and might therefore endanger us. My Government rejects this argument.

He went on to say:

I cannot assert that in nuclear war there would be no possibility at all that such installations might be subject to attack.

But I will deny that this- is reason to reject such establishments. They contribute to the military effectiveness and protection of that power on whom the safety and independence of Australia might, in the future, depend.

In other words, the Prime Minister has admitted that there are targets within Australia that could be subjected to nuclear attack.

I expressed my worries on this pointwhen we discussed Woomera, Pine Gap and the North West Cape recently. I. am concerned that, in a war involving intercontinental ballistic missiles and the other great armaments that are available to mankind, we would be subject to attack. The communications station at North West Cape is in contact with submarines carrying Polaris missiles. The only person who can fire the Polaris missiles is the President of the United States and that the message to fire them would be sent through this communication station to submarines submerged in the Indian Ocean. We know that these submerged submarines would fire their missiles at cities in southern Russia and China. Surely we must realise that, if it is good enough for us to allow this station to be used to direct fire at their cities, we would be subject to reciprocal attack. In nuclear warfare it is a matter of striking first or not at all. The United States has only a limited anti-ballistic missile system. The Sentinel system is used in the defence of strategic armaments. But we do not have a Sentinel system in Australia.

I quote from an article in the ‘New Yorker’ of 22nd March 1969. The article reported that George Wald, a Nobel prize winner, had said:

A few months ago, Senator Richard Russell, of Georgia, ended a speech in the Senate with the words ‘If we have to start over again with another Adam and Eve, I want them to be Americans; and I want them on this continent and not in Europe.’

Let us substitute ‘not in Australia’ for ‘not in Europe’. Senator Russell is not a person who can be treated lightly. I went to the Parliamentary Library to look up the positions held by this gentleman and I found that Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, is a member of the Committee on Appropriations and, of all things, he is Chairman of the sub-committee dealing with the Department of Defence.

This man says that we can annihilate mankind, and that is all right as long as Americans are not annihilated. I know that all Americans do not hold this view. The United States and Russia between them have stockpiled nuclear weapons equivalent to the explosive power of 15 tons of TNT for every man, woman and child on earth. Those are the facts of life. Yet the new Secretary of Defence in the United States, Mr Melvin Laird, is reported to have said:

We really would like to disarm.

He is then said to have made the ingenious proposal:

Now is the time to greatly increase our nuclear armaments so that we can disarm from a position of strength.

These people can kill and overkill mankind, but they still go on with this madness of creating further means of warfare.

Let us not be too sure that we are secure. We have permitted bases to be established in Australia for the defence of the United States and pretend that they are for our defence. Senator Russell has made it clear that we are expendable, that the Americans must survive. That gentleman from Georgia in the Deep South has made it clear that, of all the Americans, the Georgians and the men of the Deep South must survive and of those it must be the whites.

The war in Vietnam should be on everyone’s mind. When we think of that country we think of the bloodshed and the horror that is evident there. Alan Ramsey in the Australian’ of 25th May 1969 gave some statistical data on what he called the ‘cost to lose an undeclared war’. He listed the killed as 35.000 Americans, 77,000 South Vietnamese Government soldiers and an estimated 477,000 enemy Vietcong and North Vietnamese. There have been 308 Australians killed and of these 130 were young conscripts, men who were forced to go to Vietnam by honourable members on the Government side. There have been some 1,340 Australian casualties and over 150,000 American casualties. Since the Budget of 1964, the cost to the United States has been $76,000m and the cost to Australia has been more than $120m. It has cost $350,000 to eliminate one Vietcong. The perimeter of Khe Sanh was bombed recently. More bombs were dropped on the perimeter of Khe Sanh than were dropped on the whole of Japan during the Second World War and more bombs were dropped on the perimeter of Khe Sanh than were dropped in northern Europe during the key war years of 1942 and 1943.

This is the result of the mania and the hysteria of men like Senator Russell from Georgia. What faith can we put in such men? What faith can we have in American leadership? It is our responsibility to give leadership to this country. We should have been expressing our point of view publicly - not only honourable members on the Opposition side but also honourable members on the Government side. We should have shown that we wanted the deescalation of the war, that we wanted sanity and that we wanted compromise not on one side but on both sides.

The Prime Minister made one statement that I support. Referring to the President of the United States, he said: in seeking to bring the fighting to an end he will have our full support.

He will have the full support of the whole Parliament in his efforts to achieve this objective. My reasons for supporting him may be different from those of the Prime Minister and the Government, but I will support any man who tries to bring sanity to Vietnam. A famous American said recently:

I think we have lost the war, as a lot of other people think, too. The Vietnamese have a secret weapon. It’s their willingness to die beyond our willingness to kill. In effect, they’ve been saying: You can kill us, but you will have to kill a lot of us: you may have to kill all of us. And, thank Heaven, we are not yet ready to do that.

I am thankful that there are Americans who think this way.

Many of my colleagues and I have applauded the men of compassion in the United States of America. I refer to great newspaper men like James Reston of the New York Times’ and Emmet Hughes when he was with ‘Newsweek’ and later became the campaign director for, of all people, that Republican, Rockefeller. Strangely, in the United States, there are people from both sides of politics who are against American participation in the Vietnam war. But, unfortunately, there has been only one courageous senator in the Government ranks who was prepared to break and say that he was opposed to the Vietnam war. Just one Government senator did that. The rest of the Government members toed the line. They had no doubts about the war. Nobody in the Government Parties had any reservations about it. Nobody has called for restraint. They have advocated greater and greater bombing and further and further escalation. Nobody has sought restraint. Nobody has doubted our policies in the Vietnam war. One lonely senator, who has now passed away, had the courage to do this.

But, in America, the newspapermen have said that they are opposed to the war. I have mentioned two men already. I mention also Walter Lippman. There are so many others. I mention also Senator Mansfield, Senator Morse, Senator Fulbright, the late Robert Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Javits and Senator Hattfield - the last two both Republicans - just to mention a few of the members of the Senate, because nearly half the members of the Senate are opposed to this conflict. Also, artists, writers and intellectuals and a great broad section of the American people are opposed to this war.

The Vietnam conflict is a dark cloud, it is a dark page in American history. I believe that our intervention in that war is a dark page in our history. Our position is unlike that of the Americans. The Americans can withdraw from Asia. But we are here until the end of time. We should be trying to do something with understanding and tolerance to help these people. We should not be trying to determine who are the goodies and who are the baddies. The people of Vietnam are the only people who can solve this problem. That is why I think President Nixon has given his support to these proposals for peace. I do not think that he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart. I think that he has been forced into this position. We know that even the Wall Street Journal’ has said: ‘We have to write off Vietnam’. Wall Street has determined that it cannot afford to continue the war. Melvin Laird, who was one of the greatest hawks in the United States Congress, in fact made the decision that the United States had to cease bombing by its B52 bombers because this action was costing too much. The internal economy of the United States was in trouble. The people were doubting the war. The wealthy people were trying to protect the dollar because most of the dollars were in their hands.

Now, the United States is to get out of Vietnam. It seeks peace in Vietnam. I hope that America achieves peace there. Speaking from this side of the House, I support the actions of President Nixon. I hope that his negotiations are successful. But let me repeat something that I have said for many years. I have been expressing my attitude on Vietnam since as far back as 1962. 1 have been opposed to our participation in this conflict since that time. I want peace, I want to see a compromise made on both sides. Compromise on both sides will allow the people of Vietnam themselves to determine their own affairs. In turn when all the troops, including our own troops, withdraw from Vietnam I hope that we give economic aid to try to build up that nation that has suffered so much for so long.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In the relatively short time that is available in this debate, I do not wish to spend too much time traversing the ground that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has traversed already so thoroughly and so often, except to go over his speech with him in two respects. I was rather intrigued with his reference to section 4 of the ANZUS Treaty. This is the section that requires constitutional processes to be taken with a respect to a decision by the United States. There were two aspects of his attitude to section 4 that intrigued me. 1 had the feeling that he was either rather unhappy that constitutional processes themselves had to be taken or rather hopeful that if they were taken they would not work, I do not know which one of these attitudes he happens to support but I would disagree completely with both of them.

The second point concerns his support for the negotiations proposed by President Nixon and the United States with the North Vietnamese. He said that he supported the negotiations by the United States and has always done so. But it is a very limited support that he proposes. Perhaps I ought to read to the honourable member the principles which animate President Nixon in his desire to undertake negotiations. I refer once again to his article in the January 1966 edition of the ‘Readers Digest’. Mr Nixon, as he then was, wrote:

There are three minimum conditions we must insist upon with the communists: North Vietnam must stop its aggression against South Vietnam; South Vietnam’s independence and freedom from communist control must be guaranteed; there must be no reward for the aggressors. I realise that talk of victory is unfashionable today, but there can be no substitute for victory when the objective is the defeat of communist aggression.

I ask the honourable member for Reid whether he supports President Nixon in his negotiations but, even more significantly, whether he supports the motives which clearly have animated President Nixon to continue and continue to pursue the peace negotiations in Paris.

Isolationism in practice is always something to be denigrated. But isolationism in terms of policy and in terms of judgment is even more to be denigrated. This statement by the Prime Minister is to be considered not only for itself but also as one of a trilogy of statements which have been made this year. The sequence of the trilogy is this: The first statement was to allow Australian troops to be committed in Malaysia and Singapore. The second statement concerned United States bases in the vicinity of Woomera. This third statement is consequent upon the visit of the Prime Minister to the United States. We do not want to consider these statements in isolation. I shall return to them in a moment.

We should not consider also the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), the Deputy Leader of the Opposi tion (Mr Barnard) and of course the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in isolation. To do that would be to do them a grave injustice. We do not want to consider their speeches in isolation; nor should we consider their policies that they have supported over the years in isolation. Let me refer to these policies for one or two moments.

Over the past decade and a half in terms of military initiatives in Asia involving Vietnam and Malaysia, they have disagreed with the Government completely. In terms of diplomatic initiatives in Asia- diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, our attitude to Peking and so on - those honourable members have disagreed with us completely. In terms of economic and social initiatives in Asia - probably the greatest clearly has been the Japanese Trade Treaty and its aftermath - those honourable members have disagreed with us also. The Leader of the Opposition has disagreed with the Government. He has disagreed with its attitude for a number of reasons. The reasons we well know. Those reasons include a certain amount of anti-Americanism, a certain view of China, a certain view of trade relations and, of course, the requirements of his own Party.

Against that background, we can consider the speech that he made last week and the speech which was made by the honourable member for Fremantle. We have had introduced into the reasons for which they take their attitudes an interesting, a new and a much more sophisticated variant. That variant is: ‘It is not so much Communism that we are concerned with. This does not happen so much. It is communalism’. This aliteration appealed to the Leader of the Opposition. ‘If it is not communalism, it is actually nationalism. That is the matter with which we are really concerned in Asia. Communism is not the number one problem; it is nationalism’.

These views were put explicitly by the honourable member for Fremantle. I wish to dwell for some few moments upon this. The honourable member for Fremantle said:

And the Government has made the childish mistake of assuming that the fundamental ideology of the Communist bloc is Communism when in truth the fundamental ideology of the Communist bloc is nationalism.

So, on grounds such as those the Labor Party rests its policy decisions. If it is not nationalism, we would oppose it, if it is the Australian Labor Party is in favour of it. Let us consider nationalism and the situation in Vietnam. Let us consider the confrontation between Ngo Dinh Diem and Ho Chi Minh. Who was the nationalist? I always thought that it was Ho Chi Minh who collaborated with the Japanese; that it was Ho Chi Minh who collaborated with the French. I always thought that Ngo Dinh Diem was the man - the nationalist - who sacrificed himself for his nationalism; who sacrificed himself for his devotion to his country. The Opposition obviously forgets about nationalism as the criterion for making decisions when it determines its policies with respect to Vietnam.

We can go a little further than this. We know that nationalism is important. We know that communalism is significant, but it would be a grave error if we were to forget the difficulties between classes - the difficulties between strata in various Asian nations and never to realise that Communism is capable of taking advantage of those difficulties. It would be an incredible error if in taking advantage of those difficulties we said: ‘This is not Communism; this is nationalism’. In Czechoslovakia in 1938 there were crises between two sections of the population - between the Czechs and the Slovaks. They were crises between people who espoused nationalism. I ask: Which dictator took advantage of that conflict in order to gain domination over the country? We would be blind not to have learned the lesson of that time and not to realise that nationalism is important but is not the only criterion. Errors of this kind have been made over many years - errors which seem to forget that Communism consists of a hard core politico-military network bent on attaining total power. The Americans made grave errors of policy with respect to China in the 1940s because they failed to recognise this fact. I quote from Tang Tsau who was obviously a great authority on American errors in the 1940s. He said:

In the writings about Chinese politics at this time one searches in vain for the view that a Communist Party based on Leninist principles is a tightly organised and highly disciplined group of professional revolutionaries aiming at the seizure of power whenever possible. … It was not widely understood that the totalitarian character of the Party arises both from its aspiration of total power . . .

He continues:

The ability of a tightly organised and rigorously disciplined elite, under able leadership, to make a flexible choice of slogans and means in its endeavours to capture power was a political fact which American specialists, trained and immersed in the liberal democratic environment of a free society, failed to take adequately into account.

The Americans made their mistakes some ages ago but the Opposition is not only compounding those errors; it refuses, 1 suggest, even to have the good will which motivated the Americans in making their errors years ago. All I would say is that the events in Asia - the events which have motivated our foreign policy - are events which have communalism - which have nationalism - but most significantly they have Communist cadres desiring to take advantage of divisions which come into being as a result of the exercise of these factors. We say that this is extremely regrettable. But another element has inserted itself into the speeches of the honourable gentleman opposite. This other philosophy is the philosophy of the erosion of the will of the West. As the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has never indicated that there has been, for example, a break-up of the political and social structure of North Vietnam. The honourable member for Fremantle never adverted to this. They concentrated all their energies upon demonstrating that there was an erosion of the will - a breaking-up of the structures in those countries of the West which were resisting Communist aggression. Of course one does not impute bad will to them but I do say that they are doing exactly as General Giap has always said certain people in the West would always do in respect of their own democratic communities. Honourable members have heard often enough what General Giap said. Dealing with the erosion of the will of the West and protracted guerilla warfare, Mr John Roche, one of the principal advisers to President Johnson, said:

The basic issue in Vietnam was this: Could a free society fight a limited war? That is, a strategic war, a war without hate, a war without massive popular involvement. To put it differently, the war in Vietnam was being fought for an abstraction: American national interest in a non-totalitarian Asian future.

That was difficult, lt is difficult to maintain the will of the people under such circumstances but it is very tragic and unfortunate when you find alternative Prime Ministers and alternative Ministers for External Affairs in this country aiding in the erosion of a democratic people - the very thing which General Giap, Ho Chi Minh and the North hope will occur in the West, which they oppose. In other words, the kind of warfare in which we are involved in Vietnam is the kind of warfare designed to have its maximum political effect upon the country against whom aggression is being waged as well as against those countries which are allies of the host nation.

We say then that when one examines the speeches which were delivered here last week we find that these two new principles were inserted and one feels rather sad that they were so inserted on this occasion. Of course, this was compounded when the honourable member for Fremantle referred to the Thai Foreign Minister as being part of this erosion of the will of the West, which he was at such pains to delineate. He quoted the Thai Foreign Minister, Thanat Khoman. Apparently he is now against our involvement. Thanat Khoman has clearly altered his views somewhat but what is the reason for this? It is because in late 1967 two American reporters who desired to erode his will belittled Thailand. They made his position difficult. They carried the information to that gentleman that the West would under all circumstances collapse. So, being in the front line, Thanat Khoman has altered his views - not completely, but he is not as vigorously opposed to the North Vietnamese as he was in the past. With whom does the critical blame rest? Not with the Foreign Minister: It rests with those people in the West who have taken every opportunity to erode the will of their people and to carry that erosion to our allies in Asia. That is where the real crime lies.

One other reference in the speech of the honourable member for Fremantle intrigued me. It stirred memories of a speech delivered by the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) in an earlier debate. He referred to the islands of Quemoy and Matsu and to the terms of

American nuclear retaliation. He said: ‘No great nation which gives you a direct nuclear guarantee will expose its own people to this kind of conflict for you. Therefore, the Russians, who have given a guarantee with respect of Quemoy and Matsu, would not withstand the threat of American nuclear retaliation and so the Communist Chinese were not encouraged to invade the islands.’ Is that the real story? That story is incorrect in a couple of ways. This is important because it illustrates some of the essential points of diplomacy that have to apply to small nations. First of all, the Communist Chinese did try to invade the islands and were repulsed. Secondly, stories were circulating in the United States in 1958 which indicated that it was not worth while extending an umbrella over these two islands. How did the Taiwanese react to this? They indicated that they would not retreat from the islands; that if American public opinion wanted to opt out of America’s obligations in this respect these people would not let America opt out but would stay in the islands and fight and die.

America not having been given the opportunity to opt out, the islands were held and they were secured. One can only reflect that this hard and courageous policy on the pari of a small nation in this case preserved the freedom of certain off-shore islands, and tragically it is in stark contrast to the policies which applied under President Benes in 1938-39 and enabled Britain and France to opt out of some of their own obligations in respect of Czechoslovakia. The point is that diplomacy for small nations is difficult. It has to be courageous in order that such small nations will remain free. Quemoy and Matsu indicate quite clearly that courage will both win and gain the protection of those nations that act as guarantors and of those nations with whom we are in alliance.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), in his discovery of the new principle of nationalism, referred to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia illustrates so many principles that it is worth while having a look at the nation in detail. Referring to the invasion of Czechoslovakia last year, the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘If this nation and if the United States is bent on stopping aggression around the world, what happened with respect to Czechoslovakia in 1968?’

Nothing happened. We could not do anything. We did not have the power to do anything. Bui there was the goodwill. We did not use the occasion to denigrate the United States. What did the Leader of the Opposition do on that occasion? He did not say that we should go and help this nation which was exerting nationalism within a Communist bloc. To his eternal discredit he stated in a Press release on that occasion in reference to Czechoslovakia, Further improvement in their relations -

That is, between Russia and the United States - has been hinde! ed by their involvement on opposing sides in Vietnam.

Russia has been emboldened to affront world opinion because America’s influence has been eroded in Vietnam.

The suppression of liberalism in Czechoslovakia would not have been attempted if peace had been secured earlier in Vietnam.

The Russians are not to be blamed for not observing nationalism in a Communist bloc. The Americans, 13,000 miles away and involved in the war in Vietnam, are the culprits. In this clear and logical process with which one should be acquainted, one looks at the kind of policies which have been proposed by the Opposition on a number of occasions in this place. If it is realised that one has to do something in Vietnam it should be realised at the same time that the social structure of the North is failing and that the war in which they are engaging is being engaged in not primarily for its military purposes but because of its psychological values. Every protagonist of revolutionary guerilla warfare from Che Guevara to Giap has indicated that this is the prime purpose for their engaging in such conflicts. We hope that this will not be ignored by the Opposition. We hope that if Opposition members are unable to realise the forces against whom Australia is involved in Asia their own Party will not suffer the fate that some European parties, such as the French Socialist Party, have suffered. Failure to appreciate both Russia and Germany as aggressors in Europe in the late 1930s caused that Party to go out of existence. This is something for which Leon Blum, a former French Premier, has expressed eternal regret. If the Opposition in this place does not appreciate where the aggression is, who are the aggressors, what is the appropriate place for nationalism, economic values, and psychological optimism, then the fate of the Opposition may be as unhappy as that of the French Socialist Party.

Dr J. F. CAIRNS (Yarra) (10.44]- 1 have always thought that a great deal of talent was hidden in this Parliament. Having listened to the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) I am satisfied that the war in Vietnam is as good as won. The honourable member said about half a dozen times that the social structure in North Vietnam has failed. It is not a great pity that he was not able to go to Washington last year and convince President Johnston of this? Is it not a great pity that he is not able to go to Washington now and convince President Nixon of this? I am sure the honourable member for Lilley has unfortunately had this remarkable talent far too long hidden in this Parliament. I am sure that the President of the United States would be delighted to hear his proof of how the social structure in North Vietnam has fallen. The honourable member for Lilley has also now become an expert in the psychology of nations. His basic proposition tonight was that there has been erosion of the will of the West. I think what he means when he says that there has been an erosion of the will of the west is that he regrets that America cannot go on destroying the South Vietnamese people; that it cannot go on forcing the South Vietnamese people back to the stone age, as General Curtis LeMay said.

I think that when the honourable member for Lilley says that the erosion of the will of the West has taken place he means that he regrets the Americans were not able to extend the ground war into North Vietnam; he regrets that they stopped bombing North Vietnam. He also regrets that the Americans were not willing to take the high risk of war, and a massive war, with millions of Chinese people, had they extended the war into North Vietnam. He regrets, terribly, the erosion of the will of the West to create, as a result of the involvement in Vietnam, the high risk of world war. I will leave the honourable member for Lilley to work out the consequences of his position, both philosophically and theologically, because I am sure that is where the basis of it lies.

Tonight I want to use my time mainly to review the position of the war in Vietnam. Honourable members will know that I have always taken the position that the war in Vietnam was a revolutionary war; that it was not aggression of any kind by China or the Soviet Union; that China or the Soviet Union would assist the North Vietnamese only in response to their needs; and that these needs have come mainly from escalating American military intervention; and that, being a revolutionary war, it was fundamentally political and national, and had to be fought mainly with political and national weapons. I believe that the Americans recognised the truth of that from the very beginning. But the United States proved unable to find allies in Vietnam who were able to win the political and national struggle. The United States was compelled, contrary to its desires, to increase the military component of the war until it dominated and became so vast that America could no longer maintain it or face the cost of extending it into North Vietnam as part of a process which, if successful, would have become war against China. Hence President Johnson decided that there could be no military solution.

Now President Nixon reaffirms this situation and says that he expects the people to hold him accountable if he does not end the war. But can President Nixon end the war? Our own Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), after having visited Washington, says that we, that is Australia and the United States, both wish ardently for peace, but it can be secured only by guaranteeing the people of Vietnam the right to choose the Government they wish, by an internationally supervised election. We all ardently wish for peace in Vietnam. But it is not just a matter of who is right or wrong, or condemning one side or the other side. The question is: How is this peace to be achieved? All that our Prime Minister says about this is that we must await the response of North Vietnam. This is apparently what the President of the United States says, too: We must await the response of North Vietnam. We have had the response of North Vietnam. We know precisely what it is. The honourable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) knows precisely what it is. The response of the North Vietnamese has been clearly put in their points 4, 6 and 10 since the beginning of the struggle. Recently they came up with points 2 and 5 of the 10 main points recently put forward. The position of North Vietnam is known.

