House of Representatives
5 June 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10 a.m.. and read prayers.

page 3049

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that the Rt Hon. Keith Holyoake, C.H., M.P.. Prime Minister of New Zealand, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.

Honourable members - Hear, hear! (Mr Holyoake thereupon entered the Chamber and was seated accordingly.)

page 3049

PETITIONS

Social Services

Mr CROSS presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way; the petitioners therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Unions policy and by so doing give a reasonably moderate pension; the average weekly earnings for adult male unit wage and salary earner means the figures issued from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition so that our citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr FOSTER presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that due to higher living costs persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Union’s policy and by so doing give a reasonably moderate pension.

The average weekly earnings for adult male unit wage and salary earner means the figures issued from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in their petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing thai because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species, is now so low that they may become extinct; there are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist; as a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country; it is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future’.

The petitioners pray that the export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government lake the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia, brought under its control. Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX presented from certain residents of the State of New South Wales a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy; none of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem; it is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Or MACKAY presented from certain residents of the State of New South Wales a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy; none of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each Stats, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem; it is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received.

Education

Mr COPE presented from certain citizens of Australia a petition showing that preschool and after-school education facilities are in urgent need within the Australian community. The shortage has become more acute as more mothers join the work force; in advanced countries pre-school and afterschool education are recognised as essential aspects of education for all children.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives take immediate steps to provide the necessary finance to enable

State Education Departments and local government authorities to establish preschool centres; after-school centres; and facilities for training the staff for such centres.

Petition received and read.

National Service Act: Vietnam

Dr J. F. CAIRNS presented from certain citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing that the presence of Australian troops in Vietnam is a blatant violation of the rights of the Vietnamese people; that the National Service Act is an attempt to conscript the young men of Australia into waging an unjust war.

The petitioners pray that the House take action to secure immediately the withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam, and the repeal of the National Service Act.

Petition received and read.

Parattah Mai) Service

Mr DUTHIE presented from certain residents of Tasmania a petition showing that for 70 years the Parattah post office has been an efficient mail centre; that, at present, mail is received at the centre twice daily from both Hobart and Launceston, with an afternoon mail service to Hobart; that the Postmaster-General’s Department proposes to alter the existing service; and that the proposed alterations could cause delays to the flow of mail which would seriously affect the affairs of both individuals and businesses.

The petitioners pray that the House take action to ensure that the Parattah mail service is not altered from its present efficient form of operation.

Petition received and read.

page 3050

QUESTION

RUGBY LEAGUE

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. Country supporters of rugby league are to be deprived of the opportunity to view on television the test between England and Australia. Whose fault is it that the game is not to be televised - the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s or the rugby league executive’s? If it is the fault of the ABC will the Minister use his influence to have the match televised for the benefit of country supporters?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 think there would be a lot of members in this House who would not be very interested in the televising of a rugby league match. The responsibility for selling the rights of the replay telecast of any football match rests with the organisation concerned. In this case it is the Australian rugby league organisation. As I understand the position, the rights have been sold to a commercial station for SI 5,000. As a result a commercial station will telecast the replay in Brisbane. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is negotiating with the commercial station for the purchase of the rights for Queensland regional stations. I understand also thaI there will be replays in Sydney. I can give no further information. I assure honourable members that the ABC has done its best, with limited success to this moment.

page 3051

QUESTION

MERINO RAM EXPORTS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry for an assurance that he is doing ail in his power to have lifted the ban by the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the export of merino rams. Can he tell me who is governing the country - the ACTU or this Government?”

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I certainly have been doing all I can by means of sensible consultation and negotiation to have the ban lifted. The Minister for Labour and National Service has been in touch wilh the ACTU on a number of occasions, trying to get ii to see reason and to refrain from persisting in the very stubborn and defiant attitude it has been taking. Unfortunately the real culprit in this matter is the Australian Labor Parly. I think that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Agriculture deserve very severe condemnation for their whole attitude in this matter, in inciting the trade unions to defy law and order. If we are go’ng to accept a state where mass movements defy the Government then that is the thin edge of anarchy for this country.

page 3051

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTORS

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– In answer lo questions from the honourable member and one of his colleagues I have already expressed my concern about the present situation of Commonwealth meat inspectors both in regard to the shortage of staff and the fact that this shortage has been brought about by conditions of work and wages. I have informed him that my department has been in consultation with the Public Service Board to do whatever it can to have the salaries increased and the conditions improved, lt is a matter for concern, and my department and I are doing ail we can to try to rectify the matter. But the answer is not a simple one. These men have to be trained. We are doing our utmost to recruit them and to hold them in the service.

page 3051

QUESTION

AUSTRALI AN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that because of the proposed alteration to the structure of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and the reduced functions of that body many of the clerical staff fear that their positions are in jeopardy? Will he please tell the House just what the position is? Can he advise the House whether the work force of the stevedoring industry is decreasing?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– Later today I shall be introducing a Bill to extend the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary

Provisions) Act. I will then be explaining in rather more detail that the members of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority need not fear that they will be affected. On the contrary, I see no reason why there should in the short term be any retrenchments. Over the longer term the functions of ASIA will diminish further and it is therefore necessary to have discussions with the union of which the clerks are members. I have invited the federal secretary of their union, Mr Riordan, to discuss with me and my officers what measures should be adopted in order to make sure that any diminution in the responsibilities of the organisation and any consequent diminution in the staff should be effected without causing any difficulty for the members of the staff themselves.

page 3052

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINOS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question concerning the relaxation of the ban on the export of merino rams, a matter which the honourable member for Farrer and I raised in this House 8 weeks ago and which I raised again 4 weeks ago. The Minister will remember that since this matter was first raised by the honourable member for Farrer and me there has again been a debate on it in another place, where it emerged that the majority of members there were still of the opinion which they expressed by their votes a year earlier that the ban should not be lifted. I now ask the Minister whether the Government will sponsor a debate and a vote on this issue in this House in this new Parliament. In case it is again suggested that the Opposition should propose a motion on this matter, I would point out that not since March 1965 has it proved possible to have a vote in this House on any of the numerous motions introduced by private members on either the Government side or the Opposition side, we having found again yesterday-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is going beyond asking a question. He is now giving information.

Mr WHITLAM:

– In that case, I ask the Minister: If such a motion is introduced by anybody on this side of the House, will he facilitate a debate and a vote on it?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

- Mr Speaker, I find this question somewhat amusing. The Labor Party expresses great concern that no debate has taken place in this House on this subject; that it is a matter of great importance; and that it should be resolved. It is of interest to note that, during the course of the 2 or 3 months in which this Parliament has sat, the Opposition has found any number of matters of great urgency and public importance to bring before this House for debate. But as far as the lifting of the ban on the export of merinos is concerned, no, the Opposition has just been silent, almost as if its members have been frightened to express their own opinions. The facts of the matter are that every newspaper across this country, whether it had a point of view in the first place about the easing or the partial lifting of the embargo, now has a firm point of v ew regarding the attitude of the Labor Party in defying the Government. This is what has happened.

Mr Whitlam:

– There is a split among your own followers on this. That is why you will not have a debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that, after he has asked his question, interjections when the Minister is answering that question are out of order. I call the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Australian wool industry through its organisations and its supreme body, the Australian Wool Industry Conference, has made a request to the Government for the partial lifting of the merino embargo for a trial period of 12 months. The Government has authority to do this. It is acting under the law that is on the statute book. I see no po’nt in bringing this matter before the House for debate. We have discussed it. A debate has taken place on the subject in this House. The industry has expressed its wish and we are carrying out that wish. If the Lahor Party wants to maintain this attitude it is all right with me. Its prestige is certainly dropping across the nation as a result.

Opposition members - Oh, no!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Foster:

– Look at South Australia and Victoria.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I would suggest to honourable members that they cease interjecting.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Apparently the Labor Party is proud of this principle of calling the unions out to defy Government action. As I said, this is a very serious breach of the law. It is the start of anarchy in this country. Control cannot be exercised unless the law is obeyed. Here the alternative Prime Minister of this country is inciting the unions to defy law and order. Is government to be determined by the masses in the streets or the trade unions, or is it to be determined–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to resume his seat for a moment.I remind honourable members that this is question time. Honourable members are entitled to ask questions based on fact and to receive answers to those questions. I suggest also that when a Minister is making a reply to a question the House should give the Minister the courtesy to which he is entitled. This morning far too many interjections have come from a certain group in the House and one particular area of it. I would suggest that honourable members refrain from interjecting.

Mr Whitlam:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I certainly applaud your ruling that questions should be based on facts.I submit to you that answers likewise should be based on facts. You should call to order the Minister who stales–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I have not finished-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order arises. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not within the province of the Chair to know the facts of questions or of answers.In fact, the Standing Orders say that a Minister may answer a question in the manner in which he thinks fit providing that answer is relevant to the question asked.

Mr Whitlam:

-I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. What remedy have I if the Minister, in answer to my question, says something about me which is not true?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This is question time. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that any member who feels aggrieved at an answer given to a question - or for that matter, at anything said during a debate in the House - may, after the person making the statement complained of has finished his answer or his speech, take the opportunity to make a personal explanation. If such a statement is made during question time the correct procedure is to make that personal explanation at the conclusion of question time.

Mr Whitlam:

– On your interpretation, Mr Speaker, in the interests of fairness to all members - and you are the guardian of the rights of all members - I submit to you that this is an inequitable approach. The Minister’s answer is broadcast and is often re-broadcast. Any personal explanation made afterwards is not re-broadcast.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no substance in his point of order. It is my function as the Speaker of this House to interpret Standing Orders. This I am doing. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to require me to do anything to assist the honourable member other than what I have already done.

Dr Patterson:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Primary Industry has said that the industry has agreed–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member said that he was raising a point of order. This is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, the Minister attributed to me advice to the trade unions on this issue and I have not expressed a view on this in the House or outside it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will not be silenced on this. I have not expressed the views attributed to me by the Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Whitlam:

– In the House or outside it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader Opposition has been asking the Chair to interpret the Standing Orders.I suggest that he should at least obey the Standing Orders when he is asked by the Chair to do so.

Dr Patterson:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister for Primary Industry has told a deliberate untruth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– He said it about the two of us.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Leader Opposition restrain himself.

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order. I ask for a ruling. Is it in order for a Minister in this House to refer to a resolution of the Senate as an illegal act?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sorry, I did not hear that said.

Mr Whitlam:

– He has said it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is that so?

Mr Anthony:

– No, I did not say it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must say that I did not hear it said. I call the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition shows either that he has a guilty conscience about this matter or that there is a change of attitude. If this is so 1 would be very glad to hear of it, and I would be very pleased if the Leader of the Opposition would go to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and tell it that his attitude has changed and that he is against the unions taking this kind of action. We made an announcement and then we delayed action for 9 or 10 months. This gave the industry an opportunity to review its earlier decision. No action was taken to review it. In fact the reply I received was that the industry stood by its earlier resolution that there should be a partial lifting of the ban, on certain conditions, for a period of 12 months. As a result of that decision overseas buyers came to the Sydney sheep sales earlier this year and about 47 rams were sold to a number of countries. Those countries have not been able to collect the sheep which they purchased.

As a result of the actions of the Australian Labor Party relations with those countries are in a bad state. The Government stated that they could buy sheep in Australia. Having bought sheep they cannot take delivery of them. The possibility of retaliation of various kinds always exists. We were making excellent progress in our efforts to have Argentina become a member of the International Wool Secretariat. No doubt matters such as this were considered by the industry when it made the decision to lift the export ban, but today our relations with other countries have deteriorated. Mainland China bought 14 rams and still cannot take delivery of them. Does anybody think that mainland China appreciates the action of the Australian Labor Party in not allowing those rams to be delivered?

The Australian wool industry has made a decision in this matter. Thirteen of the 16 national and State organisations supported the decision when it was initially taken. The Australian Wool Industry Council, which is the supreme body of the industry, voted in favour of lifting the ban for a period of 12 months, after which the decision could be reviewed. But the Labor Party continues to support the trade unions and to incite them not to allow the law to be enforced. I know that some people say that the Government should take firm action, but a government has to bear in mind the possible consequences of any action it might take. We are going through a period of industrial trouble in this country. This is tending to force up costs and prices and is having a serious effect on primary producers, who are in an impossible position. I suppose we could force the issue, and we may have to consider that.

Mr Martin:

– 1 rise to order. The Minister is making a statement and deliberately wasting question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point taken.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Government will have to consider what action it might take, but I would not like to be responsible for major industrial trouble across this country. There is no need for it if the Labor Party would take a rational and sensible attitude towards this matter instead of trying to defy the law.

page 3055

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry say what domestic or local sales of wheat were made by the Australian Wheat Board in the year ended 31st December 1969? In view of the extravagant and obviously incorrect statements that have been made about the volume of black market sales of wheat, particularly statements made by a member of this House, will the Minister say what sales have been made this year compared with sales made in the domestic marketlast year?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Sales of wheat on the domestic market in the 12 months prior to the introduction of quotas amounted to about 9.7 million bushels for stock feed and about 50 million bushels for industrial purposes and human consumption. Figures for the first 5 months of this year beginning 1st December last show that sales to flour mills are 500,000 bushels higher than in the same period last year before the introduction of quotas and that sales of stock feed wheat through the Australian Wheat Board are only 400,000 bushels below the figure for the corresponding period last year. It is estimated that the Wheat Board will make sales of stock feed wheat in the vicinity of those made last year - between 8 million and 9 million bushels. Although one has to admit that there has been some trading of wheat across the borders - and there always was well before the introduction of quotas - it has not been to the degree that has been suggested by some people.

page 3055

QUESTION

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs and concerns developments in Czechoslovakia. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the more recent examples of government interference in and dictation to the Press, radio and television by the Government of Czechoslovakia, such as the abolition of discussion and interview programmes on Czechoslovak television? Will the Minister convey, through appropriate diplomatic channels, that the Australian people deplore any government interference with the freedom of the Press, radio or television?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

- Mr Speaker, I can assure you it is a delight to hear that question coming from a member of the

Opposition because this is the first time in 5 years that I have heard any protest coming from the Opposition about the repression of civil liberties and the right of people to live their lives in decency and freedom. I would be very pleased to know whether the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and more particularly the honourable member for Lalor and the honourable member for Reid would join in sentiments similar to those mentioned by the honourable member for Kingston.

I think it is well known that since the deposition of Mr Dubcek and the Svoboda Government and the restriction of powers by the more liberal elements there, and particularly since the advent of Mr Gustav Husak in more or less virtual control in that country there has been a denial of civil liberties and a denial of freedom. We also know of the Brezhnev doctrine Soviet to enforce its views when it feels of limited sovereignty and the right of the that the doctrine of the Soviet might be infringed.

I can assure the honourable gentleman that this re-emergence of Stalinism or neoStalinism is regretted by us and, I believe, regretted by all of the Australian people. I will have inquiries made by my Department to see whether an effective protest can be made. But particularly I will draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the question asked and the sentiments behind it and subsequently I will let the honourable member know what I have been capable of achieving.

page 3055

QUESTION

AIRLINE HOSTESSES

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Labor and National Service. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the long overdue success of the glamorous airline hostesses association in their claim for higher wages? Is the Minister aware that Ansett Airlines of Australia has been willing to meet these claims for some time and that TransAustralia Airlines forced the girls to the brink of strike action? Bearing in mind that in recent months the industry has given in like a lamb to every whim of the pilots, whether reasonable or unreasonable, will the Minister do his best to ensure that Ansett Airlines of Australia and TAA adopt industrial attitudes of the type we expect the rest of the community to live under - fairness and firmness?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have been informed that there was a threat of strike action by the air hostesses and that strike action was averted by the meeting of their claims. I am unaware as to whether one of the airlines was willing to grant the claims at an earlier point of time and that the other was not. I just do not know the answer to that.

The thing that is important in industrial relations is that when a claim is made both parties come together for the purpose of conciliating where possible. If conciliation efforts fail the parties should come together to arbitrate and when arbitration is made they should accept that arbitration. There is no reason whatever why there should be any industrial stoppages at all. The reason there are stoppages is the failure of parties to conciliate or more likely the failure of parties to accept arbitration when it is given.

page 3056

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Because of the evident hardship being suffered by home purchasers and prospective home owners as a result of increased interest rates created by the increase in Government bond interest rates and the subsequent drop in building programmes in Australia, particularly in Western Australia, and in view of the number of petitions that have been presented to the Parliament requesting a reduction in bond interest rates to give relief on home interest rates, will the Treasurer investigate methods whereby immediate relief can be given in respect of interest rates on housing and so assist the building industry, particularly in Western Australia?