First of all, the crucial point is that the United States Government must withdraw from South Vietnam all United States troops and liquidate all United States military bases in South Vietnam. Secondly, all the political forces in South Vietnam, including, of course, the National Liberation Front, will enter into talks to set up a provisional coalition government. That is North Vietnam’s position. Everybody knows that. The President of the United States will not accept those conditions. Therefore the Prime Minister of Australia will not accept them. What then is the alternative? It is to continue the war. If these alternatives are not accepted, to continue the war in South Vietnam is the only alternative. If the National Liberation Front forces are weakened they will be strengthened by North Vietnamese forces. Then the war would have to be extended into North Vietnam again. If the forces of North Vietnam were so weakened by extension of the war that there was a threat to the North Vietnamese Government then Chinese forces would be involved. That is the alternative. That has always been the alternative. The honourable member for Chisholm and others who study the situation know that that is the alternative. The Government has to face up to that fact and decide, if that is the one alternative, whether it wants to follow it or not.

America will never again re-escalate the war. That is also another factor in the situation. Will President Nixon, who is committed to ending the war, be able to do what President Johnson was unable to do when America was committed to winning the war in Vietnam? Of course he will not. The President and the Prime Minister are able to tell us almost nothing about the war in Vietnam. It looks as if neither knows where he is going in Vietnam. To change this situation their aims would have to be made clear, and they have not been made clear. Do they think that North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front will now give up their aims of withdrawal of American forces and of a coalition government when they would not give them up while they were subjected to full scale attack both in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam? Do they not think that North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front are far less likely to do this now than before the de-escalation of the war began? Do they not think that the cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, the replacement of General Westmoreland and the withdrawal of President Johnson from the Presidency - something he wanted more than anything else in life - did not constitute a victory for North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front? Do they not think this is the way North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front see it? Do they think that North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front are now less likely to make concessions than when they were being bombed back into the Stone Age?

Having this in mind how can we simply talk about ardently wishing for peace by having internationally supervised elections? The choice facing America and Australia does not include internationally supervised elections. They have to agree either to a phased withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and the formation of a coalition government in South Vietnam or to an intensification of the war in South Vietnam by extending it into North Vietnam and so on. But America will not take the latter course. President Nixon says that he holds himself accountable to the American people if he does not bring the war to an end. What does the Prime Minister have to say about this? What do any of the other Government speakers have to say about this? Not one word do they say. Never will they face the stark alternative that is facing us in Vietnam. The Prime Minister tells us nothing about this and therefore tells us nothing about the future of Vietnam.

What is the American policy for the rest df South East Asia? The Prime Minister tells us this is to strengthen the forces of freedom and progress in Asia. That is all he has to say about the future in Asia. What are the forces of freedom? How are the forces of freedom to be strengthened? The Prime Minister says nothing to allow us to identify those forces. The forces of freedom in Asia are the forces that will bring about land reform, give the peasants title to their land, lower rent and lower interest charges. The forces of freedom are those that will bring an end to nepotism and corruption, allow effective trade union organisation so that wages and thereby living standards can be increased, increase expenditure on education and health and allow effective election of leaders and officials. These are the forces of freedom in South East Asia and elsewhere.

What will happen if we apply these standards to Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia? If there is to be land reform the landlords in those countries, the money lenders and merchants will resist those changes as they have in South Vietnam, and that is why Diem was overthrown. If nepotism and corruption are to be reduced many officials and powerful men would have to be removed. In South Vietnam they were not removed. If there is to be increased expenditure on education and health, wealthy people will have to pay more taxation sooner or later. If wealthy people possess power is it not likely, as in South Vietnam, that they will refuse to pay more taxation? Is it not likely that peasants, tenants and workers will have to win these benefits by their own efforts as they always have in every country since the beginning of time, as their own efforts of silent suffering evoke no response whatever. It is only when people like this act that any changes come about.

What will happen then in Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia? What will happen when these events resulting from the operation of the forces of freedom, leaving aside altogether any racial conflicts, lead to disturbances or upheavals or civil wars? What will happen then? The Prime Minister told us nothing about that. Will Australia send her combat troops into these areas, and perhaps her Fills if she can get them to fly? If she does, will ANZUS guarantee American support? The Prime Minister has left us in doubt about that. If anything, he has left us feeling that ANZUS will not guarantee us any American support when we become involved in situations like this.

The Prime Minister has told us precisely nothing about American policy and Australian policy in Asia after Vietnam, just as I think he has told us precisely nothing about the future of the war in Vietnam and where we stand in respect to it. What about China? Not a word was mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement about

China. China is the largest nation in the world. Some say she threatens Australia. Some say there is a downward thrust of China between the Indian and Pacific oceans. Whenever some people think of votes they think of red arrows, but there was not one word from the Prime Minister about China. Not one word was said about the red arrows and the downward thrust of China. Did the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, when they were in Washington, discuss China at all? Was China ever mentioned?

Do the Prime Minister and the President think China is planning any expedition south or east in the Pacific area? The Prime Minister did not say. If China is to make such an expedition she will need at least - as the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) pointed out recently in the best speech I have heard since I have been in this House - a large navy, a force of long range bombers and a large merchant fleet. And, above all, she will need to be satisfied that the Soviet Union is no threat. Indeed, if she is to risk war against the United States by any of these expeditions she would need to have the Soviet Union as a friend or backer. Can the Prime Minister say whether China is building a large navy? Can he say whether she is building a large number of long range bombers? Can he say whether she is building a large merchant marine? Can he say whether she is improving her relations with the Soviet Union? The answers seem to be that he cannot say this, that he does not even think it relevant to say this. But, of course, the answer to any one of those questions that I have mentioned is the reverse. The answer is no. China is not building a large navy, she is not building long range bombers, she is not building a large merchant marine and she is not improving her relations with the Soviet Union. China is not looking out to the east or down to the south; China is looking north and to the west.

The threat which China is concerned with is not in this direction. China is not concerned with preparing for an expedition to the south or to the east; she is preparing to meet the threat that she knows is greatest upon her. Her territorial claims are on the Soviet Union and not upon Thailand or Laos or North Vietnam. Indeed the Prime

Minister can tell us nothing about relations with China. He can tell us nothing about even the prospects of America’s relations with China improving, and they are improving considerably. The balance of power between great nations in the world makes it inevitable that America’s relations with China will improve because China is in the middle of two great powers and she will not be in conflict with both of them. If that happened it would be the first time in the history of the world that a great power was in conflict with two other great powers on each side of her.

How can the statement of the Prime Minister be satisfactory when he ignores the future in Vietnam; when he ignores future American policy in Asia and how it will be worked out; when he leaves us with an incomplete and vague picture; when he leaves out any mention of the future role of China in Asia and elsewhere in the world?

Let us took at a final matter. A few years ago the threat was Moscow. If I am not mistaken, there was once a time when the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who is now at the table was prepared to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Of course there would have been no necessity for that. If the honourable gentleman and others who were preppared to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union had done so, some hundreds of millions of people who are alive today would be dead. It has proved unnecessary to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union but there are people in this House who were willing to run the risk of dropping nuclear bombs on China, and 1 think the honourable gentleman at the table is one of them. In 10 years time we perhaps will be saying the same thing about China as we are saying now about the Soviet Union. Had the honourable gentleman and others like him achieved their purpose of running the risk of dropping nuclear bombs on China, some hundreds of millions of people, perhaps some in our own country, would be dead and it would have been unnecessary that they should die.

Mr Turner:

– Cheer up.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– All the threats originated from Moscow. The honourable member for Bradfield saw all the threats to his middle class security and his preciousness emanating from Moscow, not from anywhere else in the world; not from the faults of his own class; not from its inability to see the problems in the community; not from its willingness to put more money into the pockets that already had most. He saw the threats emanating from none of those things, they all emanated from Moscow. Now it is generally recognised in Europe, in Washington and in places in the Australian Government that Moscow is not a threat. We can have peaceful coexistence with Moscow. Moscow could be a stabilising influence in world affairs. Now the threat is Peking. I have not changed my view about the Soviet Union. It is still the toughest aggressor in this bunch, far more aggressive than China has been. I have not softened my attitude to the Soviet Union like some honourable gentlemen opposite have because it suits their concept of power politics. I think the Soviet Union is as wrong now as it ever has been. It has been wrong on so many occasions in the past and I think it is likely to be wrong again in the future, but now of course the threat is Peking. Is it not a fact that the dominating force in Moscow and Peking is their nationalism and not their Communism? Is it not a fact that if they were not Communists they would have behaved in substantially the same way as they have behaved? Is it not a fact that the Czars were committed to the same kind of policy in Europe as that to which Stalin was committed? Is it not a fact that the dominating force in North Vietnam is nationalism and not Communism and that makes her resist China and not act as an agent for China?

This then is the world in which we live. This then is the world in which the vast over-simplifications of this Communist mythology that our political opponents opposite live upon is no longer relevant. As the honourable member for Fremantle said the other night, it is time that we stopped thinking in terms of simplifications like the Kaiser wants to rule the world’. The Prime Minister has recognised that these are irrelevant and outdated simplifications and he has been trying to find an alternative. But he is unable to get an alternative because he has these crusty old Tories on his back who prevent him from getting that kind of alternative. The Prime Minister knows that it is necessary to have an alterna tive view of Asia and of the world, but he will never get it as long as he is in a party like that.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Fox) adjourned.

page 2539

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker, the Opposition will vote against this motion, if this motion is carried there will be no resumption of debate on a score or more matters on the notice paper until August. It is true that many of these matters are on the notice paper because private members on each side of the House have raised them. They have not yet been fully debated and no vote has been taken on them. I will come to those matters in a moment. There are, however, many matters of Government business still left on the notice paper. The honourable gentleman who interjects might not think too highly of his rights as a private member. Let me then first of all direct my remarks to the matters-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Lilley will cease interjecting. He is out of his seat as well.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He will be by the end of the year. I will direct my attention to those matters which the Government has raised and which it has not allowed the House to debate. If the motion now before the House is carried these matters will not be debated before August at the earliest. Three of them, in particular, are matters upon which I would have thought the Australian Country Party would have been anxious to express its views. My expectations in this regard were somewhat shaken when three Bills dealing with the last instalments of the 5-year $50m national water resources programme were passed through this House between 12.30 and 2.30 this morning. It was clearly impossible for anyone to hear the proceedings or to read about them in today’s papers.

There are three other matters still on the notice paper on which one would have thought Country Party members would have been anxious to express their views, as my colleagues are anxious to express their views. One matter that is still left on the notice paper is order of the day No. 11 which concerns wheat delivery quota proposals. The Deputy Leader of the Country Party and Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) made this ministerial statement on Wednesday, 30th April. The House did not sit the following week. Normally the House would resume the debate the week that we came back, that is, on the Wednesday fortnight after the statement was made. This expectation was borne out by the fact that on Wednesday, 14th May, the blue programme circulated to honourable members and to the Press gallery included, among the orders of the day coming up for debate, the wheat delivery quota proposals.

The matter was not reached that day. It appeared again on the blue programme for Thursday, 15th May, but again it was not reached. It did not appear again on the blue programme on any of the three sitting days last week and it has not appeared on any of the three sitting days this week. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) had secured the adjournment of that debate. By refusing to programme this matter for debate we can see that it was intended that the view of the Australia Labor Party, and particularly the view of the Opposition shadow minister for primary industry, would not be expressed in this Parliament. In fact the honourable member for Dawson was only able to express our views by speaking on the wheat proposals in the debate on the Supply Bill a week ago. He has expressed his view, but no other honourable member on either side of the House has been able to express a view on the Government’s wheat delivery quota proposals.

The next order of the day to which 1 refer is No. 12 - Marginal Dairy Farm Reconstruction. Again this was a ministerial statement by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, the Minister for Primary Industry. This was the first statement that he had made in the House on this matter since it had been outlined by the GovernorGeneral in his speech opening this session at the beginning of last year. The Minister made his statement on the 20th of this month. Again the honourable member for Dawson secured the adjournment of the debate. One would have expected that in accordance with the normal practice the debate would have been resumed a week later, but that did not happen, lt was not programmed. It was not programmed yesterday and it was not programmed again today. If this motion for adjournment is carried no honourable member will have been able to express his views on the marginal dairy farm reconstruction proposals. We now know that these proposals were ill considered because only one of the six States has agreed to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government in the proposals. On this matter the Opposition has not been able even to express its views through its chosen spokesman on primary industry matters, the honourable member for Dawson.

The concluding rural matter still on the notice paper is order of the day No. 24 - Merino Export Embargo - a third ministerial statement by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, the Minister for Primary Industry. That statement was made 2 months and 2 days ago. The only honourable member who has expressed his views on the matter of the lifting of an embargo which has stood for 40 years under governments of both sides of politics is the honourable member for Dawson. Yet this was a sudden change, an ill-considered change and an inadequately discussed change in Government policy. The honourable member for Dawson was able to express his view because he spoke immediately following the Minister. On that occasion the Government Whip secured the adjournment of the debate, but now, 2 months and 2 days later, the debate has not been resumed. In the meantime, in another place, a resolution has been carried asking the Government to defer the lifting of the merino export embargo until by referendum or by other fair means the wool growers have been further consulted.

I have mentioned three matters which the Government introduced but on which the Government has silenced honourable members. My Party will vote against this motion to adjourn until August because we want to debate these matters. I would have expected that the Australian Country Party would have wanted to debate these matters.

Not a single member of the Country Party has expressed his view on any of these three matters.

Mr King:

– Why does the Leader of the Opposition not check his Hansard?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable member interjecting has not expressed his views on the ministerial statement. If this motion is carried the honourable gentleman, whose dissatisfaction with some of these statements is well known, and all his Country Party colleagues will be silenced for another 11 weeks. There will be no further debate here, and the Government has made it plain that it will not heed the view expressed by some members of all parties and all members of my Party in another place on the merino export embargo being lifted.

There are other matters which have been moved by private members on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side. The Opposition has moved certain motions and Government members have a right to resume the debate if it is allowed to be resumed. Let me mention some of these matters. There is the motion by the honourable member for Dawson that legislation be enacted to assert Australian territorial control over the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria and the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. This was moved 1 year ago less 1 day. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) secured the adjournment on the debate. I have no doubt that he would be very keen to express his views on this matter. In the intervening year a great amount of political attention and legal learning has been directed to this subject. Sir Percy Spender, the former President of the World Court, has expressed views concerning the rights of the Commonwealth Government over territorial waters and the sea bed which cast doubt on all the legislation on submerged lands and the continental shelf which has been introduced into this Parliament over the last 2 years. Is it not proper that this debate should be resumed in view of such subsequent developments?

I pass to the next matter, the Death Penalty Abolition Bill. I supported it on behalf of the Opposition on 5th June last year when it came here from another place. All members of my Party and I bel’ieve some members of the other parties in another place supported the abolition of the death penalty under Commonwealth laws, it is often said that it is never the time to deal with these matters because somebody is on trial for a capital offence or somebody has been condemned to death and awaits execution. It is said that in these circumstances we should not embarrass the courts or pressurise the Government. There is nobody at the moment under sentence of death. There is nobody at the moment on trial for a capital offence under any Federal law. Surely this is the time to proceed with this Bill, lt has passed the other place. It has remained on our notice paper for nearly a year. If the debate were resumed many Government members, admittedly the younger ones, would support the proposition on a free vote. This Bill might well’ be passed in this House as it was in the other place.

I come to the Territory Senators Bill which I introduced on 7th November last year. The right to continue the debate belongs to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). Meanwhile, the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory has passed a unanimous resolution asking the Commonwealth to give representation to the Northern Territory as well as the Australian Capital Territory in the other place. There is no elective body operating in the Australian Capital Territory. If there were, it would certainly support the proposition that there should be representation in the other place for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory.

The next one on the list is the Adulthood Bill, which I introduced on 21st November last. Three Government supporters took part in the debate on the Bill. Only the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) resisted the Bill. He stalled it. The Attorney-General wonders why there are student demonstrations and student protests. He is the person who stalled the vote on a Bill which would give citizens of 18 years of age the right to vote in elections for this Parliament. The other two Government supporters supported the Bill. I believe that on a free vote this Bill also would be carried. The last Bill in this category is the National Service Bill, which was introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) on 27th February. Since then the proposals outlined in the Bill have been supported by the Anglican and Catholic Bishops of Australia and the Australian branch of the World Council of Churches. The Government, again, talked the Bill out. The House cannot debate this Bill until the Government allows the debate to be resumed; there can be no vote unless the debate is resumed. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) on 17th April of this year moved that a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on regional development. The Country Party Whip (Mr Turnbull), who is the most durable member on the back benches of the Country Party, has the right to resume the debate. The motion is in the same terms as was proposed by the late Mr Drummond in 1961, by Mr Beaton in 1965 and again by Mr Beaton in 1967. This is the fourth occasion on which the Government has refused to allow a parliamentary committee to inquire into regional development and decentralisation.

The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) moved on 15th May for a joint select committee to be set up to inquire into and report upon all features of the development of major city airports in Australia, which is a matter of growing importance. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works has mentioned on many occasions the growing problem of traffic and accommodation at our major city airports. Two airports will be needed in several of our cities. Here again the Government will not allow the debate to be resumed. It will not allow a vote to be taken on the setting up of such a committee.

The longest-standing motion on the notice paper is one which was moved on 4th April 1968 by the honourable member for Dawson regarding a national water conservation and constructing authority. A proposal was also moved on 9th May 1968 by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition regarding a national inquiry into education.

It is not my province to push the barrow of Government supporters, but there is an incomplete debate on a motion moved by the honourable member for Moreton regarding British shipping entering the port of Haiphong. There is also a motion by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Benson) on representation in the Commonwealth Parliament for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea but honourable members on neither side of the House would support that proposition.

These matters are all. important. Once the Thursday morning allotted for private members to debate them had elapsed the Government allowed them to remain on the notice paper. It will not allow the debates to be resumed. It will not allow votes to be taken. And in the several cases where select committees are proposed it will not allow those select committees to be appointed, despite the fact that on any select committee the Government Parties always have a majority. What have they to fear?

If this motion is carried there will be no debate, no vote and no select committee on any of the matters proposed by the independent member in this chamber, by the honourable member for Moreton or by my colleagues and myself. If this does not move honourable members, then I ask: What is to be their attitude concerning those matters that the Government has introduced, those matters which the Government does not want Country Party members or Liberals to debate - nor, of course, Labor members? What is to be the attitude of members of the Country Party to the Parliament being denied an opportunity to debate the Government’s wheat delivery quota proposals, the Government’s marginal dairy farm reconstruction proposals and the Government’s proposal concerning the lifting of the merino export embargo? Are all the Country Party members going to vote to silence themselves on these matters of Government policy which many of them disapprove and on those other matters which many of them support outside the House but which none of them now raise as private members in the House? For these reasons the Opposition at least will vote against closing the Parliament down until the day the Budget is introduced.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This is the twenty-ninth day of sitting and it is proposed that we go into recess until some time in August. It is one of the facets of parliamentary life that we meet too late at the beginning of the year, we meet too infrequently during the year and we meet at the wrong hours. Time after time we have heard from members opposite complaints in the House, complaints in private and occasionally complaints in public about the management of the Parliament. It is a fact that the Parliament is supposed to be conducting the affairs of the nation. It is supposed to be considering all the matters that my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), mentioned this evening. For instance, at this moment there is a kind of impasse between the two Houses - an impasse which ought to be resolved by some sort of confrontation, decision or communication. I refer to the site for the new and permanent parliament house.

This evening the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) came into the House and with no previous warning, as far as I can tell, made a Government announcement about the site for the new parliament house. I had heard previously over the paging system that Government members were to meet at 7.45 p.m. and I presumed that something of moment was to be considered. I did not know what it was. I was not in the House at 8 o’clock; I was otherwise engaged. I feel that in view of the spirit in which we considered this particular matter, that announcement was an act of extreme discourtesy. It was also a breach of faith with the Parliament in view of the way the discussion of this matter had been conducted since it was first introduced. In many respects the debate over the siting of the new parliament house was carried out in a most refreshing and original way. In other words, the Parliament had the right–

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 56

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 55

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2544

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Erwin) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 2544

VALEDICTORY

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W J Aston:

– It has been drawn to my attention that today is the last day on which the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) will sit in this House. In his very long service as a parliamentarian, the honourable member has been quite assiduous in his work for his Party and for his electorate. I would say that he will carry with him the best wishes of all members of this House. We wish him good health. We trust that his period of retirement will be a joyful and happy one.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I greatly appreciate your thought in noting that the honourable member for Scullin is just finishing his last day of sitting in the Parliament. This brings to an end 20 years of service as a member of this chamber. It was service for which his long experience in the Public Service of Victoria, in his union and in our Party had well equipped him. He is just as zealous now, after 20 years of service, as he was when he first entered the Parliament, lt is not given to many people to represent their fellow citizens for such a length of time. The average period of service is much less than half the period the honourable member for Scullin has enjoyed. He has been a very active member. On some subjects he has been a particularly persistent and effective advocate. Very many people in Australia, not only in his electorate but in the industries in which he has been interested, have benefited from his unremitting advocacy and endeavours. My colleagues and I join with you, Sir, in wishing him and his gracious wife many years of healthy and happy retirement, to which a well earned tour as a representative of this Parliament to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a fitting prelude.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– by leave- I have known the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) ever since he came into this House. We have had a great bond of friendship between us. I regard him as a friend, and as a friend he is as true as steel. As you know, Mr Speaker, for many years now I have been sitting in this position where I can put my hand across and touch him. We have had the greatest fellowship; I have appreciated his friendship; and on many occasions his courtesy has been appreciated by me and members of the Australian Country Party generally. I wish him everything of the very best in the future. I am also acquainted with his good wife. She is a very gracious lady.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– by leave - I join with other speakers in paying a tribute to the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters). I have known him since 1914. We were soul mates. We preached the doctrines of revolution and no conscription. On Sundays we always preached the doctrine of divine discontent. The honourable member for Scullin has made his own contribution here in his own quiet, modest way. He has never been an extrovert. He has never been demonstrative in anything he has said or done. He is a very thoughtful man. Recently he produced a booklet on foreign investment, which I hope all honourable members opposite have read. In the years to come, during his retirement which I hope will be long, healthy and happy, he will still contribute something that will make for the advancement and prosperity of this country. 1 have known his wife for many years. As a matter of fact, I saw him and his wife married.

I also want to say something about another honourable member who is not here tonight and who will not be here again. I refer to the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr E. James Harrison). He, too, is going abroad. He told me today that he will not be back during this session. He, too, has contributed a lot in the New South Wales Parliament and in the Commonwealth Parliament. He, like the honourable member for Scullin, is an old time Laborite; a grass roots Laborite; a trade union Laborite, and a fair dinkum one. Like his colleague of an earlier period, the former right honourable member for Macquarie, he learned a lot of his economics on the footplate in the railway system. 1 am sorry that he, too, is going, but time catches up with all of us. Departure, like death, is always sad. As a fair dinkum grass roots Labor man f pay this tribute to the honourable member for Scullin and to the honourable member for Blaxland for all that they have done to help to advance Australia.

Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Petrie · LP

– by leave - on behalf of the Government I extend to the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) our very best wishes. He and I entered the Parliament at the same time but he had the good fortune to stay here for a full 20 years whereas I endured a forced absence for a couple of years between 1961 and 1963. 1 am sure that one Minister will regret the absence of the honourable mem’ber. He has persistently questioned the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) about certain matters. I am sure that the Treasurer and other honourable members on this side will miss his contributions on matters which are perhaps better not mentioned at the present time. I agree with other honourable members that the honourable member for Scullin has been most conscientious and attentive to the responsibilities that devolve on every member of this Parliament. Having regard to the fact that he has been a member of the Parliament for 20 years one must respect his point of view. We are aware of the appreciation he must feel towards the Party which has selected him as its candi date so often and towards the electorate which has elected him to this Parliament on so many occasions.

It is my view that no member of Parliament is able to discharge the responsibilities of his membership without great responsibility resting upon his wife. On behalf of the Government I extend best wishes to the honourable member and his wife and 1 say: Thank you for the service you have rendered to the people of Australia.

Mr COPE:
Watson

– by leave- I join with other honourable members in expressing my best wishes to my colleague, Ted Peters, who is soon to retire after 20 years service in this Parliament. This is my 14th year in the Parliament. Since I have been here I have experienced a great friendship with Ted, mostly because 1 take him to supper each night.

Mr Calwell:

– You are both on the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr COPE:

– Ted is a very experienced member of the Public Accounts Committee - the most important Committee in the Parliament. Each time I visit Melbourne I stay with Ted and his charming wife and son. They always make me welcome. The rates are very reasonable - only $4 bed and breakfast. I have always had a happy association with Ted. Regardless of one’s belief in what he said, nobody could ever doubt his sincerity in putting a case on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. My friend the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said he could reach out and touch him. That is not quite it, because Ted used to be giving him lollies all day and he would be putting his hand out for the lollies. I should like to wish you Ted, and your wife, the very best for a long and happy retirement.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– by leave- [ should like to add my endorsement of the remarks that have been made about the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters). I spent 13 weeks with the honourable member in the United States of America when we were co-delegates to the United Nations. I can say that I would never want a better companion, nor would I want any better person to represent Australia at any conference overseas at any time to uphold the prestige of this country and the prestige of this Parliament. 1 also add my tribute and wish the honourable member a very happy retirement. I also extend my good wishes to the honourable member’s wife and family.

Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave - I should like to add my tribute to my mate Ted Peters and his good wife Min. I have been here for 20 years with Ted. I know the axe is going to fall on me in a few months time, but that is quite all right with me. I have enjoyed my 20 years in the Parliament with Ted. I also enjoy holidays at one period of each year when I go with him to Magnetic Island. We have enjoyed a holiday there together now for the last 5 or 6 years. Ted is leaving the Parliament, and on behalf of myself and my wife Ruby I wish him and his wife the best of good health and happiness for the future. May he enjoy every day of his trip abroad as representative of the Australian Parliament. Good luck, Ted. All the best.

Mr PETERS:
Scullin

– by leave- Before I start to blush may I say that I have never felt so famous in all my life. Nor have I known that I possessed such qualities as have been attributed to me tonight. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and all those who have spoken here tonight, very much for what has been said. I also desire particularly to thank those who have supported my ideas for the wisdom they have shown. I thank also those who have opposed all the ideas I have put forward for the courtesy they have shown. With those few remarks, I pass on.

page 2546

ADJOURNMENT

The Parliament - Questions - Security -

National Health Scheme - Aircraft Accident at Port Hedland - West Irian - Papua and New Guinea

Mr ERWIN:
Minister for Air · Ballaarat · LP

(11.581-1 move:

That the House do now adjourn.

In moving the adjournment of the House, I should like to comment on what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition-

Mr Whitlam:

– Have you the right to speak?

Mr ERWIN:

– I have the right.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There are two adjournment motions tonight. One relates to a special adjournment of the House until a date in August next. The motion just moved by the Minister is for the normal adjournment of the House. The Leader of the House is now speaking to his own motion that the House do now adjourn.

Mr ERWIN:

– And I have the right to reply, as a matter of fact.

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order. On the motion for the adjournment, the Minister or any of us can speak on any subject so long as we do it in proper terms. The Minister has said for the second time now that he is answering something that was said by me in speaking to an earlier motion. He had the opportunity to speak to that motion, and he gagged himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now speaking to his own motion.

Friday, 30 May 1969

Mr ERWIN:
LP

– Let me commence after all these interruptions, Mr Speaker, by saying in a very kindly way that I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) for the co-operation they have extended during this autumn session. The Leader of the Opposition made some staggering statements a few moments ago and I have some figures with which to refute those statements. Figures do not lie. I want to compare this autumn session with the performances in the previous four autumn sessions. The average time of rising has been earlier than in previous years. It has been 11.01 p.m. There have been four times as many matters of public importance discussed as usual. There were twenty-one of them, two of which were proposed by Government members. There have been fewer gags applied in any year except 1966 when the number of gags was only three. There have been 58 Bills passed by this House. Approximately 12 major ministerial statements have been made on a wide range of subjects.

Mr Whitlam:

– How many have been debated?

Mr ERWIN:

– The ministerial statements debated were these: Aid to Indonesia; aircraft accident at Port Hedland; overseas professional qualifications; Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; defence; defence aid to Malaysia; health, the Nimmo Report. On that the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) and the Minister for Social Services (Mr

Wentworth) had some comments to make the other night. There were 33 speakers on this health statement alone. Then there was a ministerial statement on home care and another on the export of rams. The Leader of the Opposition had something to say about the export of merino sheep. He made some comment about the Country Party not entering into the debate. The speakers in the debate were: the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), Labor; the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), Country Party; the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), Labor; the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), Liberal; the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Munro), Liberal; the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) - the Minister for External Territories - Country Party; the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti), Labor; the honourable member for Angus (Mr Giles), Liberal; the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Armstrong), Country Party; the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), Labor; the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), Liberal; the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), Country Party; and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) wound up the debate. These were the speakers, although the Leader of the Opposition said that the Country Party had taken no interest at all in the debate. There was also a ministerial statement on shipping on which we had many speakers, and there were also speakers on the statement of the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States of America.

Let me now list the number of Bills initiated in this House during the last five autumn sessions. There were 58 in 1969; 68 in 1968; 61 in 1967; 35 in 1966 and 49 in 1965. I now come to the number of sittings, and these figures are complete up to tonight. There have been 28 in this session. There were 28 in 1968; 31 in 1967; 25 in 1966 and 27 in 1965. Then I have some figures for the total hours of sittings up to tonight. The total hours have been 277i for this session. In 1968 the total was 293£; it was 317 in 1967, 239 in 1966 and 283i in 1965. In this session there have been 6 sittings after midnight. There were 7 in 1968; 9 in 1967; 2 in 1966 and 4 in 1965. This record speaks for itself.

I feci and I know that in this autumn sessional period the Opposition has had every opportunity to debate matters. Never on any occasion has it been prevented from raising a matter of public importance, as is shown from the number of matters of public importance to which I will now refer. hi this autumn sessional period twenty-one matters of public importance have been brought before the House. In 1968 5 matters of public importance were brought before the House, in 1967 there were 8, in 1966 there were 3, and in 1965 there were 4. The Leader of the Opposition said tonight that the Government had restrained or prevented the Opposition from carrying out its wishes. It is interesting to note the number of questions which have been placed on the notice paper. This year 545 questions have been placed on the notice paper. In 1968 there were 366; in 1967, 357; in 1966, 298; and in 1965, 301. As 1 have said, the record speaks for itself, and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor any member of the Opposition has any cause whatever for complaint.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The Minister for Air (Mr Erwin) could have discussed, with profit, the rather crude and brutal way in which the forms of this House have been used repeatedly in this sessional period and in previous sessional periods to cut short debate and to stifle legitimate discussion. 1 want to deal with a couple of aspects of the rather cynical way in which numbers have been used by the Government - and by people in the Government who have authority to exert power to compel conformity by members of the House. The first case I raise concerns the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). This is a clear example of the cynical way in which some members and senior Ministers of the Government treat this House. I understand that the Treasurer regards himself as being something of a guru, fostering and inspiring the officers of his Department to greater effort and self sacrifice in the promotion of the common weal, insofar as that is done by his Department.

I wish that the Treasurer had spilled some of that inspiration in my direction, at least on 20th May of this year when he answered two questions which I had placed on notice. I sought detailed tables of economic statistical matter. Instead of replying by providing these details, in each case the Treasurer told me that if I cared to refer to a number of publications which are supplied by the Bureau of Census and Statistics it would be possible to extract the details. Where these details were not available, he gave some rather restricted listings of figures. The whole appearance of the Treasurer’s reply is more akin to that of a pakapu-ticket than to the detailed statistical tables which I had sought. In reply to one aspect of my questions, in which I had asked for some percentage calculations, the Treasurer said:

The percentage relationships requested have not been published nor have they been calculated by the Commonwealth Statistician.”

How unhappy! Are we to understand that, it the Commonwealth Statistician has not prepared any table relating to details which a member seeks, we are not to get the information which we seek? The Treasurer has behind him a vast backing of competent departmental officers who have available to them the resources from which to supply these details for us. It is an insult to this Parliament when the Treasurer proceeds in this cynical and rather crude manner to refuse to supply information which is legitimately sought by a member of the Parliament. He is no busier than any other Minister in the Parliament, yet other Ministers seem to be able to supply information when it is sought by way of questions on notice. Perhaps, on reflection, I ought to amend that statement. He has a greater degree of pressure upon him than have other Ministers. After all, not only has he to fulfil his norma] functions, as do other Ministers; not only does he have to protect himself from frontal assaults by the Opposition, as do other Ministers; but also he must maintain a defence against action from the rear from within the coalition. The facts are well documented as to how these problems exist and are exacerbated within the ranks of the coalition, and as to how they affect him. Nevertheless the Minister has the backing of staff which could extract these details for honourable members who seek them by way of questions on notice. He has quite competent staff. Some of the members of his staff are extremely competent, so competent indeed that they have left his employ in pursuit of other incentives. This takes me to the next point I want to raise.

Some of his former staff members now work for a publisher named Mr Maxwell Newton. Mr Newton has been the subject of a great deal of controversy in the last few days because of a document from the Department of External Affairs which was the subject of publication in one of his newsletters. The Government is adopting an attitude of bitter denunciation of Mr Newton because of the manner in which he obtained this document. Frankly, I do not justify the way in which he obtained it. In fact, my personal view is that he deserves strong denunciation. The fact remains that the Government is expressing this bitter denunciation. I remind the Government that there seems to be a glaring contradiction here because it is only a few months ago that a similar kind of action - that is, the theft of confidential documents from a foreign embassy by a Mrs Hoffmann - was not only encouraged but indeed sponsored by an official Government act. I wonder whether the behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was inspired by Emerson when he wrote in his essay on self reliance:

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.

However, inconsistency seems to be the endemic problem of Cabinet Ministers.

I asked the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Freeth) some questions on aid to underdeveloped countries. He advised me that the total net official and private flow of aid to the under-developed countries from the developed OECD countries in the 10- year period from 1957 to 1966 was only $US84,899m and that of that total the net official flow was $US54,266m. A report appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 21st May 1969 that since the Budget year 1964 the war effort in Vietnam has cost the American Government $73,3 63m. I think it is reasonable to ask whether this figure is correct because, if it is, the evidence is that in the period since 1964 the United States Government’s expenditure on the Vietnam war is only about SUS8.5 billion less than the total flow of aid from developed OECD countries to the underdeveloped countries in the 10-year period 1957 to 1966 and further, that since 1964 the United States Government has spent considerably more on the Vietnam war than all the OECD countries combined spent-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If. the honourable member is attempting to discuss my decision on the questions that he asked earlier today, he is distinctly out of order. Decisions of the Speaker cannot be raised during the debate on the motion that the House do now adjourn. Standing orders 98 and 399 to 401 especially cover this matter. If the honourable member is canvassing my ruling he is distinctly out of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– To this point 1 had not mentioned any of your rulings. Mr Speaker, nor had I referred to you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I mention that to the honourable member because he did say that he thought it would be reasonable to ask certain questions. The honourable member knows the situation. I remind him that if he canvasses my ruling on this matter he will be out of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Quite clearly you anticipate my feelings in this direction, Mr Speaker. The subject I raised latterly was, of course, quite involved and would not have been presented in that way had I wanted to discuss it. But now that it has been raised and it is in the record, and so too is that matter which I mentioned a little earlier concerning a document which Mr Newton used, I cannot help but speculate on the fact that it is in the record and that efforts I made this morning at question time and efforts I made to have the latter matter dealt with in a question on notice have been frustrated. I wonder why we have forms of the House which do this sort of thing to a private member.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is now reflecting on the Chair. I would point out that the question of the adjournment debate and the decision of the Speaker in these matters cannot be canvassed, and if the honourable member persists in this attitude I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Anyway, finally on this matter of the sort of authority and power which exists in the House, I am very interested in Standing Order 137 which gives absolute authority to the Speaker of the House. I do not question this in any way, although privately I might have strong reservations. But I can only say that the time is overdue for these Standing Orders to be completely refurbished. Private mem bers in this House are increasingly having their rights trampled upon and are suffering increasing frustration.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

I propose to argue, very briefly of course, as I must, that physiotherapy ought to be included in the national health scheme. I raise it at this time because the Nimmo Report on Health Insurance, which has recently come into our hands, instead of clarifying, obscures the future of physiotherapy. I would like to read briefly several extracts from that report which will make clear what I wish to argue. Term of reference (C) says in part that the Committee is required:

To make such other recommendations ….

That is, other than the specific recommendations previously mentioned - to the Minister as the Committee deems necessary in relation to the provision of adequate financial protection against the cost of illness in the context of both a voluntary health insurance scheme, and the obligations at present accepted by the State Governments.

I wish to underline the words ‘adequate financial protection against the cost oil illness’ because this is the very basis of the health scheme.

Mr Bryant:

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

Mr TURNER:

– Thank you for your courtesy.

Mr Bryant:

– You are full of freedom when it is–

Mr TURNER:

– What a wretched, miserable creature.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will withdraw that remark.

Mr TURNER:

– Yes, Mr Speaker, 1 withdraw it. (Quorum formed)

Mr TURNER:

– It is scarcely worth my continuing. I had only 10 minutes and now 1 have fewer still. I. had hoped to say something about the reasons why physiotherapy should be included in the national health scheme, but the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) was kind enough to call a quorum because apparently he disagrees with this point of view. With that old world courtesy of his to which we are so accustomed he has prevented this case from being put and must be presumed to be against it. I hope that any who read the report of this debate will know that this is so. There can be no other reason for such an ill mannered attempt as he has made to prevent a case being put in this House. He always has had my profound contempt; now he has even more.

In the time left to me I do not propose to attempt seriously to put this case. I shall say only one or two things. The whole object of a national health scheme is to preserve people against the heavy cost of illness that the individual is unable to bear. This is done through an insurance scheme, perhaps, or through direct Government assistance. That is the whole purpose of a national health scheme. If physiotherapy is one of those items which are so costly that the individual cannot be expected to bear it and requires the assistance of others, then it should be included in a national health scheme. It is on that basis that I urge its inclusion.

The Nimmo report, which the honourable gentleman in his kindness has prevented me from quoting, has a number of things to say on this point. I have not time to deal with them, but I should like to say that as matters now stand it would appear that even the limited amount of assistance that some health insurance funds are able to give may be withdrawn. I have not time to quote the particular section of the report but this ls known to everyone engaged in this field. Far from making an advance in this matter I say that the Government, if it accepts this report and fails to clarify its attitude towards the relevant section in it, will even reduce the opportunities for some relief that exist at present.

I have been handed a short note which states that the Opposition will kindly move for an extension of time for me. I hope that all my colleagues will be kind enough to leave the chamber so that I can call a quorum on every member of the Opposition who rises to speak after this. I learned this lesson early in my career in Parliament; the honourable gentleman has not learned it yet but he will learn it. 1 have not time to go into this matter except to say that the people should be relieved, through an insurance scheme or by direct government assistance, of the great expense to which I have referred. As matters stand and as a result of the relevant section in the Nimmo report, it would appear that even the 60c per treatment that is now payable, at least by the principal fund in New South Wales, could disappear. This runs up to a maximum, I think, of about $18 a year. The main argument that the Committee has used and the argument that the Minister and the Government have used is that if you were to include physiotheraphy you would have no control over the extent to which it would be used, or perhaps I should say abused. This, of course, is an inherent difficulty in every aspect of the national health scheme. I need only cite the pensioner medical service as evidence of that.

Of course there is the problem of control against over use - abuse if you like - of a service that is provided under an insurance scheme of this kind, but that is not a sufficient answer. The problem is there. It is of no use saying that it is difficult to solve. What is necessary is to find a means of solving it. I cannot believe that it is impossible to find some method of control. After all, the insurance fund in New South Wales to which I have referred has found a means by limiting the total amount of benefit that may be paid in any given year. So 1 commend this to the Government, not because I am concerned politically about the physiotherapists in my electorate but because I believe that there are too many large gaps in our scheme. I am not speaking about the provision of free wigs or free false teeth or these kind of things which are included in the English scheme and in other schemes. Here we have an essential service. Physiotherapy is just as much an integral part of treatment of many diseases as, say, drugs. We have a pharmaceutical service to provide free drugs. I can see no difference beteween this service and a service concerned with physiotherapy.

However, I do not wish to hold the House. It is late enough already. I hope my friends will leave the chamber so that we may call some quorums on members of the Opposition who are now going to rise in their places and continue the debate.

We will take this action so that a lesson may be learned here once and for all that this kind of discourtesy is not helpful to good relations in this House or to those who choose to employ such methods.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We have heard a lot tonight about the Government’s management of this place. I just want to show one very small phase of the Government’s mismanagement. I refer to the fact that up until today 56 Bills have been introduced during this session of which 27 were introduced on the 13th, 14th and 15th May. Almost half of the number of Bills introduced into this place were introduced in 3 days. (Quorum formed).

I am pleased that honourable members do not have confidence in the honourable gentleman who pulled the quorum. In the limited time left to me I shall continue my remarks to draw attention to the manner in which the affairs of this House have been conducted. The way in which the business of the House is conducted is a reflection on the Cabinet and the Ministry. Half the Bills presented this session were brought down in 3 days - almost the 3 last days of the session. I think that this is a very serious reflection on the Government. I hope that in the not too distant future - in the next session at least - that we might get a little better service in regard to the supply of Bills to this place so that they can be considered and debated in a reasonable atmosphere instead of having the rush and tumble of people who are being stopped from speaking.

Mr Erwin:

– Break it down.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is right. The Minister should look at the facts. I hope that there will be some improvement. One other matter that I want to touch on is the unfortunate accident at Port Hedland. On 18th March the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) made a statement in this place setting out what had occurred. He indicated that he expected to have in his hands on that day a statement from the Air Safety Investigation Branch of the Department of Civil Aviation. I draw attention to the fact that although he said that on 18th March, it is now 30th May and we still have not received the report on this unfortunate accident.

Mr Swartz:

– It will be some months yet.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Some months? The position is that although we expected to have the report 2i months ago. according to the Minister we will have to wait some months yet.

Mr Swartz:

– A statement was made.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I agree that a statement was made, but in that statement the Minister said:

At the outset 1 would like to make it clear that this is an interim statement relating to an air accident and follows an undertaking 1 gave to the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who represented the Opposition, that if a report by the Air Safety Branch of my Department was not completed and in my hands for presentation to the Parliament by today I would issue an interim statement.

The only conclusion that one can reach from that statement is that even at that stage it was expected that the report would have been available. I propose now to deal with the right of free choice and selfdetermination by the indigenous people of West Irian and to discuss whether the terms of the 1962 treaty between the Netherlands and Indonesia are being carried out. I propose to discuss also whether this Government has given to the Government of Indonesia any clear indication that we are of the opinion that the people of West Irian are being restricted in their rights of selfdetermination and in giving a genuine expression of their choice. I am greatly concerned with what is taking place in West Irian today, because whatever happens in West Irian, whether we like it or not will flow over into East New Guinea or Papua, as we call it. Already in recent weeks there have been student demonstrations and political meetings and attempts to have this issue raised at the United Nations by representatives of the people of New Guinea, people whom the Government send to the United Nations from time to time.

No longer can the people of New Guinea be suppressed and no longer can their opinions be disregarded. In the old days the people of New Guinea had no radio or newspapers. They were illiterate and did not understand what was happening in the world. But because of what has been achieved in New Guinea through education and by bringing the local people to a higher level of understanding of what is happening in the world, these people now know what is happening and are concerned about the fact that their blood brothers in West Irian are faced with becoming part and parcel of a federation to which they do not want to belong. This is a situation to be brought about by a gerrymandered ballot. After all, we in Australia know all about gerrymandered ballots and elections in the various States where majority opinion does not prevail. I am greatly concerned about this matter.

I was hopeful that even at this late stage of the session the Government would come out with a clear statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) or the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Freeth), who is now at the table, to tell us where the Government stands on this issue. I am concerned that so many people at the United Nations, and particularly some representing coloured peoples, show that their only interest is in achieving independence for coloured people at present under the control of white governments. But nobody seems concerned that there should be an independence for coloured people from other coloured people. In other words, the individual should have the right of self-determination irrespective of his colour.