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I regret that I was unable to catch more than the general gist of the honourable member’s question but I would attribute any decline in building commencements far less to changes in interest rates than to the physical difficulty of obtaining money. There are a number of factors affecting the building industry both as regards dwelling construction and the non-residential sector. I am not aware of the position so much in Western Australia but over a large part of Australia at the moment the building industrty is seriously jeopardised and plagued by industrial troubles which are adding considerably to the permanent cost structure. Some of the most serious troubles, of course, are in New South Wales and Victoria where there has been a prolonged strike of builders labourers. This is having a serious effect and bringing parts of the industry to a halt. Even though this is mainly, but not entirely, in the non-residential sector, its effects are certainly felt in the ordinary building sector. I do regret that members of the Australian Labor Party who are often very vocal in other respects seem to have an almost cynical disregard for this serious industrial trouble which is stimulated by others as well but in which a large part is being played by the followers of Peking Communism.

page 3056

QUESTION

ROMANIA

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– My question is to the Minister for External Affairs. Is the report correct that the United States of America has sent nearly three times as much flood aid to Romania as Russia has? Has the Soviet Union tied strings to its help by demanding full military and economic cooperation as the price for flood damage assistance? What assistance does Australia propose for this unfortunate and devastated country?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is true that the United States of America has been extremely generous in the assistance that it has given to Romania as a consequence of the recent disasters that have occurred there. It is also true that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has given some support to Romania. I cannot remember the figure but it is a small amount. Comparisons between the gifts of the United States and the USSR are odious and consequently I will not pursue them here this morning. Last night I announced in this House a gift from Australia to the Government of Romania to help the people in their present tribulations. I also expressed the sympathy of the Government to the people of Romania in the problems they i r– suffering. As to that part of the honourable gentleman’s question relating to USSR activities, I am unable to say exactly what has happened on this occasions but

I can inform the House that it is the normal policy of the USSR to try to ensure that countries in its immediate vicinity or close to the Russian borders give the kind of help, and according to the conditions, that might be imposed by the Soviet Union itself. In other words, as I said this morning, it believes in the doctrine of limited sovereignty and it attempts to enforce its will on neighbouring countries.

page 3057

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr HULME:
LP

– Mr Speaker, I am not in a position to indicate when colour television will be introduced in Australia. I have indicated to the House on several occasions that surveys were being made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in an endeavour to seek from industry what was necessary in relation to standards and technical requirements, and what is regarded as the time factor between the announcement and the actual date of introduction. When this information is made available to me I will bring it under the notice of the Government and a decision may at that point of time be taken. I have a responsibility in regard to radio and television; I have not a responsibility in regard to roads and beaches and the other things to which the honourable member referred.

When Stage 7 of television is introduced 97.9% of Australians will have services available to them. That means that 2.1% of Australian people will not have the facility of television. Having regard to the fact that 54% of the Australian population is in 6 capital cities and having regard to the sparsity of population in the remaining area of Australia, I believe this will be a magnificent achievement. I understand that even in the United Kingdom - a much smaller area with a much larger population - a comparable percentage of people do not have television available to them. I have indicated previously my desire that the country people of Australia should have good facilities - as far as we can possibly make them available - particularly in regard to radio and television. This is my aim and it is the Government’s aim. I shall continue to seek the co-operation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in bringing about this condition.

page 3057

QUESTION

WOOL MARKETING

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether his attention has been drawn to a Press statement indicating that the 22 members of the International Wool Textile Organisation have been pressing the Australian Wool Board Chairman, Sir William Gunn, not to interfere with the so-called free auction system of marketing the Australian wool clip. Is it not a fact that wool growers throughout Australia have voted in their thousands for a change to a single wool selling authority? Because of the serious situation that now exists in the wool industry due to the extremely low prices operating under the present system, will the Minister ensure that the wool growers’ request is not overridden by external pressures but will in fact be implemented without delay?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I am aware that the International Wool Textile Organisation has expressed a point of view against any change in the present auction system. Also I am very conscious that there have been mass meetings of wool growers across the nation supporting the principle of a single marketing authority for wool. I cannot give an assurance to the honourable member as to whether such organisations as the International Wool Textile Organisation are going to influence the Australian wool growers. I would think it would be a retrograde step if they automatically followed what anybody else said. The user organisations certainly have a right to express a point of view, but I hope that the Australian wool industry will be discerning and make its own judgment as to what it believes is in its best interests as a whole. What is good for the user is often good for the industry, and vice versa. I think the most important thing for the survival of the wool spinner or the wool grower, however, is that he receives a satisfactory return. Without it there can be no guarantee of continuity of the supply of the raw material. This is what gives us all a great deal of concern. The Government would certainly listen to any advice, criticism or recommendation from all bodies concerned, and would take such views into consideration when the industry federation comes up with a recommendation. I think there has been a lot of undue speculation about what is meant by a single marketing authority. Nobody has spelt out in clear detail what is meant by this. In answer to a question in the House yesterday, I said that I did not interpret it as being the abolition of the auction scheme. It may be supplementing, strengthening or altering it. However, this is a matter for the wool industry. The members of that industry have to make up their minds, and I hope they exercise an independent mind in doing so.

page 3058

QUESTION

POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN SPORT

Mr SCHOLES:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister expressing the Government’s opposition to political interference in sport, will he undertake that his Government will not take action that would jeopardise the future staging in Australia of international sporting events, such as did happen when the Government demanded compliance with political requirements by visiting national teams when application was made to stage the world table tennis championships in Australia and subsequently forced the withdrawal of Australia’s application and seriously affected Australia’s staging of the world modern pentathlon championship? Is not the Australian Government’s action in these matters similar to the action of the South African Government which places race discrimination on entry into its country for sporting events, as did the Australian Government on that occasion?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am afraid I am not aware of what the honourable member had in mind when he asked the question. He did not make it clear to anybody else either. I think it was something to do with table tennis at some time in the past. I am quite positive that the Australian Government has not applied racial tests, as was suggested by the honourable member. I also believe that it is right and proper for this Government not to interfere with those sporting bodies, as I was asked yesterday, which make arrangements and administer the sporting events that are held in this country.

page 3058

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation, because the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has grievously misrepresented me. As I recall his words, the Minister said that I incited the trade unions to place an embargo on the export of merino rams. Neither in this place nor outside it have I expressed a view for or against the trade union action taken on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is too much noise in the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to make a personal explanation. I think when personal explanations are being made, in the interests of honourable members on both sides of the House, they should be heard in silence.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Secondly, as I remember, the Minister advised me to tell the Australian Council of Trade Unions to lift the ban on the export of merino rams. I did, I think, about 6 weeks ago, ask Mr Hawke the circumstances of this matter. I have not got the ACTU Executive text. My memory of it is that the ban should remain until this House of the Parliament had been allowed to vote on it as the Senate voted on it in April last year. Also, I asked Mr Hawke about assertions made here that the Department of Labour and National Service had asked the ACTU to raise this ban. At that time Mr Hawke told me that the only representations which the ACTU had had from the Department of Labour and National Service was a phone call from an official of that Department.

Thirdly, the Minister asserted that my Party and I had been alienating South American wool producing countries. I have spoken to the representatives in Canberra of some of those countries. I think I can say that one in particular was sooled on to me by the Minister. I was able to tell her and the other representatives of the attitude of the trade unions and of my Party to this question. I repeated to her and to them the proposition expressed by my Party in the Senate: That the embargo should remain-

Mr Irwin:

– I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is now debating the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition is making his personal explanation by referring to 3 points. No point of order is involved.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I reassured the ambassadors and ambassadress that the attitude of my Party was that the embargo should remain in force until the majority of those persons affected should decide, by referendum or other fair means, in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo. I pointed out to them that this proposition had the support of my Party and also of the Democratic Labor Party in another place and that we were seeking a vote on it in this place.

page 3059

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Dawson moving a motion relating to the export of merino rams.

Mr Grassby:

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

Dr PATTERSON:

– If the Standing Orders are suspended I propose to move a motion similar to that carried by a majority of senators on 29th April 1969. After all I assume that they have some part in the affairs of this Parliament. A motion to the same effect was supported by a majority of senators on 21st April 1970. The motion carried on 29th April 1969 was:

That the Senate is of opinion that the embargo on the export of merinos should not be removed at this time and that the embargo should remain in force until a majority of those persons affected shall decide by referendum or other fair means in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo.

That is the purpose of moving the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. In March last year, in a shock announcement to this Parliament, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) informed not only this Parliament but the wool growers of Australia that the Government intended partially to relax the ban on the export of merino rams from Australia, an embargo that had been in force-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out to the honourable member for Dawson that the question now before us is whether the Standing Orders should be suspended. The subject matter that the honourable member may introduce later will be a matter for debate, if and when the Standing Orders are suspended. At this stage the question is whether the Standing Orders are to be suspended.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I was leading up to the facts that will support my case that the Standing Orders should be suspended. In the first instance the Government made this shock announcement. It was debated .in this Parliament. The Minister stated that the industry supported it, in fact promoted it. It was not the industry at all. It was a body which is known to be a Country Party front. I refer to the Australian Wool Industry Council. The matter was then taken to the Senate and the Senate rejected the Government’s intention. The Government’s decision was bitterly attacked by wool growers. No action was taken by this Government until after the election and then it was taken, one might say, in the stealth of the night. The Government then decided to go ahead.

Only one course was open to the wool growers who were opposed to the lifting of the ban, and this was to ask the Australian Labor Party for assistance through the trade union movement. The trade union movement considered the position and in its wisdom made a judgment that until this matter had been decided by referendum or decided properly in this Parliament action should be taken to prevent the export of merino rams. The export of merino rams might be only a minor event in terms of the importance of the national Parliament, but in terms of economics and in terms of principle it could be a major matter. That is why I am moving for the suspension of the Standing Orders. For this Government flagrantly to take no notice of the Senate and to go ahead and try to impose its will on the people and the wool growers of this country is contemptible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now getting outside the motion.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I do not want to say anything more than that. Those are the reasons why I believe the Standing Orders should be suspended. That would allow this matter to be debated. The Minister for Primary Industry made certain allegations this morning about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He stated categorically that the industry is behind this move. It is not. Let us debate this matter now. Those are the terms on which I move for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– In seconding this motion I want to make some points in support of the suspension of the Standing Orders so this matter can be dealt with and cleared up. Quite apart from the confusion which has been allowed to grow up around this matter, and quite apart from the difficulties which surround the industry and divide it on the matter, the producers of the rams themselves are concerned. Because of the complete apathy and lack of action of the Government on this matter the people who have sold rams and the people who have bought them are, it is true, suffering considerable hardship. I can say this with some feeling because 60% of the merino studs are in the Riverina district. This confusion lends weight to the proposal that we put forward. If we are to clear up the confusion it should be done now. After all, what was said earlier has served only to confuse the issue and to confound the entire Parliament, because 56% of the growers, in terms of numbers and organisations, have expressed their opposition to the lifting of the export ban on merino rams. A simple way of cutting the Gordian knot would be to have a referendum. But action has to be taken quickly. There is need to take it now.

It has been said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has the most tremendous power. It has been suggested that the farmer bodies in Victoria and New South Wales are simply acting as agents for the Leader of the Opposition. This is a piece of nonsense, though it certainly exalts the status of our illustrious leader. But let us be quite clear that when the industry voted on this matter and thereby expressed its opinion it was not concerned about the Australian Labor Party or the Leader of the Opposition; it was concerned with putting its own convictions forward. Yet it has been suggested in this Parliament, even today, that nobody is in favour of the retention of the export ban except the Australian Labor Party and that the Leader of the Opposition intervened in this matter and made decisions about the rams. These fictions should be cleared up once and for all.

There is an urgency about the matter, because the industry is divided and the people who produced the rams and the people who bought them in good faith are suffering hardships. Because the Government has postponed a decision we have complete inaction. Debating this matter is one way in which this Parliament can bring about some action and some resolution on it. This is a plea to cut the Gordian knot. I ask that the motion should be agreed to so that this can be done.

Surely it is not suggested that the Government is so close to the brink of disaster that it fears to fall, to be hoist on the horns of the banned ram. It has been demonstrated both by the moving of this motion and what has preceded it that there is an urgency to resolve this matter. This can be met by the suspension of the Standing Orders. The only reason that the motion could be denied is that the Government feels that it will have more dissidents in the debate or after it than it has now. I suggest that in the interest of the industry and the individuals concerned the Parliament is in duty bound to accept this motion. It has a responsibility. The 2 New South Wales farmer and grazier organisations and the Victorian Farmers Union, claiming to represent 56.6% of the industry have expressed themselves very definitely. The Senate has also expressed itself. The Government has been in defiance of the majority on this matter. It surely has a responsibility to explain itself. It has a responsibility to resolve an impossible situation. Fifty rams are in limbo because the Government cannot make up its mind on what action should be taken.

This motion which has been moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr

Patterson), if carried, will give the Government an opportunity to face up to its responsibilities. Surely the vote on this matter should be a matter of conscience. After all, we are talking about the products of people who have to be considered. We are talking about people who acted in good faith. We are talking about the grower and producer organisations who have said to the Government: ‘Will you resolve this matter for us?’ The Australian Senate has been quite definite. Simply to shrug this off and say that the whole responsibility for the opposition to the lifting of the ban rests with the Leader of the Oppositon is absurd. The responsibility rests with the Parliament; it rests with the Government. I hope that the Government will not go down before the spectacle, as I said before, of being hoist on the horns of the banned ram.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– It is very interesting to see the sensitivity of the Opposition this morning on this question of the lifting of the merino export embargo. It has taken 3 months for the Australian Labor Party to initiate a move to have a debate in this House on the matter. It has done it this morning only because it had been goaded into doing it because of its guilt about this whole subject matter of not allowing the law to be enforced and acted upon. What the Labor Party is saying is that if the trade unions say something, or suggest how the procedures of the House should be carried out, the Government should automatically bow to the unions. What the unions are saying, on the advice of the Australian Labor Party, is that there should be a debate on this matter.

I am not arguing whether or not a debate should take place. It does not concern me greatly. Here, in the closing stages of this session, the Labor Party has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders this morning. It already has listed on the notice paper for discussion a matter of public importance. The Opposition was to go ahead with that debate. But, no; because its members became a little upset at question time and because it realises that it is in the wrong, the Labor Party is asking the Government now to change the whole parliamentary programme to allow its members to try to clear their own names. I see no reason why the Government should agree to the suspension of Standing Orders. This is sought for the benefit of honourable members opposite. Plenty of procedures of this House are available to them to facilitate a debate on this matter. For a period of 5 months, the Opposition has failed to introduce a debate on this matter. No need exists for the Government to have a debate on the subject. We have the law behind us. We have the industry behind us.

To show honourable members how weak and pathetic the Opposition is and to illustrate the class of the debate that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has introduced this morning, I point out that the honourable member referred to the Australian Wool Industry Conference, which is a body made up of all the wool industry organisations, as being a Country Party front.

Dr Patterson:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Grassby:

– Isn’t it?

Mr ANTHONY:

– If it is because these people can see some hope and future only in supporting the Country Party, I do not mind it being called a front. But it certainly is not a Country Party front. It stands for well established, recognised industry organisations across Australia. To see a member of the Australian Labor Party using the argument that a referendum should be held to decide the issue is laughable to say the least. How did the Labor Party introduce the original embargo? It was introduced overnight by Executive action. No reference whatsoever was made to the wool industry. It was introduced by statute. Its enactment was an illustration of the doctrinaire principle that we know is followed so often by the Australian Labor Party when in office.

Today, honourable members opposite ask for a referendum on the matter. The wool industry has not asked for a referendum. A referendum cannot be held on the partial lifting of a ban for a temporary period. This partial lifting is to be reviewed. That is the point of view of the wool industry. We are prepared to stand behind it. But, no, the Australian Labor Party knows better and says that a referendum must be held. It was not good enough to have a referendum in the first place; apparently the Labor Party has changed its mind now.

Dr Patterson:

– We have always wanted it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Labor Party always wants 2 bob each way. It does not seem to make any difference. I am afraid that I must deny to the Opposition the suspension of Standing Orders. We have a parliamentary programme in front of us. The Labor Party proposed this morning to raise for discussion a matter of public importance, namely:

The failure of the Government to promote design and construction of Australian aircraft and helicopters for defence and commercial purposes.

But honourable members opposite did not think that was important at all because at question time they became a little bit ruffled, were a little bit sensitive and felt a little bit guilty about their actions on this whole affair. Therefore, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would suggest to one or two honourable gentlemen on the Opposition side who are making derogatory references to the Minister for Primary Industry by using the name of an Australian animal that they should reflect before uttering such remarks.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 58

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 51

NOES: 58

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3063

BILL RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bill was returned from the Senate without amendment:

Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1970.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to promote design and construction of Australian aircraft and helicopters for defence and commercial purposes.

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

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– This motion is intended to open up for debate the present status and future prospects of the Australian aircraft industry. The

Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) made a comprehensive statement in the Senate on 9th April 1970 on the aircraft industry. In his defence review the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) touched on aspects of the industry’s future. But the last debate of any consequence on the aircraft industry was in this House early last year during an Opposition urgency motion on defence procurement. During that debate the former Minister for Defence cast grave doubts on the chances of setting up a viable aircraft industry in this country. That argument has been reinforced by the present Minister for Defence. In answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) on 20th May 1970 the Minister pointed out the high cost of developing sophisticated aircraft. As examples he used the F14 and F15 now being developed in the United States of America, pointing out that the developmental costs of one of these aircraft and the contract relating to it are of the order of $US40Om a year. It is labouring the point to say that a developmental programme of this nature is beyond Australia’s resources. Of course, it would not be possible to build in i Australia weapons systems such as the Fill or massive transport aircraft such as the Galaxy. If aircraft of this kind are essential to Australia’s defences - and I remain to be convinced that they are - they will have to be procured overseas.

It is clouding the issue to put up development programmes such as the FI 5 having regard to Australia’s modest capability and requirements. There are many less sophisticated aircraft relevant to our needs which could be and should be designed and built in Australia. It has been argued that Australia cannot afford to develop and build its own aircraft; that it should buy all its aircraft off the shelf overseas. Even if this were feasible it would still be necessary to maintain and service those aircraft within Australia. This would mean the building up of inventories of spare parts and the maintenance of quite a substantial skilled work force. We give our aircraft a long life span gauged on world experience - about IS years seems to be a fair average. If aircraft are to be maintained and serviced in Australia for this length of time the initial development and production should be done in Australia. It would be self defeating to buy abroad for some cost advantage if there were no bases in Australia for the servicing and maintenance of these aircraft.

It can be argued that maintenance and service work with such bread and butter orders as missiles and target aircraft would be adequate to sustain the rudiments of an aircraft industry. This is the sort of tentative industry indicated by the Minister for Supply in his statement on the defence aircraft industry. The Minister said that the industry as now established had a range of technological facilities not inappropriate to the peacetime support of the Services. He said also that the industry had reserve capability for a war situation. What the Minister seemed to be referring to was the excess capacity now apparent in an aircraft industry with the completion of the major programmes which have sustained the industry during the 1960s. It would be completely wrong to suggest that defence orders should be made just to keep an industry going. This invokes the perverse logic of the military industrial complex and all it implies in the distortion of resources. Hut any projection of Australia’s needs shows a requirement for large numbers of relatively unsophisticated aircraft for both military and civil needs. These can best be developed and built in Australia where they will have to be supported and serviced.

The emphasis on getting elaborate weapons systems such as the Fill has in recent years obscured the need for the basic workhorse aircraft which all 3 elements of the armed Services will require. The procurement of helicopters and support aircraft is gathering momentum, as disclosed in the posture statement made by the Minister for Defence in March. Yet the aircraft industry remains in a state of insecurity and indecision about how much of this procurement will flow to its workshops. The Minister for Supply advanced 3 basic objectives for the industry. The first is to maintain basic defence aircraft facilities capable of supporting the Services. The industry has this capacity in excess at the moment. In fact, the only certainty confronting it is the continuing need to service the Mirage and Macchi aircraft. The second objective was to ensure that the technologies of the industry were upgraded in line with the latest developments. This is a major problem area because any industry must languish if its development is fitful and unplanned.

The Australian aircraft industry has been a principle victim of the irrational and erratic procurement planning of the postwar years. There have been 4 substantial buildups within the industry since the end of World War EL. Each build-up has stretched the resources of the industry but it has managed to set and maintain high standards. At the same time each programme has brought an accumulation of skills into the industry. However, when each specific programme has wound up there has been no outlet for the designers, stressmen, engineers, draftsmen and other skilled aeronautical personnel. The reservoir of skill and experience has been allowed to trickle away on each occasion. When another major programme comes up this work force has to be re-formed. Inevitably there is a drifting away from the uncertainties of the industry and the reconstituted design and developmental teams are the lesser for this loss of experience and expertise.

At the moment the run-down in the industry is reflected in the dwindling of the work force at the Government Aircraft Factories from about 2,800 at the peak of the Mirage project to fewer than 2,000 today. It may be many years before there is a project comparable to the Mirage. The next may well be the successor to the Mirage in the years from 1975 to 1978. Unless other work can be found within the industry there will be a marked waste of essential skills until again a hasty build-up has to be made in the mid-1970s. Even the major programmes have been subject to fits and starts in the placing of orders. Even the Mirage and Macchi orders were broken into haphazard and illogical segments. This lack of continuity has been the major cause of the industry’s malaise. Without firm knowledge of forward requirements and what finance is available it is completely impossible to evolve a steady pattern of production and growth. It is absurd to expect specialist skills to be on tap when a sudden decision is made for local production after a lapse of some years.

This leads to the third objective prescribed by the Minister for Supply - the need to rationalise the effort of the industry. Closer links between the 3 major components of the industry - the Government Aircraft Factories, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and Hawker de Havilland - have been foreshadowed in recent years. In answer to a question placed on notice by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) the Minister for Defence has confirmed that the amalgamation of the Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation is receiving close attention. Sir Lawrence Hartnett has gone further in suggesting that these 2 agencies should be joined with the aeronautical research unit of the Department of Supply to form a new corporation for the development of civil and military aircraft. I am sure that the Minister for Defence will agree that Sir Lawrence Harnett has had considerable experience in building up essential Australian industry. All honourable members will recall the significant part he played in the establishment in this country of the motor car industry. I suppose many of those who now advance arguments against the establishment of an aircraft industry used the same irrational arguments in 1948 and 1949 when the Labor Government, acting on the advice of and with the co-operation of Sir Lawrence Hartnett, set out to establish in Australia a successful motor car industry. It is now the third largest employer of labour in this country. The arguments against the establishment of a motor car industry are now being used against the establishment of an aircraft industry.

It seems that some degree of rationalisation is inevitable although its final form cannot be predicted. It is to be hoped that this can be done without dislocation of the work force, which has made a notable contribution to the success of the major aircraft programmes of the 1960s. With regard to the future, there are a number of areas where additional work may be found for the industry. The outlook is not encouraging for local project design. The industry had pinned its hopes on the development of a joint project with the British Aircraft Corporation for a swing wing jet trainer. Much work has gone into this project but it seems there is no prospect whatever of it getting off the drawing boards. The only major project in view is the so-called Project N which is intended to fulfil a variety of military support roles. It has been claimed that this project was so-called because it was the nth design to come off the drawing boards after innumerable paper planes had been flown into the filing cabinets. There may be sound military and commercial prospects for Project N but it is a very hypothetical project at the moment.

I referred earlier to the necessary role of the industry in the manufacture of aircraft engines and guided weapons, and in making spares and performing repair and overhaul work. A vexed area of the aircraft industry at the moment is the negotiation of coproduction, offsets and sub-contracting arrangements with overseas manufacturers. There has been some progress made here but the contracts obtained are negligible compared with the glowing words of successive Ministers for Defence about building the industry into the fourth arm of defence. There have been some reasonable contracts negotiated for aircraft components, particularly helicopter parts and jumbo jet parts. But this has amounted to a mere fraction of a percentage of our foreign exchange spent each year on aircraft and aircraft parts. Despite the Government’s emphasis on offset and sub-contracting arrangements it seems to have been reluctant to insist on them when the actual terms of the contracts were being hammered out.

In summary, there is room for great dissatisfaction about the present state of the aircraft industry and its prospects. There has been a complete failure to work out a forward planning policy assessing future needs and budgeting for them on a 5-year or 7-year basis. This state of uncertainty raises grave doubts about the future of the industry and even its chance of survival. The Opposition believes that it is not possible to opt out of the industry, that it is an essential industry and that it should be made as self-sufficient as possible. The fluctuations between over-commitment and comparative idleness have damaged the industry. It can be put on a footing of competence and confidence only by developing a forward programme which would meet military and commercial needs for aircraft of relatively simple design.

Certainly elaborate weapons systems are way beyond Australia’s reach but there are a number of less sophisticated aircraft which are needed and which can be developed by the Australian industry. There has been a reluctance on the part of the Government to see the aircraft industry in Australia as a viable one. It has maintained its absolute adherence to the purchase of aircraft overseas and its reliance on the technology available in other countries which may not always be available to Australia. The Government has shown a refusal to accept the factual success of European countries with a much smaller population than Australia and certainly with ho greater skills. These countries have been able to design and produce aircraft for defence and commercial purposes with very great success. These reasons-

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

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has been quite muted and moderate in the remarks he made about the aircraft industry and indeed in many of the propositions be put forward he could well have been supporting many of the proposals and attitudes to this industry which have been adopted by the Government over a considerable period of time. Perhaps in part the quiet manner in which the honourable member went about his task this morning reflects the alleged and reported split within his own caucus and executive as to whether or not the Australian Labor Party should support this kind of matter of public importance. In one report there seemed to be some suggestion that an attack on the Government’s attitude could be construed as wanting to saddle the Royal Australian Air Force with aircraft that could be inferior to those which are needed by the RAAF for its particular roles.

I want to pick up one or two of the points that were made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that countries overseas - he did not name them but he has done so before, and Sweden is one country - had demonstrated success in the construction of aircraft. Those countries have demonstrated that they can produce aircraft that can fly. But I suggest whether or not these aircraft are successful and whether or not the decisions and judgments these countries have made would be successful would be tested only when those aircraft are pitted in operations against an enemy. The fact that the Swedish Air Force flies aircraft that have been built by the Swedish Government is not a test of the success of that country’s aircraft industry; it is not a test of the success of the policy it has adopted. If there is anyone in this House who wants to take a risk with the personnel and the expertise of the RAAF by suggesting that it might have to or perhaps it should have to adopt an aircraft merely because it is designed or produced in Australia, saddling the RAAF possibly with the second best, he could well be committing us to inferiority in air operations in an area where supremacy of equipment is vital to supremacy of operations. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not go as far as this but I suggest that if the analogy of Sweden and other countries is taken too far that could well be a part of the conclusions that one might draw.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was at pains to point out that Australia should not get into the business of designing or constructing markedly sophisticated aircraft such as the F14 or the F15 now under design in the United States or the Galaxy. He did not say whether or not we should have gone ahead with the AA107 - the advanced supersonic trainer and ground support aircraft. I think his omission to say that the Opposition supported the design and construction of this aircraft in Australia is the most significant weakness in the Opposition’s attack because this attack has been hinged on the Government’s refusal to proceed with a project which was in fact not viable.

I would like to run through the history of this industry to show what is being done, and what has been done and to say what some of our plans - and admittedly these sometimes fall into the area of hope - and hopes for the future may be. There are 3 main production centres. They are the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd, Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd and the Government Aircraft Factories.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated that the Government Aircraft Factories employment had fallen to under 2,000. This is not the case. He did not mention the 2,800 employed by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and a number over 2,000 employed by Hawker de Havilland. There are well over 6,000 people employed by this industry, so it is quite a significant one. In addition to that there are other significant sub-contractors.

The Commonwealth has had a net cost value of about $3 Om invested in the industry. The industry itself has an additional §8m invested. For the last 10 years the turnover has been about $300m. In 1968-69 the turnover was $40m. This again is not insignificant evidence of Government support. The total output has been over 4,500 aircraft, 3,600 aircraft engines, 1,400 guided weapons and 390 jet target aircraft with additional ones, I understand, on order. This, again, does not indicate insignificant Government support for this industry. Production has included the Canberra, Sabre, Vampire, Winjeel, Mirage and Macchi aircraft. The Winjeel, of course, was a CAC design and production, the Jindivik was designed and produced at the Government Aircraft Factories. Export income from Jindvik has been $20m. Export income from Ikara is $30m. These again are not marks of an industry that has been left to languish over a period of years. They are not marks of an industry that has not been able to achieve its own successes.

But there is a basic problem. While the Deputy Leader of the Opposition outlined the basic problem he offered no alternative or solution to it. The basic problem is that when we come to order replacement aircraft - it might have been for Sabre and the next time it might have been for Mirage - and when these aircraft are to be produced in Australia we are going to want them within a reasonable period of time. It would not be possible or viable for the Air Force, for example, to replace the Mirage aircraft over a period of 12 to 15 years and so have a phased production of the Mirage replacement over that time. The Air Force would be in a continual state of flux and change, with squadrons changing from erne aircraft to another. It would be operating with 2 types of aircraft. When it makes up its mind that it wants a new aircraft or needs a more advanced aircraft, clearly it is necessary to get that into operational service as quickly as possible. So with defence orders for operational aircraft it is just not going to be possible to phase the orders over a considerable period.

This highlights the problem of an industry that is largely dependent on defence orders. It highlights the need for the industry itself to be more aggressive and to show more initiative in achieving orders outside the defence complex. It is very difficult to establish an industry which is entirely dependent on defence orders and have that industry established in a fully viable sense with an even work flow which, of course, is desirable. Hawker de Havilland has, I think, shown more initiative than the other 2 sectors of the industry in achieving orders, even in the exceedingly difficult United States aero-space market. If the rest of the industry can show the same initiative and enterprise, a healthier situation might develop. But if there is any person in the industry who believes that because he designs an aircraft there is an obligation on the Government to buy that aircraft and an obligation on the Royal Australian Air Force to fly that aircraft, that would in some circumstances be committing the Royal Australian Air Force to buying inferior aircraft and committing it to inferiority in air operations. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his Party would not want that any more than the Government would want it.

The present work load of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation involves production of Macchi aircraft and Viper engines, and this will continue for some time. Production of aircraft frame and spare engines for Mirage and Macchi aircraft will continue for several years. There is also various overhaul and repair work. Hawker de Havilland is sub-contracting for Macchi aircraft and this work will be completed probably some time early next year. It undertakes the overhaul of a wide range of military and civil aircraft and engines. The Government Aircraft Factories are producing Ikara. They are developing a different kind of target drone from Ikara called the Turana. The Commonwealth has, of course, provided over $3m for the develpment of Project N which, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, we hope will not only be successful in a military sense but will be able to develop substantial commercial and export sales. This is a specific example where funds provided by the Commonwealth are intended to give the design staff of the Government Aircraft Factories an opportunity to show what they can do and to demonstrate that they can produce a product that is good, that will be commercially and economically viable and that will meet the needs of the Services. This places the onus fairly and squarely on the people in the industry themselves to produce what they say they can produce. If by some mischance - and I hope that this will not happen, of course - Project’ N is not a success and does not succeed, that the design is a failure, I hope there will not be people in the public and in the Opposition who will say that despite this the Commonwealth must buy this aircraft and, despite this, the Services must have this aircraft. Again, this would be committing us to inferiority, which we could not afford, in an important area of equipment.

What we need to be willing to do is to provide an opportunity for the Australian aircraft industry to enter design, to enter production, to build a prototype such as Project N for which we are providing funds in the present circumstances. Then, if the prototype is a success or can be made a success production will commence and proceed. But if the prototype is not a success we have to be prepared to cut the project off and not commit ourselves to a project that has been a failure. If we are not prepared to do this it would be better to stay out of the business altogether rather than end up with equipment that would be inferior to our needs.

I have already mentioned Turana, a target drone for the Navy which is under preliminary development at the Government Aircraft Factories. I have mentioned Project N. Funds have been provided for 2 flying prototypes. I have not mentioned so far what we are trying to do to establish the nucleus of a helicopter industry in Australia. I recently announced the intention to purchase a total of up to 149 helicopters for the various armed Services. Of this number 84 will be light observation helicopters. Two helicopters, the Westland Sud and the Bell are equal in technical merit. We have told both firms concerned that they are to come forward with a total project for us to examine which will involve a significant element of Australian production. I hope that all 3 elements of the Australian industry will be involved. When we make a final choice between these helicopters which will involve significant funds, we will be giving a very significant weighting to the firm which is able to come to us with the best local production and coproduction proposals for its particular helicopter. We believe also that the helicopter so chosen should have commercial opportunities and export opportunities. This is where, I think, perhaps for the first time the weight and basis of the policies that were enunciated by my predecessor are coming, to be put to the test. It is not the only example, but I think it might be the most significant example.

This is a project and a contract that the Government will be watching most closely. It could have important implications for the future of the industry. But it is important again for the industry not to think that it can be left entirely to the Government to use its weight and leverage in this area. It is going to be necessary for the industry to show that it can be competitive, as Hawker de Havilland has shown it can compete in the United States market. The industry must show that it can be reasonably competitive and not unduly COStlY; that it can produce goods of the quality required and that it can produce the goods in the time scale required. I know that the industry has performed in these ways in the past but I am just issuing the warning note that because the Government is now seeking to use maximum leverage the industry should not therefore leave it entirely to the Government to help it achieve contracts for the industry. The industry must show its own initiative and expertise. I have every confidence that within the 3 segments of the industry this initiative will be shown.