This Government should be looking and thinking in terms declaring when the people of New Guinea and Papua will have complete self-determination. But at the same time I am concerned that we should not stand idly by and see the people of West Irian suppressed by Indonesians. I do not make this statement with any degree of hostility towards the Government of Indonesia. What I am concerned about is the right of the individual to run his own affairs. What we should be saying to Indonesia at the present time is: ‘West Irian does not belong to you or to the Netherlands, just as New Guinea and Papua do not belong to this country*. We should be aiming for one Irian, one New Guinea - call it what you like. Let the people of the country make their own determination and decide what the final result should be. They are one people. They have lived together in their own way for centuries. This Government should be saying to the Indonesian Government: ‘Instead of trying to dominate the affairs of these people for the rest of time you should be trying to help them as we on the other end of the island are trying to help the people there’.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr GIBBS:
Bowman

– I am very pleased to see that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Freeth) is in the chamber at this late hour tonight for two reasons: Firstly, so that at the end of this session I can congratulate him on a very distinguished beginning to his term in his present Ministry, and secondly because I share the grave doubts which have just been expressed by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I am appealing to the Government, through the Minister, to make a reappraisal of the situation and a reappraisal off the Government’s attitude to the situation in the island of New Guinea. I know that this reappraisal is going on at all times, but I am asking that it be a fundamental one and that when it is being made the following matters, amongst others, be taken into consideration: Firstly, the historical aspect should be considered. No part of New Guinea has at any time been portion of an Indonesian or a South East Asian empire. There is no ethnic similarity between the people of New Guinea and the people of Indonesia. Geographically, or from the point of view of flora and fauna or other considerations, New Guinea is quite distinct from Indonesia. There has been only one tenuous link, and that is that both Indonesia and West New Guinea have been parts of a Dutch empire.

Acting on that line of reasoning, however, if for example the United States of America ever gained control of Canada, Canada being part of the old British Empire as Australia was, the United States could lay claim to Australia. That is exactly an analagous form of reasoning. Let us look at the matter further. Is there any evidence that the people of New Guinea themselves want to be incorporated in the Indonesian empire - and Indonesia is an empire and it is imperialistic. There is no positive evidence that the people of New Guinea want to belong to Indonesia. But there is plenty of evidence that the people of Papua and New Guinea do not want to belong to Indonesia, and certainly there is every reason to suppose that the people in West Irian themselves are not happy with the situation.

There is also evidence that these people in expressing their opinions are toeing repressed by force of arms by the Indonesian nation, the Indonesian empire, which does not as yet have a legal title to West Irian.

Is there any evidence that the incorporation of West Irian in Indonesia will assist the people of West Irian? Of course there is not. There is ample evidence that this will hinder their development and progress and hinder the development of free political institutions in this island. Indonesia is one of the richest areas in the world, but it is quite obvious that it has been in the gravest economic difficulty since attaining independence. I admit that Indonesia appears to be solving its problems but this could be only temporary. There is certainly ample evidence that Indonesia does not have a ghost of a chance of developing West Irian in my lifetime and I daresay in the lifetime of my children. I ask the Government to consider the reason for the haste in determining this matter. Obviously it can only be to the benefit of Indonesia - there is no other reason - and by ‘benefit’ I mean benefit to the ego of the Indonesians. It will not be of any economic benefit to them.

The Government should consider the matter very seriously before committing the island of New Guinea to partition. It will be partition for an indefinite period of time and without any reason, because all logic points to the fact that New Guinea should be one entity. Ethnically, geographically and economically, obviously it is desirable that New Guinea be one unit. Queries may be raised as to how it could be developed. There are many ways in which it can be developed. There are United Nations agencies and also multilateral aid and bilateral aid in which Australia could and should participate. Moreover, there are many organisations throughout the world which are developing countries in the pursuit of profit - companies of the type which are assisting in the development of our great country. I have no doubt that there is ample scope for the devlopment of minerals and other aspects of western New Guinea, which will be deprived of all these things if this so called act of free choice is allowed to continue.

I question this act of free choice. It has been said that it is a traditional method.

Let us look at it objectively. It may be a traditional method, but it is not a method that is traditional in New Guinea; it is a method which is traditional in Indonesia which, as I have already pointed out, has no relationship with New Guinea ethnically, from the point of view of language or anything else. They are two distinct countries. This act of free choice is purely a pantomime. I would say that musjawarah is probably synonomous with the term ‘Buckley’s choice’ in the Australian language. In fact, there is a moral obligation on Australia and the rest of the world to see that the people of west New Guinea are allowed to develop so that they can in time - there is no hurry - formulate their own ideas, express themselves freely and determine their own future. They have the right to determine their own future. I look to the day - as does the honourable member for Newcastle - when the island of New Guinea will be an independent country looking after its own affairs and determining the future of its own peoples, although it may have to be assisted to some degree from outside. This is the logical course for Australia to adopt. We should not permit this fantastic, weak method of partitioning a country because trouble will occur in the future and this trouble will flow over not only to the people of the eastern part of New Guinea, who are already expressing their disquiet about this, but to Australia. In the last day or two we have seen the sort of problem that can easily intensify and which Australia can expect in the future.

Our relationships with Indonesia are good. Indonesia must know that it has our goodwill, because we have expressed so in a tangible form in the past and are doing so at the present time. Indonesia will respect firmness. It will respect us if we act from principle but it will not respect us if we act from weakness. Weakness and appeasement have never been successful. A nation that is appeased despises the other and the ground is laid for further trouble in the future. So I ask the Minister to consider these and other matters which I do not have time to discuss. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be better to have a reappraisal of the matter and to take it up with the United Nations. The Government should use every means at its disposal to delay this charade of a so-called act of free choice until the people can determine the matter for themselves. There could be a continuing trusteeship with Indonesia looking after West Irian, provided this was very closely inspected. But whatever the course, let us show strength. Until now Australia, in her foreign policy, has been subservient to the great powers of the free world. Here is a golden opportunity for Australia to increase her status in the world, to show that she can think independently in foreign affairs and, at the same time, to see that justice is done to the people of New Guinea on both sides of the border, looking to the day when there is the only possible rational solution to the problem - when New Guinea is a united independent country looking after its own affairs.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for External Affairs · Forrest · LP

– The honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs) and the honuorable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) have raised a subject which it is not possible to deal with adequately at this late hour and in the short time at my disposal. But there are a few points that 1 might mention to bring the matter into rather better perspective. I do not question the high ideals of the two honourable members who have spoken, but I should like to bring them back to a sense of reality in this matter. Words are very easy, but if words are to be uttered in the sense that these honourable gentlemen have suggested, one might ask what action they expect to follow. What participation have we in this particular arrangement?

I remind the honourable gentleman that in 1948 the Australian Government supported the independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands. Written into the arrangement by which independence was finally achieved was a clause dealing with the question of West Irian. The clause was sufficiently ambiguous to lead to further disputes about West Irian. The Indonesians have always regarded West Irian as part of their territory.

Dr Gibbs:

– With no justification at all.

Mr FREETH:

– I did not interject when the honourable member was speaking so I ask him to hear me out. During the regime of former President Sukarno the Indonesians were subjected to all the propaganda and excitement of his efforts to unite them as one country, and by every method of demagoguery that was open to him he instilled into the people a fervent belief that West Irian was territory that should become part of the Republic of Indonesia. The people of Indonesia believe that to this day. This belief was carried to the point where hostilities broke out. We did not join in those hostilities at that time. We accepted the settlement in the 1962 agreement between the Netherlands and Indonesia which followed. The agreement was between the Netherlands and Indonesia and does not include the Commonwealth of Australia as a party. That agreement provided for an act of free choice to be carried out within the territory of West Irian under the control of Indonesia, with the advice and participation of the United Nations Secretary-General.

At this point I could answer the honourable gentleman’s question as to what is the hurry. The agreement provides in clause 20 that the act of self determination will be completed before the end of 1969. That is the point in carrying out this act of self determination now. The Indonesians are trying to comply with the agreement they have entered into. Are we to hold that against the Republic of Indonesia? The honourable gentleman said that the process of musjawarah or consultation is unknown to West Irian. I ask him whether that is really a relevant argument. Are they any more familiar with the process of one man, one vote? The representative of the United Nations has been in the West Irian area since last August. He has accepted that it is quite impractical to expect the primitive tribes in the highlands of West Irian to understand a normal ballot vote system. It is all very well to get excited about this matter, but at this point of time Indonesia has given every indication that it proposes to carry out the act of self determination within the terms of the agreement in which we acquiesced in 1962. I suggest to honourable members that until there is rather more evidence than the statement by the honourable gentleman that they are in breach of that agreement we should abide by events and see what happens, because I believe that the Government of Indonesia is not insensitive to world opinion on this matter. It is genuinely trying to carry out an act of self determination. I know and every honourable member knows that at the same time the Indonesians genuinely believe that West Irian should belong to them. One can understand the process by which they arrived at that belief.

The honourable member for Bowman has said that there is every evidence that the inhabitants of West Irian are being suppressed by force of arms. I ask him: What evidence? There have been dissident groups in the Republic of Indonesia ever since Indonesia gained independence. There have been dissident groups in Sumatra, the Celebes and in other places in Indonesia. Irrespective of whether the Dutch or the Indonesians had control of West Irian I do not doubt that there would be dissident groups there too. Is Indonesia, being charged with the administration of that area under this agreement, not to maintain law and order? Has the honourable gentleman any evidence that they have done anything else? He has read newspaper reports. I have shown in the last few days how inaccurate some of those reports have been. He has suggested that the Government of Indonesia will hinder the development of that area. I suggest to him that there is not one shred of evidence to support that suggestion. Indonesia has spent considerable sums of money and effort in trying to improve economic conditions in the territory of West Irian. It may not have spent as much as the Dutch were able to spend there but it is certainly far more than the inhabitants would have been able to spend on themselves. So I suggest that the honourable member is being a little less than charitable.

As I said before, it is very easy to say that we must not stand idly by, in the terms of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). That means, presumably, that we must be doing something. I ask the honourable member: Just what does he expect this Government to do in the form of either words or action in relation to the specific matter? We are not parties to the agreement. The agreement so far has been carried out, at least to the point where the representative appointed by the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations has not reported that it is not being carried out. The act of free choice will not take place until later this year. I suggest that in the interests of maintaining good relations with a large neighbour we should at least give the Indonesians the benefit of the doubt and await events as they turn out.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) agreed to:

Thatthe question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed.

page 2556

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upo n notice were circulated:

Human Rights Conventions (Question No. 1018)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When did the Commonwealth last approach the States before, and first approach them during the International Year for Human Rights, 1968, concerning State legislation which is deemed necessary to enable Australia to ratify (a) the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others and Final Protocol opened for signature at the United Nations on 21st March 1950, (b) the Convention on the Political Rights of Women opened for signature on 31st March 1953, (c) the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination opened for signature on 7th March 1966, (d) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights opened for signature on 19thDecember 1966 and (e) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocol opened for signature on 19th December 1966?

Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

    1. July 1965. 2. 20th June 1968.
    1. 3rd August 1967. 2. On 18th July 1968 a letter was written to the States seeking some information which would assist in enabling a reply to be sent to a request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations for information in regard to the implementation of this Convention.
    1. 6th April 1967. 2. 21st June 1968.
    1. 30th June 1967. 2. Discussions are continuing.
    1. 30th June 1967. 2. Discussions are continuing.

Commonwealth Officers: Salaries (Question No. 1078)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What offices under Commonwealth control are subject to salary conditions which must be fixed by the Parliament?

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

It has been assumed that the honourable member is seeking information in relation to those offices that have no avenue of salary fixation other than by the Parliament. On this basis, the relevant Ministers have provided the following information:

Offices of the First Division of the Commonwealth Public Service (*)

The Clerk of the Senate.

The Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The Parliamentary Librarian.

The Principal Parliamentary Reporter.

The Secretary to the Joint House Department.

The Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Department.

The Secretary to the Department of the Cabinet Office.

The Secretary to the Department of the Treasury.

The Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department.

The Secretary to the Department of the Interior.

The Secretary to the Department of Defence.

The Secretary to the Department of the Navy.

The Secretary to the Department of the Army.

The Secretary to the Department of Air.

The Comptroller-General of Customs.

The Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry.

The Secretary to the Department of External Affairs.

The Director-General of Health.

The Secretary to the Department of External Territories.

The Director-General of Social Services.

The Director-General of Works.

The Secretary to the Department of Immigration.

The Director-General of Civil Aviation.

The Secretary to the Department of Supply.

The Secretary to the Department of Labour and National Service.

The Secretary to the Department of Shipping and Transport.

The Secretary to the Department of National Development.

The Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry.

The Secretary to the Department of Housing.

The Secretary to the Department of Education and Science.

The Deputy High Commissioner, Office of the High Commissioner, London.

Statutory Offices The Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs. Auditor-General for the Commonwealth. Chairman of the Public Service Board. Member of thePublic Service Board. Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. Commissioner of Taxation. Second Commissioner of Taxation. Chairman, Stevedoring Industry Authority. Member, Stevedoring Industry Authority. Commissioner, National Capital Development Commission.

Commissioner of the River Murray Commission.

Deputy Commissioner of the River Murray Commission.

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

Judge of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy. President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Deputy President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Senior Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Conciliator of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Public Service Arbitrator.

Deputy Public Service Arbitrator.

Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

Chief Justice of the High Court.

Justice of the High Court.

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. (*) The Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, although a First Division Officer, has been included under ‘Statutory Offices’ as his salary is specified in the Posts and Telegraph Act 1901-1968.

Postal Department (Question No. 1225)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What position has been reached in negotiations with postal unions on the recently announced postal grades structure?
  2. Are the salaries proposed sufficient to retain present officers and to attract new employees?
  3. How does the new salary range compare with the recently adjusted technical grades structure?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Public Service Board has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. The Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union and the Postal Overseers’ Union have accepted the revised postal levels structure without prejudice to claims previously lodged with the Public Service Arbitrator by the unions for higher salaries. These two unions represent approximately 77% of the work force employed in the area affected by the new postal levels structure, namely, the post offices and the mail exchanges. The Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association and the Australian Postmasters’ Association have not accepted the structure. Discussions between the Public Service Board, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and these unions are continuing. Discussions also are continuing with the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists.
  2. Yes. Except for the occupants of positions of Postal Clerk-in-training, all officers and employees serving in positions covered by the new postal levels structure at the time of application of that structure will receive increases in salary of amounts ranging from $30 to $883. These increases result, firstly, from increases in the salaries attached to the new designations and, secondly, from the method of salary adjustment used in translating officers from the old positions to the new. Details are given below. Furthermore, the new structure has given the unions an opportunity to have the salaries of positions in this area of employment determined by the Public Service Arbitrator in their own right The public hearing relating to Postal Unions’ pay claims before the Public Service Arbitrator commenced on 4th February 1969 and is continuing.

The new structure provides the following advantages to staff members:

  1. A reduction of the work levels from 20 to 13;
  2. elimination of educational barriers not related to the work;
  3. provision of a substantially improved career structure;
  4. an upward re-assessment of salary levels;
  5. subject to prescribed conditions provision of more advantageous salary conditions for juniors.

    1. The comparative wage justice approach was used to determine the salaries applicable to each of the levels in the new structure. This approach does not comprehend comparisons with the technical grades structure which is a dissimilar and unrelated structure with which there is no basis for valid comparison.

Postal Department (Question No. 1226)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether grave dissatisfaction exists among members of the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists towards the new postal grades structure in the Postmaster-General’s Department?
  2. Does the plan lower the classification of and educational requirements for many positions in the Post Office?
  3. Will the plan result in loss of salary for many officers and reduce efficiency in the Post Office?
  4. Will he take immediate action to have the plan withdrawn and substituted by a plan which will raise, not lower, the wage structure, educational standards and efficiency of the Post Office?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Public Service Board has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. There has been criticism of certain aspects of the revised postal grades structure expressed on behalf of the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists. Discussions between the Public Service Board, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Postal Unions are still continuing.
  2. The new postal structure involves a reduction in the number of work levels of the area of employment covered by the post offices and mail exchanges from 20 to 13. Naturally, the new structure involves an examination of the duties attached to each position in the old structure and an allocation of the revised positions to the appropriate levels in the new structure. Of the 24,500 positions approximately existing in the area of employment affected, 370 approximately will be up-graded and 640 approximately will be downgraded. No officers or employees, however, will suffer any loss of salary because of the personal retention guarantees. As to educational requirements, certain positions in the old structure required educational qualifications equivalent to Victorian Leaving Certificate. Under the new structure, emphasis is being placed upon tests designed to measure the aptitude and ability to perform the work rather than on particular educational levels. The new approach will provide a career structure in the area covered by the new postal levels uninterrupted by particular educational qualifications but requiring the passing of tests specially related to the type of work to be carried out in the new structure. Special training courses will be introduced for the occupants of supervisory and management positions. The PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Public Service Board believe that this change in the method of qualifying for certain positions in the new postal levels structure will improve efficiency in the Post Office.
  3. No officers or employees will suffer any loss of salary. Except for the occupants of positions of Postal Clerk-in-training all officers and employees serving in positions covered by the new postal levels structure at the time of application of that structure will receive increases in salary of amounts ranging from $30 to $883. These increases result, firstly, from increases in the salaries attached to the new designations and, secondly, from the method of salary adjustment used in translating officers from the old positions to the new. (Details are given in the answer to Question No. 1225).
  4. No. The salary benefits of the plan are referred to above. The new structure reduces the work levels from 20 to 13, eliminates educational barriers not related to the work, improves entry conditions, career prospects and salary levels. In the view of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Public Service Board, the new structure should promote and not reduce efficiency in the Post Office.

Parliamentary Privilege (Question No. 1318)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did Prime Minister Menzies undertake in 1955 to have the whole question of parliamentary privilege reconsidered with a view to the position being clarified?
  2. On what occasions and with what results has the question since been considered?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Yes. I understand Sir Robert Menzies offered to promote consideration of the matter ‘in cooperation with the Opposition’. Prime Minister Menzies subsequently stated on 9th April 1963 ‘I am not contemplating any immediate action to raise the question in the Parliament’.
  2. I am unable to say whether or on what occasion Sir Robert Menzies or the late Mr Holt considered the matter. I have not myself had it considered.

Town Planners: Overseas Studies (Question No. 1342)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. What grants and other forms of assistance are available from public sources for Australian town planners to study outside Australia?
  2. Has he any information with respect to assistance available from other sources for this purpose?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

A comprehensive statement could be compiled only after inquiries, of public and private organisations or individuals, throughout Australia. However, I am advised that although there are no Australian scholarships financed from public funds designed expressly to enable Australian town planners to continue their studies overseas, scholarships are offered under various schemes of assistance for which town planners are eligible to apply in competition with applicants in other fields, e.g. the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust and the AustralianAmerican Educational Foundation, and by the Commonwealth Public Service Board and Universities. Awards for which town planners could apply are also offered by Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan and by Universities and Colleges in the United States. Information on the scholarships offered by overseas countries is contained in the Unesco publication, ‘Study Abroad’.

Social Services (Question No. 1169)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

For each of the categories (a) single age pension, (b) child endowment for one child, (c) child endowment for three children, (d) widow’s pensions (Class A) and (e) unemployment and sickness benefits what were these expressed as a percentage of the (i) Federal basic wage and (ii) average weekly earnings for adult males for each year since 1945?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The following table shows:

  1. single age pension;
  2. child endowment for one child under 16 years of age;
  3. child endowment for three children under 16 years of age;
  4. the pension for a Class A widow with one child; and
  5. unemployment or sickness benefit for a married person and spouse expressed as a percentage of:

    1. the average of the Commonwealth Basic Wage paid to adult males at the end of each quarter
    2. average weekly earnings per employed male unit for each year since 1944-45.

Australian Council for the Arts (Question No. 1503)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. What amount has been allocated for the running of the Australian Council for the Arts?
  2. How many staff are employed?
  3. What amount is paid in salaries, wages and allowances?
  4. What rent is being paid for the lease of Sabemo House?
  5. What was the cost of furnishing Sabemo House?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Expenditure on salaries and payments in the nature of salary and administrative expenses is estimated to be $62,200 in 1968-69.
  2. Eleven including 1 part-time employee.
  3. Expenditure on salaries and payments in the nature of salary is estimated to be $30,800 in 1968-69.
  4. $22,360 per annum for the third floor, the area occupied by the Council
  5. Expenditure on furniture and fittings is estimated to be $13,730 in 1968-69.

Aboriginals: Leprosy (Question No. 842)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the estimated number of Aboriginals living in the Kimberley Division of Western Australia in each year since 1955?
  2. How many were considered to be suffering from active leprosy in each year?
  3. How many of those suffering from this disease were inmates of the Derby Leprosarium in each year?
  4. How many of ‘ those suffering from the disease, and not being inmates of the Leprosarium, were receiving examinations, and what was the average interval of time between examinations?
  5. Were all the examinations carried out by qualified doctors and/ or nursing sisters?
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

I am unable to give the honourable member the information requested as this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Government of Western Australia. However, 1 have brought his question to the attention of the Western Australian Minister for Health.

Education: Science Block Grants (Question No. 1267)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Which schools have received science block grants from the Commonwealth, and when was the grant made in each case?
  2. What was the value of each of these grants?
  3. How many secondary pupils were entrolIed at each of those schools at the time of the grant, and how many are enrolled at those schools this year?
  4. How many students were enrolled at each of those schools at the time of the grant, and how many are now enrolled who were or are undertaking science courses which would require their instruction in the science laboratories built by the Commonwealth grant?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. The information sought is provided, to the extent that it is available, in my reply to question No. 1120 (copy attached). 3 and 4. I am not able to provide the information sought. In respect of independent schools the enrolments of each school, the numbers undertaking science courses and the number of periods of science teaching are known at the time of the decision to allocate money to that school. There is also available at that time an estimate of future school enrolments and numbers undertaking science. This information is used by the Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities in assessing needs in individual independent schools. My Department does not hold, however, information on actual enrolments for 1969.

In administering the Science Laboratory Program the Commonwealth has never sought this information from State Governments in respect of Government secondary schools as it looks to the State Governments to use their discretion in the allocation of the money available.

Space Tracking Stations (Question No. 1353)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. How many space tracking stations are there in Australia?
  2. What role does the United States play in operating and financing these stations?
  3. How many of these stations are suitable for use as tracking stations for American intercontinental ballistic missiles?
  4. Is there any provision that, in the event of a nuclear war breaking out between the United States and some hostile nation, the Australian Government would have full control over the use of those stations which are suitable for tracking intercontinental bassistic missiles?
Mr Fairhall:
Minister for Defence · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My colleague the Minister for Supply has provided the following information:

  1. The following ‘space tracking stations’ are located in Australia:

    1. Six United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stations at-

Tidbinbilla, A.C.T.

Honeysuckle Creek, A.C.T.

Orroral Valley, A.C.T.

Carnarvon, Western Australia

Island Lagoon, South Australia

Cooby Creek, Queensland.

  1. A Tranet’ station at Smithfield, South Australia, as part of the United States Navy’s geodetic satellite tracking network.
  2. The European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO) downrange station at Gove, Northern Territory.
  3. Other range instrumentation at Woomera which has the capability for satellite tracking though is not normally regarded as a satellite tracking station’.