We are also undertaking preliminary studies for the possible co-production or the production in Australia of an antiaircraft system, the Rapier. No decision has yet been made to purchase Rapier but if a proposal should be put to the Government that this is a weapons system we require and should have, we would want to be able to see what the local production possibilities are. This is another matter that is under study. We are seeking to sell Macchi aircraft to New Zealand. I hope very much that New Zealand will believe that it is in its interests to buy Macchi aircraft from Australia rather than from Italy or the United Kingdom. In a number of areas we are producing co-production and offset proposals which could have an impact on the industry. The Government is active in supporting this industry. It has, I believe, done a great deal, but the industry itself needs to get out into a wider field to try to achieve much larger commercial orders than has been the case in the past This would do much to overcome the unevenness which is inevitable in defence orders.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– In raising the question of the depressed state of the Australian aircraft industry and the Government’s failure to promote the design and construction of Australian aircraft, the Opposition wishes to bring to the people’s attention the fact that Australia is forfeiting an important segment of its defence capacity because this Liberal-Country Party Government, and its predecessors, have failed to come to the decision that Australia should have its own aircraft industry, and that that industry should, where possible, equip our armed Services with locally manufactured aircraft.

The event that reinforced the Labor Party’s decision to raise as a matter of public importance the Government’s neglect of the aircraft industry were the recent statements by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) concerning the cancellation of the joint Anglo-Australian project for the development and production of a variable geometry supersonic attack trainer known as the AA107. This decision comes at a time when the aircraft industry is at its lowest ebb for many years. The AA107 project, as a case in point, exemplifies the Government’s backward approach when it is faced with a proposition that requires a bold yet measured decision; a decision that, if taken, would have lifted the local aircraft design capacity to perhaps the highest level yet attained. The AA107 would have been the first collaborative military research and development programme that Australia had undertaken with a major overseas aircraft manufacturer. Regardless of Australia’s rejection of the project it seems that the British Aircraft Corporation will press on with the project in collaboration with Macchi of Italy. Contrary to what the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Supply say, the AA107 concept would seem to have considerable market potential.

The Australian Aircraft industry is held in very high regard overseas. France, for instance, from whom we secured the license for the manufacture of the Mirage, is very interested in joining Australia on joint research and development projects, as distinct from licence projects. Recently OFEMA, the French aero-space industry’s export organisation, sent a mission to Australia to investigate the possibilities in this direction. With the current Macchi jet trainer manufacturing programme nearing completion, 2 of the 3 main elements of the industry - the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, and Hawker de Havillands will have no appreciable workload as a basis to retain personnel. CAC is supplementing its air frame and engine manufacturing capacity by sub-contract work, service overhauls and spares production. It is also forced to manufacture passenger buses to retain skill. Hawker de Havilland is doing its best to keep its aircraft production capacity alive by servicing military and civil aircraft. It is attempting to supplement this work by hunting for offset and sub-contract work overseas. It also manufactures aluminium pleasure boats as an avenue to retain personnel. The Government Aircraft Factories, the third major component of the industry, were relying heavily on the GAC100 civil airliner project which has now been jeopardised by the withdrawal of the main American contractor, and they now have to fall back on Jindivik and Ikara production plus the minute $3. 5m project N civil light aircraft development. A dire situation exists when defence production establishments like the three I have mentioned are forced to survive on ancilliary work including the production of buses and pleasure boats. In the agricultural aircraft fields we can still remember the Government’s rejection of a reasonable bounty for the Transavia Airtruk and, in the light aircraft field, the selling of the Victa Airtourer to New Zealand. I would like to discuss the fallacious fourth arm concept which has been enunciated by the Minister who has also spoken about helicopter production, but it would take too much time to deal with it at this stage.

I turn now to the selection of the Macchi as the jet trainer for the RAAF. This was a classic example of the malaise that exists at Government level. In 1963 in reply to an

RAAF requirement for a trainer, the local industry offered the Government an Australian design known as the CA31, an aircraft that by all accounts would have fulfilled the RAAF’s requirements and more. A decision was put off until finally at the very last moment the Government said that it was too late to produce a locally manufactured product, and they went overseas and bought the Macchi MB326H trainer. This was the greatest slap in the face the aircraft industry here had had till that point of time, but it was typical of the classic Liberal defence approach of last minute panic buying. There was no argument for the selection of the Macchi on a cost basis. Macchi, as licensor, received cost compensation for the research and development element, the tooling costs, a percentage of the normal profit margin, and the cost equivalent of the increased profit, that Macchi would have earned had it not forfeited the learning curve benefit by allowing the aircraft to be made outside its own factories. To add insult to injury the Government bungled the possible Singapore outlet for the Macchi and thus denied the local aircraft industry a much needed workload. The Government is now desperately trying to sell the plane to New Zealand.

It is often said that half the problem with local aircraft manufacture is that the RAAF has an inherent dislike of local production. This could be so, but in fairness to the RAAF, it has had a difficult task in trying to assess the roles for its aircraft within the ambit of the Menzies, Holt and Gorton Governments’ stop gap defence and foreign policy objectives. The coalition in the past 20 years has been inept in pursuing doubtful foreign policies based on interdependence with a major Western power. With the advent of the Vietnam war and the successive problems in that conflict, it is probable that future American administrations will show a rapidly declining interest in the Asian region. In fact, I think it fair to surmise that in a very short space of time American military activity in that area of the world will be restricted to the comings and goings of the United States’ Seventh Fleet and perhaps assorted diplomatic forays into the countries of the region. The reality of this situation is that Australia with its vast area and natural wealth will be the only Western coun try in Asia. In these circumstances, it is imperative that we should develop our own defence capacity. As the lessons of the last World War illustrated so vividly, when the crunch comes a country’s capacity to defend itself is inextricably bound with its capacity to manufacture.

This Government and its predecessors have been criminal in their neglect of Australia’s defence industries. Our aircraft industry, our electronics industry, and the other ancillary industries that are so important to a viable defence capacity have been bypassed by the Government. We should take a lesson out of Sweden’s book in relation to defence planning and, in particular, aircraft manufacture. Sweden, a country with 8 million people, can afford to develop and manufacture its own relatively sophisticated aircraft because it has one clear defence policy, and that is to defend Sweden against the might of Soviet Russia, to the last Swede if necessary. With this clear defence objective, the Swedish Government and its defence forces, have been able to standardise and minimise the variety of equipment so that it has been possible to produce defence equipment far more cheaply that it could have been procured overseas. Australia’s problem is that the Government has never defined a consistent and continuous defence policy, and therefore it has been impossible to standardise defence procurements. The SAAB Corporation, in Sweden, which is regarded by the Swedish Air Force as a commercial extension of itself, manufactures the aircraft requirements for the Swedish Air Force. The system 37, Viggen and Draken are prime examples.

Australia could have the equivalent of the SAAB Corporation if the major components of the aircraft industry here were merged into one or even two units. The only problem then would be to have the RAAF regard that merged organisation in the same way as the Swedish Air Force regards SAAB. Sweden’s defence requirements are sensibly programmed on a 7-year rolling budget basis, adjustable at 12- monthly periods, to allow defence industries and the aircraft industry, in particular, to plan its production on a full workload basis. The industry is therefore able to secure the learning curve benefits and also the benefits of material procurement in mill size quantities. By comparison, the Australian aircraft industry has had to suffer with intermittent workloads and a lack of production continuity, and has had to build up the labour force on 4 separate occasions. Each time this has occurred there has been a progressive reduction in the classes and skill of labour available.

Some time this year or early next year the Government will have to decide upon a replacement for the RAAFs Mirage aircraft. This may be a single multi-role aircraft, or attack and intercept aircraft in 2 separate versions. Whichever it is I sincerely hope that the Australian aircraft industry is commissioned to design and manufacture it either singly or in collaboration with an overseas aircraft manufacturer. The Mirage replacement will be the acid test for the Government to prove once and for all its bona fides as far as the local aircraft industry is concerned. This matter of public importance that the Opposition has moved here today is not just a question of the Labor Party scoring points off the Government because of its neglect of our aircraft industry; but it is a matter of national importance, and national insurance that we awaken the Government to its inadequacy in this area. The Government must make the decision that Australia is to have an aircraft industry, and to have it the industry must have a constant workload. The manufacture of aircraft for the armed services alone would provide this. While the life of the industry trickles away, as it is doing at this very moment, Australia is paying out massive amounts in foreign exchange to buy imported aircraft.

If Australia is to acquire independence in the field of aviation it must have its own aircraft industry. In this respect I hope the exercise that the Opposition has undertaken today in this Parliament will be of benefit to the nation.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I regret that time will not permit me to reply to all the points raised by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), but I would like to refer briefly to the matter of the AA107 advanced supersonic trainer and close support aircraft for which the Royal Australian Air Force had an initial requirement of 30. The honourable member inferred we should have gone ahead with this project. During the period of the design study for the AA107 aircraft the RAAF reassessed its requirements in the light of experience that was being obtained in Vietnam. During a recent speech in Melbourne the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) explained quite clearly why the Australian Government had decided not to participate in this project; it was because the RAAFs experience in Vietnam had demonstrated that for close support operations helicopter gunships had many attractions. The Minister has already announced that we will order them. Concurrent studies within the RAAF indicated that as far as advanced supersonic training was concerned the specially equipped dual-control Mirage aircraft would deal with this requirement

So it seems to me that if we follow through the argument of the honourable member for Blaxland we must conclude that the Opposition wants the Royal Australian Air Force to be required to accept aircraft it does not want, and nothing could be more disastrous to the interests of the Service. The sort of results which would come from the Opposition’s determination to make the RAAF dependent on Australian production, irrespective of the wishes or requirements of the RAAF, would inevitably lead to a lower standard of capacity for the Air Force.

It seems to me that there is a mistaken belief that an Australian aircraft industry automatically means a factory producing complete aircraft. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such a concept is long out of date. The great overseas manufacturers such as Boeing, Douglas and the British Aircraft Corporation not only arrange for the manufacture of component parts by many different companies within their own country, but in Europe it is practically universal for the design and construction of aircraft to be a multi-national responsibility.

The Australian idea of an aircraft industry is probably a legacy of the early days of this industry. Of course, we had an aircraft industry before we had a motor car industry. In those days we had the complete aircraft coming from under the one roof. So far as I am aware, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation is the only factory in the world which manufactures both airframes and engines. Australians have become used to seeing one factory producing the complete aircraft. This was economically possible when aircraft were a lot less sophisticated and complex than they are today. But the manufacture of modern aircraft, particularly military aircraft, involves many separate industries and trades. To try to get all those industries and trades under one roof makes it extremely difficult to achieve any benefit from economies of scale. Of course, this highlights the major difficulty and disability under which the Australian aircraft industry operates. Our small population and our small requirement in terms of numbers of aircraft, whether for military or civil purposes, makes it impossible to achieve the long production runs of the various components, if the complete aircraft is to be produced. This in turn leads to high unit costs of production and difficulty of achieving export sales.

Aircraft normally have quite a long useful life. Therefore an aircraft tends to be still in production after the initial order has been completed by the factory or factories concerned. This in turn makes it difficult to achieve the continuity about which the Opposition seems to be so concerned. If the production of a given type of aircraft is extended over a long period, the RAAF in particular will be faced with having many different types in service at the one time. I personally believe that the future of the aircraft industry in Australia will increasingly be in the component field, with relatively long production runs. This in turn, as the Minister has said, will require that the industry gets out and looks for business and in particular tenders for work outside Australia when it gets the opportunity to do so. It has been shown that we can do this. Hawker de Havilland has been successful in tendering against American opposition for Bell helicopter rotor hubs and delivering them to the west coast of America. This is an outstanding example of private enterprise initiative which could well be followed by other firms.

It seems to me that the prime requirement for an Australian aircraft industry should be to have a nucleus of design staff, testing facilities and productive capacity capable of rapid expansion in an emergency to meet the needs of the armed Services. This is the prime requirement. As the Minister said, the work load on the industry at the present time - the industry’s production was valued at $300m over the last 10 years and $40m last year - shows that we are maintaining our basic requirements. The Jindivik and Ikara are still in production. Design and development work is being carried out on a pilotless target drone aircraft, Turana. The Government has given the go-ahead for the production of prototypes of Project N. The Macchi with its Viper engine are still in production and like the Minister, I trust that New Zealand will see the wisdom of obtaining its requirements from its nearest neighbour.

The Government has announced that its choice of light observation helicopter will be determined by the proportion of manufacture sub-contracted to local industry. This would be a pretty big order. The same opportunity may present itself in the case of medium lift helicopters. Every effort is being made to get work for local industry from United States firms. The Government has announced a co-ordinated programme to promote overseas sales of Australian made equipment and components, and to encourage co-operative research and development projects between Australia and overseas industries. I maintain that these facts alone make nonsense of the terms of the matter of public importance that the Opposition has put before the House.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– What sparked the raising of the present matter of public importance by the Opposition was the decision of the Government to cancel the order which it placed with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the British Aircraft Corporation to design an advanced trainer-ground attack aircraft to the requirements of the Royal Australian Air Force. The RAAF, through the Department of Air, laid down the major requirements and said: ‘This is the type of aircraft we would like you to design’. So this Australian organisation which has been in existence for some 35 years went to work on it as a joint defence project with the British Aircraft Corporation. Now all of a sudden, as a bolt from the blue, a decision is made that it does not meet our requirements and the Government wants to cancel the order.

The Government has talked about what it is doing for the aircraft industry and what it has done for it, but the general attitude of the Government over the years has been typical of Conservative governments in this country for the past 70 years. In the early 1900s when the Australian Labor Party was moving and working for the establishment of an Australian Navy, a Royal Australian Air Force and an Australian Army, it was the people who occupy the benches opposite today - the Conservative element, whether it was the United Australia Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservatives; the anti-Labor force in this country - who at all times decried the efforts and the capacity of the Australian worker and Australian industry to produce these things. The same thing was said about the shipbuilding industry in the period from 1900 to 1930, and the shipbuilding industry was finally closed down. I do not have to remind honourable members of the criticism that was levelled at the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Ben Chifley, when he and his Government were responsible for the establishment of the automobile industry in Australia. Today it is one of the largest employers of labour in Australia. I acknowledge that it is over capitalised. We have too many motor cars being produced in Australia today, but honourable members cannot deny that it is a first class industry and is able to compete. If it were not so heavily over capitalised with so many different types of motor cars being produced, it would be in a much stronger position.

That brings me to the point I would like to make here. The Government has talked for some considerable time about rationalising the Australian aircraft industry. What has it done about it? It has talked about it, but we have never got down to anything practical on this point. To me it appears to be running a commentary by various Ministers for Defence and various Ministers for Supply who make a statement and think that that will tide us over for the next 6 months. They think: That will shut them up. We have got them out of our hair’. The former Minister for Defence, Mr A. Fairhall, made a statement in Newcastle on 7th February. In it he said:

The major contract, which could amount to $13m, has been signed with the General Aircraft Corporation of California, US, for the Australian manufacture of 100 wing sets and engine nacelles for a 36-seat feeder-route airline (known as the GAC-100).

What has happened to it? That contract was signed 18 months ago. They have not driven a rivet yet. They have not cut a plate. No work has been done by the Government Aircraft Factory for that aircraft. The contract being signed shut the industry up for 6 months. That quietened the spokesmen for the industry. That got them out of the Minister’s hair. We have had rationalisation statements made by the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson). We have heard the Minister talk about what the Government is going to do and how it is going to rationalise the Australian aircraft industry. We have heard talk but have seen no progress. Then there was a statement recently by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in which he said:

The Government is to set up new machinery to work closely with Australian industry in a programme to achieve increased sales to the American and other overseas defence industries as an offset against Australian purchases of defence equipment.

What has been the result? This was an excellent opportunity for the Government to develop an aircraft and use the knowledge and know-bow of one of the largest aircraft manufacturers in the world today, the British Aircraft Corporation. That organisation has produced some of the best aircraft in the recent decade or the last 20 years, aircraft comparable with any produced throughout the world. Its BACIII, is comparable in size, performance and capacity with the DC9. The Royal Australian Air Force saw fit to buy two BACH ls for its VIP flight in preference to the DC9. That again was an excellent opportunity to work in close collaboration with that large organisation which has the know-how and could transfer to the Australian industry the capacity to design aircraft, or to work towards that end. If this had cost a few million dollars then so what? The American Government recently lost $600m in grants to the Boeing company in an endeavour to design a swing wing supersonic transport. It is now a dead project Boeing finally advised the American Government that as far as it was concerned that could not be done at economic rates which would enable the aircraft to compete with the Concorde or some of the other aircraft which may be designed.

The Opposition is trying to get this Government to assist an industry which is ‘ not a minor one of insignificant consequence. The aircraft industry is a major industry. Over the years it has employed 18,000 or 19,000 men and women. The peak level of employment at the various establishments operated by de Havilland is about 5,000. But at present, in round figures, it is employing about 2,500 employees, only about 66% of the company’s capacity and only 60% of those people are working on aircraft. The remainder are working on other things merely so that the company can retain them. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation today is employing some 2,700 men and women. This is about 80% of its capacity. The same thing can be said about the Government Aircraft Factories. They have a capacity of about 3,000 but are employing now only about 2,070. The aircraft industry has the ability to produce, yet the Government is doing nothing about it.

A lot can be said about the defence requirements of the Australian forces but I want to talk about commercial aircraft requirements. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table of figures compiled by the Parliamentary Library Research Service relating to imports of commercial aircraft.

The figures relate to aircraft imports in the period 1964-65 to 1968-69. The table discloses that in the case of aircraft with an empty weight exceeding 5,000 lb, there were 314 imported in that 5-year period at a value of $196,698,000. In the case of aircraft with an empty weight of less than 5,000 lb there were 1,493 imported at a total value of $29,086,000. The value of all commercial aircraft imported in that period, together with spares, was $535,857,000.

I think the Australian aircraft industry needs support. We should be forcing the airline operators and aviation organisations generally to do something to ensure that the Australian industry is preserved. One cannot deal with all these things in the short time available in this debate. I say that there should be a 4-point policy for this industry. Firstly, military aircraft manufacture should be in accordance with a clear cut Government policy and funding procedure. Secondly, the Government should be planning a light aircraft industry based on the requirements of general aviation and commuter airlines. Thirdly, the Government should aid the aircraft industry with substantial offset payments from overseas. Fourthly, the Services and the commercial airline operators should be forced to make early decisions about the type of aircraft they require so that the Australian aircraft manufacturing industry will be in a position to approach the companies concerned in order to sub-contract the work and to offset payments with a view to Australian industry getting its share. The Opposition accepts the fact that we cannot build 747s and Fills but we could at least build a lot of other aircraft.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– The aircraft industry, by its very nature, is subject to violent fluctuations not only in Australia but throughout the world. When the

Royal Australian Air Force needs an aircraft it needs it quickly. These aircraft cannot be produced at the rate of a few each year over a period of 10 or 15 years. The RAAF wants an aircraft quickly and hopes, when it buys it, that it will last a decade or even longer. There always will be periods of stress in the aircraft manufacturing industry when inadequate numbers of skilled workmen are available and there always will be periods of excess workmen when there is a drop in activity after orders are completed.

Why do we need an aircraft industry in Australia? There are number of reasons. I suppose the first is that it helps to provide employment. We are told that something like 7,000 people are employed in this industry. Quite a number of them are employed on civilian work and not on aircraft production. We need an industry to provide a nucleus on which to expand in case it is necessary, particularly in wartime. However one cannot foresee the sort of expansion over a long 5-year period such as was the case in World War II because I do not believe that that type of global war will eventuate again. We need an aircraft industry to reduce the cost of purchases of both civilian and Service aircraft. When we say we are producing an aircraft in Australia people tend to think that we are fully producing it. We are not doing this. Although 60% of the basic Mirage aircraft is made in Australia, if we take into account all the avionics probably only about 30% of the final cost of an operational Mirage is incurred in Australia.

It has been said that we need an aircraft industry to earn money from exports. In this regard we have had some success in various fields. We would have had much greater success with the Jindivik had it not been for the United States policy that it would not purchase Australian made equipment as against American made equipment unless there was a vast difference in the cost. The Americans wanted to purchase the Jindivik years ago but succeeded in doing so only fairly recently because there was no doubt that it is much better than any alternative produced in the United States. We need an aircraft industry in order to produce spares quickly. When I was Minister for Air a Sabre would have had to be abandoned had we not had local production. It suffered a rather bad explosion. We were able to repair it and get it back into service because we had a local industry. The aircraft would not have been repaired if we had had to get most of the parts from overseas. We need to be able to produce modifications and to service aircraft. Then I suppose we need an aircraft industry in order to be independent of overseas supply and control. This is important, particularly since one or two European countries from whom we have purchased equipment have tried to direct us, in a most ham fisted way, about where that equipment should be used.

But there are drawbacks to this policy. The greatest drawback with local production is that you tend to get a set-up in which something designed in Australia almost inevitably turns out to be not as good as best aircraft designed and flying overseas. Then, by pressure of events, the RAAF is forced to take something which is second best. Australia has been particularly fortunate in this respect. I would say that plane for plane the RAAF matches or exceeds almost all air forces operating throughout the world because we have been able to go overseas and take our pick. I would hate us to get down to a state of affairs in which we were forced to use something other than the best, particularly in the important field of combat. Perhaps it is different in the case of transport aircraft or other aircraft of that sort. We have to decide whether we want the RAAF to be just a public relations show for Australian industry or whether we want it to be the best equipped air force in the world. I see that my colleague the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is in the chamber. At one stage he and I were operating in the same theatre. I know that we did not give a damn who made the aircraft we were flying in. All that we were worried about was whether it was better than the aircraft we were facing. At one unfortunate period when I was doing long range unarmed reconnaissance the aircraft I was in was not the best. There is a future for the industry in Australia. It lies in repairs, maintenance and modifications and in a number of projects such as the Jindivik, the Ikara, the Turana and others that are being looked at. It also lies in making components. I believe it is essential that when we place orders for defence equipment overseas we have an agreement that many of the components that can be made in Australia shall be made in Australia. This is not a debate on whether or not we have an aircraft industry but a debate on what is to be the level of activity in that industry.

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

– The discussion is now concluded.

Sitting suspended from 12.31 to 2.55 p.m.

page 3076

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BELL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In 1967, an agreement was reached by a national conference, consisting of representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and the Department of Labour and National Service on a scheme for permanent employment in the stevedoring industry. In November 1967 the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted to give the necessary legislative backing to enable the permanency arrangements to operate. They were introduced by this means rather than by amendment of the main Stevedoring Industry Act because the Government had decided that the new arrangement should be subject to a trial period before permanent alterations were made in the legislative arrangements for the industry. Following the enactment of that legislation, permanent employment has been introduced into 7 major ports in Australia. Approximately 80% of all the regular waterside workers in Australia are in these ports and are now employed permanently, either by operational companies for whom they work exclusively or by a holding company set up by the various employers, which supplies labour on a day to day basis to operational companies in order to overcome the peaks and troughs of labour demands.

The Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was given a limited life and it is due to cease to operate on 1st July next. The Government had hoped that by the end of the original period of operation of the Act to have introduced legislation which would have provided for the future and permanent arrangements in the industry. However, a number of factors have prevented us from doing so. Firstly, the technological changes which are taking place in the industry with the introduction of container ships, unit load ships and rollon roll-off ships is far from complete. It could be another 2 years before the future structure of the industry becomes reasonably clear and before the permanent level of the work force in the industry can be determined with any precision. Secondly, although only about 20% of the work force is not permanently employed, these workers are spread through a large number of comparatively small ports and there is a need to determine what sort of employment arrangements would be most suitable for them and for the industry. Thirdly, while the permanent arrangements have brought considerable benefits to the work force and while the position as to costs in actual stevedoring operations appears to be reasonably satisfactory - a factor which the Government regarded as crucial - the industrial relations situation in the industry has been far from good. Indeed over the past 12 months it has deteriorated to such an extent that the losses in man hours through industrial stoppages are of the same order as in the pre-permanency days. However, a recent agreement on wages and conditions between the employers and the Federation to which the ACTU was a party includes a no-strike clause on these issues for a period of 2 years. Thus while we hope for and expect a significant improvement in this area, there is a need to see whether it eventuates before making final decisions in relation to the industry.

Because of these factors the Government has decided that it would be inappropriate and indeed premature to introduce permanent legislation at the present time. A further period is clearly needed to determine whether any major changes are necessary in the present permanency arrangements as a result of 3 or more years of operation and to work out the sorts of arrangements that ought to apply in the future in those ports in which casual employment still operates. For some it is probable that permanent employment arrangements of the type existing in the present permanent ports will be feasible. In the remainder, it is probable that these will not be suitable but it is obviously desirable that some regular form of employment should be introduced. Over the next 2 years it is my hope that suitable arrangements will be devised for all ports in Australia. Despite the Government’s decision not to proceed with permanency legislation it was necessary that legislation of some form be introduced before 1st July because of the expiry date of the Temporary Provisions Act. Before determining what form this further temporary legislation should take I decided it would be desirable to seek the views of all those who have been closely concerned with the industry. Therefore, I have had discussions individually with Mr Woodward, Q.C., with the Chairman of the Authority and with representatives of the ACTU, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. These discussions proved most helpful and showed that there was a great deal of common ground among all the parties as to what might be done in the industry. Although I could not accept all the suggestions for amendments to the legislation which were put to me, I believe that what is proposed in this Bill will meet with general approval from all the parties involved in the industry.

The present Bill has 4 main purposes. Firstly, it extends the period of operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-68. This is essential as all the arrangements which enable permanent employment to operate devolve from this Act and cease to have effect when the Act’s term of life expires. Thus to enable the permanency arrangements to continue beyond 1st July next, the period of operation of the Act is extended for a further 2 years, that is, until 1st July 1972. This date also coincides closely with the termination date of the agreement reached at the National Conference in relation to permanency. Thus, it is an appropriate time from which changed and permanent legislative arrangements for the industry should operate. I would hope that well before this date, however, I will be in a position to bring before the Parliament, proposals for the future permanent arrangements in the industry.

Secondly, the Bill amends the constitution of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. At present the Authority consists of 3 full-time members. However, since the introduction of permanent employment there has been a marked diminution in the functions of the Authority. Primarily, this has occurred in the permanent employment ports which as I have said account for 80% of the industry’s labour force. The functions of allocation of labour and initial discipline which were major activities of the Authority have been transferred to the employers. Thus, there is no longer any justification for retaining a full-time 3 man Authority in the light of the reduced work load it has to carry. The Bill provides that the functions of the Authority shall, in the future, be exercised by 1 full-time functionary who will be called the Director. He will have all the powers and carry out all the functions of the present tripartite Authority. However, the corporate existence of the Authority is not affected. Furthermore, I wish to stress that the existing functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority are not affected by this legislation. True, further ports may become permanent ports over the next 2 years, but this is simply in accordance with the intention and authority of the Temporary Provisions Act introduced in 1967. Thus, I do not anticipate that the enactment of this legislation will have any direct effect on the employment position of ASIA staff.

However, it would be wrong to imply that the policy which the Government has been following in this industry, namely of transferring greater responsibility for the management of this industry to the employers will not ultimately affect the Authority’s functions. Over the next 2 years, the Government will be giving detailed consideration to what the permanent role of a statutory authority in this industry should be. It is to be expected that there will be a continuing contraction in the activities of the Authority. It is impossible to say, at this time, the extent of the functions and the number and types of staff that will be required by a statutory authority in the permanent arrangements to be developed in the future. However, I do not expect that any major changes in functions and consequently major alterations in staff levels will take place before this Act expires in 1972. I recognise that the welfare and future of the staff of the Authority are matters of the utmost importance, and that proper provision for any who might be displaced in whatever permanent arrangements are ultimately developed for the industry should be determined well in advance of any such displacement. I have written to the General Secretary of the Federated Clerks Union suggesting an early meeting to discuss this question and have also advised the Secretary of the ACTU of this. However, I reiterate once again that there should be no cause for concern about redundancy on a major scale within the next 2 years.

Thirdly, the Bill provides that the National Stevedoring Industry Conference should be given statutory backing and redesignated the Stevedoring Industry Council. Since 1965 when industrial relationships and work performance in the industry had reached an all time low the National Stevedoring Industry Conference under the chairmanship of Mr A. E. Woodward, Q.C., has worked with a great deal of success to improve the situation in the industry. It has been responsible for negotiating the agreement on permanent employment, overseeing its implementation and sorting out the many problems that such a major change in employment relationships must inevitably bring in its train. Of course it would be wrong to suggest that the Conference has been successful in all its activities. There have been disappointments and failures. It would not be an institution comprising ordinary human beings with conflicting interests if it did not have failures. However, there can be no doubt that this Conference, under Mr Woodward’s capable chairmanship, has been one of the most successful exercises in co-operation between employers, unions and government, in any industry, let alone this most difficult and volatile stevedoring industry. It has brought about a significant change in employment relationships in the industry and it is largely because of its very existence that the introduction of the revolutionary container shipping system to Australia has been possible without the industrial upheavals that have occurred in most other countries.

As I have said, there is a need now to plan for the permanent arrangements which will operate ultimately in the industry. Although the vast majority of waterside workers are now employed permanently, the fact remains that in a large number of small ports 20% are still casually employed and there is a need for schemes for regular employment to be devised for them. The Government’s policy in relation to the stevedoring industry is that there should be a continuing effort to make the employment relationships in the industry as near as possible to those in industry generally. This can be done only if there is co-operation from all parties in the industry. The obvious body to undertake the necessary investigations and to advise me on the future of the industry is the National Stevedoring Industry Conference. Furthermore, whatever the final structure of the industry, I believe it to be essential that this should include some standing consultative machinery. I believe that it is appropriate now to establish such machinery on a statutory basis so that its status and role can be sufficiently developed before the permanent structure of the industry is decided upon. I propose that this body should be called the Stevedoring Industry Council. The Bill provides that it shall be constituted along the same lines as the present National Stevedoring Industry Conference. Its functions, which are primarily to advise me on the operation of existing employment arrangements, on the development of new employment arrangements and on such other matters as I might refer to it, are set out in clause 6 of the Bill. Apart from these advisory functions, however, it will have the function of endeavouring to bring about amicable agreement in relation to industrial questions in the industry. It has, over the past 4 years, been doing just this, and this activity is in keeping with the spirit of the recent national agreement on principles for the establishment of dispute settlement procedures.

Fourthly, the Bill provides for the correction of a number of anomalies that have occurred as a result of the operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-68. While these anomalies in themselves are small, they have created injustices and the Bill remedies these. There are 2 types of anomaly involved. The first relates to the payments for annual leave. Under the permanent employment arrangements, the holding company and operational employers are responsible for the payment of annual leave to their permanent employees. However, in a number of circumstances such an employee may have had a period of casual employment during the leave year for which there is an element in the statutory levy collected by the Authority. It was accepted in introducing the legislation in 1967 that the Authority should reimburse an operational employer or the holding company for any portion of annual leave paid by the company which was attributable to casual employment However, the legislation did not completely cover all examples of such casual employment; nor did an amendment in 1968. The current Bill now corrects the deficiencies. The other anomaly relates to refunds of portion of the levy to employers who employ waterside workers on a permanent basis under special agreements, for example in container terminals, and who under these special arrangements do not use holding company labour nor claim reimbursement of wages from the holding company for the time when their employees are not able to be employed. It has been found that the definition of ‘special agreement for weekly hiring’ in the earlier legislation does not cover all agreements for employment of this nature and employers covered by some of these agreements have not been able to obtain refunds of the appropriate portion of the levy even though they meet the essential criteria for refunds. The Bill corrects this situation and both in respect of this anomaly and those mentioned earlier, the legislation is made retrospective to the introduction of the initial legislation in 1967.

The BDI also provides for employers who enter into new agreements of the kind mentioned to be eligible for a refund of a portion of the levy provided that the Minister is satisfied that such agreements will not adversely affect the general permanent employment scheme in a port and will improve the efficiency of the particular stevedoring operations. Mr Speaker, this legislation merely represents a further development in the process of change in the stevedoring industry which we embarked on in 1965. It is essential that it be enacted now as the present permanent employment arrangements can- not operate beyond 1st July this year unless the Act is extended. I am hopeful that as a result of the recent agreement on wages and conditions, we can look forward to the industrial relations climate being restored to the situation that was achieved in the first 2 years following the establishment of the National Conference. Only such a climate will enable the permanent arrangements for the industry to be worked out in the atmosphere and with the dispassion necessary to ensure their success. The employers and the Federation must realise that the future structure of the industry depends very much on their performance over the next 2 years. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3079

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill changes the sanctions provisions, otherwise called the ‘penal clauses’ of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Sections 109 and 111 of the Act dealt with industrial stoppages on the basis of the Commonwealth Industrial Court’s injunctionmaking power and its power to punish for contempt. The Bill will deal with an industrial stoppage as a breach of an award but before the prosecution may proceed it will be necessary for the parties to have taken advantage of the conciliation or, if necessary, arbitration of a presidential member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Bill comes at the end of a long series of discussions that have been held between myself, and my predecessor and the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) and his predecessor with representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers’ Policy Committee. These discussions began in May of last year when the ACTU made representations to the Government about sanctions provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I want to make it abundantly clear, however, that the legislation that is now before the House has not resulted from negotiations or bargaining by Ministers with either the ACTU or the NEPC; nor does it result from any bargaining between the ACTU and the NEPC. What is in the legislation results from the Government’s own decisions. Throughout the discussions that were held between the Ministers and the 2 national bodies, there was no departure by any of the 3 parties from their policies in relation to the penal clauses. The ACTU position remains unchanged. It is that the sanctions provisions of the Act should be repealed. The attitude of the employers remains unchanged. Their policy is that there must be adequate sanctions provisions in the legislation.