    1. The NASA and Tranet stations are managed by my Department, on behalf of the respective United States Government agencies, and are staffed by Australian personnel. Except for a relatively minor contribution to NASA costs, the United States meets all costs incurred at these tracking stations.
    2. There is equipment at some of these stations which is technically capable of tracking American ICBMs, but I cannot conceive that there would be any useful purpose in doing this.
    3. Because management and operation of the NASA and Tranet stations are in Australian hands, we have full control over the commitments undertaken. However, as pointed out in answer (3) the question of tracking of ICBMs does not really arise.

International Peace Organisations (Question No. 1409)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports of a meeting in Oslo last year of the Peacemakers Academy Committee and the International Peace Research Institute, bodies which have representatives from Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, Holland, India, Italy, Kenya, Norway, Poland, Trinidad, the United States, Yugoslavia and Zambia?
  2. Will he take active steps to have Australia represented at any future such conference?
  3. Will he consider and prepare an early statement on the Conference aims which include strengthening the United Nations, training specialists in inter-group conflict to take part in peacemaking and promotion of human rights and welfare, and publishing impartial information about critical areas of conflict?
  4. Will the Government consider practical help to such an Academy including:

    1. giving it tax-free status, as in the United States; and
    2. setting up an H. V. Evatt Peace Institute in Canberra, and offering its facilities to the Academy?
Mr Freeth:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The Australian Embassy in Stockholm has reported that a meeting jointly sponsored by the Peacemakers Academy Committee and the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo was held in Oslo from 14th to 17th November 1968. The participants in the meeting were nationals of Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, United Arab Republic, France, The Netherlands, India, Italy, Norway, Poland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States of America, Yugoslavia and Zambia.
  2. As the Peace Research Institute is a private organisation, invitations to attend meetings are not open to Governments.
  3. The aims of the conference which the organisers originally set for the abovementioned meeting included strengthening the United Nations, training specialists in inter-group conflict to take part in peacemaking and promotion of human rights and welfare and publishing impartial information about critical areas of conflict. However, discussions at the meeting dwelt more on training of high level people (at Ph.D. level) for positions in which their peace training could be applied.
  4. The Government will always consider any requests for assistance, but in the absence of precise information about the nature and form of a proposal it is not possible to say what the results of such consideration would be. Similarly, in the absence of that information, it is not possible to rule on eligibility for taxation concessions.

Repatriation (Question No. 1450)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many applications have been received for repatriation pensions from ex-servicemen in each of the last 5 years?
  2. How many applications have been rejected in each of those years?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Because available departmental statistics do not record separately war pensions claims by exservicemen and women on incapacity, claims by widows on death and claims by other dependants, it is not possible to provide the honourable member with the precise information he desires. However, to assist as far as possible, I have provided the total number of claims and appeals lodged during those years, and, of those heard, the numbers accepted and rejected.

Repatriation: Widows Pensions (Question No. 1451)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many applications have been received for war widow’s pensions in each of the last 5 years?
  2. How many applications have been rejected in each of those years?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Please see my answer to 1. of Question No. 1450. Claims for war widow’s pension are not shown separately in available statistics.
  2. Available statistics do not show the number of rejected claims for war widow’s pension. However, in view of the honourable member’s interest, the possibility of obtaining further information in relation to pensions grants to war widows is being examined and, if it proves practicable, I shall provide additional details.

Canberra Abattoir (Question No. 1454)

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

er asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have considerable difficulties arisen in the Australian Capital Territory and in adjoining and adjacent districts, consequent on the Government’s decision that slaughtering at the Canberra abattoir shall close as from 27th June next?
  2. Has it become apparent that there is a direct conflict of evidence between the findings of the public inquiry conducted by the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council and the report of the inter-departmental committee on which, presumably, the Government acted?
  3. Is it a fact that some witnesses and some persons prominently associated with the decision to close the abattoir have had their credibility brought considerably into question?
  4. If so, will he take the steps necessary to enable the Minister for the Interior to have the whole question of the future of the Canberra abattoir referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory with the widest possible terms of reference and with no limit on the right of members of that Committee to probe and to question?
  5. Alternatively, will he recommend to the Government that control of the Canberra abattoir be transferred immediately from the Department of Health to the Department of the Interior?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. No. While the Government’s decision to close the- slaughtering facilities from 27th June next has been criticised in certain quarters, the Government is satisfied that its decision was soundly based and I do not envisage any real difficulties arising. I consider fears expressed in this regard are not justified.
  2. No. The main conflict, as I see it, is the interpretation of and conclusions drawn from evidence given. It is important to bear in mind that the ACT. Advisory Council’s report on the abattoir was made in the context of the Government’s decision to offer the abattoir facilities for sale or lease to private enterprise having already been announced and it is apparent that evidence presented to the Council has been interpreted toward a reversal of the Government’s decision. Here it should also be noted that the A.C.T. Advisory Council elected members were not unanimous in their findings, a minority report having been submitted by one member.

A main area of difference in the report is the throughput of the Canberra abattoir and, consequently, the proportion of the local market supplied from that source. As I have announced previously, the assessment of the percentage of meat supplied by the abattoir has been made by relating the throughput of the abattoir to the local population and the average annual consumption of meat per head in Australia as determined by the Commonwealth Statistician. In this connection, the Inter-departmental Committee used the actual numbers of stock slaughtered at the abattoir as available from Departmental records. The A.C.T. Advisory Council, on the other hand, used figures available from the Commonwealth Statistician which related to the whole of the A.C.T. including slaughterings on farm holdings in addition to those at the Canberra abattoir. In this regard also, the Inter-departmental Committee assessed the percentage of the local market supplied from the abattoir on the basis of the population of Canberra/Queanbeyan whereas the Advisory Council’s assessment was related to the average A.C.T. population for the year. Obviously the bases adopted by the Inter-departmental Committee, covering a wider and more logical area, would give a lower percentage of meat supplied from the abattoir than the lower population and would be the more acceptable figure. Further, it has become evident that contradictory estimates published recently placing the abattoir output at 68 to 70% of local consumption would appear to have been based on meat processed in carcase form only, ignoring the extensive consumption of meat broken down into special cuts which are imported in considerable quantities into the area.

  1. No. The Inter-departmental Committee which was recently re-convened to re-examine this matter reported that, in general terms, the overall circumstances had not changed in any material way since it first examined the position in 1966. Since the Government’s announcement to close the slaughtering facilities, however, a number of interested parties, some of whom I have met by deputation and who were earlier interviewed by the Committee at its earlier inquiry, have endeavoured to re-interpret their evidence in the light of the Government’s decision and toward their own particular view. These re-expressed views were considered, together with the Committee’s further report, prior to the Government’s re-affirmation of its decision to close the slaughtering facilities.
  2. No. The Government has considered this matter but it is not proposed to refer the whole question of the future of the Canberra Abattoir to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The Government’s decision was taken only after careful and objective consideration of all factors, including the several representations made by interested parties as well as the further report from the Inter-departmental Committee representing the Departments of Health, Interior, Primary Industry and Treasury and the National

Capital Development Commission. The Government is satisfied that its decision on the abattoir is soundly based and quite reasonable in the overall situation.

  1. No. The reasons for non-continuation of slaughtering facilities at the abattoir would be the same irrespective of which Government Department administered it and in the context of the decision taken by the Government in this matter no purpose would be served in transferring control from one Department to another.

Hague Conference on Private International Law (Question No. 1455)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What States have accepted the Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and when did they do so?
  2. Has Australia considered accepting the Statute?
  3. What conventions have been adopted at sessions of the Conference?
  4. To which sessions has Australia sent observers?
  5. To which conventions has Australia considered adhering?
Mr Freeth:
LP

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

  1. Austria - 14 December 1955

Belgium - 1 September 1953

Canada- 7 October 1968

Czechoslovakia- 29 May 1968

Denmark - 26 February 1954

Finland- 2 December 1955

France- 20 April 1964

Germany - 14 December 1955

Greece- 26 August 1955

Ireland- 26 August 1955

Israel- 24 September 1964

Italy- 26 June 1957

Japan- 27 June 1957

Luxembourg - 12 March 1956

Netherlands- 25 September 1954

Norway- 15 July 1955

Portugal - 8 December 1953

Spain- 8 December 1953

Sweden- 9 December 1953

Switzerland-6May 1957

Turkey- 26 August 1955

United Arab Republic- 24 April 1961

United Kingdom - 3 January 1955

United States of America - 15 October 1964

Yugoslavia- 9 October 1958.

  1. Australia has had the matter under consideration but has not yet reached a firm conclusion.
    1. Convention on Civil Procedure.
  2. Convention concerning the Law relating to the International Sale of Goods.
  3. Convention concerning the Law relating to the Transfer of Ownership in the case of International Sale of Goods.
  4. Convention concerning the Jurisdiction of the Contractual Forum in the case of the International Sale of Goods.
  5. Convention on the Settlement of Conflicts between the Law of Nationality and the Law of Domicile.
  6. Convention concerning the Recognition ot the Legal Personality of Foreign Companies, Associations and Institutions.
  7. Convention concerning the law on Maintenance Obligations towards Children.
  8. Convention regarding the Recognition and Implementation of Decisions concerning Maintenance Obligations towards Children.
  9. Convention concerning the Competence of the Authorities and the Law relating to the Protection of Minors.
  10. Convention of the Conflicts of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions.
  11. Convention Abolishing the Requirements of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.
  12. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters.
  13. Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Recognition of Decrees relating to Adoptions.
  14. Convention on the Choice of Court.
  15. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
  16. Supplementary Protocol to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
  17. Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations.
  18. Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents.
  19. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
  20. Australia has not sent observers to any sessions of the Conference.
  21. Consideration is given to the texts of the conventions as they become available but so far no firm decision has been made to adhere to any particular convention.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 1497)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Trade and industry, upon notice:

  1. On what aspects of his proposal for an Australian industry development corporation was Mr L. J. Dooling engaged as a consultant (Hansard, 1st May 1969, page 1658)?
  2. On what date did Mr Dooling complete his work for the Minister’s Department?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Mr Dooling conducted confidential inquiries and submitted a confidential report.
  2. 30th June 1967.

Industry Study Series Productions (Question No. 1499)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What publications in the Industry Study Series have appeared during his term as Minister?
  2. When and why did his Department cease printing and circulating these publications?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Since January 1956, fifty-three industry studies have been produced and circulated to industry. These covered most sectors of Australian manufacturing industry.
  2. Although only two industry studies have been circulated in the last 2 years there has been no decision to cease printing and circulating these studies. The Department, through the office of Secondary Industry, has programmed a number of industry studies which will become available for general circulation over the next 12 months. It is intended that these will continue on a regular basis and will in time cover all important sectors of Australian manufacturing industry.

Repatriation: Sustenance Payments (Question No. 1510)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. When were sustenance payments last increased for repatriation patients who must lose time in order to attend repatriation hospitals for treatment or examinations?
  2. Is it a fact that the present rate is lower than the minimum wage and must, because of this, cause financial hardship to ex-servicemen, especially those who must attend hospital regularly?
  3. Is it usual for patients to have to wait several weeks for sustenance payments? If so, can this cause hardship to families of ex-servicemen who are dependent on weekly wages7
  4. Will the Minister take steps to have these payments brought up to date immediately, and also have the payment of sustenance speeded up?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I understand that the honourable member’s question is directed to reimbursement for loss of salary or wages incurred in such attendances. I have, therefore, answered the question on that basis.

The present rate is in fact below the minimum wage, and is currently being reviewed.

I am advised that delay can occur in some cases, and I have arranged for current practice to be examined to reduce this as far as practicable.

Please see answers to 2 and 3.

Pensions: Allowable Income (Question No. 1516)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that in 1954 the amount of the allowable income was the equivalent of the age pension?
  2. What would it cost to increase the amount of the allowable income to the equivalent of today’s age pension?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The basis of the means test today is different from that existing in 1954 as a result of the introduction of the merged means test in 1961. In 1954 there were two separate means tests, one on income and the other on property. Now the amount of income a pensioner may have without affecting his pension is directly related to the value of his property.

An increase in the allowable means as assessed to levels equivalent to current age pension rates would cost approximately $15m a year. This estimate is, however, somewhat speculative as the numbers and financial circumstances of persons not now in receipt of pension who would become eligible, cannot be ascertained with accuracy.

Pensions (Question No. 1524)

Or Everingham asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he arrange for the calculation of the pension rate to appear on Notices of Alteration so that pensioners are not left in doubt as to their entitlement and not forced to consult officials and parliamentarians to obtain explanations?

If inability to do this is due to lack of staff, will he consider the supply of adequate bookkeeping machinery?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The matter of notification to pensioners of the calculation of their rate of pension is at present under active consideration by my Department to determine if it is possible to provide the information at a reasonable cost. The honourable member will be aware of the explanatory leaflets on pensions recently issued by my Department and I draw his attention in particular to the Ready Reckoner for Age and Invalid Pensions which pensioners may find helpful. The Ready Reckoner illustrates how pension is assessed and is a useful guide in calculating the amount of pension payable having regard to one’s own circumstances.

Rome International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Question No. 1526)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What governments have acceded to the Statute of the (Rome) International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, and when did they do so?
  2. Has the Australian Government considered acceding to the Statute?
Mr Freeth:
LP

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

  1. The question whether Australia should accede to the Statute is under consideration.

Pensions (Question No. 1541)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. What would be the increase in the total cost of pension payments to age pensioners if the pension rate for individual pensioners, married or single, was increased to half the minimum wage?
  2. What would be the increase in total cost of pension payments to age pensioners if the means test was eliminated for people (a) 70 years and over and (b) 65 years and over, and if the pension rate for individual pensioners, married or single, was increased to half the minimum wage?
  3. What is the estimated total cost of payments to age pensioners for the current financial year?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. The lowest prescribed minimum total wage for an adult male is under the Commonwealth award in Brisbane ($37.10 per week as at 25th October 1968) and the highest is under the State award in Tasmania ($40.45 per week as at 25th October 1968). Half of these amounts would represent $18.55 and $20.23 respectively. If the pension rate for individual age pensioners whether married or single was increased to these levels, the estimated increase in cost would be$1 85m per annum if pension were paid at the rate of $18.55 per week and $245m per annum if paid at the rate of $20.23 per week. In addition, raising the rate of pension would result in an unknown number of persons becoming eligible for a small pension for the first time. These would cause some increase in the costs mentioned above.
  2. The estimated additional costs of eliminating the differential between married and ‘single’ pensioners, raising the rate of pension payable to all age pensioners to half the minimum wage and abolishing the means test for:

    1. persons 70 years of age and over
    2. persons 65 years of age and over, would cost annually -
    3. $400m, based on a pension of $18.55 per week or, $480m,’ based on a pension of $20.23 per week and
    4. $590m, based on a pension of $18.55 per week or, $680m, based on a pension of $20.23 per week respectively.

There would be some increase in the costs mentioned above as an unknown number of persons of pension age, but below the ages of 70 or 65 years, as the case may be, would become eligible for a small pension as a result of the increase in the pension rate.

Offsets would need to be allowed against the figures mentioned above in respect of people of pensionable age who are already in receipt of service pensions from the Repatriation Department, widows’ pensions from the Department of Social Services or who are mental hospital patients. The offsets would be in the vicinity of $20m for persons above 70 years of age and $28m for those above 65 years of age.

  1. During the current financial year it is estimated that some $470 million will be paid to age pensioners.

Royal Australian Navy (Question No. 1544)

Mr O’Connor:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the

Navy, upon notice:

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to bring into effect a forward shipbuilding programme for the Royal Australian Navy?
  2. Can he indicate when a statement on this subject is likely to be made?
Mr Kelly:
Minister for the Navy · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The matter raised by the honourable member is linked with the Government’s consideration of the overall Defence Programme, which will be announced in due course.

Department of Immigration: Regional Offices (Question No. 1555)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What plans exist for the establishment of offices of the Department of Immigration in provincial cities?
  2. Is it intended to establish in Geelong an office which will be staffed on a full-time basis?
  3. If so, when is it anticipated that this office will be opened?
Mr Snedden:
Minister for Immigration · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. In addition to its main branch offices in the State capital cities, the Department of Immigration has established Regional Offices at Wollongong and Townsville.

The question of further regional offices being opened to extend the Department’s services to new settlers is under constant review. Experience has shown that some centres of population can best be covered by Mobile Information Units. One of these units is operated from the Melbourne Branch Office and visits are made to provincial cities after advance publicity is arranged in the local press and migrant organisations in the area are informed.

  1. Since 1964, however, Geelong has been serviced through an Information Office located in the city which is open on Thursday of each week and staffed by an Immigration Officer from Melbourne.

Currently, the Commonwealth Director of Migration, Melbourne is reviewing the situation in Geelong and examining the need to establish a full-time Regional Office.

  1. Whether a Regional Office is established in Geelong will depend upon the result of the current investigations. If the need is justified and approval given, I do not expect any undue delay in opening the Office.

Television (Question No. 1560)

Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice.

  1. When will work begin to implement the decision to provide thirty-eight low power national television stations?
  2. In what order of priority will these stations be provided?
  3. What will be the approximate radius of reception from these stations?
Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. As I indicated in the statement which I made in Parliament on 15th May 1969, concerning the further extension of the television services, the stations concerned will be established over a 4 year period. The programme for the establishment of these stations has not, however, yet been worked out in detail.

  1. The coverage of these stations cannot be assessed until after the necessary field surveys have been made but, as the stations are intended to be low powered installations, only relatively limited coverage can be expected in each of the areas concerned.

Department of Supply: Expenditure (Question No. 1564)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What expenditure did the Department of Supply incur in the last financial year in each State?

Mr Fairhall:
LP

– My colleague the Minister for Supply has provided the following information:

Expenditure incurred in each State in the financial year 1967/68 relating to Appropriations and Trust Funds the responsibility of the Department of Supply was as follows:

The comparatively high expenditure in South Australia was due to the activities of the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury and Woomera. The principal offices of the Department are currently in Victoria and New South Wales and the main factories and laboratories are located in these States. For these reasons, the expenditures in Victoria and New South Wales were also comparatively high. However, caution should be exer cised in drawing any conclusion from the above figures, as they merely reflect expenditure incurred in each State and do not take into account the value of supplies produced in one State but purchased in another.

Education: Science Blocks and Technical Training (Question No. 1120)

Mr Cope:

asked the Minister for Educa tion and Science, upon notice:

What sum has been allocated to each particular public and independent school for science blocks and technical training since the introduction of the Act in 1964?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. SCIENCE LABORATORY GRANTS

Government Schools

Money made available to Government Secondary Schools under the States Grants (Science Laboratory) Acts, 1964, 1965-1967 and 1968 is allocated to those schools at the discretion of the State governments concerned. I am not able to give the individual amounts that have been allocated to each Government secondary school from Commonwealth funds. In a schedule included in the progress report on the operation of the Science Laboratory Programme which has been tabled, are set out lists of the Government schools in each State which have been provided with laboratories built with Commonwealth funds, or with a combination of Commonwealth and State funds, as at 31st March 1969.

Independent Secondary Schools

The information sought by the honourable member is contained in schedules included in progress reports on the Science Laboratory Programme that I have tabled in the House from time to time. In a statement of 27th March 1968, I listed schools assisted between 1st July 1964 and 30th June 1968, under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1965-67, and in a statement which has been tabled I set out grants allocated as at 31st March 1969, under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1968.

page 2571

B. TECHNICAL TRAINING - STATES

page 2571

GRANTS

Under the Technical Training Scheme the Commonwealth is providing $70,000,000 at the rate of $10,000,000 per year for the 7 financial years 1964 to 1971 as financial assistance to the States for buildings and equipment for use in technical training in State technical colleges and similar institutions. The allocation of grants to particular institutions is a matter for the States to determine within a general programme agreed between the States and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not have details of how most States allocate their expenditure between particular institutions on certain items like plant and equipment. Expenditure by the States under the headings of buildings at particular institutions and other major items is set out below.

Governor-General (Question No. 1218)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister note that the Prime Minister has told me on 25th February and 6th March (Hansard, pages 5 and 552) that to the best of his knowledge the Press Secretary to the late Prime Minister took charge of such papers as were discovered in his effects and took them into the custody of Sir John Bunting, then head of the Prime Minister’s Department?
  2. Did Sir John Bunting remain as head of the Prime Minister’s Department throughout the period that the Minister was Prime Minister?
  3. Has the Minister learnt (a) from Sir John Bunting or (b) otherwise that the papers discovered in the late Prime Minister’s effects contained a letter from the Governor-General concerning an interview which His Excellency had had with the Treasurer about the Treasurer’s relations with the Minister?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.

Australian Recognition of Foreign States (Question No. 1255)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proclaimed?
  2. On what date did Australia recognise the U.S.S.R.?
  3. On what date did Australia establish diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R.?
  4. Are there any territories under actual U.S.S.R. jurisdiction or control the validity of which Australia does not recognise?
  5. Are there any territories not under actual U.S.S.R. control which the U.S.S.R. has formally claimed?
  6. On what date was the Federal Republic of Germany proclaimed?
  7. On what date did Australia recognise the Federal Republic?
  8. On what date did Australia establish diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic?
  9. Are there any territories under actual jurisdiction or control of the Federal Republic the validity of which Australia does not recognise?
  10. Are there any territories not under actual control of the Federal Republic which the Federal Republic has formally claimed?
Mr Freeth:
LP

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

  1. 6th July 1923.
  2. 1st February 1924.
  3. Diplomatic relations between Australia and the U.S.S.R. were first established os 1st February 1924.
  4. Australia does not recognise the validity of the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R. The Australian Government does not regard the question of sovereignty over the islands of Kunashiri and Etorofu off northern Japan, which are controlled by the U.S.S.R., as finally determined. The islands were occupied by the U.S.S.R. at the end of World War II and Japan is seeking their return on historical and legal grounds. Under the terms of a Joint Declaration in 1956, the U.S.S.R. has agreed to return to Japan Shikotan and the Habomai islands, which are also under Soviet control, after a peace treaty between Japan and the U.S.S.R. has been concluded.
  5. The Australian Government is not aware of any.
  6. 21st September 1949. 7 and 8. It is not possible to set a precise date for Australia’s recognition of the Federal Republic of Germany, because of the gradual transition from an occupied to an independent country. The Australian Embassy in Bonn was opened on 28th January 1952, but official dealings took place between Australia and the Federal Republic since its inception. 9 and 10. No.

Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 1405)

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

r asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What amounts have been received by the Commonwealth in total in each of the past five completed financial years from (a) deposits paid by tenants commencing to purchase their homes from the Commonwealth and (b) from monthly mortgage repayments on dwellings being purchased from the Commonwealth by former tenants?

Mr NIXON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

Separate accounting figures are not recorded for monthly repayment instalments and for discharges of mortgages.

Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 1404)

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

er asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What amounts have been received by the Commonwealth in respect ‘of each of the past five completed financial years from rentals paid on Government-owned dwellings in Canberra?

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Question No. 1533)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will he prepare a comparative statement of retirement benefits for members of the forces in Britain, the United States, Canada and New Zealand as the Minister assisting the Treasurer provided on 21st May 1965 (Hansard, page 1881)?
  2. Did the Australian Life Offices Association propose to the Government in 1967 a scheme Under which servicemen on active service could have insured themselves for $10,000 for a monthly premium of $2; if so, has the Government made a decision on the proposal or has it considered an alternative scheme?
  3. Has consideration been given to making defence forces retirement benefits non- contributory?
  4. How many Treasury staff have been employed on the administration of the (a) Superannuation Fund and (b) Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund at the end of each of the last five financial years and have the same staff been employed on both funds?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. A further comparative statement will be prepared and made available to honourable members.
  2. A life insurance scheme for servicemen submitted by the Australian Life Offices Association In 1967 was broadly similar to a scheme in operation in the United States which provided life cover for a serviceman of $10,000 for a montly premium of $2.

For reasons expressed in my statement to Parliament on 16th August 1967, the Government decided against the introduction of such a scheme.

  1. Under an amendment to the defence forces retirement benefits legislation that was made in 1965, contributors who entered the defence forces retirement benefits scheme before December 1959 may, if they so wish, take up additional entitlements on a non-contributory basis and receive the Commonwealth share of pension for those additional entitlements and future entitlements. Some 5,000 contributors have so far taken advantage of this provision. There is no proposal at present before the Government for extension of the operation of the provision.
  2. The establishments for staff employed on the administration of the Superannuation Fund and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and for staff performing functions relating to both Funds at the end of each of the last five financial years are stated hereunder. It has not been possible to indicate actual staff employed except in relation to the total establishment:
  1. Includes:

    1. specialist, supervisory and other positions where the duties are related to both Funds;
    2. common service functions (e.g., accounts, typing services, records, personnel and general investigations).
  2. Includes thirty-six Fourth Division staff who provide special support for major projects, including computer conversion.
  3. Includes additional Staff employed with the approval of the Public Service Board for training and to meet urgent and immediate requirements.

Superannuation (Question No. 1263)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are employed (a) fulltime and (b) part-time in the public service?
  2. How many of these persons are enrolled in the Superannuation Fund?
  3. How many persons employed (a) full-lime and (b) part-time are employed in each salary grade?
  4. What contribution is made by the employee in each grade to the Superannuation Fund each week?
  5. What is the Government contribution for each grade to the Superannuation Fund?
  6. What is the pension entitlement of each grade upon retirement?
  7. In the event of a person leaving the service, what refund does he or she receive, according to grade?
  8. Does the fund permit portability of rights and benefits; if so, under what terms and conditions?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1. (a) The Public Service Board has advised that at 31st March 1969 staff employed full-time under the Public Service Act 1922-1969 totalled 217,721 of whom 143,796 were permanent officers, 17,345 were temporary employees and 56,580 were exempt employees. These figures exclude:

  1. staff of the departments of Parlia ment;
  2. staff on leave for national service who numbered 942; and
  3. approximately 40 officers on leave under section 72b of the Public Service Act to serve overseas as representatives of the Government.

    1. Part-time staff numbered 4,350 at 31st March 1969.
    1. The precise number is not available. All permanent officers employed under the Public Service Act and a number of temporary and exempt employees contribute either to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account. Part-time employees do not contribute. 3. (a) The latest date for which a salary dis tribution is available from the Public Service Board’s centralised statistical records of permanent, temporary and exempt staff is 31st December 1967. The distribution is shown in Table 1. Because of the diversification of salary structures applicable throughout the Public Service, full-time employees have been grouped in accordance with the scale of unit entitlements that applied under the Superannuation Act at that time, namely, at intervals of $130 up to and including salary of $6,500 (the taper point) and at intervals of $228 thereafter. Subsequent minor variations in the scale of entitlements have resulted from the increase of the taper point to $6,630 as from 7th November 1968 and further changes in entitlements above the taper point of $6,630 will occur when the Superannuation Act (No. 2) 1969 comes into force

    2. Details of the salary scales applicable to part-time employees are not available from the Public Service Board’s centralised statistical records. To obtain the information, a detailed survey involving all departments of the Public Service would be required. As parttime employees do not contribute to the Superannuation Fund this survey has not been undertaken.

    1. Under the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 contributions are payable fortnightly. In respect of contributions for pension benefits from the Superannuation Fund there is not a fixed rate of contribution according to salary grading, the amount to be deducted from each employee’s salary depending upon the number of units for which the employee is contributing and the rate applicable to each unit of pension having regard to the age next birthday when the obligation to contribute for each unit came into existence. Subject to certain conditions an employee can elect not to contribute to a unit and after the Superannuation Act (No. 2) 1969 comes into force, will be able, again subject to certain conditions, to take up some units on a non-contributory basis. The various rates are set out in schedules to the Act. For contributors to the Provident Account the rate of contribution is 5% of salary.
    2. The Commonwealth meets its liability at the time a benefit is paid. The standard contribution by the Commonwealth in respect of each contributory unit of pension is five-sevenths of each pension payment. The standard contribution by the Commonwealth to Provident Account benefits is two-thirds of the lump-sum benefit payable.
    3. The pension entitlement of each contributor for pension benefits from the Superannuation Fund is at present dependent upon the number of units for which the employee has contributed; the value of each contributory unit of pension at maximum age is $91 per annum (of which the Commonwealth pays five-sevenths - $65 per annum). Unit entitlements according to salary groupings as at 31st December 1967 are shown in Table 1. For persons whose salary is below the present taper point of $6,630, the maximum pension entitlement represents approximately 70% of salary at retirement; for salaries above the taper point, the ratio of pension to salary is progressively reduced until at the highest salary level of $22,750, a pension equivalent to approximately 50% of salary is available. This will increase to approximately 60% when the Superannuation Act (No. 2) 1969 comes into force. This Act also makes provision for units to be taken up on a non-contributory basis in certain circumstances.

Contributors to the Provident Account are not entitled to pension upon retirement but receive instead a lump-sum benefit equal to three times the aggregate of the contributions paid by the contributor to the Provident Account and compound interest on those contributions.

  1. In the event of a contributor to the Superannuation Fund voluntarily leaving the service before retirement, the amount of contributions actually paid is refunded. In similar circumstances a contributor to the Provident Account receives a refund of his contributions together with compound interest thereon.
  2. Some information on the ways in which the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 provides for portability of rights and benefits will be given in the answer to question No. 1088. In addition, the Act provides that, under certain conditions, contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund who transfer to full-time employment with the Commonwealth or an approved authority are permitted to contribute to the Superannuation Fund at the same fortnightly rate aspreviously and for an equivalent pension. The main conditions are:

    1. employment in a civilian capacity must be continuous with service with the Defence Forces;
    2. the employee must be entitled to a refund of contributions under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act; and
    3. an election under the terms of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to transfer to the Superannuation Fund must be made within four months of ceasing duty with the Defence Forces.

Also, the Treasurer may approve of the Commonwealth or an approved authority making an arrangement with an employee for assurance of his life by means of a life assurance policy in cases where, immediately before the commencement of his employment, the employee was a contributor under a superannuation scheme conducted in accordance with the system established in the United Kingdom and known as the Federated Superannuation System for Universities (F.S.S.U.).

South East Asia (Question No. J 354)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government hold the view that (he stationing of Australian troops in the South East Asian region contributes to the economic development of the region?
  2. Is this one of the main arguments for the stationing of troops in that area?
  3. In view of his answer to me on 8th October 1968 (Hansard, page 1714) in which it was indicated that Australia’s external economic aid (in cluding Papua and New Guinea) in 1967-68 was 13.46% of defence expenditure and (excluding Papua and New Guinea) was only 4.65% of defence expenditure, would the objective of encouraging economic growth in the area be more effectively achieved by reallocating part of Australia’s resources from defence to external economic aid?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No. But no doubt it contributes to the economy.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to question No. 2.

Honours and Awards (Question No. 1492)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: 1.Has he considered establishing a system of national honours and awards without titles in anticipation of Australia’s bi-centenary as Canada did during her centennial year (Hansard, 18th May 1967, p. 2317)?

  1. Is he able to say which countries still recommend appointment to the anachronistic Order of the British Empire (Hansard, 5th September 1967, p. 819)?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am advised that, in addition to Australia the following countries recommend appointments to the Order of the British Empire: Barbados, Mauritius, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, United Kingdom.

Australian National Gallery (Question No. 1491)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which State refused the Commonwealth’s request to forgo duties on two proposed bequests to the Australian National Gallery (Hansard, 1 May 1969, page 1657)?

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

On 25th November 1963 the Government of New South Wales was asked whether it would be prepared to remit State duties on two proposed bequests to the Australian National Gallery. On 10th February 1964 the then Premier of New South Wales, the Honourable R. J. Heffron, advised that it was not practicable to accede to the request.

Bi-centenary Celebrations (Question No. 1508)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will he endeavour to have a commemorative medallion struck and issued to Australian school children during 1970 as part of the bi-centenary celebrations of Captain Cook’s landing?

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

The matter of issuing a commemorative medallion to school children to mark the bi-centenary has been considered. In the past, medallions have been issued to school children to mark important occasions and experience at those times has shown that they have little lasting value for young people who soon lose them or cast them aside.

There are more than 2) million school children in Australia. It will be obvious, I think, that even a medallion produced at minimal cost would prove very expensive when issued in the numbers contemplated.

In the circumstances, I consider that it would be more appropriate and practical to spend such moneys as may be made available for the celebrations on things of more lasting worth.

Public Service Dismissals (Question No. 1242)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many officers and employees of the Public Service have been given notice of dismissal over the last 10 years?
  2. How many officers and employees exercised their right of resignation prior to dismissal?
  3. What was the date on which officers and employees were last advised of that right by the Public Service Board?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. I have been advised by the Public Service Board that -

    1. Its records show that the number of permanent officers dismissed from the Commonwealth Public Service since 1959 is -

In the period 1.7.68 to 31.12.68, 46 officers were dismissed.

  1. Temporary employees are not subject to section 55, 56 and 62 of the Public Service Act, under which permanent officers may be dismissed. Temporary employment is governed by sections 82 to 82b of the Act and sub-section (6.) of section 82 provides that ‘the services of any person temporarily employed may be dispensed with at any time by the Chief Officer’.

Where the services of a temporary employee, who is a contributor to the Superannuation Fund established under the Superannuation Act 1922-1968, or to the Provident Account established under Part IVb of that Act, are dispensed with, ‘on the ground that that person has been guilty of conduct which, if he were an officer, would have constituted an offence specified in sub-section (1.) of section 55 of the (Public Service) Act’, section 82aa of the Public Service Act provides that the Chief Officer shall give written notice that the’ employee’s services have been dispensed with and ‘shall specify in the notice the ground on which, and the date upon which, his services were dispensed with’. Section 82aa further provides that a person whose services are dispensed with in this manner may appeal to an Appeal Board against the decision of the Chief Officer.

Because of the nature of temporary employment - much of which is seasonal or casual in nature - no provision is made for the maintenance of comprehensive records of the precise grounds for dispensing with the services of all temporary employees. In this regard it might be noted that, except in cases where section 82aa applies, the Act does not require the Chief Officer to specify grounds for dispensing with the services of a temporary employee.

  1. 1 have been advised by the Public Service Board that in the ten and a half years referred to in 1. above their records show that six officers submitted their resignations before or after the date of issue of the dismissal certificate and before the dismissal became effective. The Public Service Board has also informed me that some officers have submitted their resignation prior to the completion of processes which could have resulted in dismissal action.
  2. The Public Service Board has advised that the last advice issued on the subject of the resignation of an officer who may have committed an offence was set out in General Order 3/D/4. This Order, which was dated May 1964, provided that:

    1. If an officer (other than a probationer - see Order No. l/D/2(b) ), having been suspected of and possibly charged with, committing an offence warranting action under sections 55, 56 or 62, submits his resignation before the disciplinary procedure has been finalised, the resignation should be forwarded to the Public Service Inspector for transmission to the Board.
    2. It should be accompanied by:
    3. a covering memorandum (and relevant departmental papers) containing full details of the alleged misedmeanour(s);
    1. Form No. 14;* and
    2. where applicable, Form No. 17 regarding possible entitlement to payment in lieu of furlough.’

The previous General Order on this subject was General Order 3/B/4, which stated that - “The fact that an officer has tendered his resignation does not render him immune from the consequences of any offences committed prior to actually ceasing duty. When an officer (other than an officer on probation - see Order No. l/F/2(c)) commits an offence which warrants procedure under section 55, 56 or 62 of the Act, action under the appropriate section should be

Notification of Separation. taken to finality even though the officer submits his resignation. If resignation be submitted it should be forwarded to the Public Service Inspector with an intimation that the officer’s conduct is the subject of disciplinary action under one of the sections mentioned. The officer should be advised that action on his resignation is held in abeyance.’

The Public Service Board has advised me that the General Orders of the Public Service Board are issued for the guidance and direction of all officers and employees. Although a copy of the General Orders is not issued to every officer and employee, the Board has directed that officers in charge should encourage their Staff to become familiar with them and should ensure that a copy of the Orders is readily available to them.

Mr Wilfred Burchett (Question No. 1294)

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Will he lay on the table of the House or the Library the file containing the answers given by the Minister for Immigration in 1956 to the Secretary of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties relating to the refusal to issue a passport to Mr Wilfred Burchett and the non-registration of his children as Australian citizens?
  2. Was it stated at that time that the main reason for the refusals of the Government to grant a passport to Mr Burchett was that to all intents and purposes he had severed connection with Australia?
  3. Has any charge been made or considered against Mr Burchett under the Crimes Act or any other Act? If so, what is the general evidence or grounds for which such a charge was made or considered?
  4. Has he any knowledge that Mr Burchett was or is guilty of any offence under the Crimes Act, before or after its amendment, or any other Act?
  5. If so, is this any reason why Mr Burchett should not be granted a -passport or some other authority showing that he can enter Australia so that any such charge may be made and answered?
  6. Can he say if it is possible that any person other than a government official may seek to charge Mr Burchett should he return to Australia? If so, does he consider that this is a reason why Mr Burchett should not be granted a passport or some other authority showing that he can enter Australia?
  7. Why will Mr Burchett not be given a passport or some other authority showing that he can now enter Australia?
  8. Can he say whether Mr Burchett wrote a letter to the late Prime Minister in Cambodia in 1967 and, if so, whether Mr Holt ever saw this letter?
  9. If this letter was received, will he table it in the House or the Library?
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. I shall lay on the table of the House copies of the two letters sent in 1956 by the then Minister for Immigration to the General Secretary, Australian Council of Civil Liberties, Melbourne. 3 to 6. I am not aware of any charge that has been made against Mr Burchett under the Crimes Act or under any other Act. I do not propose to provide any other answer to these questions.

  1. The Government has decided that Mr Burchett should not be granted a passport or any other means of facilitating his travel.
  2. Yes.
  3. I shall lay on the table of the House a copy of the letter which Mr Holt received.

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Question No. 1406)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads place an advertisement for engineers in Melbourne newspapers on Saturday, 17th August 19687
  2. Were prospective applicants invited to apply by ringing Mr Mccormack after 9 a.m. Monday, 19th August 19687
  3. Was Mr Mccormack not available to take telephone calls between 12.40 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on that day? If Mr Mccormack was not available, why not? 4; Were prospective applicants invited over the telephone to submit written applications? If so, what was the closing date for applications?
  4. What was the reason for the urgency in filling the vacant positions?
  5. Is he satisfied that prospective applicants from the country were given equal opportunity with those from the city in applying for the positions?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

The Chairman of the Bureau of Roads has advised me as follows on the remainder of the questions:

  1. Mr Mccormack was not available to take telephone calls between 12.45 and 1.30 p.m. during which time he was at lunch. Between 12.40 and 12.45 p.m. and between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. he was in his office, at times engaged on the telephone.
  2. No. Telephone calls were regarded as preliminary interviews. Persons invited to attend for further interview were asked to bring written material with them. There was no closing date for applications.
  3. The Bureau required additional staff to assist in the completion of the analysis of results of the Australian roads survey which was undertaken as a basis for advice to the Government in its review, which had to be completed by early March 1969, of Commonwealth aid roads legislation.
  4. Yes.

Commonwealth Aid Roads Act (Question No. 1254)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. On what dates, on what aspects and from what States have the Minister and his predecessors sought statements in writing under section 8 (1.) (b) of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1964?
  2. Has he sought such information from the States as would have enabled him to answer my questions numbered 593, 758, 933 and 974 (Hansard, 28 November 1968, pages 3499, 3505 and 3508)?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. It has not been considered necessary to seek written statements from any of the States under Section 8 (1.) (b) of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, 1964.
  2. Where appropriate, information has been sought from the States. In other instances, it was known that the information was not readily available or it was judged inappropriate for the information to be sought from the States at that time.

Ship Building (Question No. 1572)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did the Tariff Board in 1963 recommend the payment of subsidy to builders of vessels exceeding 100 tons gross?
  2. Did the Board suggest at that time that any restriction be placed on the number of shipyards to which the subsidy be paid?
  3. If any restriction applies, on whose initiative was it applied?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes. Government subsequently agreed, however, to fix the lower limit for subsidy assistance at 200 tons gross.
  2. The Board commented that even allowing for an expansion in demand, following an extension of the type of vessels to which subsidy would apply, it was of the opinion that the volume of orders for the industry, as it was then constituted, would still not be sufficient for all the existing shipyards to work at maximum capacity.
  3. In order to maintain an efficient Australian ship building industry, with a minimum of excess capacity, but capable of handling all requirements for construction in Australia of vessels in excess of 200 tons, the Government decided that only vessels built in the then existing seven recognised shipyards, which gave evidence at the 1963 Tariff Board inquiry, should be eligible for subsidy payments.

Canberra-Tumut Road (Question No. 1498)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government receive the technical evaluation of alternative routes for a road between Canberra and Tumut (Hansard, 26 September 1968, page 1624)7
  2. On what dates, by what means and with what results has he been in touch with the Premier of New South Wales on this matter?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. I have been in touch with the Premier of New South Wales about the findings of this evaluation. Details of the correspondence between the Premier and myself must remain confidential at this stage but when I have received the Premier’s views on the findings of the report, I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the matter.

Late Prime Minister’s Papers (Question No. 1214)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has he asked his Press Secretary whether the late Prime Minister’s papers, of which to the best of his knowledge his Press Secretary first took charge, contained a letter from the GovernorGeneral concerning an interview which His Excellency had had with the Treasurer about the Treasurer’s relations with the Deputy Prime Minister?
  2. If so, what did he learn?
  3. If not, does he propose to ask his Press Secretary?
  4. Has he asked Sir John Bunting, into whose custody to the best of his knowledge his Press

Secretary took the late Prime Minister’s papers, who now has custody of the papers?

  1. If so, what did he learn?
  2. If not, does he propose to ask Sir Jahn Bunting?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to Question No. 1.
  3. No.
  4. Sir John Bunting has informed me that to the best of his knowledge all official papers were given into the custody of an officer of the Prime Minister’s Department. I have not inquired, and do not propose to inquire about any private letters or personal possessions belonging to the late Mr Holt.
  5. See answer to Question No. 4.
  6. See answer to Question No. 4.

War Service Homes (Question No. 1512)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What amount has been advanced for war service homes in each of the last 16 years?
  2. What amount has been received in payment of interest and repayment of loans on war service homes in each of the last 16 years?
  3. What amount of receipts in each year was in respect of liabilities discharged before the end of the repayment period?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

Capital expenditure under the War Service Homes Act, receipts of principal and interest, and the amount in respect of liabilities discharged before the end of the repayment period included in receipts, in each of the last 16 years are as follows:

War Service Homes (Question No. 1514)

Mr Whitlam:

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

In what circumstances are serving (a) men and (b) women in the forces eligible for (i) a war service home and (ii) a second war service home?

Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

It is assumed from the terms of the honourable member’s question that information is required in respect of the conditions under which current service in the forces may constitute qualifying service for benefits under the War Service Homes Act.

Eligibility in respect of current service in the forces is derived from a period of service as a member of the Forces’ for the purposes of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962- 1968. ‘Member of the Forces’ is defined in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act as meaning a person who while a member of the Defence Forces has served on ‘special service’. Special service’ by definition means service during a period when the member was allotted for ‘special duty’ in an area which by reason of warlike operations or a state of disturbance in or affecting the area has been prescribed under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act as a ‘special area’. ‘Special service’ commences from the date a member leaves the last port of call after he or his unit is allotted for ‘special duty’ at a time when he is in Australia, or from the date of allotment if the person is outside Australia when his unit is allotted. South Vietnam, certain Vietnamese waters, and certain border areas of the Malayan peninsula are presently prescribed as ‘special areas’ under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act.

In regard to eligibility for a second War Service Homes loan, sections 19b and 20a of the War Service Homes Act provide that the Director of War Service Homes shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, grant assistance to any one eligible person in respect of more than one property. Ministerial approval for the grant of assistance in respect of a second home would depend upon the particular circumstances of each case but approval is usually given only in circumstances of grave emergency in accordance with the intention of the War Service Homes legislation that an eligible person shall be granted the benefits of the Scheme on only one occasion.

Railways (Question No. 1341)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

In the light of the agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia in 1911, which provided that the Northern Territory should be ceded to the Commonwealth and the undertaking by the Commonwealth to build a railway between Adelaide and Darwin, and, because of two world wars and the depres sion of the thirties, it was found impracticable by the Commonwealth to carry out its undertaking, will’ he take steps to arrange for the construction of a standard gauge railway to be commenced between the two cities at an early date?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Because of more pressing capital projects, detailed consideration has not been given to the question of a rail link between Adelaide and Darwin since Sir Harold Clapp advised against it in his 1945 report on the standardisation of railway gauges. Subsequent developments, particularly in road transport, have reduced the demand for such a rail link.

The Commonwealth Government, however, is at present studying the feasibility of alternative transport links between Port Augusta and Alice Springs, including the possibility of a standard gauge railway, and also the feasibility of connecting Adelaide to the standard gauge system.

Any consideration of a rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin would depend on these feasibility studies and also, of course, on other demands for development capital.

Parliamentary Salaries (Question No. 1483)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What are the salaries or allowances or other remuneration paid to (a) city, (b) country and (c) any other group or groups of Members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth?
  2. Is he able to provide similar information in respect of the members of each State Parliament?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Salaries and allowances or remuneration of that nature are:

    1. Pursuant to the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952-1968:
  1. Pursuant to the Ministers of State Acts 1952- 1968:
  1. Pursuant to Regulations made under the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-1966 and the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1966:

Sitting fees -

Similar fees are paid to the chairmen and members of certain committees set up pursuant to the Standing Orders or by resolution.

  1. No. This information should be sought from the State governments concerned.

Computers (Question No. 1162)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is (a) the number, (b) the type and (c) the cost of each computer (i) already installed in, (ii) on order for or (iii) for which an option is held by each Commonwealth department, agency and instrumentality in each State and Territory?
  2. What measures have been taken to ensure computer compatibility within and between Commonwealth departments, agencies and instrumentalities?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

For the purpose of this question a computer has been defined as including the central processing unit and all on-line equipment.

The information provided in the answer relates to digital computers used for data processing purposes. Analogue computers, which are special devices of a completely different order used for scientific purposes, and digital computers used for special purposes such as in aircraft, mission simulators, weapon trainers, message switching and so on have been excluded. This is in line with the practice in relation to computers adopted in the Auditor-General’s annual report.

In this context the relevant Ministers have provided the following information in answer to Part 1 of the Honourable Member’s question:

  1. The Public Service Board has advised that computer compatibility requirements both within and between Commonwealth departments and authorities are met by the following measures:

    1. By committee machinery through which plans for the acquisition and use of computers are co-ordinated in the fields of education and Commonwealth scientific, technical and commercial-type data processing. Computer compatibility is one of the fundamental aspects of co-ordination which is taken into account in the committees’ deliberations and reflected in subsequent administrative action by the executive authorities concerned.
    2. By the establishment of networks of compatible equipment, e.g.:
    1. the computers installed by the Statistician’s Branch of the Department of Treasury in Canberra and all State capitals for use by Treasury and its agencies such as the Taxation Branch and the Superannuation Board’s Office and by other Commonwealth organisations that use these installations on a service bureau basis;
    2. the equipment network operated by CSIRO for scientific and technical processing of CSIRO itself and Commonwealth departments such as National Development and Works.

    3. By joint use of particular installations, e.g.:
    1. by the Departments of Social Services and Repatriation;
    2. by CSIRO and some of the universities.

    3. By the interchange of data in compatible media form so that output from one orga nisation can be automatically input on the installation of another organisation, e.g., data regarding paid cheques drawn on Commonwealth bank accounts is supplied by the Reserve Bank on magnetic tapes so that it can be read automatically into the Treasury bank account reconciliation system, even though these two organisations operate computers that are made by different manufacturers.

Superannuation (Question No. 1262)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say what semi-government authorities operate superannuation schemes?
  2. If so, how many employees are covered by each of these schemes?
  3. For each of the schemes what contribution is made by the employee each week to the fund according to grade?
  4. What is the contribution of each semigovernment authority to the fund for each grade?
  5. What is the pension entitlement for each grade upon retirement under each of the schemes?
  6. In the event of an employee leaving the service of an authority, what refund does he or she receive in each grade in respect of each authority.
  7. Which of the funds permit portability of rights and benefits, and what are the terms and conditions in respect of each of these cases?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

For the purposes of this reply the following interpretations of terms used in the question have been adopted:

‘superannuation schemes’ - any schemes providing retirement benefits, whether by way of pension or by way of lump-sum;

‘grade’ - a salary level. Wherever possible an attempt has been made to group the information in accordance with the salary intervals adopted in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund that are set out in my reply to Question No.1263.

‘contribution of each semi-government authority’-reither the regular contributions paid into the superannuation fund by the employer or the employer’s share of the benefits paid from the fund, as the case may be;

‘the pension entitlement . . . upon retirement’ - the pension or lump-sum entitlement on attainment of maximum age for retirement; and,

‘portability of rights and benefits’ - arrangements which have the effect of ‘preserving’ to people changing employment their accumulated interest or stake in the superannuation scheme of the employer they leave.

The following Commonwealth bodies operate superannuation schemes:

Australian National Airlines Commission

Australian National University

Australian Services Canteens Organisation

Australian Wool Board

Canberra College of Advanced Education

Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Commonwealth Hostels Ltd

Joint Coal Board

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)

Qantas Airways Ltd

Reserve Bank of Australia 2 to 7 inclusive. The answers to these questions have been provided by the authorities concerned and are as follows:

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

The superannuation scheme operated for pilots has been in operation in its present form since 20th October 1964. It was specifically designed to cover the early retirement of pilots (age 55) and to allow pilots to resign at earlier ages and obtain a lump-sum benefit.

The scheme is compulsory and all pilots contribute to it on the completion of a probationary period.

The scheme provides for a 10% deduction from the pilot’s salary. Salary for superannuation purposes is the guaranteed minimum salary a pilot is entitled to, irrespective of the number of hours flown by him in any month, in accordance with his contract of employment. Pilots are able to earn a higher salary than the guaranteed minimum salary on the basis of hours flown per month, but these hours do not count for superannuation purposes.

The contribution to the scheme by TAA is 10% of the pilot’s salary until the completion of 22 years’ service and thereafter at the rate of 71/2% up to age 55. This amount is somewhat theoretical due to the fact that the lump-sum payable to a pilot on retirement or earlier resignation is related to his completed years of service and the benefits for each year of service.

The following scale sets out the benefits payable to pilots upon retirement -

For service in excess of 22 years, the benefit payable on retirement is the benefit payable on completion of 22 years plus the total of the pilot’s end TAA’s contributions made to the superannuation scheme, together with compound interest at 5% per annum, during and in respect of the period of service subsequent to the first 22 years of service.

  1. Upon resignation or discharge the benefits payable to pilots are as follows:

    1. Less than 10 years’ service- Pilot’s own contributions plus compound interest at 5% per annum; and
    2. 10 years or more service - as per scale contained in the answer to part (5).
  2. There is no portability in the pilots’ superannuation scheme.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

  1. As at 3 1st December 1967, the numbers in each of the two schemes operated by the University were:

    1. Staff superannuation scheme (based on life assurance) …. 608
    2. Cash accumulation scheme . 108 3. (a) Staff superannuation scheme - the member contributes 5% of gross salary regardless of grade.
    3. Cash accumulation scheme - the member has the choice of contributing at a rate of 2%, 3%, 4% or 5% of salary at the top of his salary range regardless of grade. 4. (a) Staff superannuation scheme - the University contributes two times the member’s contribution (i.e., the equivalent of 10% of the member’s salary).
    4. Cash accumulation scheme - the University contributes two times the member’s contribution. 5. (a) Staff superannuation scheme - at age 60 the member receives as a lump-sum the maturity proceeds of his life assurance policies. Beyond age 60 and up to age 65 he receives the proceeds of the policies which matured at age 60 plus interest on their investment for the period beyond age 60. In addition he receives an accumulated sum of 15% of salary (5% contributions by the member; 10% by the University) for the period beyond age 60 plus interest. There is also an alternative pension scheme outlined in the note below.
    5. Cash accumulation scheme - on retirement the member receives a lump-sum equivalent to three times his own contributions plus 3% interest. He may elect to retire at age 60 with the option of continuing to age 65. 6. (a) Staff superannuation scheme - on resignation the member has three options: (0 the policy may be transferred to his new employer if it is acceptable for its superannuation scheme;
    1. the policy may be transferred to the member;
    2. the member may accept the surrender value as determined by the individual life assurance company.

    3. Cash accumulation scheme - the member receives a refund of bis own contributions plus 3% interest. 7. (a) Staff superannuation scheme - portability exists between the universities of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia without loss of equity except that transferability to universities in New South Wales is limited. Portability also exists between certain other tertiary institutions and research organisations such as the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
    4. Cash accumulation scheme - not portable.

Note:

In conjunction with the staff superannuation scheme the University has an optional supplementary superannuation benefits scheme designed to give members of the staff superannuation scheme who otherwise receive a lump-sum benefit the alternative of a pension on retirement through age or invalidity.

The supplementary benefits scheme was introduced in 1966 and became fully operative from 20th September 1968. It is funded by the University on the basis of two times the member’s contribution. At present 91% of the members of the staff superannuation scheme also contribute for supplementary benefits.

Additional contributions by members for supplementary benefits are assessed on the following scale:

Members who are 55 years or over may contribute for supplementary benefits, with the approval of the Council of the University, under such conditions and on payment of such contributions as Council determines in each case.

Pension benefits date (except in the event of prior death or invalidity) from 31st December of the year in which the member reaches the age of 65, unless he elects to take the lump-sum proceeds of his assurance policies. Should he leave the service of the University earlier (otherwise than on the grounds of invalidity), he is entitled to a refund of his own contributions for supplementary benefits less 10% for risks already carried; this would also apply if he takes the lump-sum proceeds of his assurance policies on retirement, unless he exercises an option to take a partial pension calculated as the difference between his full pension (see below) and the annuity value of bis assurance policies.

The following pensions apply to contributors who surrender to the University the proceeds of all assurance policies accepted for the purposes of the basic staff superannuation scheme, according to the number of complete years of approved university-type service which they will have had at 31st December in the year in which they attain the age of 65:

  1. 40 years service or more:
  1. 30-40 years service;

The pension shown in (a) above as applicable to the member’s final salary is reduced by 1% multiplied by the number of complete years by which the member’s approved university-type service is less than 40 years.

  1. Less than 30 years service:

The pension shown in (a) above as applicable to the member’s final salary is reduced by 10% in respect of the first ten years and by a further 21% for each complete year by which the member’s approved university-type service is less than 30 years.

This supplementary benefits scheme is not at present portable.

page 2590

AUSTRALIAN SERVICES CANTEENS ORGANISATION

page 2590

AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOARD

The Board operates a Provident Fund to cater for its employees for whom the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme is not applicable..

page 2590

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Academic staff and senior administrative staff of the College may elect to participate in either the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme or the College superannuation scheme which is similar to the Federated Superannuation System for Universities with supplementary benefits to cover invalidity and to provide additional widows’ benefits.

Compulsory - Assurance Policy Benefits:

The compulsory part of the scheme provides for retirement benefits which may be taken at age 60 years. A member is required to contribute 5% of his salary, which, together with an amount equal to 10% contributed by the College, is used to purchase an endowment assurance policy on the member’s life. With increases in salary the amount of cover and the maturity value of the policy is increased. At age 60 the member receives a lumpsum payment equivalent to the maturity value of his policy, or an annuity purchased with the lump-sum.

If the member elects to remain in employment with the College beyond 60 years of age the lump-sum is invested by the College and be continues to contribute 5% of salary (and the College will continue to contribute an amount equal to 10%) which is also invested. On retirement the total of the sums invested plus interest is paid to the member or used to purchase an annuity for him

The widow’s entitlement under this part of the scheme is the sum for which the member’s life is assured.

Optional - Supplementary Superannuation Benefits: The optional part of the scheme allows the member to make an additional contribution to provide benefits to the contributor in the event of invalidity or additional benefits to the widow in the event of his death.

Unless a staff member elects not to do so he contributes to this fund at a rate varying between 0.5% and 6.0% of salary, depending upon the member’s age and the number of years of recognised prior service the member may have to his credit on joining the scheme. A retiring age of 65 years is assumed and members may choose one of the following forms of benefit on retirement:

A member also contributing to the Supplementary Benefits Fund would receive, in addition to the transfer of policy, a refund of 90% of his contribution to the Fund.

page 2591

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation operates a superannuation scheme for its officers and employees in two parts:

As a rule, the Provident Account’ relates to entrants who are ineligible for pension benefit because of high entry age or unsatisfactory health.

Contributions to the Provident Account are at the rate of 5% of the salary of the contributor.

Members of the Provident Account receive on retirement an amount equal to three times their own contributions together with compound interest at 4% per annum.

page 2592

COMMONWEALTH HOSTELS LTD

Transfer from Another Fund:

Clause 11 - The Trustees shall have the right to receive from some other fund or from the trustees or controlling body thereof by way of transfer or otherwise any moneys or other assets in respect of a member’s or an ex-employee’s interest in that other fund. Except as otherwise agreed between the member or ex-employee and the Trustees, any such moneys or other assets so received by the Trustees shall be paid or taken into the Fund and credited to that member’s or that ex-employee’s account in the Fund and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Deed to have been contributed by that member or ex-employee only to the extent (if any) to which the trustees or controlling body of that other fund certify or (in the absence of any such certificate) which the Trustees may approve or consider to be fairly attributable to the contributions of that member or ex-employee to that other fund or to his rights thereunder and the remainder (if any) shall be taken into and integrated with the Fund. All such moneys or other assets shall be and remain subject to such conditions as may be imposed in relation thereto at the time of such transfer by the trustees or controlling body of the other fund or as may be approved by the member and to such further conditions (not being inconsistent with such first-mentioned conditions) as the Trustees may in the circumstances consider appropriate.

Transfer to Another Fund: -

Clause 26 -

page 2593

JOINT COAL BOARD

The Joint Coal Board operates a superannuation scheme of the life assurance policy type providing for a lump sum benefit on retirement. Officers of the Board may retire on reaching 60 years of age in the case of males, or 55 years of age in the case of females, but apart from exceptional circumstances they are obliged to retire on reaching 65 years of age in the case of males and 60 years of age in the case of females. Membership of the scheme is obligatory in the case of male officers under 40 years of age, but is optional in the case of female officers and male officers not less than 40 years of age. Male officers over 55 years of age and female officers over 49 years of age are not eligible to join the scheme, and officers who are already members may not take up any additional units after reaching 55 years of age in the case of males and 50 years of age in the case of females.

Table II

page 2593

SCALE OF UNITS

Entitlement as to Number of Units according to Salary Range

Mines Insurance Pty Ltd, also operates a staff superannuation scheme, which in all material res-

page 2595

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (AUSTRALIA)

In general, staff of the Commission contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. However, the staff that the Commission took over from former operating companies brought with them their rights to superannuation in four separate schemes, namely. Overseas Telecommunications Commission Staff Life Assurance Pension Scheme (SLAPS), Eastern Pension Fund (Eastern), Pacific Pension and Provident Fund (Pacific) and Communications Superannuation Fund (Communic) Each of these four schemes is closed to new membership and with the effluxion of time will cease.

page 2596

SLAPS

Almost the whole of the contributors are in category (a).

Eastern

All members have reached the pensionable age of 55.

Pacific

All contributors have reached the pensionable age of either 55 or 60. ‘

Communic

Pensionable age is 55. The single contributor who has not yet reached age 55 would receive the surrender value of his own contributions.

page 2596

SLAPS

A contributor may elect to take over his policies.

Eastern

Not applicable. All members have reached pensionable age.

Pacific

Not applicable. All contributors have reached pensionable age.

Communlc

Does not permit portability of rights and benefits.

page 2596

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Qantas Airways Ltd operates a Staff Superannuation Plan for all full-time Australia-based staff including those temporarily transferred overseas. Within the one basic Plan, provisions exist for staff of varying retirement ages. These are: -

In the case of ail general staff, only those who have completed twelve months’ service are eligible for membership of the Plan, whereas aircrew are required to join the Plan on appointment. (2.) At 1st July 1968, 8,253 employees were members of the Plan. Distribution, in classification of staff, is as follows: -

page 2596

CONTRIBUTION BY THE MEMBER

Members’ contributions, therefore, are dependent upon a combination of -

Salaries for superannuation purposes are based on awards and agreements covering each classification of staff but, in principle, are the total components of basic salary.

A guaranteed minimum benefit based on service with the company and average salary over the 5 years prior to retirement ensures an appropriate benefit commensurate with salary near retirement. This guaranteed minimum benefit provides eight times the average salary, for superannuation purposes, over the 5 years prior to retirement for a full career extending from age 20 to normal retirement age. The guaranteed minimum benefit is proportionately reduced for lesser periods of service.

page 2597

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

The Reserve Bank of Australia operates a superannuation scheme for its officers and employees along similar lines to that operated by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 1266)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) State infirmaries, (b) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (c) private nursing homes had been approved for the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefits under the National Health Act in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth at the end of each of the last 2 financial years?
  2. What was the bed capacity of the (a) State infirmaries, (b) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (c) private nursing homes in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth at the end of each of the last 2 financial years?
  3. What sum was paid in Commonwealth nursing home benefits to (a) State infirmaries, (b) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (c) private nursing homes in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth m each of the last 2 financial years?
  4. How many (a) State infirmaries, (b) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (c) private nursing homes in (i) each Stale and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth, sought but were refused approval as nursing homes in each of the last 6 financial years?
  5. What is (a) the number and (b) the percentage of (i) State infirmaries, (ii) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (c) private nursing homes in (A) each State and Territory and (B) (he Commonwealth which have been approved for persons requiring intensive nursing home care?
  6. What is (a) the number and (b) percentage of approved (i) State infirmaries, (ii) infirmaries conducted by churches and benevolent societies and (iii) private nursing homes in (A) each State and Territory and (B) the Commonwealth which (a) have raised their fees and (b) have raised them by S3 or more a day since 1 January 1969?
  7. What is (a) the number and (b) the percentage of private nursing homes in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth which are managed by persons wilh professional nursing qualifications? & What is (a) the number and (b) the percentage of private nursing homes in (i) each State and Territory and (fi) the Commonwealth which are managed by their proprietors?
  8. What are the names of individuals and companies registered as proprietors of more than one private nursing home, and what is the number of nursing homes owned in each case?
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Intensive Nursing Home Care. The National Health Act permits the proprietor of an approved nursing home to apply for approval of any of his patients as persons requiring intensive nursing home care. Therefore, premises are not specifically approved for this purpose, the criterion simply being that they are approved nursing homes under the National Health Act
  2. Fees charged by many nursing homes vary from patient to patient and it is not practicable to provide the information requested.
  3. The number and percentage of private nursing homes managed by persons with professional nursing qualifications:
  1. The number and percentage of private nursing homes managed by their proprietors:
  1. The numbers of individuals and companies registered as proprietors of more than one private nursing home are as follows:

New South Wales

Eight proprietors, including three companies - two premises

Two companies - three premises

Victoria

One proprietor - two premises

Queensland

Three sole proprietors - two premises

Joint proprietors - two premises

South Australia

Three proprietors - two premises

One company - three premises

Western Australia

Joint proprietors - two premises

Tasmania

One proprietor - two premises

Should the honourable member wish, the names of the individuals and companies concerned could be supplied to him on a confidential basis, by letter.

Commonwealth Aid Roads (Question No. 1345)

Mr Munro:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth proposals for the next quinquennium of Commonwealth aid roads funds intended to ensure that the present funds available to shires for rural roads, other than main roads, will increase by 5% compounded in each of those5 years?
  2. What steps is the Commonwealth proposing to take to ensure that these increasing funds really will be available to shires in New South Wales to maintain and improve this vital section of our roads system?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. In announcing the ‘Commonwealth Aid Roads Arrangements’ 1969-70 - 1973-74, the Prime Minister said:

Under the existing arrangements, the Commonwealth has imposed a specific requirement that at least 40% of the total Commonwealth aid roads grant be spent on construction and maintenance of roads in rural areas other than highways, trunk roads and main roads.

Under the arrangements proposed, the allocation of money for such roads will be the same amount of money as was received in 1968-69 plus an escalation of 5% each year will be compounded.’

Although the distribution of funds to road constructing authorities within the respective States is a matter for State governments, the higher level of Commonwealth grants should ensure that shires do not receive less than the increase which is mentioned.

  1. Similar provisions to those in the present Commonwealth aid roads legislation are proposed in the legislation now before the Parliament to ensure that the States expend the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act grants on the specified categories of road.

The categorisation of roads within the two classes of rural expenditure will be achieved by the determination of the rural arterial roads by the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

In addition the Premier of the State of New South Wales in a press announcement on 21st March 1969 said: “The Government has stated and re-affirms that the money to be expended over the next few years for roads in rural areas apart from State highways, trunk roads and main roads, will be not less than that available during 1968-69 together with an increase of 5 per cent and this increase will be compounded annually at5 per cent over the five years of the new Commonwealth agreement.’

International Labour Organisation:

Maritime Conventions (Question No. 1426)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

In what respects do the Navigation Act and the regulations under it still fall short of the following International Labour Organisation Conventions which Australia has not yet ratified:

No. 23, Repatriation of Seamen, 1926;

No. 58, Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936;

No. 68, Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews), 1946;

No. 69, Certification of Ships’ Cooks, 1946;

No. 71, Seafarers’ Pensions, 1946;

No. 73, Medical Examination (Seafarers), 1946;

No. 74, Certification of Able Seamen, 1946;

No. 91, Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised),

1949;

No. 92, Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 1949;

No. 108, Seafarers’ National Identity Docu ments, 1958; and

Qc) No. 109, Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 19597

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The provisions of these conventions do not necessarily require legislation under the Navigation Act and regulations before ratification by Australia and in some cases the Act and the regulations already contain provisions which relate to the conventions. Amendment of the Act and regulations that would still be needed to give effect to these conventions is as follows:

Amendment to provide relief to seamen from Australian-registered ships distressed in Papua/New Guinea and to nonAustralian seamen, ex Australian-registered ships who are distressed in Australia.

No amendment necessary.

Provision for the training and examination of candidates for certificates as ships’ cook (refer item <d) below). Provision for research into, and educational and propaganda work concerning, methods of ensuring proper food supply and catering service. Provision detailing food and water supplies appropriate to the crew and voyage and arrangements and equipment of the catering department.

Provision for the training and examination of candidates for certificates as ships’ cook.

Navigation Act not relevant

Amendments of regulations under the Navi gation Act relating to health and possibly new regulations covering regular medical examination of seafarers.

Provision for the training of candidates for certificates as able seaman.

Navigation Act not relevant

Minor amendment to require plans to be submitted before the construction of a ship is begun rather than before the keel is laid, and to require power for operation of aids to ventilation to be available at all times when the crew is living or working on board a ship and conditions so require.

Navigation Act not relevant.

Qc) Amendment to raise the minimum age for employment at sea at night from 15 years to 16 years.

Redline Omnibus Services (Question No. 1570)

Mr C K Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

es asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did a Redline express omnibus on Wednesday, 14th May 1969 collide with a semi-trailer on the Hume Highway approximately 35 miles south of Yass?
  2. Is he able to say whether the circumstances of this accident have been investigated?
  3. If so, was it shown (a) that the omnibus was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident, (b) that the right hand side wheel came off prior to the collision and that there were gouge marks on the roadway to support this opinion, (c) that the right hand front wheel brake linings and other parts were scattered along the road for approximately 200 feet behind the omnibus and (d) that after the collision the hand brake was in the hard on position, indicating that the foot brake was not working and the driver of the omnibus was trying to stop it with the hand brake?
  4. Is there any evidence to show whether the driver of the omnibus had had the necessary rest period or whether he had been driving longer than permitted under regulations covering drivers of heavy transports and buses?
  5. Is he able to say whether Redline express omnibuses are serviced every 7,000 miles whereas omnibuses of another line are serviced every 1,500 miles?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, by the New South Wales Police Department.
  3. I am informed that the driver of the omnibus in question has been charged with manslaughter and that precise details relative to the accident cannot be provided at this stage.
  4. As for 3.
  5. I do not have details of the servicing procedures of the various omnibus lines.

Burdekin River Railway Bridge (Question No. 1529)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Is he able to say when and why the decision was taken not to dismantle and sell the old bridge on the Townsville-Mount Isa railway over the Burdekin River?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

I understand that the Queensland Minister for Transport indicated late last year that the steel spans of the bridge are capable of dismantling and re-use on lines with a lower axle load limitation and that disposal action was not proposed. It is understood that the position is unchanged.

Western Australian Land Tax (Public Service) (Question No. 1388)

Mr Cleaver:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. At what stage are the negotiations between the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth regarding the takeover of the collection of State land tax and associated valuation work?
  2. Could there be more consultation with the staff associations representing the officers direct])’ affected by the changeover?
  3. Can an assurance be given that all rights and privileges of Commonwealth public service employees affected by this takeover will be retained?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Public Service Board has advised that:

  1. A joint committee of representatives of the Commonwealth and State Public Services has been set up to plan the proposed takeover. This committee has made considerable progress on the investigation and consideration of the various administrative matters and problems involved.

It is not yet clear when the committee trill be in a position to report

  1. The staff associations have been given the opportunity to raise issues of interest to their members on conditions of service, and these are being taken fully into account by the committee.

The associations are still free to raise any further matters with the committee, and it is acknowledged that there is a need to inform the staff involved, as soon as possible, of the conditions which will be extended to them.

  1. Commonwealth service employees involved in the takeover will receive appointments under Western Austraiian Public Service Act 1904-1967.

The question of retention of certain rights and privileges of Commonwealth employees is one of the important matters which the committee is at present considering.

The Parliament : Questions (Question No. 1583)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many questions have been placed on the House of Representatives notice paper for (a) him, (b) Cabinet Ministers and (c) other Ministers since he became Prime Minister?
  2. What has been the average number of days taken by (a) him, (b) Cabinet Ministers and (c) other Ministers to provide answers to these questions?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

The information which the honourable member needs to make these arithmetical calculations is readily available to him.

Kangaroos (Question No. 1569)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government propose to take any action to stop the widespread massacre of kangaroos by people working for pet food butchers?
  2. Can he say whether the actions of pet food butchers are connived at by many graziers?
  3. Is it a fact that there is overwhelming indignation amongst the Australian people against the insane slaughter of defenceless native animals like the kangaroo and the wallaby?
  4. In view of the likelihood that some species of these marsupials might be nearing extinction, will the Government place an embargo on the export of all kangaroo meat and ask each State Premier to forbid the sale of this meat in his State for any purposes whatsoever?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s questions is as follows: 1 to 4. All kangaroos and wallabies m the Australian Capital Territory are fully protected. In the Northern Territory they are partly protected and may only be shot under licence. Except where a particular species is declared a pest, licences in the Northern Territory are not freely given and then usually only to landowners who can prove that the animals are destroying standing crops.

The Commonwealth does not have power under the Constitution to make taws with respect to the protection of wild life in the States and there is, therefore, no Commonwealth legislation that is relevant.

The Commonwealth is, nevertheless, vitally concerned to see that our unique heritage of fauna is preserved for future generations. With this object in view, I wrote to the Premiers on 26 February 1969 inviting each of them to nominate a Minister for preliminary discussions on Commonwealth/ State collaboration in conservation. All State Premiers have now agreed to such discussions and the Minister for Education and Science will shortly be making an announcement of the date and place of the first meeting.

Gorton Ministry (Question No. 63)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does he observe the convention in connection with the Ministry that Ministers should not hold directorships in companies?
  2. If not, which of his Ministers hold company directorships and what are the details of those directorships?
  3. Have any business dealings taken place between the Government and any company in which a member of the Ministry is a director? If so, what are the details?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 have been assured by all the Members of the Ministry that none of them hold any directorships in any public Company. Some Ministers hold directorships in private pastoral companies or small businesses but none of these companies, I have been informed, have had any dealing- with any Government department or instrumentality.

Dentists (Question No. 1475)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

At which of their conferences have Commonwealth and State Health Ministers discussed the question of a uniform attitude to overseas qualifications of dentists?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question of a uniform attitude to overseas qualifications of dentists has not been discussed at the Conferences of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers held in recent years.

Railway Projects Repayments (Question No. 1559)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

! asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What payments will the Commonwealth receive this year from each railway project for which it has made loans?
  2. In the case of incomplete projects, when will each project be completed, what annual payments will the Commonwealth then receive in respect of that project and for how many years will it receive such payments?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. It is estimated that in 1968/69 the Commonwealth will receive the following amounts, inclusive of interest, under the agreements indicated in respect of loans made for railway projects:
  1. The standard gauge railway between Port Pirie and Broken Hill -is expected to be completed in 1970. Regular freight services are now operating on the standard gauge railway between Kalgoorlie and Perth, but advances to Western Australia under the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) will continue for a period in respect of expenditure by the State on completed works and in respect of certain works not yet completed.

It is not possible at this stage to state the annual payments to be received by the Commonwealth in respect of these projects in the years after their completion; the amount of these payments will depend upon the amounts and timing of future advances by the Commonwealth to the States. However, the approximate total amounts which the Commonwealth will receive by way of repayments of principal and payments of interest in respect of advances to the States up to 30th June 1968 under the agreements concerned, and the year of the final payment in respect of such advances, are as follows:

Hydro-electric and Water Projects Repayments (Question No. 1530)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What payments will the Commonwealth receive this year (a) from the Snowy Mountains scheme and (b) in respect of each other hydroelectric and water project for which it has made loans?
  2. In the case of incomplete projects, when will each project be completed, what annual payments will the Commonwealth then receive in respect of that project and for how many years will it receive such payments?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The payments which it is estimated the Commonwealth will receive in 1968-69 in respect of hydro-electric and water projects for which it has made loans are:
  2. It is expected that the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme will be completed during 1973- 74. Calculated on the basis of present interest rates, annual payments to the Commonwealth will be about $42m from 1974-75 to 2024-25. Payments will then decrease until 2044-45 when the capital indebtedness as at 1974- 75 will have been repaid. Payments to the Commonwealth thereafter will include payments in respect of the financing of additional and replacement assets.

It is not possible at this stage to estimate the annual payments to be received by the Commonwealth in respect of the other incomplete projects in the years after their completion; the amount of these payments will depend upon the amounts and timing of advances by the Commonwealth to the States. The expected date of completion of each project, together with the total amount which the Commonwealth will receive by way of repayments of principal and payments of interest in respect of advances made to the States up to 30th June 1968, is shown in the table below. No part of the loan component of the Commonwealth’s assistance to Western Australia for the Ord scheme has yet been paid to the State.

Health (Question No. 1080)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is he able to state the cost per year for each of the past 5 years for each State and Territory of (a) inebriates’ institutions and other alcoholism clinics, (b) mental and other hospital patients and, in particular, those whose illness is attributed to alcoholism, (c) traffic accidents and, in particular, those attributed to alcoholism, (d) chest clinics and sanatoria and, in particular, their patients whose illness is attributable to bronchogenic carcinoma, and (e) hospitalisation and compensation to sufferers from coronary sclerosis?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Provision of hospital services is, with the exception of those provided in the Australian Capital

Territory and the Northern Territory, a responsibility of the State governments.

Each State Health Department was approached for the information requested but, with the exception of qualified information provided by New South Wales in respect of maintenance costs of certain institutions which accommodate alcoholics, answers to the specific questions asked by the honourable member could not be readily extracted or furnished from the statistical records available.

The information supplied by New South Wales related to the total annual cost of maintenance of the psychiatric institutions which accommodate inebriates and other patients whose illness is attributed to alcoholism. It was advised that the statistical records for the psychiatric institutions which accept inebriates do not separate the costs associated with these patients from the overall maintenance costs of patients in general. The figures were as follows:

In addition, figures as hereunder were supplied in respect of the total expenditure of the Langton Clinic, a unit which is subsidised by the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales and caters for alcoholics.

Although the States were unable to supply adequate information regarding the cost of maintaining chest clinics and sanatoria, the following figures furnished by my Department represent the expenditure by the States for tuberculosis services only, excluding minor administration costs. They include expenditure for chest clinics, tuberculosis sanatoria, tuberculosis beds in public hospitals and mass X-ray surveys.

It is not possible to indicate specifically expenditure for chest clinics and sanatoria, or the cost in respect of patients whose illness is attributable to bronchogenic carcinoma.

Separate cost figures for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are not maintained.

Hospital Benefit Funds (Question No. 1504)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that many approved hospital benefit funds grant fund benefit to war widows, who are members, while they are in-patients of Repatriation hospitals?
  2. Is a similar benefit paid to ex-servicemen, who are members of a fund, while they are in-patients of a Repatriation hospital for treatment of an accepted war disability?
  3. If not, what is the reason for the differentiation, and what will he do to rectify this apparent anomaly?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. A number of registered hospital benefits organisations pay fund benefit to war widows, who are members, in respect of their hospitalisation in Repatriation hospitals.
  2. A smaller number of organisations pay fund benefits to ex-servicemen, who are members, in respect of hospitalisation in Repatriation hospitals for accepted war disabilities.
  3. The individual registered hospital benefits organisations have different provisions in their rules. It has been policy to let registered organisations run their own affairs with a minimum of interference.

The Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance recommended:

That it be made a condition of hospital insurance that benefits will not be paid in excess of hospital accounts.’ (Recommendation 12). As there is no charge for hospitalisation in Repatriation hospitals, this recommendation would preclude payment of fund benefit. The Government has still to consider the Committee’s report and to make its decisions on the various recommendations.

Overseas Ownership of Australian Industries (Question No. 1091)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

How promptly and fully has the Statistician carried out the recommendations of the Vernon Committee on 6th May 1965 that he produce statistics to show the extent of overseas ownership and control in different industries?

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Work has been proceeding for some time on statistics of overseas ownership and control of Australian industry. Statistics of overseas ownership and control of the Australian mining industry for the years 1963 to 1966 were published in the bulletin ‘Overseas Participation in Australian Mining Industry - 1966’ released in November 1968. Statistics of overseas ownership of Australian manufacturing industry for the years 1962-63 and 1966-67 were published in the bulletin ‘Overseas Participation in Australian Manufacturing Industry -1962-63 and 1966-67, Part I- Overseas Ownership’’ on 28th May 1969. In the preface to this bulletin the Statistician announced that work is proceeding on the compilation of statistics relating to overseas control of Australian manufacturing industry and that these statistics will be presented in Part II of the bulletin which is expected to be available for publication later this year. Work on statistics of overseas participation in other industries is in progress and further statistics will be published as they become available.

Banking (Question No. 1334)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Which banks at present afford their shareholders the information on shareholdings and voting rights advocated by the Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General at their meeting in Hobart in March?
  2. What steps have been taken to ensure that the other banks hereafter afford this information to their shareholders?
  3. As he has expressed the view that it is high time that the various State governments considered the desirability of establishing a securities and exchange commission in each State (Hansard, 16th October 1968, page 1996), has he considered establishing such a commission with respect to banks under the Commonwealth’s banking power?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. As far as I am aware, none of the private banks at present provides to its shareholders the information on shareholdings that the Eggleston Committee has recommended to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General be required to be disclosed.
  2. The legislation being drafted to implement the recommendations of the Eggleston Committee will apply to the private banks incorporated under the uniform Companies Acts. The question whether similar provisions should apply in relation to other private banks operating in Australia is under consideration.
  3. No.

Hospital and Medical Benefits Funds (Question No. 1548)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice: 1.Did he tell me on 9th May that should any instances occur in future where publicity directed to purely political objectives is undertaken or financed by any registered medical or hospital organisation he would certainly see that appropriate action was taken?

  1. Have registered health benefit organisations constituting the Health Benefits Council of Victoria been directed by that Council to distribute off-prints of articles on health insurance which appeared in the ‘Australian’ on 24th, 25th and 28th October 1968?
  2. Are these articles of a tendentious nature, and did the ‘Australian’ subsequently publish a further article correcting on behalf of the Australian Labor Party errors of fact and of interpretation?
  3. Does the distribution of the first three articles without the fourth article constitute ‘publicity directed to purely political objectives’; if so, what appropriate action does he propose to take?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. As the honourable member is aware, an article under his name stating his Party’s ideas for financing national health costs appeared in the Australian’ on 28th November 1968.
  4. I do not consider that the distribution of the three articles constitutes ‘publicity directed to purely political objectives’.

Hospital and Medical Benefits Funds (Question No. 1547)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Which registered health benefit organisations have employed canvassers to call upon contributors in their homes and explain to them the advantages of the voluntary health insurance system?
  2. What is the total number of canvassers employed and when were they first appointed?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and 2. Information is not available regarding the total number of canvassers employed by health benefits organisations, when they were first appointed, or whether any of them have been specifically employed for the purpose of calling upon contributors in their homes to explain the advantages of the voluntary health insurance system.

Arbitration (Question No. 1590)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is his statement, in answer to a question on 28th May, that at the time of the 1968-69 Budget there were worries about inflation as arbitration awards had exceeded capacity to pay because they were greater than productivity, to be taken as a hint or direction to the members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that future awards must ensure that wage end salary increases should be kept to the barest minimum?
  2. Has he an appreciation of the effect of comments of this nature by him? 3.If so, is it a fact that such comments could cause increased industrial discontent all over Australia?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. No; any views the Commonwealth wishes to convey to the Commission it puts in submissions to the Commission at hearings in which the Commonwealth intervenes in the public interest
  2. and 3. See answer to 1. above.

Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia (Question No. 1546)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia consistently allocated for operating expenses a percentage of its contribution income higher than that appropriated by most other registered health benefit organisations?
  2. Has the percentage of contribution income allocated for operating expenses by the Hospitals Contribution Fund consistently exceeded the maximum laid down by his Department?
  3. Has the Hospitals Contribution Fund recently established ‘a special projects and research bureau’ known as ‘the Office of Health Care Finance’?
  4. Does he expect the establishment of the Office of Health Care Finance to increase further the percentage of contribution income allocated by the Hospitals Contribution Fund for operating expenses?
  5. If so, will he take action to ensure that the limits laid down by his Department are observed?
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. Information supplied to my Depart ment by medical and hospital benefit organisations concerning their individual operating expenses has up to the present been regarded as confidential. The Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance visualised that the annual report to Parliament by the commission that it recommended be established should include particulars of the operating experience of each registered organisation. The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry have not yet been considered by the Government and pending their consideration it is proposed to adhere to the established practice. 3, 4 and 5. It is understood that the Hospitals Contribution Fund has recently established a special projects and research bureau known as the Office of Health Care Finance, but complete details of the operation of the bureau are not available. Regular inspections of the financial operations of all registered health benefit organisations are made by departmental investigation officers. Any necessary inquiries regardingthe allocation of funds by the Hospitals Contribution Fund to this bureau will be undertaken in the course of those inspections.

Should the inquiries disclose a need for any action by my Department the appropriate action will be taken.

Hospital and Medical Benefits Funds (Question No. 1474)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Didhe tell me on 23rd April 1968 (Hansard, page 1402) that his Department had maintained a close watch over the levels of operating expenses of all registered organisations and in cases where the management expense ceilings had been exceeded the organisations had been requested to take remedial action?
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the Director of the Hospitals Contribution Fund, Mr R. Turner, that no less than twenty-seven organisations exceeded the permissible expense rate in 1965-66, and, of these, twenty would have exceeded a permissible limit proposed by the Department based on a flat rate of 16%?
  3. If so, how many of the organisations concerned did he request to take remedial action and how many in fact brought their operating expenses within the prescribed limits over the next 12 months?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. I so informed the honourable member on 23rd April 1969.
  2. Yes.
  3. In accordance with established practice my Department has continued to press the organisations to take remedial action in regard to the level of their management expenses. Of the twentyseven organisations referred to, only ten had a management expense rate in excess of 16% in 1967-68 and seven of these had reduced their management expense rate below the 1965-66 level.

Conscientious Objection (Question No. 1241)

Mr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government acknowledge, in accordance with the Internationa] Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, that individuals have international duties which transcend obligations of obedience to an individual State?
  2. Have individuals been punished for defying conscription because they claim that their participation in the Vietnam war involves them in war crimes as defined by Article 6(b) of the Charter annexed to the Agreement of 8th August 1945 between the Allies setting up the Tribunal, such crimes including unjust war, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity?
  3. Will he consider bringing thelaw on conscientious objection into harmony with international law?
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. This question presumably refers to a statement in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg dealing with a defence of superior orders’ to charges of specific international crimes. lt is clear that the statement does not provide an exhaustive legal formulation of the relationship between national laws and international law in the field of international crimes and it was not so regarded by the United Nations when it studied the matter from 1945 to 1950.
  2. Claims of the kind referred to have been made in applications under the National Service Act for exemption on the grounds of conscientious beliefs. If the honourable member is implying that participation in Australian military operations in Vietnam would involve the commission of war crimes the implication is emphatically rejected.
  3. Australia’s national service legislation concerning conscientious objectors is not in conflict with international law. Indeed, the legislation is more favourable than comparable legislation in almost any other country.

War Service Homes (Question No. 1513)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

What are the current ministerial directions under the War Service Homes Act and when were they last reviewed?

Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Current directions under section 5, section 20 and section 48ab of the War Service Homes Act which provide that the Minister may give directions to the Director, are as follows:

That an advance is not to be made to discharge an existing mortgage, charge or encumbrance except where the mortgage or charge was arranged with the prior approval of the Director of War Service Homes or in special cases of great hardship.

Assistance is not to be given to members of the Citizen Military Force or to members of the women’s services whose conditions of enlistment were similar unless they actually served on land outside Australia or were employed on seagoing service on a ship outside Australia.

Additional loans in respect of an existing war service home are to be restricted, as a general rule, to the provision of essential extra sleeping accommodation and to the installation of utility services such as water services, electric light, gas, sewerage, drainage or hot water systems.

Where following the default of a purchaser or borrower under the Act, the Director of War Service Homes becomes mortgagee-in-possession or cancels a contract of sale, the following rates, taxes, charges or other outgoings in respect of the land that are payable by the person who was when the outgoings became payable the purchaser’ or borrower, shall be paid by the Director under the provisions of section 48ab of the Act:

In cases where the security is a mortgage- (!) Amounts owing to the Commonwealth, a State or a government authority for roadmaking, guttering or sewerage, including interest arrears.

Arrears of rates owing to the Commonwealth, a State or a government authority.

Rates charged while the Director is mortgagee-in-possession .

Interest on arrears of rates -

where following a cash sale there is a sufficient balance available for the purpose, after deducting moneys owed to the Director and the expenses of the sale;

where following a sale on terms the margin of security is sufficient having regard to the possible future reversion of the property.

In cases where the security is a contract of sale -

Amounts owing to the Commonwealth, a State or a government authority for roadmaking, guttering or sewerage, including interest arrears.

One year’s arrears of rates dating back from the cancellation of the contract of sale.

The balance of arrears of rates, but not penalty interest -

where following a cash sale there is a sufficient balance available for the purpose, after deducting from the sale price the outstanding liability on the property, including the expenses of the sale;

in a sale on terms, to the extent of the balance remaining after deducting from the sale price the liability on the property, including the expenses of the sale, provided the margin of equity of the new purchaser is sufficient having regard to the possibility of future reversion of the property.

The direction in respect of the payment of Local Government charges was given on 6th December 1968 following enactment of the War Service Homes Act 1968 and will be reviewed as the circumstances require. All other current directions Stave been reviewed during the present financial year.

Equal Pay for the Sexes (Question No. 1425)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

Is he able to say which European, North American and South East Asian countries do not yet apply the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value to all employees of central government departments or agencies?

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The honourable member will be aware that the principle he has referred to is incorporated in the International Labour Organisation Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100) and that ratification comprehends application of the principle to all employees of central government departments and agencies. However, even those countries which have ratified the convention do not all apply the principle in a uniform way. The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in interpreting the provisions of the conventions appears to take the view that application should comprehend females not only doing the same or like work as males and doing the same range and volume of work and under the same conditions, but also doing quite unlike types of work. According to the Committee over half of the countries which have ratified and reported on their application of the convention are not complying fully with it Furthermore, in respect of countries which claim to have introduced the ILO principle for employees in central government departments and agencies, including some which have not ratified the convention, the information available does not enable me to say whether the principle, as interpreted by the Committee of Experts, is applied to all central government employees. I am therefore unable to provide the honourable member with a meaningful answer, but I am arranging to let him have copies of the Commonwealth’s submission in the equal pay cases currently before the Commission and an associated document, ‘Equal Pay - Some Aspects of Australian and Overseas Practice’ which deal, inter alia, with the application of equal pay in overseas countries.

Government Revenue and Expenditure (Question No. 1430)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Can he supply details in table form for each year from and including 1950 of current government revenue and expenditure in relation to national product, expressed as percentages of the gross national product at market prices, under the following heads: (a) Direct taxes on persons, (b) Direct taxes on corporations, (c) Indirect taxes, (d) Total taxes, (e) Other current revenue, (f) Total current revenue, (g) Consumption goods and services, (h) (i) Defence and (ii) Civil consumption, (i) Social security benefits and other transfers to persons, (j) Interest on national debt, (k) Foreign aid, (1) Total current expenditure and (m) Government saving, i.e., current revenue less current expenditure?
  2. Where practicable, will he give a breakdown of sub-heads for Commonwealth, State, local authority, and semi-governmental bodies?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The percentage relationships requested have not been published nor have they been calculated by the Commonwealth Statistician. However, estimates of the gross national product for financial years from 1949-50 may be found in the following publications: 1949-50 to 1957-58- Australian National Accounts, National Income and Expenditure, 1953-54 to 1966-67 (Table 12). 1958-59 to 1967-68- Australian National Accounts, 1967-68, Preliminary Statement No. 1, Gross National Product at Current and Constant Prices (Table 1).

The following table provides figures by financial years since 1949-50 for the items requested by the honourable member. Separate information is not available for semi-government authorities; these have been included in the figures for Commonwealth or State authorities, as appropriate.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1969/19690529_reps_26_hor63/>.