The Government position remains that sanctions are an essential feature of our system of conciliation and arbitration. However, the Government does not insist on the existing sanctions provisions in the Act. The Government sees the sanctioning process as being one of last resort. The Government wants to see every reasonable effort made to solve disputes between management and labour by the processes of negotiation, conciliation and, where necessary, arbitration. When reasonable efforts have failed and there is strike action sanctions ought to be available. When I put the proposals before the Government which have led to this Bill, I was able to take into account the representations that have been made by the ACTU and the National Employers’ Policy Committee. The ACTU asked that the sanctions provisions be removed from the Act. This is not being done but I believe that what is now before the House is a responsible and positive response to what the ACTU and the NEPC have put before the Government.

Mr Speaker, the essential feature of the Bill is that before action can be taken to use the new sanctions process the Commission will attempt to resolve the issues that lie between the parties. I believe that the existing sanctioning process which involves the use of the Court’s injunctionmaking powers under section 109 and its power to punish for contempt under section 111, are no longer appropriate or desirable. I believe they suffer from 2 main deficiencies. Firstly, there is the immediacy of their availability. Secondly, they do noi allow the Court to take hold of the dispute between the parties and endeavour to assist the parties to resolve that dispute. This is no reflection on the Court. The Court cannot concern itself with the underlying causes of matters which come before it under sections 109 and 111. Therefore, there is a provision that before a sanction can be sought, the party seeking that sanction must notify the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission will be constituted by a presidential member and he will be required to make every effort to settle the dispute that exists between the parties. Not until he has issued a certificate will it be possible to proceed in the Industrial Court.

The giving of this role to only presidential members of the Commission is an earnest of the effort on the part of the Government to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to solve disputes without the need for their existence to result in the use of sanctions. This is consistent with the Government’s aim of encouraging discussion and negotiation between parties in dispute. The Government believes that the status of a presidential member will greatly assist the parties in working out differences between them and thus help to minimise the use of the sanctions process. This is certainly not to say that the Government sees or wishes to bring about any diminution in the role of the lay commissioners. What is now proposed will not bring that about. The very valuable work that the lay commissioners perform will continue to be performed. They will still be called upon to assist in settling disputes between parties including the day to day issues which arise and which may or may not involve the existence of industrial action in the form of strikes and bans.

The Government does not believe that sections 109 and 111 are consistent with its aim of trying to have disputes solved without recourse to sanctions wherever this is possible. This means that when the Bill becomes law, the injunction-making powers of the court under section 109 and its powers to punish for contempt will not be capable of being exercised as sanctions against unions or employers for award breaches. Section 109 has been used principally in the past to secure observance of so-called bans clauses of awards and, where it could be shown to the court that orders made in this way under section 109 were being breached, the court could punish such breaches as contempt of the court and impose a fine of up to SI ,000. This is being swept away. In future, there will be I sanctions proceeding and not 2. Moreover, I would point out to honourable members that by clause 13 of the Bill now before the House, all orders made by the court under section 109 in relation to awards and still in existence will come to an end on the Bill receiving royal assent.

Section 119 of the Act enables penalties to be imposed for breaches of awards of the Commission. This Bill will develop that section for use as the new sanctions provision and all breaches of awards will be punishable under that same section. This means that if an employer fails to observe obligations placed on him by an award such as, for example, the payment of wages fixed by the award, he will be liable to a penalty under section 119. If a union or an employer breaches an obligation imposed by a clause of an award which says, for example, that the union or employer is not to be party to some form of direct action, it will also be liable for a penalty under section 119. Unions and employers will come within the same maximum penalties for breaches of awards. The important difference is, however, that if a union or an employer is thought to be in breach of a clause of an award such as I have just referred to, it would not be possible immediately to take action under section 119. There will be an obligation to notify a presidential member so that attempts can be made to settle the dispute giving rise to the apparent breach on the part of the union or employer.

I should also emphasise that the Bill provides that only a presidential member of the Commission will be permitted to deal with an application for the insertion in an award of a clause which would place an obligation on a union or on an employer not to be party to action that would hinder, prevent or discourage the observance of or the performance of work in accordance with the award The ACTU submitted that penalties imposed by the Industrial Court under section 111 of the Act for contempt of orders made by the court were accentuated because on occasions the court imposed fines for each day on which contempt was found to have been committed. This meant that unions could be fined up to $1,000 a day. The Bill ameliorates this. The Bill provides that where there is a provision in an award that a breach of that award constitutes a separate breach on each day on which the breach continues, the maximum penalty that the court can impose will be $500 for each separate breach, whereas the maximum penalty that the court can impose where there is no such provision in the award will be $1,000. These provisions will apply in respect of all types of breaches whether they be committed by a union or by employers.

In its representations to the Government the ACTU submitted that in addition to the penalties imposed for contempt of orders made by the court there was an added burden in the form of the costs awarded by the court in proceedings under both sections 109 and 111. The Government is not prepared to eliminate completely the awarding of costs in sanctions proceedings. This would be to set a most undesirable precedent. However, in 1967 the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations were amended so as to provide that in connection with proceedings under sections 109 and 1 1 1 costs could not be awarded in respect of more than 1 counsel or in respect of Her Majesty’s Counsel, except if the court held that the nature of the proceedings was such as to warrant the appearance of more than 1 counsel or Her Majesty’s Counsel. The Government proposes to have the regulations amended following the passage of this Bill to extend that provision to proceedings taken under section 1 19.

Also relevant to costs is clause 17 of the Bill which provides that employees of organisations will be able to appear before the court. Nowadays many organisations of employers and employees engage persons such as industrial officers. Their every day work makes them knowledgeable and experienced in industrial matters and, therefore, the Government sees no reason why they should not be permitted to appear before the court within the existing framework of section 117a. Similarly, the Bill would permit employees of organisations to appear before the Commission and the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. Moreover, since the Bill would take away from the Industrial Court its power to order compliance with an award under section 109 and its power to punish breaches of such orders as contempt there will be a reduction of legal costs.

There are other related provisions which 1 now mention briefly because they are largely of a consequential nature. Section 109a of the Act will be repealed because it was related to the provisions of section 109 now being deleted. The appeal and reference provisions of the Act will apply to proceedings before a presidential member when he is dealing with matters to which clause 6 of the Bill refers. The new sanctions process thai I have outlined will also apply in respect to the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and the Coal Industry Tribunal except that the role of a presidential member will be exercised by those persons who constitute those tribunals. The Bill also proposes an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations to provide for payment of fees and travelling allowance to the person constituting the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and to persons appointed by the Minister under the Act to deal with a particular industrial question involving flight crew of aircraft.

Regulations prescribing fees and travelling allowance for these persons were notified in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette* on 15th January this year. The Regulations included a provision validating payments made from 13th December 1967, when a person was first appointed. On 21st May the Senate disallowed the regulations on the grounds of the high degree of retrospectivity for which the regulations provided and the fact that payments had been made in anticipation of the making of the regulations. Clause 21 of the Bill provides for the amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations in the terms contained in the amendments made by the disallowed regulations and provides that all payments made shall be taken to have been validly made. After the Bill becomes law there will be a fee of $75 a sitting day for the person constituting the Tribunal, $100 a sitting duy for a person appointed by the Minister to deal wilh an industrial question and travelling allowance for each at the rate of $21 a day. Power to amend or repeal the regulations by further regulations is preserved for the future.

Mr Speaker, this Bill contains a positive response to representations made to the Government by both the ACTU and the

National Employers* Policy Committee. The Government has not taken a hard line approach lo the matter of sanctions, lt has sought to bring the sanctions process more into line wilh what it believes to be current needs, lt has not resiled from its po1 icy that there must be sanctions. It has once again reiterated thai it sees die sanctions process as a last resort process. The emphasis of the Bill is on the use of negotiation, conciliation and, where necessary, arbitration, to resolve industrial issues between management and labour. The Government does not believe that the existing sanctions process represented by sections 109 and 111 is appropriate any longer. This indicates that the Government recognises the thought and attention being given to our system of conciliation and arbitration at the present time. 1 also have been .giving a very great deal of thought to thai system.

There have recently been developed by national tripartite agreement a set of ‘Principles for guidance in establishing and using effective procedures for avoiding and settling’ industrial disputes’. I welcome this agreement. Ii represents an important step forward not merely because it will lead to detailed dispute settlement procedures but also because it is the product of tripartite national discussions. If Government, employers and the trade union movement cun find common ground on principles relating to such a fundamental matter, then the process of translating those principles into detailed procedures at plant and industry level should follow. The principles were worked out between Ministers and the ACTU and the NEPC independently of their respective attitudes to industrial sanctions. They are not linked in any way wilh what is included in this Bill. Their importance is that sensibly used they ought to go a very long way towards making the sanctions provisions of the Bill the last resort which they are intended to be.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the effort contributed by my predecessor and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) when he was AttorneyGeneral in the evolution of the dispute settling procedures. The present AttorneyGenera! (Mr Hughes) has participated with mc in our discussions since November last with the ACTU and the NEPC. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to my 3 colleagues. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron) adjourned.

page 3083

LOAN BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It was estimated in the 1969-70 Budget that the Commonwealth would have a deficit amounting to $30m in the current financial year. At the time the Budget was introduced, it seemed probable that the amounts available from loan raisings in Australia and overseas and other financing transactions, which had amounted to $5 12m in 1968-69, would be more than sufficient to finance this estimated deficit.

In statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech, it was explained that prospects for raising loans overseas seemed poorer than in 1968-69 and that prospects for net loan proceeds in Australia were affected by the fact that redemptions would probably be substantially greater than in 1968-69. At the same time, it was pointed out that it was not possible to estimate in advance with any degree of assurance net loan proceeds or the change in the Treasury note issue, as this would be affected by developments during the course of the year. In the event, it is now clear that net loan raisings overseas will be a great deal less than last year and that, as a result of the high level of redemptions, so too will be net loan proceeds in Australia. In addition, largely as a result of monetary conditions, it seems likely that there will be a substantial decline in the Treasury note issue.

Although, on present indications, it appears that the deficit will be close to the Budget estimate, there is a possibility that the amount available from loan raisings and other financing transactions will not be sufficient to finance the deficit. The purpose of this Bill, which is in the nature of a precautionary measure, is to obtain authority to borrow from the Reserve Bank the amount required to complete the financing of the deficit in 1969-70, if this proves to be necessary, and to expend the proceeds of the borrowing for defence purposes.

The amount to be borrowed from the Reserve Bank is, of course, a residual. It is the net result of all receipts, expenditures, borrowings and redemptions under other legislation approved by Parliament. Even at this late stage of the financial year, therefore, with large amounts of revenue still to be collected and expenditures still to be incurred and with fluctuations still possible in the volume of Treasury notes on issue, it is not possible to forecast with precision the amount which it may be necessary to borrow from the Reserve Bank to complete the financing of the deficit. Consequently, this Bill follows the practice introduced in 1968 under which no specific upper limit is set to the amount which might be borrowed under the legislation. Instead the Bill seeks authority to borrow such sums as the Treasurer considers to be the likely maximum amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit.

The borrowings for which authority is now sought will be made for defence purposes, and the proceeds of the borrowings will be applied to finance expenditure from the loan fund on defence services. The Bill is essentially a machinery measure to enable the Government to carry out policies approved under the various Acts authorising expenditure, the raising of revenue and financing transactions. In itself, the Bill does not authorise expenditures which have not already been authorised by Parliament. It provides for expenditure on defence services, which has already been authorised by Parliament in the Appropriation Acts, to be charged to the Loan Fund instead of to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Provision for charging part of our Defence expenditure to the Loan Fund has been made in previous years when the net amount available from loan proceeds and other financing transactions has not been adequate to finance the deficit. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3084

DEFENCE BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from S April (vide page 842), on motion by Mr Hulme:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Defence Act to bring into line the allowances payable to the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief of the Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff with those of the First Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. Indeed, we approve of the recommendation made by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which investigated this aspect of the payment now being made to certain members of the defence forces. It has been argued that under the Governor-General’s regulations alterations can be made to the payment of allowances for members of the defence forces, but the report of the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was quite explicit. In its opinion the payment of allowances for senior members of the defence forces should be the subject of legislative action by the Parliament. I note, from the Minister’s second reading speech, that bc has accepted that proposition, although the Department maintains that the regultaions were legal and valid. However, the Minister has accepted the recommendation of the Senate Committee that in future pay and allowances should be adjusted as a result of action taken in the Parliament. The Opposition is in complete agreement with this point of view. We believe that these matters should properly be dealt with by the Parliament and for this reason we do not oppose the legislation. We support the point of view expressed by the Minister for Defence when he introduced the legislation. This Bill represents an acceptance of the recommendation of the Senate Committee which was charged with the responsibility of examining this matter.

I agreed to deal with the Bill this afternoon because of some of the difficulties associated with the time factor and with the business before the House. Then I was told that there would be two or three amendments proposed by the Government. Unfortunately I hae not had time to consider fully the amendments that the Govern ment will move. They were handed to me in the last four or five minutes. I am sure that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who is handling this matter for the Minister for Defence, would agree that I have not had a proper opportunity to consider what the amendments propose and their implication, therefore I ask him to take the opportunity to explain the amendments not only for my benefit but for the benefit of all honourable members on this side. 1 conclude by repeating that the Opposition supports this legislation. We believe that the Government has adopted a proper course of action in ensuring that in future the payment of allowances to senior members of the defence forces will be as a result of legislation introduced into the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to move together the amendment and the new clause which have been circulated in the name of the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr CHIPP:

– I move:

These amendments have become necessary because the Senate, on 16th April 1970, disallowed the regulations providing for the payment of an annual allowance to the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, and to the Chiefs of Staff. The amendment in relation to clause 2 substitutes a new clause 2 providing that sub-clause (1.) of clause 1, clause 2 and the proposed new clause 4 will come into operation on the date that the Act receives the royal assent. This will mean that the payment of the allowance authorised by proposed new clause 4 can commence on the date the Act receives royal assent. New clause 4 provides for the payment to the Chairman of the Chiefs of Stiff Committee, the Chief of the Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff of an annual allowance at the rate of $1,000 for the period commencing on the date of the disallowance of the regulations and ending on the day before the day on which the amendments to the Defence Act proposed by this Bill will come into operation.

The Bill was introduced on 8th April 1970 before the regulations were disallowed by the Senate, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) would be aware. Under the Bill as then drafted it was proposed that the rates of pay and annual allowance for these officers would be specified in the next Appropriation Act, and provision was made for the Bill to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed so that amendments to regulations could be made and the commencement date of the Act delayed until after the passage of the

Appropriation Act. In the meantime these officers would have been paid their annual allowances under the provisions of the regulations. With the disallowance of the regulations the present position is that these officers are receiving pay in accordance with the regulations that were in force before the disallowed regulations were made but the payment of the annual allowance has been stopped from the date of the disallowance of the regulations.

The purpose of new clause 4 is to authorise the payment of the annual allowance at the rate of $1,000 per annum from the date of disallowance of the regulations until the day before the date proclaimed for the commencement of the amendments to the Defence Act. Thereafter payment will be authorised by virtue of the provision which this Bil] will insert in the Defence Act and the operation of the Appropriation Act. I am sure that if my colleague, the Minister for Defence, were here he would do 2 things. He would apologise to honourable members opposite, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the circumstances which led to their not receiving the amendments before they did, and also, he would thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his co-operation.

Amendment and proposed new clause agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

House adjourned at 3.45 p.m.

page 3086

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circuated:

Australian Tariff (Question No. 535)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many items are there in the Australian Tariff.
  2. How many items on the Australian Tariff have not been reviewed for a period of 10 years or longer.
Mr McEwen:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. The Australian Tariff conforms with the Brussels Nomenclature which provides for classification of products in 99 Chapters. Each Chapter is sub-divided, resulting in 1095 Tariff Items. In the Australian Tariffthere is further sub-division, giving a total of 4050 tariff classifications.
  2. A precise answer to this question is not possible. Many references tothe Tariff Board cover only part of a Tariff Item because the products of an industry under reference may fall within one or a number of Tariff Items, while other goods not under reference may also be covered by theItem or Items.

Since 1st January1960, 521 Tariff Items have been reported on, in whole or in part, by the Tariff Board. A further 40 Tariff Items, or parts of TariffItems are currently under review by the Tariff Board.

Tariff Board (Question No. 538)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many items has he referred to the Tariff Board in the last 10 years under Section 15 (l)(d) of the Tariff Board Act.
  2. When did he last refer to the Tariff Board the matter of the general effect of the tariff on primary and secondary industry under section 15 (2) of the Tariff Board Act.
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: (1 and 2) One reference has been made to the Tariff Board specifically in terms of Section 15(l)(d) of the Tariff Board Act in the past 10 years. During my term as responsible Minister no references have been sent to the Tariff Board specifically in terms of Sub-section 15 (2) (a) of the Tariff Board Act. It is my normal practice in making references to the Tariff Board for a review of protection to frame the reference in terms covering the whole of Section 15. In the last 10 years 395 such references have been sent to the Tariff Board.

Papua and New Guinea: Indigenes Employed in Commonwealth Departments (Question No.542)

Mr Whitlam:

asked - the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. How many indigenes are employed in Commonwealth departments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What are the dates and texts of declarations by the Governor-General and determinations by the Public Service Board in relation to these employees.
  3. In what respects do these employees enjoy different rights to other Commonwealth pu blic servants in (a) retirement benefits, (b) arbitration, (c) promotions and (d) discipline.
  4. What steps have been taken, or when will arrangements be made, for these employees to have at least as good terms and conditions of employment as local officers in the public service of Papua and New Guinea.
  5. To what extent is the Commonwealth Public Service pursuing a policy of localisation in the Territory.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– I am advised by the

Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. As at 19 March 1970 there were approximately 4,700 local employees (i.e., indigenes) employed in Commonwealth Departments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. (a) The relevant order by the Governor-

General under section8s of the Public Service Act 1922-1968 was made on 6 January 1968 and was gazetted on 18 January 1968. The text of that order was:

WHEREAS by sub-section (1) of section 8a of the Public Service Act, 1922-1967, it is provided that the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Public Service Board, by order in writing under his hand, declare that the provisions of the Act and of the Regulations specified in the order shall not apply to an officer or employee, or to officer and employees included in a class of officers or employees specifiedin the order.

NOW THEREFORE I, Richard Gardiner, Baron Casey, the GovernorGeneral aforesaid, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, do hereby, on the recommendation of the Public Service Board, declare that the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1922-1967, and the Regulations made hereunder, shall not apply to employees, other than overseas employees, employed by Commonwealth Departmentsin the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.’

  1. The related determination by the Public Service Board under section 8a of the Public Service Act 1922-1968 was made on 31 January 1968. The text of that determination was:

The Public Service Board, in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 8a of the Public Service Act 1922- 1967, hereby determines that the terms and conditions of employment (including rates of payment) of employees, other than overseas employees, employed by Commonwealth Departments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, being employees in relation to whom an order is in force under sub-section (1) of that section, shall be those specified in the Public Service (PapuaNew Guinea) Ordinance, 1963-1967, the Native Employment Ordinance, 1958-1967, or the Native Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1951-1961.

  1. (a) The only way in which such an exempt employee of the Commonwealth Service who is not a member of the Territory Public Service may contribute for superannuation is for a certification to be given under section 4 (5) of the Superannuation Act 1922-1969, after at least 3 years’ service, that at least a further 7 years’ service is likely. No record has been located of submission of any application by a local employee of a Commonwealth Department in the Territory for such a certification to be given.

    1. These employees have not formed an organisation for the purpose of access to arbitration. However, as a matter of policy the application to them of the general terms and conditions applicable to staff of the Territory Public Service - see (4) below - means that benefits obtained in arbitration by local staff of that Service flow to comparable staff in Commonwealth Departments.
    2. Exempt employees in the Commonwealth Service, unlike career permanent officers, do not receive promotions, although during their employment they may be advanced to positions above those for which they were initially engaged, depending on working needs and the qualifications and experience of the individual employee concerned.
    3. The services of an exempt employee may be dispensed with atany time by the ChiefOfficer of the Department in which he is employed.
  2. In accordance with the Public Service Board’s determination quoted in 2(b) above, the rates of pay and other terms and conditions of employment of these employees are generally the same as those applicable to local staff of the Territory Administration and Public Service who are doing the same or similar type of work. However, the Department of External Territories is pressing ahead with consultations with the Territory and Commonwealth Public Service Boards and the relevant Commonwealth Departments on the question of the appointment of all eligible local staff of Commonwealth Departments to’ the Territory Public Service so that they have tenure, career opportunities, and retirement benefits applicable to local officers of the Territory Public Service.
  3. Various arrangements are in operation for the training and career development of local staff in order that they might assume increased responsibility for work now being done by officers of Commonwealth Departments - e.g., Communications Officers in the Department of Civil Aviation, Observers in the Bureau of Meteorology and trades staff in the Department of Works. The Department of Civil Aviation recently offered thirty cadetships for local officers to study at the Institute of Higher Technical Education in Lae and sixteen cadets have commenced so far. Other plans include training in the work of Air Traffic Controllers and Flight Service Officers. Development of further schemes for the training of local staff of Commonwealth Departments in the Territory is continuing.

Railway Level Crossings (Question No. 990)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many railway level crossings there are in each of the State capitals and the major provincial cities.
  2. Has an estimate ever been made of the cost of man hours lost due to traffic delays at these crossings.
  3. Has there been any study of the increase in air pollution created by motor and truck exhaust fumes while traffic waits for trains to have the right of way.
  4. What is the estimated cost of eliminating these level crossings.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. The following information was compiled by the Bureau of Roads which has used three classifications for urban areas. These are:

Capital City-

Canberra and the six State capitals.

Major Provincial City ; Those cities with populations exceeding 40,000 at the census of 30th June 1966.

Provincial Urban -

Those cities and townships with populations between 1,000 and 40,000 at the Census of 30th June 1966 and with densities greater than 500 persons per square mile.

The following figures show the number of railway level crossings for each of these areas.

In some cases the numbers were obtained by sampling methods. Where several railway lines or a skiing line adjacent to through lines intersect on a public road, the location was assessed as one level crossing. Accordingly, the figures do not necessarily correspond with railway statistics.

  1. I am not aware of any estimate made on the cost of man hours lost due to traffic delays at these level crossings. (3)I am not aware of any specific studies relating to the increase in air pollution created by vehicles waiting at level crossings. However, from general studies it has been shown that air pollution from motor vehicles increases when vehicles are idling and decelerating.
  2. No estimate is available.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits: Comparisons of Benefits (Question No. 1105)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he before the resumption of the debate on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill provide an answerto my question No. 61 on comparative benefits whichI placed on the Notice Paper on 4th March 1970.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Please see the answer to question No. 61.

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Question No.11 10)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads exercise any control over the funds given to the States under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act.
  2. Does the Bureau tender advice to State highway authorities on the likely effects of road investment decisions.
  3. If so, what advice was given on the effects of the proposed extension of the Warringah Expressway in Sydney.
  4. Does the Bureau encourage State road authorities to heed advice of the appropriate State planning authorities so that investment in roads will be co-ordinated with those of other authorities and lead to the orderly development of out cities.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act, 1964, provides that the functions of the Bureau are to report to the Commonwealth Government, through the Minister for Shipping and Transport, in relation to roads and road transport. Neither the Bureau of Roads Act nor the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, 1969, gives the Bureau any responsibilities with regard tothe administration of grants bythe Commonwealth to the States for roadworks.
  2. The Bureau tenders advice to a State highway authority only on request of the authority.
  3. No advice was given by the Bureau on the effects of the proposed extension of the Warringah Expressway.
  4. The Bureau endeavours to encourage cooperation between all governmental authorities concerned with roads and rood transport.

Third Party Insurance: Analysis of Costs (QuestionNo.1111)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department made an analysis of costs of the operation of compulsory third party insurance schemes in operation in Australia which would show (a) administration costs, (b) legal costs, (c) hospital and medical costs, (d) compensation paid to victimsof accidents caused by motor vehicles and (c) payments made to accident victims fortime off work.
  2. Can he say in respect of the last financial year how many persons received compensation payments, either in a lump sum or by way of weekly payments.
  3. How many of those persons who made claims failed to receive any compensation.
  4. Has there been any investigation madeto determine the average waiting period for payment or settlement of claims after an accident.
  5. If he has insufficient information to supply answers to these questions will he undertake to set up a commission of inanity to examine all aspectsof compensation for road accidents.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. No analysis of costs of the operation of compulsory third parly insurance schemes has been made by my Department.
  2. , (3) and (4) The information sought by the honourable member in these parts of his question could only be obtained from the various Stale Governments and for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the Department of the Interior. Each State and Territory is responsible for the administrationof its own compulsory third party insurance and information of this nature is not made available to my Department.
  3. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has considered the subject of compulsory third party insurance. At present Council is awaiting the results of an inquiry by a committee established by the New South Wales Government to examine all aspects of third party insurance schemes. When that committee’s report is to hand, the matter will be examined further by Council.

Television Transmission (Question No. 900)

MrHayden asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has any technical/economic assessment been made by his Department of television programme transmission by coaxial cable from transmission points to domestic receivers; if so, what were the results of the study.
  2. Did a recent American survey suggest that this system may be less expensive than conventional methods.
  3. Would this system based on, say, a 20- channel coaxial cable added to the existing telephone wire network, overcome the shortage of television channels.
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board keeps all developments in connection with the technical means of distributing television programmes under study. The Board has not made any specific study of cable television of the nature referred to by the honourable member.
  2. There have been many studies overseas of cable television. However, the question of whether that system would be cheaper than conventional television could only be decided in relation to a specific situation.
  3. The availability of channels has not been a limiting factor on the provision of television in Australia.

Commonwealth Trade Practices Act (Question No. 17)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a paper entitled ‘Government Control of the Large Corporation in Australia’ which was delivered to the Australian Institute of Political Science Summer School in Canberra in late Januaryin which the author, Mr G. G. . Masterman, of Sydney, advocated the establishmentof a Federal companies commissionto supervise the activities of companies,less secrecy in the operations of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act, the right of a private complainant to approach the trade practices tribunal, some form of national control over mergers, urgent and detailed scrutiny of restrictive business practices such as resale price maintenance, and Government support for consumer associations, and claimed that in overseas coun tries legislation designed to protect the community went much further than in Australia.

    1. If so, and in the light of growing public concern at the growing power of business giants in the national economy, will he give consideration to compiling more information so that the results and the significance of the growth of big business will be more readily available.
    2. Did the Government recently reject the

Eggleston Committee’s recommendations that companies should be required to disclose their annual turnover figures; if so, why.

  1. Is he able to say whether other countries have long recognised that publicity and disclosure to the public of restrictive trade practices and agreements were an effective aid to measures designedto control such practices and agreements.
  2. If so, why is there, under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act, unnecessary secrecy in the absence of any private fight of complaint tothe tribunal.
Mr Hughes:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The compilation of information of this kind is primarily a matter for the Bureau of Census and Statistics. I understand that the Bureau,to which this part of the question has been referred, is taking steps that will enable it to compile and, subject to the requirements of the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1966 in regard to the confidentiality of individual returns, to publish information about companies in various categories of size and in various industries and also about groups of companies under common ownership and control.
  3. The views of the Company Law Advisory Committee on the question whether disclosure of turnover should be required were stated in paragraph 20 of the Advisory Committee’s First Interim Report. The Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General has decidedthat forthe present, companies should not be required to disclose their turnover. The Standing Committee’s decision took into account, amongst other things, that the Advisory Committee had drawn attention to the need for considerable flexibility in any provision and had indicated that it did not regard disclosure of turnover as a major weapon for the protection of investors.
  4. So far as can be ascertained from legislation of other countries, views differ as to the effectiveness of publicity and disclosure to the public as aids inthe control of restrictive trade practices and agreements.
  5. I have the operation of the secrecy provisions of the Trade Practices Act under continuing review. I am bound to say, however, that as at present advised I have not reached any conclusion that these provisions ought to be amended. The reasons why the Act does not provide a private right of complaint to the Tribunal were explained tothis House by the then AttorneyGeneral during the Second Readingdebate on the

Trade Practices Bill 1965 (Hansard 30th November 1965,. page 3357). The views I expressed on the matter in that debate appear in Hansard, 25th November 1965, page 3235. So far as I am aware, those countries that provide for enquiries to be made to determine whether a particular trade practice is contrary to the public interest and should on that account be prohibited do not provide for the enquiries to be instituted by private complaint to the body responsible for making the determinations.

Royal Australian Air Force: Mirage Squadrons (Question No. 1038)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Is the location of the 4 Mirage squadrons still determined by the same factors as his predecessor mentioned in his answer to me on 28th November 1968.

Mr Killen:
Minister for the Navy · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. At the time the previous question was asked, the Royal Australian Air Force was equipped with 3 Mirage squadrons, 2 based at Williamtown and 1 at Butterworth. As operational, technical and domestic Mirage facilities are centred at Williamtown and Butterworth they were at that time, and continue to be, the bases best suited for the location of Mirage squadrons.
  2. The. Prime Minister announced on 25th February 1969, in his statement on the Australian military contribution in Malaysia/Singapore after the British withdrawal, the Government decision that 2 squadrons of Mirage aircraft would be located at Butterworth. The fourth Mirage squadron was located at Butterworth in accordance with this decision, and was a direct replacement for a Sabre squadron.
  3. The fourth Mirage squadron could have been located at Williamtown but the’ location of 3 squadrons there would place a heavier load on the resources of that base.

Papua and New Guinea Public Service: Appeal Against Promotion (Question No. 932)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What are the names and positions. .of the persons who lodged appeals against the promotion of Mr R. R. Bryant to a’n assistant secretaryship in the Department of Social Development and Home Affairs in the Public Service of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What findings did the promotion appeals committee make.
  3. Has the Public Service Board acted in accordance with the findings; if not why not.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The names and positions of appellants and their respective grounds of appeal against a provisional promotion are notified by the Public Service Board to the officer who was provisionally promoted and to the various appellants. It is not practice for the Board to give any other publicity to the names and positions of appellants.

Reports of the Promotions Appeal Committee to the Public Service Board are ‘not public documents nor is information made public about the Board’s action or the reasons for the Board’s actions in connection with any particular report

The particulars sought in the question are not known to me or the Department of External Territories. I do not seek such information or intervene in any way in the Board’s discharge of its statutory responsibilities relating to provisional promotions or the settlement of appeals against provisional promotions.

Papua and New Guinea: Workers Compensation (Question No. 977)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

n asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Have any widows or dependants of a European worker killed during or in the course of his employment in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea been refused compensation on the grounds that they were not wholly or partially or mainly dependent on the deceased worker’s earnings before his death.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Widows and dependants of European workers make claims and take action for compensation through their legal representatives. The Department of Labour in the Territory would not necessarily know of such cases. Its records show no cases of refusal.

Papua and New Guinea: Workers Compensation (Question No. 976)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

By what criteria does the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea determine whether or not a widow was dependent upon the earnings of a deceased worker before his death.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Under the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance 1958-1969, in default of agreement between the parties, the question of whether or not a widow is dependent upon the earnings of a deceased worker is determined by arbitration by a District Court.

The Ordinance does noi define the criteria to be used in assessing dependency upon the earnings of a deceased worker. Whether or not a widowwas dependent upon the earnings of a deceased worker before bis death is a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of each case.

Education: Post Graduate Course Fees (Question No. S3)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice.

By what amount and percentage (n) did the fees payable in 1969 and (b) will the fees payable in 1970 for post-graduate courses exceed the fees payable in 1939 when Commonwealth postgraduate awards were first granted.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is supplied in the following table. The table shows total fees for each course assuming they are completed in minimum time unless otherwise indicated. In addition to tuition fees, library, examination and graduation fees have been included. Pees payable to student bodies have been excluded.

Education: Degree Course Fees (Question No. 84)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

By what amount and percentage (a) did the fees payable in 1969 and (b) will the fees payable in 1970 exceed the fees payable for each degree course in each university listed in his predecessor’s answer to me on 19th May 1967 (Hansard, page 2471).

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The information is shown in the following tables and unless otherwise indicated is based on the subjects normally studied in a full-time course completed in minimum time. All compulsory fees for the course are included, except those payable to student bodies.

Commonwealth Aboriginal Study Grants (Question No. SIS)

Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Educa-lion and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many persons of Aboriginal blood are on Commonwealth Aboriginal study grants to the value of S 1,200 per annum.
  2. Of all these how many are (a) at universities in each Stale Cb) at colleges of advanced education or institutes of technology in each State and (c) nf mature age doing matriculation and leaving or their equivalent in each Slate.
  3. What other courses come into the eligible field for such grunts.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer io the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. Complete information is available for 1969, the first year of the scheme’s operation. In that year, 114 students received assistance under the scheme. Not all students receive (be same benefits and I .shall give details in the latter part nf this answer.
  2. and <3) In addition to the courses listed by the honourable member in hi* question, the scheme also provides assistance to persons of Aboriginal descent lo take other tertiary and subtertiary course- at technical colleges, agricultural colleges and teachers’ colleges, and other courses which will give them a technical skill, for example, secretarial and typing courses. In 1969 the numbers taking the various courses were:

The benefits available under the Aboriginal Study Grant* Scheme are not fined at $1,200 per annum. For students in full-time courses each grant provides a living allowance of up to SI. 1 00 a year, reimbursement for the cost of textbooks and equipment up lo $100 a year, and payment of compulsory fees. Married scholars may also qualify for allowances of $7 a week for a dependent wife and $2.50 a week for each dependent child. Fulltime students who must live away from home in order to attend college may be paid the cost of the return journey from their home to the college up to three times a year. Study Grants for part-time and external students cover (a) the payment of compulsory fees, (b) an allowance of $100 a year towards the cost of textbooks, equipment and other expenses associated with the course, and (c) the cost of travel and accommodation associated with residential schools. In all cases there is provision for the payment of additional assistance is cases of hardship.

Arbitration: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Question No. 458) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

Did a dispute recently occur al Cockatoo Dock when the employer refused to grant aluminium welders the same rates as those prescribed by the Public Service Arbitrator’s determination for similar work at Garden Island and Williamstown.

ls il a fact that the employer forced the Boilermakers’ and Blacksmiths’ Society of Australia lo lake the dispute to Commissioner Winter for arbitration, but then objected to the Commissioner hearing the matter on the grounds that he had no jurisdiction to determine a dispute occurring withing the boundaries nf one State.

ls it a fan that, within a few hours of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction being challenged, the employees threatened to strike unless their claims were met in full and that, within 4 hours of such threat, the employer acceded to the Union’s claim.

ls ii in the public interest that Commissioners should be prohibited from arbitrating on disputes that do not extend beyond the boundaries of one Slate.

If not, will he give consideration to stating, a case to the High Court for a review of its earlier decisions on the Commission’s power to settle intrastate disputes, especially those that arise out of defects in, or omissions from, an award made in settlement of what was originally an interstate dispute.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Boilermakers’ and Blacksmiths’ Society notified the Commission under Section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of a dispute between it and Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co. Pty Ltd in which the society was claiming rates for aluminium welding as apply at the Garden Island Dockyard. During the hearing before Commissioner Winter, the representative of the Company opposed the union approach to having the claim determined by Section 28 notification. The company apparently believed that the claim was of such a nature that it should be the subject of an application to vary the award. The company indicated to the Commission that it would accept short notice of an application to vary the award. On this basis, the hearing of issues involved proceeded
  3. On 9th March, the Commissioner concluded that the application must fail in the form in which it was made. On the following day, a meeting took place between workers’ representatives and management at which management said that it had been established to the company’s satisfaction that there was no longer a connection as to wage rates with Garden Island and the company then agreed to pay the rates sought as an over-award payment from 6th February, 1970.
  4. In my view, the Commission is best placed to judge how particular disputes before it are dealt with. It is a matter of law that the Commission’s jurisdiction extends only to interstate industrial disputes.
  5. I would not propose to initiate action along the lines referred to by the honourable member.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: Rainmaking (Question No. 720)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he request the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Rainmaking Division to equip private airplanes in strategic centres with cloudseeding equipment to reduce costs of moving this equipment to drought centres when favourable conditions arise for seeding.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has, over a period of years, carried out research which has led to the development of cloudseeding techniques. Sufficient information had been accumulated in CSIRO and overseas by 1966 for the Commonwealth Government to suggest to the governments in each State that they make arrangements in their own States for cloudseeding operations to assist in drought and bushfire emergencies. This would ensure that the operations could be carried out with most effectiveness by utilising the local knowledge of State officers. An assurance was given that CSIRO, while continuing with its research programmes, would assist the States with advice and equipment and would provide training for cloudseeding operators. This advice and assistance has been given by CSIRO so that the States should be in a position to accept responsibility for operations in their own regions. Equipping of private aircraft with cloudseeding equipment should therefore be a matter for each State government to decide upon. If technical difficulties arise which State officers are unableto handle, CSIRO can be approached by the particular State government for assistance.

Employment Statistics (Question No. 782)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What has been the number of (a) registered unemployed and (b) registered vacancies in each State in each month since 1st July 1969, showing metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas separately.
  2. What have been the amounts of unemployment benefit payable in the same months showing metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas separately.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Details of the number of registered unemployed and registered vacancies in each State in each month since 1st July 1969 are shown in Table 1 below. The Table separates, as requested, the numbers in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.
  2. The Unemployment Benefit scheme is administered by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, who has provided the following information relating to benefits payable since 1st July 1969:

From 1st July to 20th September 1969, the unemployment benefit rates payable were -

Adult claimant - $8.25 per week

Dependent spouse -$6.00 per week

Each child (under 16) - $1.50 per week.

Since 20th September 1969 until the present, the rates have been -

Adult claimant - $10.00 per week

Dependent spouse - $7.00 per week

First child (under 16) - $2.50 per week

Each other child (under 16) - $3.50 per week.

These rates apply equally in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

Table 2 below provides details of the amounts of unemployment benefit paid in each month since the beginning of July 1969 in the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of each State.

Canberra College of Advanced Education: Fees (Question No. 823)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. 1) What wasthe average amount paid in fees by students at the Canberra College of Advanced Education in each year since the college was established.
  2. What was the (a) amount and (b) percentage of the college’s income received last year from (i) fees paid by the Commonwealth under the Advanced Education Scholarship scheme, (ii) fees paid by the Commonwealth in respect of studies by staff employed under the Public Service Act, (iii) other fees and (iv) Commonwealth grants.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1969 wasthe first year in which students were accepted by the College. No Union or Students Association fees were payable in that year.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Electrical Testing (Question No. 827)

Mr Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Are Australian manufacturers of high voltage, high current electrical equipment obliged to send their products overseas for testing, due to the lack of adequate testing equipment in Australia.
  2. If so, will he ask the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to investigate the establishment of a national electrical testing laboratory to test such equipment promptly and economically within Australia.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. At present, heavy current testing facilities in Australia are limited to low voltages. Local manufacturers of switchgear, isolators, fuses and surge diverters rated at voltages above 440 volts must therefore send their products overseas for type testing.
  2. The need for a national electrical testing laboratory to test heavy current equipment was recognised in 1 965, when a committee was set up under the auspices of the Electrical and Radio Development Association of N.S.W., to investigate the practicability of establishing such a laboratory in Australia. The chairman of the committee was the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Applied Physics. The committee recommended moving the electrical equipment testing facility of the Sydney County Council to another site in order to provide for present and future needs in this field. This recommendation was accepted and implemented, and the laboratory, now located at Lane Cove, New South Wales provides for practically all low voltage high current tests. Testing facilities for high voltage, high current electrical equipment, up to 22,000 volts and 13,000 amperes r.m s. will become available to manufacturers later this year. This is expected to meet most of the testing needs of local manufacturers for some time to come.

Education: Handicapped Children (Question No. 988)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What corrective and specialised education facilities are available in the Australian Capital Territory for children with specific learning handicaps.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

There are now 550 children enrolled in special classes or schools in Canberra.

Provision is made for deaf children at Ainslie and Mawson Primary Schools and at the Telopea Park High School. Specialised equipment and teaching aids have been provided in appropriately designed classrooms for deaf pupils. The classroom block attached to the Mawson Primary School is one of the most modern available in Australia. The importance of appropriate training and assistance for deaf children at an early age is recognised and two specially trained pre-school teachers work with’ deaf and hard of hearing children in Canberra. These teachers give assistance to both pupils and parents. Another preschool teacher is undertaking a special course in Sydney this year to prepare her as a teacher of deaf pre-school children. Physically handicapped children who require medical or para-medical treatment on a regular basis attend a school located at the Canberra Hospital. Those children who are hospitalised for lengthy periods are catered for, educationally, by a teacher who works in the wards.

Moderately mentally handicapped children receive their education at two special schools in Canberra. Koomarri School serves pupils from the north side of the City and the Malkara School those from southern suburbs. Pre-school education for the moderately mentally handicapped child is provided at Malkara while special extension facilities for 16-18 year olds is provided at Koomarri School.

Mildly mentally handicapped children are enrolled in special classes known as Opportunity A classes which are attached to Ainslie, Mawson, Turner and Narrabundah Primary Schools and Narrabundah High School.

Provision is made at A.C.T. high schools for general activity classes where slower learners undertake suitably orientated courses. There are 260 pupils in fourteen classes at nine A.C.T. high schools.

A group of aphasic children attend a special Opportunity L class at the Forrest Primary School.

For pupils who experience difficulty in reading, special groups are formed in schools and a remedial reading teacher provides concentrated tuition over a short period to assist in overcoming problems. Six special groups are formed each year.

Classes are operating at Narrabundah, Macquarie, Hackett and Yarralumla Primary Schools and at Canberra, Watson and Telopea Park High Schools for migrant pupils who are experiencing difficulty with English. Language laboratories installed at Lyneham and Telopea Park High Schools are proving useful aids in teaching English to some migrant pupils. Special attention is also being given to language problems at preschool level.

A new school and pre-school for physically handicapped, including totally blind pupils, will open during the 1972 school year and a special school for mildly handicapped pupils is at the early stages of planning.

Australian Armed Services: Comparison of Retirement Benefits (Question No. 61)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he prepare a further comparative statement on retirement benefits for members of the forces in Britain, the United States, Canada and New Zealand (Hansard, 29th May 1969, page 2576).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The following comparative statement is provided in answer to the honourable member’s question. For simplicity, the statement sets out the position of Army personnel only, as was the case in the previous statement (Hansard, page 1881, 21st May 1965). The conditions applying to personnel in other branches of the Armed Forces of the countries concerned are similar.

Papua and New Guinea: Female Administration Staff (Question No. 175)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

How many female (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are employed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as (i) typists and (ii) telephonists.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question as . published in Hansard included male as well as female indigenous telephonists. The answer should have read:

  1. female indigenous staff

    1. 97 typists plus 10 stenographers
    2. 17 telephonists

  2. female expatriate staff

    1. 323 typists plus 84 stenographers
    2. 49 telephonists.

There are also 168 female indigenes at present training as typists in the Training Technical Division.

Papua and New Guinea: Public Officers (Employment Security) Ordinance (Question No. 1062)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories upon, notice:

Why has the Public Officers (Employment Security) Ordinance, ordained by the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in October 1967 and assented to by the Governor-General in January 1968, not yet come into operation.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Drafting of the regulations under the Ordinance has not yet been completed.

Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia (Question No. 770)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia does not reveal to the general public or its own subscribers its Articles of Association.
  2. If so, will he obtain and table the Fund’s Articles of Association for the information of Members.
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Companies Act of New South Wales. That Act requires a copy of the Articles of Association to be filed with the Registrar of Companies in Sydney. The document may be perused at the Registrar’s Office or a copy of the document may be obtained upon the payment of the appropriate fees. The Articles of Association are thus readily available to anyone who wishes to see them and it is not considered appropriate that they be tabled in this House.

Papua and New Guinea: Disorders (Question No. 898)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Did reports over the weekend of 18th-<19tb. April of the sending by the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Administration of police reinforcements to quell fights at the copper mining project on Bougainville refer to happenings on and before 11th April involving some 22 men or to later happenings.
  2. What action is taken by (a) the Administration and (b) contracting companies regarding the screening of Australian workers entering the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Police reinforcements were flown into Kieta as a result of disorder at and adjacent to the Panguna canteen on Friday evening, 24th April 1970.
  2. (a) Permit issuing offices both in Australia and overseas are provided with the names of persons previously deported an dare requested to refer to the Administration any further applications received from such people.

The permit application form is being amended to provide for a statement to be made of any convictions, the penalty for which is a sentence of imprisonment for twelve months or more.

The penalty for making a false statement in connection with entry is a fine of four hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months.

  1. Contracting companies normally require references from previous employers and certificates of competency where applicable.

Conference on Cambodia (Question No. 961)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for External Affairs upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to Item (1) in the ‘Soviet News Bulletin’ dated 4th May 1970.
  2. If so. does this item consist of an attack on Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik for calling a regional conference on Cambodia.
  3. ls he able to say whether this attack is another example of a united front between the large powers and their satellites against the countries of South-East Asia.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. As 1 indicated lo the House on 7th May 1970 (Hansard page 1777), I have read the item in the document referred to.
  2. and (3) The item clearly reveals a lack of sympathy with the objectives of the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Adam Malik, in taking the initiative to call the regional conference on Cambodia which look place in Djakarta recently, lt also indicates a lack of understanding of the purpose of (he Conference and the intentions of those participating in it. These were to make a constructive effort towards achieving peace in Cambodia and protecting its independence and neutrality. I hope that the attack contained in the article does not represent the development of a united front between the Soviet Union. Communist China and North Viet-Nam against the countries of South-East Asia. 1 suggest that it would be in the interests of the Soviet Union also to make a constructive effort towards a solution to the problems of the area in the same spirit as thai adopted by those vthc met at Djakarta.

Meat Exports (Question No. 1 646)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: (0 On how many occasions and for nhat reason have Australian exports of meat products to the United Slates of America been slopped or restricted during the past 5 years.

  1. What was the estimated cost lo Australia of these restrictions.
  2. Have any United States exports of primary products suffered similar temporary lass of access to the Australian market in the same period.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. The present restriction on the importation of Australian mutton into the United Slates is the first general restriction imposed because of standards of slaughtering and* inspection. The United Slates authorities over the past 5 years have, however, requested that a number of individual meatworks be removed from the list of establishments approved for the purpose of supplying meat lo the United States of America, because the meatworks in question were considered not to comply in all respects with the United States requirements. In most cases, requests for re-registration have ultimately been- granted following action taken to meet the particular circumstances which teo* lo deregistration, lt is a requirement of legislation administered by the United Slates Department of Agriculture that foreign establishments supplying meat shipped to the United States ot America be registered with that Department. A prerequisite of registration is that the establishment meets standards prescribed by the United States of America. Restriction- for reasons other than non-compliance wilh U.S.D.A. inspection standards have arisen because of the operation of the United States legislation, under which imports of fresh chilled or frozen beef, veal, mutton and’ goat meat may be subject to quotas in any calendar year should the United States Secretary of Agriculture estimate that imports of these meats, during a calendar year, exceed by 10% or more a ‘permitted let el’ which is calculated by a formula in the legislation. When it was considered that there was a danger of quotas being triggered1 in 1968 and 1969 all major suppliers, including Australia, agreed to limit shipments. Voluntary restraints were agreed to by those suppliers and these were «et at a level above those that would have been set had quotas been introduced but below the level which would have triggered quotas. In order to avoid exceeding the restraint level shipments for 1968 arrival were suspended between late September ami midNovember 1968. In 1969 limitations were placed on the amount each individual exporter could ship to the United Stales between August and midNovember 1969 for the same reason.

    1. lt would be impossible to determine whether any cost was incurred as a result of voluntary restrictions’ on exports of Australian beef and veal to the United States in late 1968 and 1969.
    2. No.

I titer national Affairs: United Nations (Question Na. 1122)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Have the German Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic applied for membership of (he United Nations and in ils special organisations.
  2. Has Australia supported these applications; if nol, why not.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The Federal Republic of Germany has not applied for membership of the United Nations, lt is, however, a member of all thirteen United Nations Specialised Agencies and of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The East German authorities applied for membership of the United Nations in i960, but the application was not formally considered. They hare also applied, unsuccessfully, for membership of several United Nations Specialised Agencies.
  2. Australia has supported past applications by the Federal Republic of Germany for membership of United Nations Specialised Agencies. Australia docs not recognise the F.as» German regime, and thus has not supported applications by it for membership of the United Nations and its Specialised Agencies.

Papua and New Guinea: Female Administration Staff (Question No. 578)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

How many of the female (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates employed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as (i) typists and (ii) telephonists are married (Hansard, 18th March, 1970, page 616).

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question as given in Hansard of 14th April, 1970, page 1113 included male as well as female indigenous married telephonists. The answer should have read:

  1. Married female indigenous staff

    1. 13 typists plus 1 stenographer
    2. 3 telephonists
  2. Married female expatriate staff

  3. 218 typists plus 36 stenographers

    1. 26 telephonists.

Papua and New Guinea: Married Female Employees (Question No. 1035)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories, upon notice:

Is he able to say how many of the married female (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates employed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as (i) typists and (ii) telephonists (Hansard, 18 March 1970, page 616, and 14 April 1970, page 1113) are married to employees of Commonwealth and Territory departments and authorities.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Female indigenous staff

    1. 6 typists
    2. 3 telephonists

  2. Female expatriate staff

    1. 115 typists plus 22 stenographers
    2. 9 telephonists

Papua and New Guinea: Shipping Statistics (Question No. 997)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What ships are trading between ports in Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. In which country were the ships built.
  3. Who are the (a) owners, (b) charterers and (c) Australian agents of the ships.
  4. In which country are the ships registered.
  5. What is their tonnage.
  6. What is the nationality of the crews.
  7. What conditions apply to the crews and what wages are paid.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 June 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700605_reps_27_hor68/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant