House of Representatives
12 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 3461

PETITIONS

Social Services

Mr JACOBI presented from certain electors of the Division of Hawker 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 mule 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 the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr KEATING 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 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 the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pension may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr LES JOHNSON 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 Common wealth Statistician and published quarterly.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr LUCHETTI presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that, due to higher living costs, persons on social service pensions arc 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 the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr REYNOLDS 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 the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received.

Education

Mr MORRISON presented from certain citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing that the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian education system; a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all; more than 500,000 children suffer from serious lack of equal opportunity; Australia cannot afford to waste the talents of one sixth of its school children; only the Commonwealth has the financial resources for special programmes to remove inadequacies; and nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have shown that the chief impetus for change and the finance for improvement come from the National Government.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will make legal provisions for a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities; the immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aboriginals, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children; and the provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Petition received and read.

page 3462

QUESTION

PERU

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that, among many persons in LiberalCountry Party governments in Australia, the Treasurer of Queensland, Mr Chalk, with his family, is showing a profit on new shareholding in Comalco, which shares were traded on the official market yesterday, of nearly one half of the amount that this country is giving the victims of the earthquake disaster in Peru? In view of this and of the more recent information concerning the extent of the disaster in Peru will he give this House the assurance that a more reasonable gift than $15,000 will be made to the Government and people of Peru?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have, of course, no responsibility whatsoever for the actions of other governments in other parts of Australia. If, after consideration, the Government believes that further assistance should be given to Peru, it will announce this, but it will not make that decision on the basis of profits made by individuals in Australia.

page 3462

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for National Development will recall a question being asked in this House recently regarding a paper which was to be presented to the Management Symposium on Ecology, Technology and Resources by some officers of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Has this paper yet been presented?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This matter certainly was raised in the House a couple of weeks ago. It refers to a paper on the ecological factors related to the siting, design and operation of a nuclear power station in Australia. At that time I pointed out to the

House that some officers of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission - Messrs Davy, Giles and Charash - bad been asked to prepare and deliver this paper at the symposium. Due to a number of factors associated mainly with the preparation of the paper it was not available for delivery at the symposium, but it was indicated that when the paper was completed it would be submitted to the directors of the symposium so that it could be incorporated in the proceedings. Thai paper, which is a private one. has now been finalised and has been sent to the directors of the symposium. They have, very kindly, sent a few copies to me. If the honourable member is interested I certainly can supply him with a copy. As it is a private document it cannot, of course, bc tabled in the House, but I can make copies available. I think that the honourable member for Lang was interested in this matter, and I will forward a copy to him. If the Leader of the Opposition is interested 1 will certainly see that a copy is sent to him. There are a few spare copies that I will make available to any member of the Press Gallery who is interested in seeing what is a personal and private paper concerning a very important subject.

page 3463

QUESTION

COUNTRY AIR SERVICES

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– [ ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation: When is a decision likely to be made on the Government’s proposed plan to introduce pure jet air services to some country centres? Will the Minister say when a firm decision will be made as to which country airports are to be upgraded to take the pure jet aircraft? Finally, will the Department of Civil Aviation pay the cost of the essential work needed for the new services in view of the heavy burden of costs being borne by local government authorities?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– There has been progressively over the last few years an increase in jet services not only on the major trunk routes but to major country centres. It is expected, of course, that this increase in jet services will continue to expand in the future. There are certain standard types of jets operating on the major trunk routes in “Australia at the moment, for example, the Boeing 727 which is a main trunk route aircraft and the Douglas DC9 which can operate from certain strips such as Canberra and some other strips in country areas.

There has been introduced into Western Australia an intermediate type jet - the Fokker, F28 - which can operate from smaller strips than those required for the DC9. At the moment, 1 know, the airlines are considering replacements for certain of their intermediate type of aircraft and I. would not doubt that at some point of time in the future there will be additional intermediate sized jet aircraft operating. This brings up the whole question of the services to country areas. I know my colleague in another place, the Minister for Civil Aviation, is carefully studying this matter, lt raises many questions in relation to the upgrading of airports because many airports in Australia are under the local ownership scheme whereby there is a sharing of the capital cost and maintenance in relation to the upgrading of airports. But I will certainly bring the question to the notice of my colleague in another place and see whether any further information can bc provided.

page 3463

QUESTION

ARMY

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army. Has the Minister seen reports of a speech made yesterday by the honourable member for Sturt in which he stated that a so’dier sent to Vietnam who was killed in a mine accident last Saturday could not see more than 4 feet in front of him? Could the Minister confirm whether this allegation is correct?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 have in fact had an opportunity to see the Press reports of the speech made by the honourable member for Sturt. I have not yet been able to examine the Hansard report. But if the reports contained in the newspapers are correct 1 would Like to say that the allegations made are themselves incorrect.

It is a matter for regret that we have to discuss at this juncture these allegations when the soldier was killed last Saturday and funeral arrangements have not been finalised. But in fairness to the Army it should be pointed out that not only was this soldier medically examined by the Department of Labour and National Service, then by the Army when he marched in and then subsequent to his basic recruit training, but also as a consequence of receiving representations by the honourable member for Sturt I specifically requested a further report on this soldier and he was examined in February of this year. For the fourth time, he was found to be medically fit for service everywhere.

I have to point out in view of the allegation - and it is understandable if a family is concerned about a national serviceman who is wearing glasses - that this person could not see more than 4 feet in front of him-

Opposition members - Without his glasses.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Without his glasses. I would not leave that out deliberately.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Let me finish the answer because it is of the utmost importance. 1 do not want any unwarranted emotion introduced by honourable members opposite. The Army’s minimum standard of acceptable unaided vision is that which would enable a soldier without spectacles to distinguish a stationary object such as a man at approximately 125 metres. With movement, this distance would be greater.

The Assistant Director of Medical Services in Eastern Command advised me at the time I received the representations that this man was medically fit. He had been asked specifically to look at this matter in relation to the question of spectacles and in relation to the man’s vision without spectacles. Taking into account the 3 earlier examinations that had been made, I had to reach the decision that on 4 occasions the man had been found to be medically fit. On the basic requirement that I have just enunciated, I had no option but to see that he went with his unit to Vietnam. It is a matter for regret that his father believes that the boy could not see more than 4 feet in front of him without spectacles. But it is quite clear-

Mr Griffiths:

– I have some matters - -

Mr PEACOCK:

– Well, I know that the honourable member has matters on this point We have discussed them and the honourable member knows as well as I do that I am concerned not only about this soldier but also about general policy in regard to servicemen who wear spectacles. But I am discussing only this incident at this time. It was stated also by the honourable member for Sturt that the spectacles required by this man were available in only 1 capital city. Again, prior to making my decision, I questioned whether this was so. I was advised that it was not so and that they were available in South Vietnam and throughout Australia. We did, of course, supply the soldier with 2 pairs of spectacles at the time. I have nothing further to add because I have not read all of the allegations made by the honourable member for Sturt, but I shall do so. Little opportunity has been available, because of the sittings of the Parliament, to examine the Hansard report but the specific allegation, which received some publicity, about the distance which this soldier could see was something that I believed should be clarified and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify it.

page 3464

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE STAFF

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– Before I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National . Service may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the clemency and understanding that you showed in a very difficult situation yesterday. It was a good deed in a naughty world. I hope that no further incidents of that nature occur. I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is he aware of the rising resentment amongst the staff of Parliament House at all levels at the callous disregard of their personal welfare shown by his handling of the hours of meeting? Is he aware that many of the staff in the refreshment rooms have reached a stage of absolute exhaustion and that demands are being imposed on all staff in Parliament House which would not be tolerated in any industrial establishment? Would the Minister agree that the Parliament is served by a staff unsurpassed for devotion to duty and unfailing courtesy to all concerned? Is he aware that he has damaged the morale of the people upon whom Parliament depends for its effective functioning, and that industrial action could be taken to right their grievances? How does he equate bis disregard for the employees of this institution with his duty as Minister for Labour and National Service, to see that other employers abide by the spirit of modern industrial practice? Before the Parliament resumes for the next period of sitting, will he confer with representatives of the staff at all levels, high and low, as well as the Joint House Department and the Joint House Committee and adopt working hours showing some common sense instead of the staggering incompetence which has been demonstrated over the past few weeks?

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

– The honourable gentleman is a great evangelist on parliamentary matters-

Mr Bryant:

– 1 am just talking about working people. They often wear spectacles.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wills has asked his question and will cease interjecting.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Wills is a man whom we all like but unfortunately in this House he does not always reflect the views of all honourable members. There is undeniably an overwhelming feeling in this House thai everybody wants to go home. That is the way everybody speaks to me in the corridors, in the House and everywhere else. If anybody is prepared to deny that the overwhelming majority wants this Parliament to cease he is free to say so. His view will be judged by all other honourable members here who, like me, are subject to the same feelings and the same experiences, having talked to their colleagues. So far as the staff is concerned I moved a motion the other day in relation to standing order 103. I said then that I had been asked by staff of all kinds serving this institution when we would be getting up. The Opposition said: How extraordinary. Here is the Leader of the House saying he is concerned about the staff. The members of the staff are not the people to be concerned about. The people to be concerned about are the members of the Parliament.’ Today the honourable member says the only group we are to be concerned about is the staff.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this Parliament is most fortunate in the quality of the staffs and their devotion to their jobs. There is no doubt about that at all. However I must add that this Parliament exists under the Constitution and in the parliamentary system to conduct the business of Parliament and government. If the House decide? to sit, it is a matter of enough staff being available to serve. It is true that there are occasions when much greater pressures arc put on the staff and on those occasions they respond magnificently. I take this opportunity to express to the staff my great appreciation for this as 1 have no doubt you, Mr Speaker, do.

page 3465

QUESTION

RURAL CHEMICALS

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. In view of the big variation in the retail price of rural chemicals which play such an important part in the costs of the primary producer, can the Minister advise the House how prices of such chemicals have moved in recent years? If substantial increases have occurred will he examine ways and means of reducing the impact of this cost burden on primary producers?

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

– It is a fact that both in ordinary agricultural farming and in livestock husbandry the use of chemical formulations is increasingly important. I am sure that those of us who engage in farming would not know how we could carry on these days without the aid of these chemical formulations. As the farmers express a continuing concern at the price of the formulations I have made it my business to keep a close watch on price movements. Between 1965 and 1969 I had a list compiled and continuously updated of the price move ments of the 74 listed chemical formulations used in rural activities. Over that period 60 of the 74 items have been reduced in price. There has been no price alteration in respect of 6 of the items, and only 8 items have been increased in price. As thi:, is a matter of great concern to agriculturalists, with the approval of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a document setting out the chemicals, their prices, and the alterations.

The following table shows the price movement in recent ye;irs of chemical formulations in common use by rural producers. Earlier tables showed the situation before and after adoption by the Government of the Tariff Board’s 1966 report on Industrial Chemicals.

A total of 74 formulations is listed in the following table. The following price changes have occurred since 1963:

For 60. prices have been reduced.

For 6, no price alteration has occurred.

For 8, prices have risen.

page 3467

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question. The honourable gentleman must have envied the capacity of his predecessors when the House was not sitting to produce, within 12 hours, an estimate of the cost ot my Party’s housing proposals whereas he has found it difficult to produce an estimate of the cost of certain proposals within 12 weeks of their being placed on the notice paper. I ask him whether he can give an estimate of the cost of this week’s proposal by the Federal Council of his Party for the interest on housing mortgages to be allowed as a deduction from taxable income. If he has not yet calculated the cost of the proposal, when does he expect to complete the calculation?

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

– Unless the honourable member has placed his question on the notice paper ] am not necessarily engaged now in any such calculation. I am quite sure that whatever his Party’s housing policy is, he is so extravagant in all the promises he makes - this is one of his political characteristics - that its cost would be of a very high order. If the Leader of the Opposition will give me some order of priority for answers to the many questions he has placed on the notice paper-

Mr Whitlam:

– I have the answer, after 12 weeks.

Mr BURY:

– If the honourable member has the answer then I take it he is now content about that matter. He is inviting me to make all kinds of other estimates. The fact is that the official machine for which 1 am now responsible has a great task to do. lt generally is very overloaded and all these matters take a great deal of time and absorb a lot of energy. Naturally priorities have to be given. It would be nice to do an infinite number of things. I gather that the honourable member is quite happy and satisfied and I will leave him in that condition as often as I can.

page 3468

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: When does the Government intend to introduce legislation providing for the issue of convertible notes which arc not taxable?

Mr BURY:
LP

– Wc had every intention of introducing this legislation before the close of this session. Unfortunatel it has noi proved possible physically for the draftsman lo complete his task in the time. Therefore it is our intention to introduce this legislation as soon as possible in the Budget Session.

page 3468

QUESTION

GOLD

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question also te. addressed to the Treasurer. Have officers of his Department recently conducted a survey or inquiry into the problems and economics of the gold mining industry? If so, is he now able to tell the House whether it is intended to re-enact the general provisions of the Gold Mining Assistance Act which expires at the end of this month? Can he tell the House also whether there is any intention of, or whether consideration is being given to, substantially increasing the amount of assistance now provided under the Act?

Mr BURY:
LP

– 1 only recently received a very exhaustive report on the subject. I am studying it and as soon as a decision has been made I will announce it.

page 3468

QUESTION

COCKBURN SOUND NAVAL BASE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Does the Minister for the Navy know whether the interdepartmental study on Australian dockyard facilities has been completed? If it has been completed, is the Minister now in a position to make a comprehensive statement about the development of naval facilities at Cockburn Sound?

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

– The answer is no. The report of the interdepartmental dockyard docking facility committee is expected at about the end of this month, lt was my hope - I think the hope was shared by my colleague, the Minister for Defence - that the report would have been available at the end of May but, alas, our hopes did not materialise. I am optimistic that it will be available at the end of June. Of course, when it is available the action that may be appropriate to the circumstances will be taken.

page 3468

QUESTION

EDUCATION: STATE AID

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. Has his attention been directed to an article in the 3rd June issue of the Brisbane ‘Courier Mail’ which stated that the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane would have to raise a large sum of money, namely SI. 5m of an eventual $5m, which it states will be necessary to prevent the collapse of its school system? In view of the Government’s support of the dual system of education and the strain that would be placed on government schools and teaching staff if the independent school system was to fail, will the Minister examine the position of both independent and government schools with the object of increasing Commonwealth assistance in areas of greatest need in our education system?

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

-I did see the report, and I would point out to the honourable member that the Australian Education Council has been conducting a survey of needs in secondary and primary education in Australia. This survey, which was originated by State Liberal governments with Commonwealth co-operation, included also a survey of the needs of independent schools. Members know it is the policy of Liberal governments that all Australians are entitled to a proper standard of education. The results of that survey were before a meeting of the Australian Education Council last Monday fortnight. The figures in regard to independent schools are not complete because the schools are not centralised in their administration in the same way as are State schools. The figures in relation to State schools are under consideration. I assure the honourable member that the Government will be considering the needs of them and of independent schools in the light of its usual policy.

page 3469

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation. I refer to the irresponsible statement he made at Maryborough when he opened the Queensland Returned Services League conference in which he referred to large numbers of Australians wanting to see Australia under Communism and Australia to be defeated by the Communists in Vietnam. Did the Minister say privately that the Australian Labor Party also had this view about wanting a Communist victory in Vietnam?

Government supporters - Well, don’t you?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable members opposite are more irresponsible than is the Minister. As this kind of irresponsibility is to be deplored by every decent Australian and as this is a most serious allegation, will he tell the House now who are these people who want to see Australia defeated by the Communists and who want to see Australia under Communist rule? In other words will he put up or shut up?

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– I stand by every word 1 said in the speech I made at the opening of the Queensland RSL conference at Maryborough on Monday. Whilst the honourable member for Dawson may be understandably upset by what I said and may think that my speech was irresponsible, from the comments I heard after I made this speech it appeared that the Queensland State conference of the RSL did not think my comments were irresponsible.

page 3469

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Education and Science aware that the University of Melbourne is closing down its external studies programme and that the Monash University Professorial Board is reported to be reluctant to establish external studies despite a statement by the Victorian Minister for Education that the Victorian Government will make a grant of $100,000 to the Monash University for the programme to be commenced? In view of the obvious need for such facilities for teachers and others who cannot physically attend a university, is there any action which his Department can take to see that external studies are made available for those desirous of furthering their education at tertiary level?

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

– There are certain universities which conduct substantial external courses, in particular the New England, Macquarie and Queensland universities. In Victoria the University of Melbourne has been reducing this activity. There is a distinct need for certain people to be able to undertake external studies. Seeing this need, the Australian Universities Commission recommended doubling the allowance which was made for this in dealing with the requirements of universities in its last report in order to encourage universities, and particularly universities in Victoria, to undertake further external studies courses. The recommendation was accepted. The response has been disappointing. 1 myself have had some discussion with the vice chancellor of Monash University. The most that that university is prepared to offer is external studies courses in education for graduates. This of course did not touch the need with which the Universities Commission was concerned. Further efforts have been made to encourage universities to provide external studies courses for undergraduates but so far without success. It is not only the State Government but also the Commonwealth which would like to see these courses introduced. If further funds for particular courses were required a proposition could be put if finance were a difficulty. But as I understand it, it is not the difficulty, and certainly no proposition has been put forward. The problem appears to be that some universities are reluctant to undertake this type of activity.

page 3470

QUESTION

CLOTHING INDUSTRY

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– 1 refer the Minister for Labour and National Service to a reported joint study by the Australian Clothing Manufacturers Council and his Department of proposals for Commonwealth incentives to attract more married women into the clothing industry. Will he ask the Department to consider the costs of any such proposal against a scheme to decentralise clothing manufacturing in provincial and country areas, where there is an available source of unmarried female labour at present seeking employment and costing the Commonwealth unemployment benefits and other administrative costs?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– -I am not sure that 1 heard the commencement of the question.

Mr Hansen:

– I understand that a study is being undertaken by the Department of Labour and National Service and the Australian Clothing Manufacturers Council.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I know of no such study. 1 did see some reports of remarks made by a spokesman on behalf of the Australian Clothing Manufacturers Council but there is no study that I know of by the Department and that Council. What that Council is doing is inquiring into ways of attracting more women into the work force. My own Department does not have a study for the purpose of attracting women into the work force, lt realises the reality of the situation which is that for social reasons and because of community attitudes more women are going into the work force.

Mr Hansen:

– Married women.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– There has been quite a remarkable growth in the number of women in the work force. In the 1960s that number grew from about 27% to about 33%. The number of married women in the work force doubled from 9% to 18%. My attitude and that of the Department through me is not to attract women into the work force but to recognise that women are going into the work force. Therefore we have to deal with the problems for them and for the community which are created by their entry into the work force. I wanted to make that clear. I dd not want the statement to go unanswered by me as though I acquiesced in it. I have made clear my own point of view. Women in rural areas constitute a very real problem in relation to decentralisation. They constitute a very real problem in leaving their homes in rural areas and going to the cit:es. For those who remain there is the real problem of finding employment. We are constantly looking at this matter, but I cannot promise any easy solution.

page 3470

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY STAFF SALARIES

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question refers to the recent statement on university salaries by the Minister for Education and Science. I refer to the one major recommendation of Mr Justice Eggleston’s report which I believe is educationally unfortunate, namely, the award of a lesser percentage increase at the bottom of the lecturing scale than at the higher levels. Will the Minister give active consideration to redressing this differential treatment in a field of employment where the problem of attracting first class teachers or lecturers is more serious than that of holding established professors and where responsibility of work load and accountability for decisions taken are probably more equally shared than in any other field, including parliamentary office?

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

-I point out to the honourable member that the report was obtained from Mr Justice Eggleston and his assessors at the request of State governments, which have a very large financial stake in the question of salaries for professors and lecturers. The report did draw a distinction between lecturers and those above that position and awarded an increase of a lower percentage to lecturers. I understand that this was in accordance with the representations made to the Eggleston Committee by both the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations and the ViceChancellors’ Committee. This differential was inherent in their representations although not the precise percentages which were adopted.

In these circumstances I do not think that the Commonwealth Government should actively intervene to alter this position at this stage but should, as it has done, stand by the report. However, I would add that some State governments are considering the establishment of a committee to consider on a work value basis the various academic positions. This will take a longer time. It is quite probable that the committee will be appointed. If so, it could undertake to look at that matter.

page 3471

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science a question supplementary to that asked him by the honourable member for Maranoa. The honourable gentleman will recall telling me on 2nd June that the printed report of the survey of education needs in government schools would be available generally in about a month from the date of the meeting of the Education Council, which was on 25th May. I ask: When will the survey of education needs in non-government schools be completed and similarly made available?

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

-I should remind the Leader of the Opposition that this survey is obtained by the Australian Education Council which consists of the State Ministers for Education. I am not strictly a member of that Council although I do attend by invitation part of its proceedings. Therefore it does not rest with me to say what will be published and when it will be published. Having said that, I do confirm that so far as the report dealing with government schools is concerned it was the hope expressed by the State Ministers for Education who constitute the Council that they would be able to print and release the report in about a month. If they make any change in that it would be not a matter over which I had any control. As to the independent schools, although some figures which are quite accurate in certain States were available there are other areas where the figures are still being gathered. It is very difficult to say when the final figures for those States will be available and therefore even more difficult to say when the report could be made available or whether the State Ministers for Education would see fit to publish it when they received it.

page 3471

QUESTION

WOOL: JOINT ORGANISATION

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the publication ‘History of J.G.’ written by Sir Edwin McCarthy, financed by the Australian Wool Realisation Commission, and published in 1967. I ask: How many of the available 2,000 copies have been disposed of by the Australian Wool Board and how many were distributed during the last 12 months? Will the Minister ensure that the remaining copies now held by the Board are released for distribution without delay?

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

– The Australian Wool Board commissioned the publication of this document on the Joint Organisation and as the honourable member said 2,000 copies were printed. I believe that about 700 have been distributed but I have no idea of the number distributed in the last 12 months. Anybody who wants a copy of the publication can write to the Board. It is available for purchase at $2.50. Whether this booklet should be distributed more widely is, I think, a matter for the Board to determine. People who are interested ought to get is touch with the Board.

page 3471

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY MEMBER

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Gorton:

– To make a statement on what?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has asked for leave to make a statement. I ask the Leader of the House: Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– I understood that the honourable member was going to make a personal explanation. Is that the honourable member’s intention?

Mr Grassby:

– It deals with the matter I raised with the Leader of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! ls leave granted?

Mr Grassby:

– Under Standing Order 64 I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Gorton:

– Yes - if it has been arranged with the Leader of the House.

Mr Grassby:

– I am seeking leave now. 1 seek leave, Mr Speaker, to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister has intimated that the honourable member may have leave.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I express my appreciation to the Prime Minister. Recently, at the request of the shire of Wade which has its headquarters in the town of Griffith where I reside, I circulated a submission to all members of the Ministry and all members of the House of Representatives. The submission by the shires of Carrathool, Leeton, Murrumbidgee and Narrandera as well as Wade dealt with the desired establishment of a university in the Riverina. I have had replies from most members of the Ministry, and many members of the Parliament, some helpful, some neutral, some critical but all much appreciated. I have forwarded them all to the shire. On Wednesday I received a copy of a letter dated 5th June addressed by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) to the Wade Shire Council and to 4 other shires in my electorate. The Minister for Repatriation did not reply to my letter or to my representations as did other Ministers and members. Instead he wrote directly, and behind my back, to 5 local government authorities in my electorate. In the first paragraph of that letter the Minister wrote:

I decided lo send a reply to each shire individually and send a copy of this letter to Mr Grassby. I decided to write to your shire direct because, quite frankly, I could not rely on Mr Grassby to pass my comments on to you with accuracy.

Mr Speaker, have consulted with veteran parliamentarians and legal authorities and they agree that the Minister’s statement is a gross breach of parliamentary ethics and ministerial responsibility and is also a most serious reflection on my personal integrity. I want to say, by way of explanation, that J have never at any time in any place had any personal discussion on dealings with the Minister which could possibly excuse or justify his unethical action. The Minister has never at any time challenged me or queried me in any way in the course of either my parliamentary duties or my personal conduct and I submit that the Minister has been guilty of a serious libel.

I further submit that he has been guilty of conduct which prejudices the relationships which in a democratic Parliament such as ours must prevail between a member and a Minister. He has, in this instance, broken an important parliamentary tradition - the right of a member to seek and receive from a Minister information on and replies to matters raised on behalf of his constituents. Without excuse he has broken this tradition and made serious, if entirely fictitious, imputations against my personal integrity. I have mentioned to the Minister that I would deal with his conduct in the House. I hope that he will reconsider his unethical lapse and withdraw and apologise. If he acted in an unthinking way, it is forgivable; if he acted under the strain, in his first portfolio, of grappling with the problems of repatriation as a junior Minister, this is understandable. But it would be a challenge to all that is sound and good in our parliamentary tradition of ministerial responsibility to members if he persisted in his gross breach of parliamentary ethics.

The Minister has failed in this instance, I suggest, to distinguish between his role as a member of a political party and his duties as a Minister of State. This was not a political matter - not a contentious matter - merely the submission by 5 local government bodies for a university. I conclude by saying that I have never at any time in my public career, either in the Parliament of New South Wales or in private bodies or in the national Parliament - had a slur cast on my personal integrity. I submit that if the Minister is honourable, as a member of an honourable House he should accord honour to those who serve in it.

Mr Holten:

– Mr Speaker, I should like to reply to the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! ls the Minister seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr Holten:

– Yes, a very short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Riverina did not pay me the courtesy of telling me that he was going to make his statement this morning.

Mr Jacobi:

– Why should he? You had not the courtesy to tell him what you were doing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Seeing that courtesy is under discussion I suggest that the same courtesy be shown to the Minister as was shown by honourable members on my right when the honourable member for Riverina was making his statement.

Mr HOLTEN:

– As 1 said, he did not have the courtesy to tell me he was going to make or try to make this statement this morning. Therefore, I do not have at my hand various pieces of factual information and also statements that have been made by the honourable member for Riverina who has been misleading the public ever since he has been in this House. 1 do not have right here the factual documents and written statements in relation to the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I want to say that the Minister has leave to make a statement - it is not a personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, leave will be given to the Minister to make a statement on this matter after he has collected his documentation at any later time today.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is a matter for the Minister to decide. Leave has been granted at this stage for the Minister for Repatriation to make a statement.

Mr HOLTEN:

– The relevant sentence regarding accuracy that the honourable member from Riverina read from the letter was written by me in a considered manner and taking into account the statements on many subjects that the honourable member for Riverina has made since he has been in this House-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If honourable members continue to interject I will have to take some action.

Mr HOLTEN:

– lt has been my considered judgment, after listening to some of the honourable member’s speeches and reading quite a few of them, that he either intentionally or unintentionally has misled the people of Riverina and the people of Australia from time to time and this has been for political purposes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that even in the course of a statement the Minister shall not reflect upon the conduct or character of an honourable member.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Well, Mr Speaker, members of the Opposition are interjecting continually in a very offensive manner. There are so many comments being made that I perhaps ought to have the chance to answer them. But, I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage when so much business remains to be transacted. The honourable member for Riverina, Mr Speaker, has left it to the very last day to raise this matter although this letter was written some time ago. Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that 1 affirm my comment in the letter that in my judgment, from the actions of the honourable member for Riverina since he has been in this House, his credibility is definitely at question-

Mr Sherry:

– Mr Speaker, I think a moment ago you did suggest to the Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member wish to take a point of order?

Mr Sherry:

– My point of order is this: The Minister said that the credibility of the honourable member for Riverina is in question. The credibility of the honourable member for Riverina is not in question. T. therefore move: That the Minister is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest to the .Ii n is.1 hat his statement is not in accordance with parliamentary practice.

Mr HOLTEN:

– I was going to qualify my statement when I was interrupted by overwhelming interjections-

Dr Patterson:

– I lake a point of ord-‘r. Mr Speaker, you have given a ruling on 2 occasions this morning about this matter. I ask that the Minister withdraw the statement he made about the credibility of the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 ask the Minister to withdraw the reflection on the credibility of the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Well, Mr Speaker, in view of the whole circumstances of the House and in view of your request, I with’ draw the remark.

Mr Cope:

– That is a qualified withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr HOLTEN:

– I conclude by saying - 1 will not reflect on the credibility of the honourable member for Riverina again because when I did, Mr Speaker, you asked me to withdraw the remark and I did. It may be that the explanation for many of the comments that the honourable member for Riverina has made both inside and outside the House is that he does not have the intelligence to be able to assemble the facts.

Mr Grassby:

– I submit that on 1 point I have been further-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! What is the honourable member for Riverina rising foi?

Mr Grassby:

– 1 would suggest-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. This morning, several honourable members have risen and started off in verse without asking for leave or telling the Chair why they were standing. The correct procedure is to address the Chair and say what they want to do and the Chair will consider it then. I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr Grassby:

– Mr Speaker, during the course of his remarks, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) said that I had not told him that I would raise this matter today. He also said that this matter had come up some time ago

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not debate the matter.

Mr Grassby:

– I am not debating it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he comes to his point of order.

Mr Grassby:

– I have been misrepresented in this way: I received the letter on Wednesday. 1 mentioned to the Minister that I would raise it here. 1 have done so at the earliest opportunity. That is the point that I particularly went to make.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– I wish to ask, Sir, whether you, being in control of this House, are in a position to rule whether it is in order for Ministers to convey answers to personal questions? The first matter raised by the Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. I have no authority over the nature of any reply by a Minister.

page 3474

SERVICES CANTEENS TRUST FUND

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947-1950, I present the Twenty second annual report of the Trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund for the year ended 31st December 1969, together with the report of the Auditor-General on the books and accounts of the Fund as required by section 35 of the Act.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3474

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947- 1966, I present the Twenty second annual report of the Australian Egg Board on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1969, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements. The interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 28th August 1969.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3474

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960-1967, I present the Ninth annual report of the Council of the National Library of Australia for the year ended 30th June 1969, together with the financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements. An interim report was presented to the House on 9th September 1969.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3475

RETIREMENT OF MR J. E. MEREDITH

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would like to inform the House that during the forthcoming recess the Parliament will lose, by retirement, the services of Mr J. E. Meredith, the officer of the Joint House Department who holds the position of Chief Engineer. Mr Meredith came to the Parliament in 1952, so that for the past 18 years he has had responsibility for the efficient functioning of the great variety of electrical and mechanical services with which this build m is equipped. Those of you who have seen the plant rooms, boilers and service areas will not need to be reminded of the surprising amount of engineering equipment in the building. The responsibility for keeping this equipment in first class order, and for maintaining a high standard of mechanical, electrical and building services has been one which Mr Meredith has carried with efficiency and with distinction

Mr Meredith is a highly competent person in his profession and he combines this wilh a most friendly and obliging manner. Before entering the parliamentary service, Mr Meredith had some J 2 years service with the Department of Works in Victoria, so that altogether he has served the Commonwealth for just over 30 years. I am sure the House would wish me to convey to Mr Meredith its appreciation of the excellent service he has rendered to the Parliament, and its wish that he and his wife should enjoy a long and happy retirement.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– by leave - As the one member on this side of the Parliament who probably has known Mr Meredith the longest, I w sh to endorse on behalf of the Opposition the sentiments that you have expressed. Mr Speaker, in regard to his services. Those in the Parliament who have known him have known him, as you have said, not only as an efficient and very courteous man but also as a very helpful man. His retirement is an occasion for regret but, at the same time, we wish him well in his years of retirement after the splendid service that he has rendered to this Parliament, to those in it and to those who have been associated with him in the important task that he had to perform. On behalf of the Opposition - T am sure that I speak on behalf of not only ail honourable members on this side of the House but also all honourable members on the Government side of the House - 1 endorse your sentiments and I wish Mr Meredith well.

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

– by leave - The Government parties lake this opportunity to express their appreciation of the services that Mr Meredith has rendered during his period in the House. It is well appreciated that we rely upon the services that he provides constantly throughout the entire period that we are here. We hope that his retirement is a most enjoyable and rewarding period for him.

page 3475

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AIRCRAFT NOISE

Interim Report

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– 1 present an interim report together with minutes of proceedings from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in relation to that report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– The report outlines the history of the inquiry which will serve to remind the House that much of the inquiry remained incomplete when the present Committee was appointed in November 1969. Since then a considerable amount of evidence has been taken and the Committee has undertaken many inspections. lt is considered desirable to report on some aspects of the inquiry at this stage, both because aspects of the problem of aircraft noise need urgent attention and because the Committee is able to conclude some sections of the inquiry. Consequently some important recommendations aimed at alleviating aspects of the aircraft noise problem are placed before you in this interim report.

We have endeavoured to lay down guiding principles for use, generally, in Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Specific problem areas are considered so as to arrive at guidelines for policy in mitigating some of the most annoying effects of exposure to aircraft noise. For some of the terms of reference the report is final though there are others on which evidence is incomplete and it is in respect of these that the Committee proposes to report and to conclude its inquiry by the end of this calendar year. The inquiry had its genesis in the conflict of interests arising from the needs of a progressively developing air transport industry and increasing urbanisation. Reactions to aircraft noise exposure are manifested in complaints and protests from persons in areas adjacent to mainland city airports where a high intensity of jet aircraft movement is experienced.

The operating need and procedures of this industry give rise to a noise nuisance which may prejudice the beneficial uses of otherwise desirable neighbourhoods. The aircraft industry serves large centres of population for whom ils activities have become an undisputed necessity, but the progressive introduction of the jet engined aircraft has resulted in a steadily increasing noise nuisance. The Committee foresees problems of greater magnitude in the decade ahead unless immediate and concerted action is taken effectively to control land use in airport neighbourhoods. The Committee has studied overseas developments which indicate the gravity of future problems for Australia in the absence of remedial action. The Committee believes that the solution is a matter of comprehensive urban planning to ensure continued benefit from a thriving air transport industry whilst still having due regard to the well being and welfare of the community which it serves.

The Committee wishes to pay a tribute to the co-operation given by officers of the Department of Civil Aviation, the Department of Air and airline companies. At this stage I wish to say that the success of the inquiry so far has been enhanced by the ever courteous and willing response by officers of both these Departments and companies to the Committee’s very demanding requests for information and assistance. I personally am greatly indebted to the ever willing help given by the Clerk to the Committee Mr Bruce Chapman, the Research Officer Mr Ken Hale and our stenographer Mrs Ashurst in the very arduous task of preparing the material for this report and express my thanks to them. 1 also thank the honourable members for St George (Mr Morrison) and KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) without whose co-operation in the intensive revision of the terms of this report it could not have been completed in time for tabling to-day.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– by leave - I join with the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), the Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, in expressing my appreciation to the representatives of the various Government departments who were most helpful and co-operative in the work of the Committee. I also express appreciation to him - the honourable member could not do it himself - for the manner in which he, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) have worked. It has been a difficult matter to sort out and they have done a good job on it. There are a couple of points in the report to which I would like to refer. All except one of the recommendations were unanimous and I was odd man out on one with which I will deal in a moment or two. I hope that the Department will take due heed of recommendations 11 and 12 on page 2 of the report. Recommendation 1 1 is as follows: at Sydney during the hours of curfew (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.) movements be confined to operations over Botany Bay except in cases of emergency.

I asked a question recently about the number of movements out of Sydney during curfew hours. When I spoke during the the adjournment debate on the subject I expressed the opinion that normal flights being held up as a result of inclement weather or unserviceability of aircraft could be accepted as one of the facts of life. Unfortunately people delayed in those circumstances have to be carried at that time of the night. We did find from the answer to the question I asked that some 170-odd movements out of Sydney were scheduled flights.

Mr Dobie:

– Were they jet movements?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes. I thank the honourable member for his assistance. The movements were jet movements. There were turbo prop and piston engine movements other than the movements I have spoken about. These were all scheduled flights that were permitted at holiday time. I said that in my opinion Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia have insufficient aircraft to meet the requirements of the travelling public today and that the departments, the Government, and these 2 airlines should do something about rectifying the matter. We who travel all the time find consistently that when we go to an airport to catch a plane at a particular time it is held up because a plane - not the plane serving the ports to which we wish to travel - could not get out of some other port because of weather or unserviceability. There is clear evidence that these 2 airlines are completely undermanned and have insufficient aircraft. If they are not prepared to get sufficient aircraft to meet their requirements I do not think people should be unnecessarily disturbed in the hours of sleep between 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. The airlines will have to make do with what they have if they are not prepared to buy more aircraft. 1 would also like to draw attention to recommendation 12. lt should be borne in mind that strong pressure is being exerted to lift the curfew in certain places, such as at Tullamarine Airport. Once a start is made to break down the curfew in 1 place extreme pressure is imposed for other places to keep up with the Joneses. This is imposing great pressure on other airports to follow the lead in lifting the curfew. The fact that Perth has no curfew is unfortunate for the people who live there. There are a considerable number of people living adjacent to the airport who would welcome a curfew at Perth. All I can say to those people who are conducting the campaign at the moment to lift the curfew at Tullamarine - some people say there is no curfew there at this stage - is that I think there should be a curfew and I am clear and frank about it. The airlines can work between 6 a.m. and 1 1 p.m. and that should be sufficient for most people who want to travel. All the airlines are worrying about is being able to carry freight in the main in that time. Let them find airports that are completely isolated. have been saying for some time in this place that it is time the Department of Civil Aviation came up with some recommendations on the construction of new airports so that they will not cause any inconvenience or nuisance to people. Tullamarine in its initial planning stages probably met this requirement to a very limited degree but unfortunately since the site was selected the Department of Civil Aviation has tried to do it on the cheap. Instead of buying sufficient land and saying: This will remain rural land’, people have been allowed to encroach almost onto the boundaries of Tullamarine. The mistake has been made and if the airlines want to operate passenger or freight services at night the airports should be kept sufficiently away from residential development. They can do what they like as long as they do not disturb anyone.

All recommendations but one were carried unanimously and that was No. 16. I was the odd man out there. I give credit to my friend, the honourable member for St George, for being able to convince the Committee that he was right in suggesting that the angle of approach to Sydney airport should be increased from 2.76 degrees to 3 degrees. I give him full marks for convincing the Committee that this should bc permitted. It is only at those airports throughout the world where there is a problem with the approach path that an angle greater than 2.76 degrees is permitted. The angle of approach at some of the major airports is below 2.75 degrees. I will cite some of them. At Athens the angle of approach is 2.75 degrees; at Auckland in New Zealand it is 2.5 degrees; Bangkok, 2.5 degrees; Christchurch. NZ. 2.5 degrees; Djakarta 2.6 degrees; Frankfurt 2.7 degrees; and at Kuala Lumpur it is 2.9 degrees. Originally it was 3.3 degrees at Kuala Lumpur but when pressure was put on it was reduced to 2.9 degrees. At Kennedy Airport in New York it is 2.63 degrees. At Orly in Paris it is 2.75 degrees.

I could cite a few others. At the same time I admit that at Amsterdam it is 3 degrees. In the United Kingdom the authorities appear to hive introduced a more or less universal system with an angle of approach of 3 degrees. I do nol know the reason for it because at Heathrow. which, as honourable members who have bren to the United Kingdom know, is the major airport there is no approach pattern problem. Aircraft could come in easily at 2.75 degrees or 2.5 degrees. They have no hills to contend with such as they have at Bombay where the approach path is 3.3 degrees. The authorities there had to spend a considerable amount of money to remove the tops of some of the hills.

I appreciate the problem of the honourable member for St George, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and my mate the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) but I also appreciate the problem for the pilots. One has to appreciate that increasing the angle of approach from 2.75 degrees to 3 degrees represents a rate of sink for aircraft of between 80 feet and 100 feet per minute. I am concerned about the safety of people in aircraft. I appreciate the problems of people who live near airports but I have been assured by people in a position to know that the reduction in noise will be so infinitesimal that it will not matter. It will have no effect on those people. Admittedly, at certain points beneath the approach to the east-west runway at Kingsford-Smith Airport there will be a psychological effect. People will not have the impression that they can touch the aircraft by putting up their hand. At least the aircraft will be another 80 feet or 100 feet higher. There will be a psychological effect but there will be no marked reduction in the noise level.

I understand that the internal and external airlines have no strong objection about the decision to increase the angle of approach to 3 degrees. However if people get the idea of trying to increase it beyond 3 degrees there could be very strong objections from the operators on technical grounds. 1 do not know the reaction of the pilots but the airline operators do not want it increased beyond 3 degrees. If the recommendations of the Committee are adopted then the angle of approach has been taken to the maximum. Admittedly there are airports in the world with greater angles of approach but the circumstances there are different to those in Australia.

In my opinion there is only one real answer to the noise problem at Mascot, Adelaide and Brisbane. Probably, as a member of the Committee, I should not prejudge the matter but from the evidence already presented to the Committee I am firmly of the opinion that there is only 1 solution for those 3 airports. Probably, to a lesser degree, it is the same at Perth. The only solution is that alternative sites must be selected immediately and not in 3 err 4 years time. This is the only way in which positive practical relief can be given to the people who have a hell of a problem to put up with, particularly at Mascot. The Department of Civil Aviation should be making this decision. The Opposition, as honourable members are aware, wanted to increase the Committee’s terms of reference so that it could come up with a recommendation. The Committee could do the job. There are a lot of experienced men on the Committee and they have been inquiring into these problems. However, instead, the matter is in the hands of the Department. We know how often government departments shelve things and keep them out of sight until such time as the Government finally makes a decision, whether favourable or unfavourable. As the position stands at the moment it is my humble opinion that the only solution for the people of Sydney is to get Mascot out of the way.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– by leave- I want to congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan). Each member of the Committee realises the amount of time that he has put into this inquiry so that he could present this interim report at this time. I think other members of the Committee’ would like me also to express our appreciation to Mr Bruce Chapman, Mr Ken Hale and Mr Jack Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories, all of whom rendered great service to the Committee.

The manufacturers of aircraft engines are doing a worthwhile job in endeavouring to reduce the noise of engines but the modifications required are very costly. The cost amounts to some hundreds of thousands of dollars. But worse still, each modification reduces the efficiency of the engine and increases the running cost. This is a very difficult problem that has to be overcome.

The Committee as previously constituted did an excellent job and produced an interim report. There has been a happy and worthwhile association between the members of this Committee. Individually they have spent a great deal of time and have put a great deal of effort into bringing this report before the Parliament. There are many suggestions. There is a disposition now to realise that aircraft noise is a nuisance and the various factors within the industry are endeavouring to overcome or to alleviate the noise nuisance. Efforts in this regard will be continued in the future. There is an awareness of the problem. lt is peculiar to think that a man will build on a river bank to be close to water. We could establish an international airport in a wilderness and within 12 months thousands of people would he residing nearby, lt would appear that the days of using a small area for an international airport are gone and that the minimum area for an international airport will be 20,000 acres to 25,000 acres. In other countries an area of 50,000 acres is being considered. 1 again commend all who were associated with this report for their loyalty and the amount of work that they put into it.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– by leave - I have not read the interim report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise but I do hope that it recommends something very constructive in regard to this important problem. As the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has said. 170 movements of jets have been scheduled out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. in recent months and the whole 170 went over the Grayndler electorate. 1 hope that the Committee has brought down some good recommendations because, from what 1 can see. in recent months the traffic out of Mascot has intensified day and night, but particularly at night, lt seems that runway 16 carries all of the aircraft which then fly from one end of the Grayndler electorate to the other. Whilst the Committee may be doing excellent work for various electorates, the only practical result that 1 have seen to date is that every plane flies over the Grayndler electorate. I do nol know why. I criticise the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) because he personally okays the 1 1 p.m. to 6 a.m. flights. Some 170 have been approved by the Minister. The planes are flying over the most densely populated areas of Sydney - Sydenham, Marrickville, Leichhardt and s3 on.

Mr Buchanan:

– I rise to order, i suggest to the honourable member for Grayndler that if he reads the report he will find that the information he is giving the House at th>; present time is wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr DALY:

– I refer lo the answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Newcastle, in which 170 flights were listed. Why does the Minister agree to these planes flying out at that time during holiday periods? Ansett Airlines of Australia, for instance, sent a plane out of Darwin at 2 a.m. on one occasion, it being claimed that it was done to meet the convenience of people who wanted to fly. The real reason was that the airline made more money by flying that plane around the south instead of flying the scheduled flight. The Minister has no right to OK these flights at that time of night and I place on record my resentment in regard to it. I hope that the report condemns the Minister for allowing these flights after curfew hours to th: detriment of the people concerned. I think that the electorate of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) is somewhere on the same beam as is my electorate. His constituents are probably concerned about this, too.

Mr Turner:

– There were 170 over my electorate also.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member says that there were 170 at the same time. In regard to the siting of aerodromes. L suggest that the major aerodrome should be at Alice Springs. That might sound silly, but these days why should not international passengers land in a place like that and from there bc taken to the various parts of the Commonwealth? It is a major complaint that the Government has failed to allow the siting of aerodromes to be considered by this Committee. I asked for only 5 minutes, so until I read the report 1 merely register a complaint on behalf of the 125,000 people in my district, nearly every one of whom has been driven mad by these out-of-curfew hours flights which use runway 16. I hope that some recommendations have been made about this problem. 1 was amazed at what happened the other clay when flying to Sydney from Canberra. When we were out near Tom Ugly’s Bridge and the plane should have gone straight over the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), who was sitting beside me on the plane, it veered away to the north somewhere and flew over the length and bread! h of the Grayndler electorate. As sure as though it was missile directed, it came in at Leichhardt and finished at Mascot. I even waved to my wife as wc went over the centre of my electorate because the plane was so low and so close. This happens repeatedly with flights from Canberra. 1 suppose I have to lake my share of the planes that fly over the Grayndler electorate but now and again in the St George and Barton electorates they could take the odd plane, could they not? I think that pilots have been instructed to fly this course over my district to and from runway 16.

Whilst commending the Committee on what I understand to be an excellent report. I hope that it is practical. Even if it is not within the terms of reference, I think there should be an addendum that the aerodrome should be built at Alice Springs or somewhere else and. above all else, that the pilots occupy-

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

– Order! I appreciate the fact that leave to make a statement does not limit the honourable member, but perhaps I might point out to him that certain arrangements have been made in relation to continuation. 1 suggest that (he honourable member might cover the subject matter at a later date.

Mr DALY:

– I appreciate your point ot view, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will finish on this note. 1 hope that this report contains some condemnation of the after curfew hour flights and the Minister’s attitude in regard to them. I know from the excellent work that has been done by the honourable members for St George, Barton and Newcastle that the report will be practical, useful and, I hope, effective.

page 3480

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– As Chairman I present the 1 1 9th report of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr Whitlam:

– Leave is not granted. Leave will be granted at 2 o’clock.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3480

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICEADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE, BRISBANE

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– T move:

That, in accordance wilh the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Australian Post Office - Administrative Centre stage 1 at Brisbane.

The proposal involves construction of a multi-storeyed building to provide accommodaton for some 1,500 office staff with associated staff amenities and building services. The estimated cost is S4.6m. The design of the building w ll be such as to provide a measure of protection from atomic fall-0:,t in accordance with practices discussed with the Director of Civil Defence. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning of the proposal can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3480

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, viz.. States Receipts Duties (Administration), States Receipts Duly (No. 1), States Receipts Duly (No. 2), States Receipts Duty (No. 3), and States Grants (Receipts, Duty), so much of the Standing Orders bc suspended a? would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills together.

page 3480

STATES RECEIPTS DUTIES BILLS

Declaration of Urgency

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

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill,

States Receipts Duty Bill (No. I),

States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 2),

States Receipts Duty Bill (No 3), and

States Grants (Receipts Duty) Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

The question is:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

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

– I understand that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) wants to say something about the allotment of time. A copy of what 1 propose has already been given to him. It may be convenient if I hear what he has to say.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This document was given to me at a time when it was presumed that there would be approximately 2 hours for this debate. It it had come on as it ought to have come on virtually immediately after question time it would have come on at 10.42, which would have made the debate short enough. It would have allowed us 2 hours, which in all conscience is short enough onthese important measures. But we have spent something like 45 minutes on other business at the expense of this matter. I merely suggest that the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) had in mind allowing approximately 2 hours for this debate. I protest even about that. But I think at least he ought to restore the 2 hours and now bring down an amended schedule that will allow us 2 hours from the time he puts this urgency proposition. There are a number of people who want to speak on these Bills.

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

– It is certainly a fact that I thought there would be the better part of 2 hours for this debate because I expected to move this motion at the end of question time. The formal business on the Notice Paper, particularly the matter relating to aircraft noise, ran away from us. I think it would have been abouta quarter-past11 by the time we got on to the interim report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. It is now near enough to a quarter-to 12. Without removing the ground for protest that may have originally existed, I would be prepared, in relation to the specific issue now before the House, to alter the allotment of time by adding 30 minutes to the times which I originally proposed. In doing so. I would remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that if time is taken up debating the allotment of time this will only diminish the time that will be available to debate the Bills. 1 move:

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

States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill -

For the second reading, until 2.12 p.m this day

For the remaining stages, until 2.14 p.m. this day

States Receipts Duty Bill (No1)- For all stages of the Bill, until 2.18 p.m. this day

States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 2)- For all stages of the Bill, until 2.22 p.m. this day

States Receipts Duly Bill (No. 3)- For all stages of the Bill, until 2.26 p.m. this day

States Grants (Receipts Duty) Bill-

For the second reading, until 2.28 p.m. this day

For the remaining stages, until 2.30 p.m. this day.

Mr Crean:

– Does that mean that the sitting will still suspend for lunch at 1 p.m.?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We will still suspend for lunch at 1 p.m. and resume at 2 p.m.

Mr Crean:

– And will the debate on these Bills finish at 2.30 p.m.?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. I think we are all in agreement that we want the debate to finish at 2.30.

page 3481

STATES RECEIPTS DUTIES (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 June (vide page 3460) on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I move the following amendment to the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill:

That all the words after ‘that’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the House declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of opinion that the Bill provides a cumbersome and regressive means of compensating the States for the revenue they lost through their Receipts Duty Acts having been declared unconstitutional’.

What we have before us is what I have chosen to describe as a constitutional contrivance. This is the first time to my knowledge that the Commonwealth on behalf of the States, without there being complementary legislation at the State level, has sought to pass legislation which it is not competent for the Slates themselves to undertake.

Dr Mackay:

– What about the Bill relating to off-shore petroleum?

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable member points to a precedent that slightly lessens my argument on historical circumstances. lt is certainly true of the tax measure, but we have had examples where marketing legislation could not be followed unless certain things were done at the State level. What is proposed here is a scheme by which the Commonwealth will collect, on behalf of the States, taxes which, if levied separately by the States, would be regarded as unconstitutional. Two cases relating to these taxes have been decided by the High Court of Australia. The first case was instituted by the Hamersley Company against the Government of Western Australia and one was instituted in Victoria by a motor car firm, the name of which I cannot recall. The decisions in those cases were that a large part of the receipt taxes that were being imposed by the States of Victoria and Western Australia were unconstitutional because they were, in the view of the High Court, excise taxes, and the Constitution provides that only the Commonwealth may levy an excise.

We have 5 measures that 1 have described as a schemata, or a scheme of arrangement. The States Receipts Duty (Administration) Bill seeks to appoint a collecting agent in each of the States for excise and customs duties. Then there is a Bill to deal with excise and one to deal with customs, as the Constitution provides that only one subject of taxation can be dealt with in each measure. Another Bill invokes section 96, under which the Commonwealth may make grants to the States. What in essence is to happen is that the Commonwealth’s legal authority is to be used to impose what has been described as an excise tax, which is also in some cases pardy a customs duty, the Commonwealth will use the State as an instrumentality to collect that tax, and such moneys as are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth as a result of these measures will then be paid over to the various States in terms of section 96.

That position is bad enough without at this stage discussing the inequitable nature of this tax. 1 merely point out the devious constitutional contrivance that has had to be undertaken to give this system any legality. The further objection is that these taxes purport to be imposed on behalf of the States. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) took issue with my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), the other day. The Prime Minister in his Press statement of 10th June 1970, No. 65 of 1970, chided the Leader of the Opposition in these terms:

Mr Whitlam seems to be under 2 false impressions. One is that it is he and not the Government which decides what are election issues. The other is that he is thwarting the Commonwealth Government when in fact he is thwarting the States. He is apparently threatening that the Labor Party in the States House, the Senate, will deny the States access to a field of growth tax to which they want access, and trying to claim that this affects the Commonwealth Government. In fact, in this matter, the Commonwealth Government is only acting at the request of the States, as the agent for the States, to enable them to collect revenue in the future which they would not otherwise be able to collect.

All I would submit is that if the Prime Minister claims that this is being done at the request of the States 1 am sure that the States would wish that he observed a lot more of their requests with the same sort of enthusiasm as he seems to be willing to apply to this one alone. The Prime Minister continued:

This revenue would be in addition to any agreed amounts made available from the Commonwealth Revenue as a result of the new arrangements being worked out between us and the States.

That is a very different attitude from the one the Prime Minister took when Sir Henry Bolte first suggested imposing this tax, particularly as it applied to wages. The Prime Minister continued:

Labor will therefore deny the Slates the capacity to help themselves in the future.

If this sort of flimsy justification is given to sanction any sort of unjust tax merely on the ground that, as the Prime Minister says, the States have requested it, that is not consonant with the attitude expressed by the States recently. I referred last week to the combined statement of the 6 Premiers on Commonwealth and State financial relations. That document is available to honourable members. It points to the fact that if the States did need to raise additional revenue the only courses open to them were resort to regressive indirect taxation.

To highlight the situation 1 point out what is the totality of taxation in Australia. I quote from one of the numerous documents submitted by the Treasury, that is the ‘Supplement to the Treasury Information Bulletin - National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure’, which was published in December 1969. That shows that for the year 1969-70 the est mated total amount of taxation that will be collected in Australia at all levels of taxation - Commonwealth, State, local authority together with another item that is not often noted, the surplus on public authorities - will be $7,602m. Those bodies such as State electricity commissions and gas and fuel corporations or whatever they are called in the various States, charge more for their services than those services cost. This appears as a surplus in the books of public authorities. In addition to the total amount of taxation collected at those 3 levels, these receipts charged for services in excess of what those services cost, will amount to $1,343m. That makes the total of receipts by all public authorities - Commonwealth, State, local, semi-governmental and public utility- S8.945m.

Indirect taxes, the category into which the present proposal will fall, will yield $3,376m which, is understandable terms, is between 12% and 13% of the gross national product. Income taxes on companies will yield $l,173m, income taxes on persons will yield $2,840m, and estate and gift duties will yield $2 13m. When one looks at the separate pattern of the States and local authorities one finds that virtually all the taxes which the States raise are in the category of indirect taxes. According to the latest information I have, taxes imposed directly by the States amount to $800m. Those imposed by local authorities are in excess of $300m. At least a sum of $70m, which is what the Treasurer suggests will be yielded by this tax, is significant enough as related to the total revenue on which the States rely. That is in the region of 10% of the revenue that they collect themselves. Such a tax is regressive and as a flat level of tax is unfair. It is of the crudest type. There is a lot of discussion these days in some other enlightened countries about what is called a value added tax, but at least value added means the difference between the income received and what it costs to earn that income. But in this case it is levied in total on the turnover, irrespective of what the ratio of expenses to turnover is. To my mind that is the harshest and most regressive form in which this tax will impact on sections unable to defend themselves and being justified, presumably, by the action of this Government and the opinion of the Prime Minister.

The other day I received an issue of the Manufacturers Bulletin* published by the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales. That publication deals with what are called rural factory costs. It says:

Country firms in New South Wales have estimated that the overall disadvantage of a country factory location is about 1% on sales, according to a Government survey released last night by the Minister for Decentralisation and Development, Mr J. B. Fulton.

I cite that as an example of one of the disadvantages suffered by those who want the cities to become less agglomerate and the towns to be more populated. At least this measure that is before us is going one-tenth of the way to worsening that situation and if, as I am told, we take into relationship the totality of turnover in relation to expenses of course the impact is much higher still. I think we have all received the communication from that energetic firm in Queensland known as Tickle Holdings Pty Ltd. The letter, I understand, was sent to every member of this House because the tax will be imposed far more heavily in Queensland than previously because Queensland had only a limited sort of receipts duty tax, which I am told was about one-fifth crf the level prevailing in some of the other States. Mr C. G. Tickle, the Chairman of Directors, mentions - apparently with approval - the statement by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who comes from the State of Queensland, that this i« committing piracy at the expense of Queenslanders. 1 will be interested to hear what some of the other Queenslanders have to think about this act of piracy.

We heard a lot the other night about hijacking aeroplanes. At least that sort of piracy has not yet occurred in Australia but apparently a different act of piracy is being perpetrated in this country by this obnoxious sort of legislation. Mr Tickle goes on to indicate that the impact of the tax in the case of Queensland means increasing it - according to his figures - by something like 744%. He gives the example of a present duty of 48c in tha! State which under the new arrangements will rise to $4.05. He has done the necessary arithmetic to show that this is 744% greater. Perhaps that may be an extreme example, but nevertheless J do not think there can be any argument but that that tax is a crude form of raising revenues. 1 was rather astonished at an explanation the Treasurer gave in his speech that he thought that what was being done was helping to restrain inflation. It would seem by that sort of logic that if he made the tax 5 times as great he might entirely solve his problem of inflation, but to carry that sort of argument to that degree shows how absurd it is.

There are some other people who think that you control inflation by the rationing of the purse. The attitude on our side is that when you take this sort of measure the people who are penalised are the people who least deserve to be penalised because it operates in this crude way. It seems that the tax is not to be imposed on wages any longer. I suppose that is some improvement. Let me refer to an answer which the Premier of Victoria gave in the State Parliament on 3rd March 1970 to the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Wilkes, of Northcote, who had asked:

Will the Premier and Treasurer advise the House what is the actual position in relation to the 1 cent in $10-

Which is the impact of it - on wages and salaries and whether Victorians are still obliged to pay the lax?

This is the answer that Sir Henry Bolte gave: ) thank the honourable member for his question. The position is as it has been during the past 3 or 4 years, that until the relevant Act is repealed, on a date to be proclaimed, it is a legitimate tax. In fact, it is rather strange that, according to the High Court, this is about the only portion of the Act that is valid - and the part relating to payment on services. However, I have indicated that the Government proposes to repeal this section of the Act. This will be done shortly, bill the Act *ill still operate until the date on which the amendment is proclaimed, which obviously will be the 30th June. 1 presume he means 30th June 1970. Whilst it is not said in the legislation that the Treasurer or the Prime Minister has similar assurances from other States that they intend to do this, the taxing of wages is specifically excluded, but I merely point out that it is still - according to the High Court of Australia - competent for the State to impose the tax in terms of wages and services. I would like to have some assurance that the Treasurer has an assurance from all the States that this obnoxious form of taxation will not be imposed in a flat way on wages, which is the case legally in Victoria at the moment and this will prevail, apparently, until 30th June 1970.

The Opposition is not unmindful of the difficulties that face the Slates financially and we have suggested that there ought to be a much more considerate treatment of the States than has been the case. We point out that the formula for reimbursement comes up for review in any case after 30th June 1970. If the States are in any immediate difficulty as far as their own works and services are concerned for the remainder of th s financial year - which is a matter of only about 3 weeks - the Commonwealth should pay them such emergency sums as are necessary to carry on pending a complete revision of that formula and, T hope, as soon as is possible a complete rewriting of the taxation structure of Australia which has become ossified. If the honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay), who is interjecting, reads this document he will see that the States have no love for this resort to indirect taxes. The States say that because the Commonwealth does not treat them adequately they have no other recourse.

Dr Mackay:

– They do not want all the money, but they want independence.

Mr CREAN:

– A lot of people want independence and they want money as well and sometimes the two are a bit difficult to reconcile. I find the argument a little bit intriguing about the people who want independent schools and also want money from the Government. At least the 2 lines occasionally become crossed.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tell us your policy.

Mr CREAN:

– Our policy is that we believe in the continuance of uniform taxation. We believe that in a federal system an income tax is most easily and most equitably applied at one level; mat it does not lend itself to division according to the different levels of the federation because of the disparity in respect of resources; and that it is part of the job of a federal mechanism to equal se the differences. But that tax structure has been allowed to continue unaltered, and if the honourable member will read the article that I cited last night but which I did not have time to develop further because of the lateness of the hour - the article in the last issue of the ‘Australian Economic Review’ - he will find that because wages are estimated to rise by something like 13% this year there will automatically be an increase of weekly tax deductions of over 17% going automatically into the Commonwealth coffers. Some people are predicting, on the basis of an analysis of the Treasury figures to the end of May by comparison with the same period 12 months ago, that it is likely that there will be an excess of Commonwealth revenue th:s year of at least $70m over what was estimated when the Budget was written, and that therefore the Commonwealth is in a position at this stage, pending the review of the financial arrangements, to pay to the States sufficient to compensate them for what they would collect by this rather dubious and devious method of taxation.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– ls it expected that we compensate them w th the total of any extra finance available?

Mr CREAN:

– Al the moment the argument is about the $70m. I am nol suggesting that $70m may be all that the States require but at least in respect of these measures they have said that, throughout the 6 States, we will collect $70m by this rather unjust method of taxation, and rather than add any worse tax to an already bad system consideration should be given early to rewriting the whole tax structure in Australia. It cannot be deferred indefinitely on the bas:s that the time is not ripe. Virtually what we are doing in Australia is using the taxation system to get out of some of the difficulties of inflation, which is occurring because we are not grappling properly with other problems. The victims of this kind of system are the people least able to bear it, particularly those on what are called lower and middle incomes - and the term middle’ is perhaps a little wide - and especially where the family is a married unit with children and where the wife is unable or unwilling to work. 1 am not one who believes that a home with young children is better because the children are put in a creche or somewhere else.

If people want to work, fair enough; but many people in this circumstance are unable to work because they place the care of their children above what they might gain as a wage. They are the people who are most harshly hurt by the burdens of direct and indirect taxation. I simply ask any honourable member here a question. We talk about the average weekly wage. If he were getting $72 a week and had a wife and several children to keep, would he think that he would have much surplus left over and that he had not been affected when automatically, as he got a wage increase, a large part of it would simply be taken back into the tax system, and as interest rates rose he would pay higher for durables?

Dr Mackay:

– Interest rates will not be affected.

Mr CREAN:

– Such people will be affected. The total turnover of a greengrocer, for example, will be taxed under this dubious procedure - not his net income but his total turnover. Surely to goodness this is a simple lesson in economics which the gentleman from Queensland in his letter tried to point out. I am not saying it will be passed on. He says that he does nol believe that it can be other than passed on, and if it is passed on, to whom is it passed on? Who arc the greatest customers of the grocers, greengrocers, butchers and bakers in Australia? Surely this is according to the size of the family unit. Like me, the honourable member has more han 2 mouths to feed. The inequity of this system is that it passes on this kind of regressive system of taxation. The Government may, some day, like to review the total structure of tax in Australia and build into it this rather complicated system of value-added tax which some people advocate - and it is more complicated to impose than those who seem to justify it elsewhere claim. But until the Government begins to look at the whole structure of taxation in Australia, particularly the income tax, it certainly should not add further to the pattern of unfair indirect taxes.

I think, i have made all the points J wanted to make. This is a constitutional contrivance to get around an adverse decision of the court. Whilst the tax purports to be imposed for the States it arises out of the dire financial circumstances of the States. It adds to the pattern of indirect taxation in Australia. The Government should be reviewing the relationships of the Commonwealth and the States within the next few months, but pending that review the Government should tide the States over by paying to them such emergency amounts as they justify. In conclusion 1 read again the amendment, which is as follows:

Thai all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the House declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of opinion that the Bill provides a cumbersome and regressive means of compensating the States for the revenue they lost through their Receipts Duly Acts having been declared unconstitutional’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Labor Party’s shadow treasurer, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), has made a characteristic argument upon this measure. His argument fell into various categories and I should like to deal with them one by one. He is concerned, of course, with the nature of this tax, as are most people. But following that proposition he was then concerned with the position of the States within the Federation, and it was at this stage that we saw those well known and well generated crocodile tears streaming down the pages as he read. Finally he was concerned with the effects of this tax and its imposition upon any subsequent decisions at a Premiers’ Conference. I hope to deal with these during the course of my comments upon the Bill. lt is common knowledge that this measure has arisen out of the problem concerning the Hamersley case and the excise issue which was decided by the High Court. It is pertinent to say that in this matter the High Court - and this may be applicable to other measures which are proposed - has, in the words of Sir Henry Bolte, not been very favourable to the States. That situation having developed it has been found necessary to impose this type of tax. But it ought to be remembered always, I suggest, that this tax is proposed at the suggestion - at the request - of the various States to meet their requirements. This has been made so perfectly clear. The Treasurer in his second reading speech - and nothing in this Bill can be examined without bearing this in mind - had this to say:

The Commonwealth’s approach to the legislation before the House has been thai as it is being introduced at the request of the Slates and for their benefit with the Commonwealth acting in a sense as agent for the States for the purpose, it has been essential for the Stales collectively to say what detailed provisions should be included in the Commonwealth legislation within the framework of the agreed arrangements. Accordingly, the detailed provisions have been agreed collectively with the State governments.

That is the essential background to this measure and unless that background is borne in mind one is not being frank as to the significance of the measure.

Looking at that situation, I then examined the amendment - the curious amendment which is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The amendment requires that the Bill be refused - that it be not passed. It would be appropriate for me for a few moments to ask: Why does he want this measure not passed? Why does he want this source of revenue desired by the States within the Australian framework to be refused to them? We can merely come to a sordid analys’s of politics and ask ourselves: What has been the position concerning other leaders of his own party in relation to this measure?

If I might divert for one or two moments from the economics of the Bill to the politics and the matters which have inspired this amendment, I ask myself: What has been the attitude of those leaders of the Party opposite in the various States who have some responsibility? It is worth bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition, in a Press statement, and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), have been very concerned about the position in Queensland. I ask them then: Why do they not bear in relation to this Bill as responsible an attitude as was borne by the Leader of the Opposition in

Queensland and the shadow Treasurer in Queensland who are very well known and respected members of his own Party? I think it is worth while bearing in mind what they said. The shadow Treasurer in Queensland, when the appropriate measure was before the Queensland Parliament in March of this year, had this to say:

The Opposition-

That is the Australian Labor Party - has adopted a responsible attitude and decided not to oppose the Bill-

There we are. The Opposition should make up its differences with these people. The shadow Treasurer in Queensland went on to say: because of the circumstances under which it has been brought down.

The circumstances are not of this Government’s choosing, arc not of the State Government’s choosing but are outside the control of both. He went on to say:

The Opposition will not oppose the increase in revenue that necessarily will flow from the imposition of higher stamp duties.

They are very pertinent and rather appropriate statements. There does seem to be developing rather a gap between their attitude on these matters and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. But, of course, similar measures to this have applied in other States of the Commonwealth. Similar measures have applied for some time in Tasmania. A Bill in that State imposing similar rates although different in some legal aspects - the High Court judgment had not been given - was passed in late 1968. The Leader of the Opposition is going outside to check. I can assure him that my quotes are perfectly correct. In Tasmania, Mr Reece, who was the leader of the State Government at the time and in the past a member of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party, imposed substantially the ingredients in this Bill - a receipts tax - in 1968. What did he have to say? Mr Reece said:

The inevitable conclusion which must be reached if present standards of social services are to be maintained and large deficits are to be avoided is that the State must increase its revenue from taxation.

Mr Duthie:

– The Grants Commission forced them to do that.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Not quite, but I come back to that. Mr Reece went on to say:

Members are familiar with the new form of stamp duty on receipt which was introduced in Western Australia in 1967 and in Victoria earlier this year.

The impact of this tax has been carefully examined, and it has been decided that the same tax should be introduced in Tasmania to obtain the revenue that is necessary.

Therefore, if the tax was not to be introduced there were to be cutbacks in certain Government and public services including social services. But, of course, the Leader of the Opposition had received some advice about this matter. He thought he would get around this. He obviously had consulted with the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie). The honourable member for Wilmot said a moment ago by way of interjection: ‘Oh look, you cannot blame us. The Grants Commission made us do it.’ This was almost what he said. 1 presume he said that but if he did not he should have. The fact is that when a tax is imposed in a State and when grants are being given to a State a comparison is made between Tasmania and the standard States. It means that if a tax of this nature is being imposed in New South Wales and Victoria a tax appropriate to Tasmania’s capacity ought to be imposed there. We know from an examination of the Grants Commission’s reports that Tasmania does not have the capacity to pay taxes per capita at the same rates as apply in the standard States. So if Tasmania had wanted to impose a tax on the advice of the Grants Commission similar in burden to that which operated, and which was proposed to be operated, in the standard States the tax would have been substantially lower than that which the Labor Premier of Tasmania proposed at the time. That should be very clear to the honourable member for Wilmot and the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me amplify that point a little. We know, for example, that the indices of taxable capacity in Tasmania compared with the standard States range between 60% and 70%. We know that if a tax of lc in $10 applies in the standard States, the burden placed upon the people of Tasmania ought to be something like 0.7c in $10 or 7c in $100. No, the Tasmanian Premier saw that this tax was necessary.

He saw it was necessary for the maintenance of the level of services in his own Slate and he applied the tax at the higher rate. So, for 2 reasons, as we know from the Premier’s own words and from his own calculations, he applied this tax. This merely indicates the gap that has developed between those who are perpetually in Opposition and those who from time to time have some responsibility in terms of revenue and taxation, lt is not for me to flee from the politics of this measure so I intend to go a little further.

In Western Australia a tax similar to this type has applied for many years, but to a narrower range. No Labor leader in Western Australia has said that he would repeal it. This tax even applies in Victoria. Lei us look at what Mr Clyde Holding, a great friend of the Leader of the Opposition, had to say. The Leader of the Opposition is presumed to have helped Mr Holding at the last State election in Victoria. He helped Mr Holding’s vote to rise to 41%. 1 always thought that 50% of the vote won an election. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Opposition helped to get the vote to 41%. What did Mr Clyde Holding say about this tax when he introduced his own fiscal policy during the State election campaign in Victoria only weeks ago? All he did was to complain that a tax had been imposed some years before and that he would never give a guarantee that he would repeal that tax.

Dr Mackay:

– A fiscal fizzer.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– A fiscal fizzera delightful comment and most appropriate. Wherever these gentlemen have responsibility, they operate in this way. The Leader of the Opposition has never had responsibility, even in a local council, so he introduces a measure of this kind-

Mr Foster:

– Some irresponsibility has certainly been shown on your side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable member for Sturt will remain silent.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Even Mr Dunstan in the recent South Australian State election did not say that he would repeal the tax. I would like to take a wager at the moment that the lax will not be repealed in South Australia. But the honourable member for Sturt may have some influence with the gentleman concerned.

Bearing all of these things in mind and looking again at the amendment proposed by the Opposition, 1 wrote out in rather an impish mood an amendment which, according to the rules of the House, will not be put. But I would be interested to see the Opposition vote against an amendment of this type to the Bill. This was the amendment which I wrote down in such a mood:

And add to the words of the Bill - ‘and acknowledging that this Bill has been introduced into this Parliament at the request of the Slates and thai the proposed receipts duty tax has its greatest effect in Queensland, this House supports this Bill in the same manner as ils provisions were supported by the various Stale governments, including the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament and the Labor Government of T Tasmania

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to consider an amendment of that kind but, of course, according to the rules of the House, it is unable to be put.

  1. wish to look now at some of the economic effects of this tax. Much of what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has said is perfectly correct. This is not the kind of tax one would like, lt is what is known in other terms as a cascading tax. It is a cumulative tax and it can rise quite sharply. If the tax was of a very significant size, the tax could then not be put. But it must be borne in mind that this tax is at a very low rate. Even though it is cascading and even though it is cumulative, its effects are not nearly as great as some of those who have written about it have indicated.

We must bear in mind, nevertheless, that this tax has been brought into being against the background of recent Premiers’ Conferences and against the background of requests by the Premiers. Mr Askin, Sit Henry Bolte, Mr Bjelke-Petersen and others have agreed that the tax should bc introduced. If it is desired that a tax of this nature not exist, the only solution would be to give back a proportion of income taxation powers to the States, lt is perfectly clear from recent conferences that Premiers do not want back income taxation powers. Were I in a position to take acton. I would endeavour to make the Premiers take back a proportion of the taxation powers and give to them some responsibility for the money which they do spend. But the Opposition does not even approach that problem. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports does not even consider that kind of solution. The Opposition would never support that kind of solution.

It is wrong to say also that the totality of income taxation has to be retained by the Commonwealth in order to iron out fiscal fluctuations. Income taxation rates and alterations in those rates have been used to iron out fiscal fluctuations in the Australian economy once or perhaps twice - that is all - in the last 20-ocld years, lt has not been done significantly since 1962 to iron out proposed economic fluctuations, and it was done once during the 1950s. There could always be argument about this but the essential point. I think, that has to be taken care of is that the retention of complete income taxation powers by the Commonwealth is not necessary and those powers have nol been used to iron out economic fluctuations. 1 would suggest, still, that a degree of these powers could be returned to the States and should be returned.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports complained concerning the regressive nature of this tax. ft does not bear a relation to work done. It does not bear, always in its totality, a relation to the value of goods which change hands - that is, after a lot of processes. It does not bear much of social value which ought to be supported. But let us put this into perspective. The Commonwealth has been forced into this position. The burden of the tax is considerably less than is suggested in a letter which has been circulated to honourable members by Tickle Holdings Pty Ltd, a Queensland firm. I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for Melbourne Ports quote some of the details in that letter of approval. They are just grossly inaccurate. Let me illustrate this one or two ways. The letter, which has been given wide circulation and on which the Leader of the Opposition hopes to build a campaign, says: . . the effect of the higher rate on consumer prices in Queensland will largely depend on the extent to which businesses absorb the inc reuse in duly or pass it on in the form of increased prices.

At the end of the letter there is a calculation showing that, on the original supply of materials to a manufacturer of a ulue of $600, the increased amount of taxation paid at the retail level would be approximately $4. But those who have made this calculation have forgotten that these days an essential of retail enterprise is that so often there is no wholesaler or agents but direct contact between manufacturers and retailers. That is the trend in this kind of activity. So. the lawful increase in the toality of the tax is considerably less than has been made out in this calculation. lt is suggested also that thi.s tax will cause inflation in Queensland. The tax was not responsible for inflation in Western Australia. After the rates were varied there Western Australia was not subject to inflation. After the rates were varied, within a reasonable time it was not inflation that worried Victoria. After the rates were varied, it was not inflation that worried South Australia. After the rales wire varied - although this was a little later- -it was not inflation that worried the other States, including Tasmania. So. insofar as inflation occurs as a result of this tax. the inflation has to have some relation to the increase in prices resulting from this tax. The experience in the other States is as I have indicated. If it is said that inflation occurs in Queensland as a result of the introduction of this tax, the imposition of the tax is being used more as an excuse than as an explanation of reality. But, further, insofar as the tax exists already in highly industrialised processing and manufacturing States - I refer to New South Wales and Victoria - it has a feedback effect on the State that is affected most seriously by this measure - Queensland. That feed back effect operates already in some States. So the letter that has been produced by these people is wrong both in :a economic analysis and in some of the simple calculations on which the analysis is based.

There are other matters concerning this measure which warrant some analysis and it is not possible to go through all of them. But I would like to mention one or two points which have some significance. The tax does mean greatly increased revenue for some States. It can mean an amount of increased revenue when it is taken with the receipts duties already operating in New South Wales. I am talking now about the blurring of the edges between excise and non-excise tax. It is said it can be worth something in the nature of $3 Om a year to New South Wales, $25m a year to Victoria, $6m a year to South Australia and $6m a year to Western Australia. What it is worth in my own State is rather difficult to calculate but to those who say there is a financial surplus of $70m available to the Commonwealth which should be distributed in this way I would suggest, as I do to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), that they have made a very superficial analysis which, in the case of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, does not become him. A much more profound study of the present economic position in Australia is required.

When one looks through the levels of returns which are available to States one thing docs stand out and 1 think it is worth commenting upon. The levels or return available in New South Wales and Victoria are very high compared with the returns in the other States. Of the total amount which will be returned in this taxation, those States will gain a disproportionately high amount. Why? They will gain a disproportionately high amount because from the nature of their industry it is clear that it is valuable to them. They have sufficient feed back processes; they have sufficient numbers of changes of goods to be worth a lot to them; they have sufficient specialised industries which enable a high rate of tax to be returned to the States. The States which do not have this kind of industrial structure will have, even at the same rate of tax, a lower amount of money returned to them. If a State has a large proportion of its activity directed to direct export activities and if it does not go through many hands - one can think, of course, of the great mineral States, the States from which the great exports are generated within the Commonwealth - there are fewer interchanges of goods and there are fewer chances to levy a tax of this nature. This means that the return to such a State, granted that the goods are f.o.b., would be significantly less than to States with a different structure.

This point leads up to the coming Premier’s Conference. This conference will consider a new taxation formula for redistribution of resources between the States. The Opposition has never proposed significant alterations in this formula. They complain about finance. They complain about the position of States within the Commonwealth but they have never made one proposition. Bearing in mind the nature of this taxation, 2 aspects of it are significant. The burden of taxation varies in States according to the development of the States and the capacity of States to pay taxation varies according to similar measures. These should be taken into account in any new taxation formula. For example, the present formula takes account of 2 factors mainly - the rate of increase in salaries and the rate of increase in population. There are some others that should be considered and I suggest that these be examined.

The other characteristics that should be considered in the formula are the differential effects, for example, of tariff protection in highly industrialised States compared with others in terms of the standards to be achieved, and the different multiplier effects of money spent in those States compared with others. These characteristics have both been ignored. With reference to the second characteristic, I go to an article published in the ‘Economic Record’ of 1964. I would merely suggest this for quick analysis. The article is written by H. A. Brown and is entitled ‘Australian Interstate Trade and Payments’. This is the kind of analysis which should be considered in Australian interstate finance. Without going into the details of his argument he says on page 372:

Trade payments (assuming, in spite of the portion entered above . . .) show a strong net balance towards the central States. The clearing of bank accounts as between States shows a similar tendency if such accounts were able to be published.

This kind of analysis, which was suggested as long ago as 1964, should be considered by those who are concerned with Australian interstate finance and the position of the States.

I return to the original thesis which I have made. This legislation has been brought into being at the request of the States. Under the Constitution, this is the only way in which the States can be satisfied. Those who criticised this measure should rationalise certain features of it.

They are these: If they do not accept it they should make specific proposals for States, which they have never made in the past in any economic context. They should also resolve their differences with the various State leaders who have supported this measure. Finally, in the fields where they do have some responsibility those on the Opposition side who criticise and the Opposition Party that has some responsibility, for example, in local authority affairs, should bear in mind that such local authorities apply normal rates which are much more regressive than this tax and are imposed at the highest level of any local authority in Australia. They should resolve that situation before they suggest a solution to this problem which would lead nowhere. 1 would suggest very kindly that their own sense of regression with respect to taxation would take them out of the situation and out of the economy altogether.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– The debating points made by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) would deserve more consideration if they were based on facts or if they were advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) or the Treasurer (Mr Bury). This Bill and its associated Bills will be rejected by the Parliament. In those circumstances Sir Robert Menzies or Mr Holt would undoubtedly have come into the Parliament immediately after my shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), had officially declared my Party’s attitude and stated the Government’s attitude. Furthermore, the Treasurer could have come in at that stage because, while he introduced the Bills, he is entitled to speak to the amendments that my shadow Treasurer has moved. But the present Prime Minister is an indifferent parliamentarian. He fears the House and avoids it. The Treasurer, similarly, apparently cares neither about his programme nor the Parliament’s judgment of it. The facts are these: This tax was first introduced by the Brand Government in Western Australia in 1967. It was opposed by the Labor Party in both Houses of that Parliament. The following year it was introduced by Sir Henry Bolte and it was opposed by Mr Holding. Last year, under pressure from the Commonwealth, it was introduced in 3 other States. Mr Ask.ii introduced it in New South Wales and it was opposed by Mr Hills.

Mr Hall introduced it and it was opposed by Mr Dunstan in the South Australian Parliament. Mr Reece in Tasmania had to introduce it because the Commonwealth Grants Commission made it plain that if his Government did not take the steps which had already been adopted by the standard States to raise revenue in th s way then the Commission would recommend a corresponding reduction in the Commonwealth’s grants to his State.

Then, after the Commonwealth announced that it would impose the tax the Queensland Parliament, on a bipartisan basis, introduced it knowing that if th s Bill went through the Parliament Queenslanders would have to pay it in any case. Any Commonwealth tax ie levied equally on all States. So I repeat, the Labor Party has opposed this in all the State Parliaments and my colleagues and I oppose it similarly in both Houses of th:s Parliament.

This Bill provides the first real opportunity the Parliament has had to reverse the progressive degeneration of Federal finances. Since the election last October the Government time and time again has displayed complete inability satisfactorily to resolve the complaints of the State governments and a complete refusal even to consider those of local government. There is only one forum in the land which can judge the Government’s failure in this respect and that is the national electorate, which the Government at all costs will avoid. This Bill is the latest example of a process of buck-passing between the Commonwealth and the States which is eroding the foundations of democratic responsibility. For years we witnessed the buck-passing process in which the Commonwealth passes the administrative buck to the States and the States pass the financial buck to the Commonwealth.

In his second reading speech the Treasurer repeatedly referred to the fact that the Bill was introduced at the request of the States. In his Press statement 2 days ago the Prime Minister reiterated this and asserted that the Australian Labor Party’s quarrel is with the State governments and not with the Commonwealth Government. 1 challenge the Prime Minister to deny that his Government :s responsible to this Parliament and to the people of Australia for any Bill which it sponsors irrespective of who requests it. If he does deny that - and it is the basic assumption of his Press statement - then honourable members will clearly see the degree to which the continuing story of Commonwealth-State conflict under 7 Liberal Treasurers over the last 2 years has damaged the basis of parliamentary democracy.

Further, I challenge the Government’s assertion that this measure really was introduced at the request of the States. When the crisis first arose last September the Prime Minister indicated only that the Commonwealth would ensure that the States would not lose revenue should the receipts duty be held invalid. We support that attitude, as my colleague’s amendment which I have seconded, shows. It was not until 18th November that the Commonwealth stated it would impose a similar tax and even then its currency was only for the financial year - to the end of this month. Eventually, at the Premiers Conference on 26th February, when the proposals which the Premiers jointly believed to be appropriate had been summarily dismissed by the Prime Minister, this tax emerged with an indefinite life.

The possibility that the Commonwealth should impose this tax on behalf of the States was first suggested on 18th September last by Mr Bethune, the Premier of Tasmania. Mr Askin and Sir David Brand expressed opposition to the suggestion. Sir David said:

Commonwealth control of receipt duty would only perpetuate the problems of the States in having to approach the Commonwealth repeatedly for more revenue. What little flexibility the States now had with the receipts duty would disappear. If the States or even a particular State wanted to increase or decrease the rate of duty, the Commonwealth would have to agree. The matter would then become a political battle.

On 28th October Mr Askin said:

My Government and I have never been wedded to the idea of a receipts tax. We were driven into it so that we might meet our commitments.

This tax has never been justified in any other terms but that it was a mechanism for providing the States with a growth tax which they could control. The sole basis for justification, in terms of State sovereignty, has been swept aside by the High Court. It has never been justified in any other terms, nor could it be. Its entire rationale has been destroyed and now this Government introduces a Bill which would make the States even more dependent on the Commonwealth, as is clearly seen by the necessity to increase the duty in Queensland to 5 times what it was and over a much greater range of goods. It is an unjust, cumbersome and regressive form of taxation. It must be clear to all concerned that once the States have lost the right to set their own rates, decide their own criteria of liability and allow for their own policy judgments with respect to exemptions from liability, the States are interested only in receiving a certain sum of money which grows each year. We on this side of the House believe that this objective can be completely fulfilled by certain marginal adjustments in more equitable forms of revenue raising. The only reason why the Government has rejected this alternative is that it would be more directly responsible to the people of Australia for such an action.

The principal characteristic of this tax defies every principle of equity and efficiency. Its imposition has arbitrary multiplicative effects according to the accident of the number of transactions through which goods and services pass. It is indirect tax and therefore regressive. Its incidence is totally unrelated to the capacity of the individual to pay. Let there be no doubt that it would be passed on in the form of higher prices. It is not related even to ability to pay in a purely commercial sense for, in relation to a particular business enterprise, it must be paid whether a profit is made or not. It falls most heavily on businesses which happen to have a low profit turnover ratio. A further limitation of this form of taxation is that it has uncertain and arbitrary effects on the efficient allocation of resources. Its incidence can be aggravated or relieved by quite accidental business arrangements. It falls most heavily on those which involve a large number of inter-firm transactions and on those which rely on extensive use of sub-contractors, as in the housing industry.

A tax on the number of times that money changes hands can have a severe and unpredictable impact on the velocity of circulation of money, which economists agree is a key economic variable, ft acts as an incentive to mergers and take-over bids so that economic transactions can occur within a particular firm. This effect is totally unrelated to the efficient use of resources. It adds a further incentive for the development of restrictive trade practices and monopolistic industries for they can more readily pass the lax on to consumers, whereas small businessmen and primary producers cannot.

It is exceptionally expensive tax to collect. Thus the experience of State stamp duties offices indicates that the expenditure on administration would increase by 80% within a few years after its introduction. Figures can be deduced from only 4 States. These figures show that the estimated expenditure for stamp duties offices for this year exceed their 1966-67 actual expenditures by 39% in both New South Wales and Queensland, 77% in Victoria and 83% in Western Australia, lt is impossible to get complete figures on what it will cost to collect the receipts duty but a fairly conservative estimate would be that it is greater than S2m a year. This is approximately 3% to 4% of the revenue collected. The cost of collecting other forms of Commonwealth revenue is only 1%.

Further, it is an exceptionally expensive form of taxation with which to comply. This has been the constant complaint of businesses throughout Australia. If this Bill is passed these difficulties will be perpetuated. The adjustments required in terms of bookkeeping and business procedures are unjustified. This is similarly true of the complex legal advice which businesses would have to receive in order to achieve satisfactory compliance with the ambiguities and vague provisions of this Bill.

The origins of this legislation lie in the High Court’s decision that a receipts duty can be an excise or customs duty in terms of section 90 of the Constitution, which makes the right to levy such duties exclusive to the Commonwealth. This invalidated part of the field covered by the Slates’ Acts. The Bills before the House impose a Commonwealth tax on all business receipts, not just those which were declared invalid by the High Court. This is indicated clearly in the 3 Bills which impose a rate of duty. The Stales Receipts Duty Bill (No. 1) and the Slates Receipts Duty Bill (No. 2) impose a duty of excise and of customs respectively. These 2 Bills cover the entire field to which section 90 applies and therefore the field to which the High Court decision relates. Yet there is a third Bill which imposes a duty to the extent that it is not a duty of excise or customs. Now, why has the Commonwealth taken this step? Why has it imposed taxation beyond the area declared invalid by the High Court? At no point in the Treasurer’s second reading speech is this fact acknowledged. He gives no explanation of why this extension was regarded as desirable.

Silting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, the most onerous and widespread effect of this Bill would be in Queensland, where the old State Act completely exempted all overthecounter retail sales. These would now be subject to duty. At a time when the Treasurer continues to pontificate about the problems of inflation, he introduces a measure which will significantly increase the prices of Queensland consumer goods. The Treasurer asserts that Queenslanders who have paid duty at the old rate will be exempted by section 88 from paying the increased tax, but can the Commonwealth allow a tax deduction which has the effect of making the residents of one State pay less than those of another? The Government itself clearly has doubts, because sub-section (5) contains a severability clause, the only one in the Act. If the Government’s own doubts prove valid, Queenslanders will have to pay extra duty on ali receipts since November, not just in the future.

In the States as a whole, people in some cases who were subject to duty no longer are, and there are some who were not subject to duty and now will be. To take the first case, it is clear that the Commonwealth has attempted to aggregate the entire list of State exemptions but in no previous State was an ‘unlicensed club’ or the sale of gold bullion completely exempt. Some States did not exempt credit unions, and some did not exempt building societies and trade unions. On the other hand, there are persons previously exempt from duty who will now have to pay. Thus, in Queensland all over-the-counter retail sales were exempt, as were all payments of less than $20.

If we turn to the schedule of exemptions in the Bill before this House, we will note in exemption 28 (c) that refunds of rates paid to local government bodies will be exempt. However, under the State Acts in Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia, not only were refunds of rates exempt but all overpaid taxes and duties were similarly exempt. Are we to understand that under this new Commonwealth legislation refunds of overpaid taxes as distinct from rates will now be subject to duty? There are other cases which are no longer exempt. In New South Wales prizes on poker machines were exempt. The difficulties associated with a legal interpretation of ‘the course of carrying on a business’ under the Companies Acts are well known. It may very well be that clubs in New South Wales will be held to be carrying on such a business. Another exemption in the New South Wales legislation was a receipt for money paid for a call in respect of the share capital of a mining company. That is not in this Bill. In the Tasmanian Act payments to a manufacturer of butter or cheese upon the resale by him of butter or cheese that he had purchased from the Australian Dairy Produce Board were also exempt. Will they be now? What will eventually be the scope of Exemption No. 2 under which regulations can be made to impose duties on public authorities? What will be the scope of these regulations? Will they in fact cover those public authorities exempted specifically under State Acts? Thus, in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, public hospitals are specifically exempted, and also in New South Wales payments by the Pastures Protection Board. Will they now be exempt?

Exemption 14(c) exempts receipts associated with securities issued by any public authority, but regulations can be made which withdraw this exemption from a public authority. Under the legislation in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales no such provision for withdrawing this exemption is included. It is quite clear that making this measure retrospective will breed a multitude of anomalies that can never be satisfactorily resolved.

I am somewhat disturbed by the press statement that the Prime Minister issued in response to the Labor Party’s challenge. The initial undertaking by the Commonwealth was that it would compensate the States for any loss of revenue which would result from the invalidation of the States’ Acts, lt was only later that the specific technique of imposing a similar tax was adopted. The only possible implication of the Prime Minister’s reaction to our challenge is that it is his intention to dishonour this initial obligation in precisely the same way that he dishonoured the obligations to consult on the off-shore legislation. He denies that the rejection of this Bill will affect the Commonwealth Government. The implication in that statement is that, should this measure be defeated, he will refuse to honour his initial undertaking to make up the loss of revenue from other sources.

We on this side of the House object to the nature of this form of taxation. We do, however, believe that the Commonwealth should fulfil its undertaking to compensate the States for the loss of revenue brought about by the High Court’s decision. I ask the Prime Minister to state categorically that the Commonwealth’s initial undertaking still stands, even if this particular form of meeting the obligation is to be defeated.

In his second reading speech the Treasurer asserted that, if the receipts tax was not continued, this would aggravate inflationary pressures in the economy. This is the last of a long series of confused utterances by him on the state of the economy which we have experienced this year. We have become accustomed to hearing the Treasurer complain about the effects of increased wages on prices or what economists would call ‘cost push inflation’. Now he seeks to explain inflation in terms of excessive demand. At no stage has the Treasurer attempted to develop a consistent and fully explained basis for his comments on inflationary tendencies, potential or otherwise. What would be the inflationary effects of the abolition of receipts duties in the short term? We would have to set off the extra amounts which would have to be paid in company tax and personal income tax. This would be of the order of SI 5m to

S20m. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether there would be any impact of an immediate nature. In none of his statements about economic portents has the Treasurer even acknowledged the fact that there are lags in the adjustment of the economy to new measures. The major part of the receipts duties has already been paid, and there would undoubtedly be delays in the return of this money should this Parliament take a firm stand. There would be further lags before this revenue would be reflected in further expenditure. Should the Commonwealth be unwilling to use its antiinflationary tools in the interim, it would appear that no significant inflationary processes would occur before the Commonwealth could adjust to them in its Budget.

There is only one issue before this Parliament at the present time. It is not whether the Stales should be compensated for the revenue they have lost due to the High Court action. That is accepted. The only question is in what way the Commonwealth should compensate. That is a Commonwealth decision for which this Government must bear full responsibility. We on this side do not believe that the receipts tax is the appropriate mechanism, lt is a regressive form of taxation; it has incalculable harmful effects on the efficient allocation of resources; it is expensive to collect: it imposes unnecessary burdens for businesses which have to adjust their administrative procedures in order to comply. The Government has not explained at any stage why it has chosen to implement this tax rather than adjusting in a marginal way one of the established forms of Commonwealth taxation.

The Prime Minister asserts that the tax was implemented at the request of the States. This is a complete distortion of the facts. There is no doubt that the previous Treasurer encouraged the States to either follow the Western Australian model or impose a tax of a similar nature on turnover. Sir Francis Nicklin, the ex-Premier of Queensland, publicly accused the exTreasurer of this. Every Premier at the time that his State Government adopted this form of taxation apologised for it and blamed the Commonwealth -for the necessity of its introduction. The initial reaction of several Premiers to the suggestion that the Commonwealth impose such a tax was hostile, lt is quite clear that the only reason why this ‘request’ was ever made was that the Commonwealth made it clear that it would refuse to compensate the States by increasing its own existing forms of taxation. This was a stratagem to attempt to evade Commonwealth responsibility for the Bill before the House. None of the States except Western Australia would have introduced this Bill but for Commonwealth pressure on their finances and the Commonwealth’s urging them to follow Western Australia’s example. This basic choice always existed, and the fact that the Government has chosen to introduce this new form of Commonwealth taxation indicates that it cannot evade its responsibility, despite the posturings of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s assertion that the rejection of this measure does not affect the Commonwealth has no substance in logic or fact. If the Commonwealth is to honour its promise to compensate the States for the loss of revenue, then such a rejection must affect the Commonwealth. This measure represents the last in a series of superficial ad hoc adjustments to a basic problem. The Labor Party believes that the crisis which would be caused by such a rejection should lead to a long term solution. Any government which is defeated by the Parliament on a major taxation Bill should resign. The sooner this Government resigns the sooner the people can elect a government which can make a reasonable financial agreement with the States and can take into account the still more severe financial situation of the State’s creations - their local government and semigovernment authorities .

For the last 2 years throughout the lifelime of the Gorton Government there have been 7 Liberal Treasurers in Australia. Never has there been such a crisis, since the depression, in Commonwealth-State financial relations. Accordingly, the Liberals clearly cannot solve this problem - they will not even tackle it. On this measure they are blaming the States - the States which had to impose this tax because the former Federal Treasurer (Mr McMahon) urged them to do so. He held out to them that this was the source of revenue which was available to them. His legal judgment was astray, and now the Commonwealth has undertaken, quite properly, to compensate the States for the loss of revenue which they have suffered through the High Court’s invalidating of the legislation which the Commonwealth urged the States to adopt. Certainly the Commonwealth should compensate the States, but not in this cumbersome, regressive form.

This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should then resign. It has become quite clear in the months since the last Federal election that this Government is pathologically incapable of resolving the problems of Commonwealth-State-civic financial relations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading has expired. The question now is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member may not speak now. I am putting the question. I will call the honourable member later. He may not interrupt when the question is being put from the chair.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 46

Majority . . 6

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be read a second time.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 47

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3497

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 1) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June (vide page 2964), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I cannot allow you to speak. The time allotted for the consideration of all stages of this Bill has expired. The question now is: ‘That all stages of the Bill be agreed to.’

Mr Crean:

– We indicate our dissent, but a division is not required.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3497

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 June (vide page 2965), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the consideration of all stages of this Bill has expired. The question now is: ‘That all stages of the Bill be agreed to.’ Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the Ayes have it.

Mr Crean:

– A division is not required, but we indicate our dissent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3497

STATE RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 3) 1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 June (vide page 2965), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the consideration of all stages of this Bill has expired. The question now is: That all stages of the Bill be agreed to.’ Those of that opinion say aye. to the contrary no. I think the Ayes have it.

Mr Crean:

– A division is not required, but we indicate our dissent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3498

STATES GRANTS (RECEIPTS DUTY) BILL1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 June (vide page 2965). on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the second reading of this Bill has expired. The question now is: That this Bill be now read a second time’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question now is: ‘That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.’

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3498

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Griffith)I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. The honourable member for Barton suggested that I should have been on the other side of the House during the division. The point is that I sat here until 3.30 this morning waiting to speak on this Bill and that I sat here all this morning when the House resumed and until 12 minutes past 2, but unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition spoke until the time allotted for the debate had expired and did not give me an opportunity to speak.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

MrWH ITL AM - Yes. I did not take up the full time allotted in speaking to this Bill. The guillotine deprived me also of my time.

page 3498

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the One Hundred and Nineteenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee which was tabled earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DOBIE:

– This report relates to the Australian Dairy Produce Board, the Canberra Community Hospital, the National Library of Australia and the Superannuation Board, in respect of matters arising from the Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General for 1968-69.

Our inquiry into the Australian Dairy Produce Board arose from the failure of the Board to complete its financial statements in time for their inclusion in the Auditor-General’s Supplementary Report. The evidence shows that the main cause of this failure related to an amount of $97,743 which the Board decided late in 1968-69 to charge against the Dairying industry Stabilisation Fund to cover administration costs incurred in that year in. earning income from its South East Asian projects. Your Committee believes that the Board should have given attention to this matter when income from those projects began to appear in 1967-68. We also believe that the Department of Primary Industry should have sought a legal opinion in June 1969 on the question of whether ministerial approval was required to give effect to the Board’s decision. This would have obviated the need for such an opinion to be sought much later by the AuditorGeneral’s office. However, your Committee would commend the Dairy Produce Board for consulting with the Public Service Board regarding the use of electronic data processing equipment in an effort to improve the speed of its account preparation and to improve management.

In the case of the Canberra Community Hospital we noted that sundry debtors for patient fees had increased from about $425,000 in May 1968 to more than $531,600 in June 1969. The evidence shows that this increase had arisen mainly from fee increases that occurred during the year and an increase in the number of inpatients. Moreover, a new procedure introduced in June 1968 for benefit assignment or payment of account on discharge from the Hospital resulted in an increase in the number of accounts referred to the hospital funds in 1968-69. Arising from the evidence your Committee believes that the Hospital must maintain a continuing surveillance of its outstanding debts and its methods of debt recovery. We also believe that Commonwealth departments should settle promptly all hospital accounts with which they are concerned.

Our inquiry into the National Library of Australia related to the stocktaking of the Library’s assets, which stocktaking has been of a composite nature in recent years. On the evidence, your Committee believes that, in the past, there has been a need for the introduction of an appropriate stocktaking programme. Following a pilot study made by the library in 1969 and the subsequent creation by the Public Service Board of 13 new positions on the Library’s staff establishment we trust that a suitable stocktaking programme can be implemented without delay.

While the late presentation of financial statements by the Superannuation Board was occasioned by audit queries that arose when draft statements were submitted for audit, your Committee is particularly concerned by the problems confronting the Board in the preparation of those statements. The evidence shows that since 1966 the Board has issued circulars to departments and authorities concerning the prompt payment of contributions and delays and errors that have occurred in the submission of fortnightly returns. In spite of this, about 30 departments and authorities submitted returns for 1968-69 subsequent to 30th June 1969 and 9 were still outstanding as at 31st July. Also during that year the Board found it necessary to investigate 224 returns from 68 ‘ departments and authorities that failed to reconcile. Your Committee would make it clear that this situation reflects on the administrative performances of the departments and authorities concerned. I commend the report to honourable members,

page 3499

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June (vide page 3079), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– by leave - It is true, as the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has said, that I did have a conference with the Secretary of the Federated Clerks Union and the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on this issue. Following the discussions a paper was drawn up, which I will read. It will be of interest to honourable members in relation to this debate. I think that almost all honourable member; have received letters from people employed by ASIA expressing their concern about what will be their future when the provisions of this legislation are enacted. Most honourable members have sent those letters to me for my comments. 1 have not had an opportunity to sign replies to those letters yet. Replies have been prepared and they will be going out as soon as 1 can physically put my signature on them. In the meantime 1 will announce the terms of the statement. It states:

There will bc no retrenchment of the ASIA’s staff within the next 12 months except in those ports in which permanent employment is introduced in that period. 1 will establish a committee immediately to report to mc. The committee will consist of representatives of the Department of Labour artel National Service, the ASIA, the ACTU and the Federated Clerks Union. The committee will have the following functions:

To identify as far as possible the future redundancy problem in the ASIA as its functions ami activities contract: lo consider and recommend what principles could apply in respect of any such redundancy situation, including the question of whether compensation might be paid to retrenched employees and, if so, the circumstances in which ir may be paid: it would also consider the provision of assistance to retrenched employees in finding suitable alternative employment as far as possible at the same salary level;

To examine any individual problems of ASIA staff members who have to be retrenched as a result of permanent employment being introduced into particular ports during the next 12 months.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– 1 thank the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) for tabling that report. We knew that he had it and would be making its contents known at some point in lbc debate. I thought it would be appropriate for him to do so at this stage so that honourable members who wished to speak on the Bill would have this information in their possession. The Bill before the House is an amendment to the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act. which was introduced in 1967 and amended in 1.968. This legislation implemented the recommendations of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference - probably better known as the Woodward Committee - which was set up by Sir Robert Gordon Menzies in October 1965, when he was Prime Minister. At that time there was great industrial turmoil on the waterfront. The Waterside Workers Federation and the Federal Government were almost in a head on conflict. Stoppages were the order of the day. In all, the state was reached where work was almost impossible. The waterfront had come to an almost permanent halt, and something had to be done.

As a result of conferences between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government at that dme it was finally resolved that the Conference should be appointed. Mr A. E. Woodward, Q.C. was appointed by the Government as the Chairman. The Conference was made up of representatives of the Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the Department of Labour and National Service. The Conference mct and deliberated for a considerable time. Finally it submitted a report to the Minister on 13th April 1967. The legislation was introduced in this place on 31st October 1967. With very limited time to study the legislation, the Opposition was required, some 26 or 28 hours later, on 1st November to debate it. lt must be obvious from that very brief summary that I have given of what took place that the legislation on that occasion was hastily thrown together, In 1968 a further amendment was introduced to overcome some of the technical and administrative problems which had not been foreseen on thai occasion. In the Bill before the House at present not only is a change proposed in the general constitution of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority but also an attempt is made to cure some of the problems associated with administration.

The Bill (hat we are now asked to debate provides for the continuation of permanent employment in the stevedoring industry for an additional 2 years from 1st July 1970 until 30th June 1972. The Bill amends the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority from a 3-man authority io a l-man authority; that is, from a chairman and 2 member’s to a director, lt also provides the necessary machinery to establish that position. The Bill grants statutory backing to the National Stevedoring Industry Conference by reconstituting it as the Stevedoring Industry Council. As 1 said a moment ago, the Bill also corrects some of the administrative anomalies that have crept into the legislation. The Opposition supports the legislation but feels that rather than having the Director as the sole member of the authority it should consist of a 3- man directorate, not necessarily as it is at the moment with 3 full time, permanent members, but with a permanent director and 2 part time directors. One should be from the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, and one from the Waterside Workers Federation. Representatives of those 2 organisations could work with the Director, assisting him and advising him on the functions and operations of the Authority.

The Opposition feels that, with the setting up of the Stevedoring Industry Council, this tripartite principle could be transferred into the operations of the directorship of the Stevedoring Industry Authority. That principle has worked for some considerable time with a chairman and 2 members. Why not retain it but change it to a level where it contains direct representatives of the employer and employee authorities that I have just referred to? We feel that the legislation should have been introduced much earlier. People in the industry have been greatly concerned about what is going to happen to them and their permanent employment. We do not feel that there is any risk of the Government not proceeding with its policy of permanent employment on the waterfront. The general feeling is that the egg has been scrambled and there is not much risk of its being put back together again.

The legislation having been introduced here in 1967, the Government has had 2 years to determine what it is going to do with it, what its policy is going to be, whether it is going to continue its policy of permanent employment and how it is going to continue with it. Yet at this late hour, with a matter of just a few more weeks to go until the expiry of the existing legislation which terminates on 30th June, we have this Bill brought to us on the basis that it is another piece of temporary legislation for another 2 years.

I refer to the matter of permanent employment of waterfront labour at ports throughout Australia. I understand that Whyalla is to be granted a system of permanent employment in the very near future and that discussions are taking place at Darwin in regard to this matter. Permanent employment should have been granted to Townsville, Hobart, Burnie and Bundaberg in the last 2 years because they are ready for it. The waterside workers and the employers both want it and therefore it should be proceeded with as early as possible. The Department of Labour and National Service has been a little lax in not having brought this legislation down and had decisions made about the introduction of permanent employment. The stoppages on the waterfront that have occurred in recent months can be explained and justified. The introduction of permanent employment and the establishing of the Stevedoring Industry Council are commendable. The Opposition supports the scheme. It will bring about some degree of stability to the waterfront industry which has been a most turbulent one. History shows that there have always been strikes and trouble on the waterfront. The proposed scheme can bring about some degree of permanency of employment and stability for the men and for the industry.

The setting up of the Stevedoring Industry Council is an excellent idea. It creates direct participation for the industry. The employer representatives and the union representatives at the highest level of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Waterside Workers Federation will meet regularly to discuss the problems. Previously if a dispute arose ofttimes the men went on strike. The employer would not talk to them and the tribunal would not talk to them because they were on strike. Strikes were imminent. They were certain to take place on certain days. Now we have an organisation which is able to meet, to call the parties together and overcome the problems that are in existence. I should like to see the Stevedoring Industry Council or the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority examine, or, if need be, some separate organisation created to examine and investigate the whole ramifications of the waterfront today, not only on the basis of employment but also on the basis of the organisation of the industry, the provision of machinery, the organising of ports and the development of ports. At the present time in Australia 44 different port authorities conduct their affairs on the basis of the development, construction and provision of wharfage and all the other matters. I should like to see a number of these authorities eliminated or a central authority, such as the Stevedoring Industry Council, created by the Government to do this job.

In the United States of America there is a New York Port Authority in which 2 States are involved. They were unable to operate individually so they drew up legislation to establish the authority. People talk about the United States as being the great land of free enterprise. Here is a Socialist organisation if ever there was one, the New York Port Authority which conducts all the shipping operations in New York. That Authority conducts airports such as Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark. It is examining the development of Triborough This is all being carried out by a Stateowned instrumentality and if necessary the facilities arc leased out to other people to operate. At Kennedy airport the Authority owns all the facilities. It either makes the land available or constructs the terminals and then leases them out. The same thing applies to the shipping port section; the Authority owns the facilities, builds them and, where necessary, leases them. This is what we should be looking at here in Australia.

At Tokyo, Kobe. Rotterdam - which is the largest port in the world - and even London, the facilities are either State-owned or are owned by a city council and are operated by government authorities charged with the responsibility of developing the ports. Instead of dealing with employment, wages and so on, the Commonwealth Government should be moving into a much broader field of the stevedoring industry. One can pick up newspapers at different times and find references to the inefficiency of and the poor conditions that prevail in Australian ports. An article in the ‘Daily Mirror’ of 5th May 1970 states:

New South Wales ports inadequate for future.

Port facilities in New South Wales have no hope of roping with cargoes of the future unless they are given far more shore space.

This conclusion was reached today by delegates of the Captain Cook Bi centenary symposium in Sidney.

Here is another example:

Dock congestion causing eight hours delay.

A leading Sydney exporter is complaining that trucks delivering cargo for New Guinea-bound ships are often delayed up to eight hours because of traffic congestion to the wharves.

The exporter is one of a growing list of shippers and ship owners to complain that inadequate facilities in the Port of Sydney are becoming an increasing problem.

Another example is to be found in the Australian Financial Review’ of 24th March, when the president of the Australian Road Transport Federation said:

The scandalous ranks of trucks which form up outside Sydney wharves are a blot on the largest ami busiest port in the Commonwealth. 1 do not wan; to develop this point any further. 1 think I have made the point sufficiently thai ports in Australia are in a bad state. They are not as efficient as they should be. There should be some central organisation with finances available to develop them. After all, the Commonwealth’ Government controls the finances of this country and it is in a position to make money available. We should be planning and developing ports throughout this nation. I do not wish to attack one authority as against another but I know of one case where within 20 miles 2 Slates, possibly on the basis of parish pump politics, are developing ‘ 2 deep sea ports. That is just a waste of national resources. We should have a co-ordinating authority to deal with such matters.

As to transport facilities, too often the States through their railway systems are channelling freight back to their own capital cities when it would be much cheaper and much easier to direct it to the capital city or an export port of an adjoining State. There is a great need to have coordination through a central transport planning authority. Another feature which concerns the Opposition is the revolution (hat has taken place in the carriage of freight. An enormous change has taken place as a result of the introduction of containerisation, roll-on roll-off types of ships, stern loaders, side loaders, the Scandia type of ships, and unit loading. Containerisation has superseded the conventional type of ships with great holds and in some isolated cases shore cranes. We now have ships with cranes and the handling gear for the movement of cargo from ship to shore or from shore to ship. This revolution has had a widespread effect on the waterfront today.

Only (his week the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) announced that the population of Australia has now passed the 121 million mark. Whilst Australia’s volume of imports and exports is continuing to increase we find that the work force on the waterfront has dropped from 22,744 in 1964-65 to 18,040 in 1968-69, which is the latest year for which figures are available. During the last 5 years 4,704 men have left this industry. Some investigation should be undertaken by the Department of Labour and National Service or some other responsible body associated with the industry to find out just what is happening. Is the introduction of containers in the best interests of Australia’s economy? Does containerisation represent economy? Does it represent a burden being imposed on one section of the community?

With the possible exception of Fremantle, Sydney and Melbourne, all the ports of Australia are facing some problem as a result of the introduction of the types of ships I have referred to. An urgency motion was moved in this House and in the Senate by honourable members and senators concerned with the welfare of the people of Tasmania. That motion complained of insufficient shipping facilities for Tasmania and also increased freight charges. The Port of Newcastle has its own problems. The waterfront unions are continually meeting to discuss problems within the industry. Employers, through the Chamber of Commerce Shipping Committee, are continually meeting in the endeavour to solve problems created by the introduction of containerisation and similar types of shipping. The same can be said about the Port of Albany in Western Australia, Portland, Adelaide, Brisbane and all other ou ‘-ports.

Before the introduction of containerisation these ports had a regular flow of ships which picked up particular cargoes. This applies particularly to Portland and Albany where for many years conventional ships called to pick up wool and at the same time loaded and discharged general cargo. Now, as a result of containerisation, the wool is being shipped in containers to the central port which in Western Australia is Fremantle, in New South Wales is Sydney, and in Victoria it is Melbourne. The result has been that ships which previously called at these out-ports to pick up wool now have to collect the wool at the central port and do not collect or discharge general cargo at the outport. This in itself is having a serious effect on labour. The frequency of visits by ships has been reduced. Previously in some ports there may have been a weekly, a monthly or a 3-monthly visit by ships of a particular line to pick up certain commodities. Monthly visits have now become 3-monthly or 4-monthly visits. As a result people who export particular goods have had to find a means of stowing those goods and of transporting them to the buyer, which invariably means that the cargo has to be sent from the port where it was previously shipped back to the central port or to one of the three which I have referred to - Fremantle, Melbourne or Sydney.

This problem should be examined by a government department, whether it be the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of Shipping and Transport or the Department of Trade and Industry. The problem is growing day by day because of the effects that it is having on industry. I know that industries in Newcastle in my electorate are greatly inconvenienced, particularly in the shipment of mineral sands, phosphate and the like. Whereas they had a regular calling of ships on a set timetable, they now have to ship through Sydney.

Even organisations like the Newcastle Branch of Aid-Retarded Persons New South Wales are affected by containerisation. The Newcastle Branch of this body has built up a connection with an importer in Malaysia and regularly ships large quantities of paper to Malaysia. From this the organisation receives considerable revenue and it provides employment for people who need specialised type of employment. The branch rang me recently to tell me that it had so much paper it did not know where to put it. Its officers could hardly move in its establishment which was so stacked with paper. The organisation could not get a ship to call to take the paper away. Although only a small amount of profit is involved, the collection and export of this paper provides employment. However, the organisation cannot afford the cost of shipping the paper to Sydney for export to Malaysia. This is another of the problems that has arisen as a result of the changeover from conventional type shipping to containerisation.

In the last report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority reference is made to the amount of time lost by men in the industry. I address my remarks to the number of cases in which hours have been lost not as a result of the employees’ actions but as a result of delays occasioned by employers, invariably the shipowners. In many cases hours have been lost because gear for handling cargo has not conformed with the Navigation (Loading and Unloading - Safety Measures) Regulations. This is the responsibility of the employers of waterfront labour and the shipowners. In 1964-65 there were 148 cases resulting in a loss of 14,494 hours; in 1965-66 there were 108 cases involving 13,530 man hours lost; in 1966-67 a total of 14,425 man hours were lost; in 1967-68 there were 140 cases with 17,526 hours lost; and in 1968-69, which was the worst year, there were 243 cases costing 22.446 hours. Thus in the last 5 years, because of employer negligence, 82,421 man hours have been lost.

When the. Stevedoring Industry Authority is critical of the trade union movement for taking strike action I feel that it should also try to rectify the situation to which I have just referred. All of the stoppages could have been avoided if management, employers of labour and shipowners had been prepared to rectify the things about which the men went on strike. Let me instance some of the faulty gear involved in 1968-69. There were 45 cases of defective winches and/or cranes involving the loss of 2,990 man hours; there were 27 cases of defective ships gangways and 1 ,264 hours were lost: defective cargo runner splices - 22 cases and 3,081 hours lost; and defective hold ladders - 1 1 cases and 324 hours lost. There is no justification for ladders in ships holds being defective. There is no justification for gangways being defective or for winches and cranes being defective. There were 85 cases of unmarked or defective items of cargo gear, and these involved 1 1 ,560 hours tost. These are all items that should have been rectified by the shipowners or by employers of waterfront labour. If they had been reclined it would have eliminated one of the features of waterfront employment that needle men in the industry or. for that matter, in any industry. Men do not want to work under unsafe conditions and frequently they have to take the action of stopping work to get these defects remedied.

Prior to the commencement of this debate the Minister made a statement during which he said:

There will be no retrenchment of the ASIA staff within the next 12 months except in those ports in which permanent employment is introduced in that period.

We accept the position that when permanency is introduced into a port there are problems associated with it, but if it is adequately planned in advance and men are acquainted with what their position will be many of the problems associated with redundancy can be overcome. However there seems to be a contradiction in that statement when it is compared with the roneod copy of the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

True, further potts 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 1.967. Thus, 1 do not anticipate that the enactment of this legislation will have any direct effect on the employment position of ASIA staff.

I ask honourable members to note that in that quote he referred to 2 years, yet in his statement 12 months was mentioned. Later in his second reading speech the Minister said:

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.

Again he mentions 2 years. Later, he said:

However, I reiterate once again that there should be no cause for concern about redundancy on a major scale within the next 2 years.

  1. wonder whether the Minister has become confused. I hope that I am not. In a document drawn up after an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federated Clerks Union he spoke of a period of 12 months. He gave an assurance of 12 months continuity of employment. Yet in his second reading speech he has referred all the way through to 2 years. I repeal the final’ quote from his speech:

Hovever, I reiterate once again that there should be no cause for concern about redundancy on a major SCale within the next 2 years.

I hope that there will be no redundancy in

  1. 3 or 4 years. The Government should bc prepared to give some consideration to my suggestions which I know have the support of the industry and the support of my Party. The Opposition believes that the Austraiian Stevedoring Industry Authority should be extending its activities to encompass those matters to which I have referred. If need be, a complete stevedoring unit could be set up to carry out the work of stevedoring and, most importantly, it could work with the States or with authorities in the States in developing ports. After all it is through ports that Australian imports and exports are transported. If we do not have first class ports that are comparable in efficiency with overseas ports obviously we are placing an additional financial burden on our trade which makes it more difficult for our exporters to compete on the world market.

The Opposition supports the legislation. The provision relating to the Stevedoring Industry Council is an improvement, lt will put on a permanent basis something that has been temporary. People in the industry were not sure whether it was going to continue or what its function would be in the future. Now that it has been put on a permanent basis we hope that when the new legislation is brought down within the next 2 years everyone in the industry will know where they are going, particularly those people in the Federated Clerks Union who at present are greatly concerned about their future.

Mr FOSTER (Sturt) [3.91-1 support the Bill and in so doing want to trace somewhat briefly the history of the trade union movement in respect of the waterfront. Originally the waterfront unions came into being because of the imposition of shocking conditions in The Rocks area of Sydney in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s when waterfront employees were a disorganised force of people who were traded upon by independent shipowners and were subjected to the most frightful conditions imaginable, as were their counterparts of that day in the United Kingdom. One of the founders was a person who became Prime Minister of this country. This man, who had led the Labor Party, apparently forgot later the very sound principles that he had learnt in his early years and became the Prime Minister of Australia as leader of another Party.

Organised labour commenced from that point of time. The union has indeed been, in the eyes of our political opponents, an extremely boisterous and militant union, because the people now on the Government benches have never endeavoured to understand the waterfront industry and its problems. They have never endeavoured to understand the system, if one may refer to it as such, of exploitation by those of greed of those who were expecting a fair share of what they were entitled to for their work and because of the conditions under which they worked and a whole host of other things. The industry during the course of the mid- 1920s or late 1920s was lorn asunder by industrial strife when one union was set against another. During the depression years one of the most shocking systems of engaging labour in this country or any other country - at least by western standards - was introduced. It was one of the most shocking systems ever imposed on the waterfront industry. This was the bull system of picking up labour. Under this system men were given favours by bosses because they were prepared to settle a bar score for the bosses or were prepared perhaps to pay other bills that the bosses would run up generally in waterfront business houses. This is a system that can indeed only be described as shocking.

Where then did human dignity manifest itself? How far can one push a human being and expect him not to realise that he is a human being? During the course of the late 1930s men throughout Australia who had been subjected to these intolerable conditions realised that they had little to lose by taking the form of action that they did take in the late 1 930s and early 1 940s. They demanded such things as a rosier system that had as its purpose the taking away from the bosses, the foremen and the bulls of the industry the right to he rc-employ-sd day after day whereas their fellows in the industry were getting no monetary return whatsoever. What was wrong with the very fine principle that the amount of work available in the industry should be shared by all in the industry? Under the bull system 15% got everything that was going and all the monetary it-turn, and everyone else had to share absolute and utter poverty. From this state of affairs grew the combined action of union men who expressed themselves in a very militant fashion. This was brought about, of course, by the conditions under which they were expected to slave. They came up against the system of the masters, the absentee employers, the shipowners, the shipowners’ agents, the stevedoring companies, the shipowners’ imported supervisors and all these other attendant difficulties.. Of course, as soon as the union saw that the labour position in the late 1930s and into the 1940s was such that they were in a better posi-lion industrially, is it any wonder that it resorted to the type of action that it was forced into in a desire to win conditions of no less value than those in industry generally? There were . many bitter fights in regard to these matters.

During the early 1940s, after the Treasury bench here was vacated by the political opponents of the trade union movement generally, the Stevedoring Industry Commission was set up. There was provision on the Commission for what one would like to be able to regard as being equal representation. There was representation for the employers, which gave the shipowner representation because of his right to appoint those representatives who were managers of stevedoring companies and the like. Also there were representatives of the trade union movement - namely of the Waterside Workers Federation. While one does not dispute that there were disputes during the war years - and much criticism flowed to the organisation because it took strike action - at least I was one who was in the field and realised the union’s position. I did not in any way criticise it for the form of action it was forced to take to ensure that its members would not return to a form of the treatment after the cessation of hostilities that had been imposed on them for many scores of years. However, there were many conditions that the union saw fit to act against, such as men working around the clock continuously - working on the job for scores of hours, almost, at a time. The union saw fit to introduce a shift system into the industry. Was there anything wrong with this? Everyone else in industry had these conditions. But the conditions could not be obtained without head on clashes with management and the like.

After the war years the union had to resort to very strong and firm militant action to win the condition that workers in the industry were not required to stay on the job, not just for 24 hours but for something like double and more. Of course, this led to industrial disputation. There was some difference of opinion between the government of the day and the union about the Stevedoring Industry Commission which led to the removal of the 2 representatives of the Federation. Later the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board was set up, and representation was denied to the Federation. This laid the foundation for many a bitter struggle that ensued over the years and continued to make itself felt within the industry right up to 1965. During this, period the Federation was engaged in some struggles about conditions that other unionists had enjoyed and, of course, which some unionists had not enjoyed. This placed the Federation, very proudly, in the forefront as a condition winner for a number of organisations, a role which it still continues to play very admirably on behalf of the whole trade union movement. The Federation ought to be commended for adopting that line. I hope and trust that the union will continue to do that.

I would, of course, deplore that in this day and age the union would have to continue to resort to industrial action to achieve those worthwhile gains - worthwhile in the eyes of its membership and the eyes of the leaders of the trade union movement who represent that membership. The industry wanted such things as annual leave, payment for sick leave and payment for public holidays. But the union was not able to achieve these simple conditions that had prevailed for many years in other industries throughout the Commonwealth. Any case put forward by anyone in the industry, be it the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, which was set up in about 1956, the employer organisations, or any direct representation by the Federation through the Australian Council of Trade Unions which is the recognised head of the trade union movement - and these bodies met consistently - was not acceded to. The requests of the trade unions were not accepted on such matters as the simple conditions of annual leave, public holidays, guaranteed shifts. As a result, unsettled conditions started to manifest themselves. Pensions were mentioned many, many years ago also. Pension rights were not achieved for some considerable time after.

Let me continue along in this speech, as it were, to what happened in 1965. Continual disputes occurred throughout the industry. We in the Australian Waterside Workers Federation were accused by almost all Government members of being led by Communists. We were anarchists and all sorts of violent, frightful things. Many legislative measures moved against the trade union movement in this chamber by the Government were directed against the Federation in the stupid and forlorn hope - the Government was misguided then; I hope that it does not continue to be misguided in the future - that such measures in fact would overcome the problems of an industry fraught with problems.

The Government, the Department of Labour and National Service and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority were never prepared really to examine the industry at its grass roots. Many a committee was set up. One such committee was the Bastin Committee which delivered a report on permanency and other provisions for the industry. The Government shelved that report. It looked at it occasionally, ft was not prepared to do anything constructive about the recommendations in that report. Bastin finished up disgusted no doubt because, despite his efforts, the Government took no action with respect to some of the grass roots problems associated with an important industry in the transport field to which he drew its attention.

In the early 1960s, the Government commenced a vicious campaign. This was done with the Austraiian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Before I proceed to deal with that, I draw to the attention of the House a matter that 1 did not intend to mention. In that time, 2 strikes took place. One was held in 1954 and lasted for 2 weeks; the other, held in 1956, continued for approximately the same time. Each of these strikes would have been avoided if some proper and clear understanding had existed, in the first instance, on the claims made regarding margins and, in the second instance, on the right to recruit. Neither of these 2 long drawn out strikes in which the workers struggled on for 3 weeks would have been necessary if commonsense had prevailed and the employers, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, and the Government ministers of the day had been prepared to sit down, realise the merits of the claims and consider them on a proper basis.

I come lo the 1960s When the Waterside Workers Federation and the trade union movement on the waterfront were attacked viciously on disciplinary measures. Breaches or alleged breaches by nien, including foremen and supervisors, in the main capital city ports, were reported. These men were marched up before the Authority and were suspended for 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, or even up to 3 weeks. Naturally, their fellow workers were incensed by such vicious injustice. No right of appeal of any type was available to any tribunal or inquiry. No rights of appeal, in the real sense of the term, existed. The burden of proof was with the individuals concerned, the trade union organisations and in every direction other than those who were intent on this stupid idea that they would destroy the militant action of waterside workers and would deny to them their rights to set about winning further conditions for themselves, by application of this most vicious system of discipline.

A system known on the waterfront as the hostage system’ was introduced. This was one of the most vicious schemes ever introduced industrially in this Commonwealth. Let me illustrate what happened. If you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I were suspended and our mates went out on strike in support ot us. the Authority would say: ‘Well, you are suspended for a normal working day*. In 2 ports in Australia, sonic 5,000 or 6.000 members - a paltry number of men - could be out on strike because of some intolerable condition of employment that affected you and me. A waterside worker who was at home on that occasion unable to work would be informed that he had been suspended for that day or for the period of the stoppage. To the suspension for 1 day might be added another day’s suspension, and so on and so on. With measures such as these being imposed upon workers in the industry, how could the Government and others concerned hope to achieve industrial peace in this field in Australia? These people were proud and glad to call themselves Australians.

In 1965 a most vicious piece of legislation was introduced into this House by the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon). That legislation was introduced in the forlorn hope that it would cure once again the ills of the waterfront industry. I sat in the Opposition gallery in this chamber as I see people sitting in it this afternoon. I found it almost impossible to restrain myself as I listened to the then Minister for Labour and National Service deliver his second reading speech. My feelings at that time were the same as they are at this moment as I consider this legislation. Casting my mind back, I remember that my feelings were those of absolute disgust to think that there were people who purported to have any common sense at all and who were endeavouring to introduce a measure of that type in the hope that it would cure industrial ills and bring about industrial peace. I was filled with a feeling of disgust that they were born in the same country as I.

That legislation provided for and sought to aid and abet any small number of men in ports like Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Fremantle, Brisbane and Hobart who to gather together and to form themselves into a trade union organisation correctly regarded as a scab organisation. That organisation was given the blessing of the Minister of the day and the Government of the day in order to pit the loyalties of one man against another man and to aid and abet as well as to encourage it. That was the thinking of members of the Government some of whom, unfortunately, are still here. They thought that they could overcome such industrial unrest by that type of legislation.

This belief is shown in all these Hansards that I have before me on my desk. It would take me a considerable time to refer to each passage and to read it. The Communist element is mentioned God knows how many times. The present Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) won his way into this House by witch hunting on the waterfront. This won him a position on the ministerial front bench of the Government. He was successful because of his witch hunting and head hunting on the waterfront and because of the fact that he could name who were and who were not

Communists. But, finally, he had to back off because he could not say that some 26,000 members of the trade union movement working on the waterfront are all Communists; nor could he say that all the officials in the trade union movement were Communists. At the time when he was making these allegations, I was sitting on the Federal Council of the organisation. I have sat as a member of that body since 1959. I am not going to say in this chamber what my attitude was regarding what the Minister may have thought or what he may still think. The point I want to make is the absolute stupidity of the Government of the day in thinking for a moment that it could cure the industrial ills of this industry by such action.

What then did it do? Have honourable members opposite ever sat down to reflect on what their Government did in 1965? The effect of the action of the Government was to unite the Australian Waterside Workers Federation and its members more than ever. All members - man to man, gang to gang on the waterfront, port to port, output to mainport and mainport to capita] port - were determined that they were not going to allow that type of legislation to break their ranks. Honourable members must realise that this was just what they were able to do.

They, in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, took over the role of the negotiator. The then President of the ACTU sought to confer with the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, who at that time became more closely associated with the waterfront. He became Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. The President of the ACTU was able to confer with the then Prime Minister who had this somewhat false title bestowed upon him. He was able to convince the Prime Minister that in fact the trade union movement was rallying on the basis that it would not cop this type of legislation. As a result of that legislation and unknown to the government of the day an inquiry was set up and discussions took place for some considerable time. I was engaged in some of them. Recommendations were sent to stop work meetings from time to time throughout the length and breadth of the country, progress reports of what was taking place at those conferences were presented and finally the vast majority of members of the trade union movement associated with the waterfront accepted from their leaders the concept of permanency on the waterfront, at least at capital ports in the initial stages. The Bill before us this afternoon - I almost said tonight’ by habit - makes provision for a continuation of the permanency agreements throughout the Commonwealth. We do not oppose the Bill in any way, shape or form but permit me to say, if 1 may, if the Government, in view of the increased efficiency and throughput on the waterfront today, and having regard to the shocking mistakes of the Minister for Trade and industry (Mr McEwen) and the Federation in wrapping themselves up in the containerisation programme, had had enough commonsense, decency and recognition of this, it would have removed by this Bill those lousy clauses that it was so stupid to put on the statute book in .1965. lt is never too late to hope that the Government might do this but it will not be given the opportunity. The. Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) sees lit to interject at the last stage of my speech. I told him once before in this House that Attorneys-General come last so I will put him last. He and the Government he supports have been so muddled in their thinking on the various amendments - this is perhaps one of them - that they have put in the Stevedoring Industry Act that his Department is unable even lo interpret the rubbish that the Government has included in the Bill from time to time. He would be hard pressed to state points with clarity let alone an interpretation of the measures that they in desperation have seen fit lo put through. I wind up on the note that the Government will not be in charge of the next Bill relative to the mailer that comes down after some 2 years. The Party occupying the Opposition benches today will be the Government, lt is the only Party which recognises the industrial rights of wage and salary earners generally, and it will take care of them because it understands people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a .second time.

In Committee

The BUI.

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

– 1 wish to amend clause 6 by adding proposed new section 6c. (1 .) which reads:

The Director shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as are prescribed.

I have not given the Opposition notice of this amendment because 1 did not realise the necessity for it. The Committee will remember that a number of Bills went to the Senate in similar terms and that the Senate passed amendments requiring the remuneration to be provided by the Parliament and allowances prescribed. You will remember, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you moved an amendment to one of the Bills in .similar terms. At the time I indicated that the Government did not accept this as a principle but that over the recess we would be looking at the matter to see whether we could find a consistent formula. If this Bill stayed in its present form and the Senate were to amend it there would be no Bill. As the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) will know, the authority for the legislation expires on 30th June. Therefore it is essential in everybody’s interest that the Bill goes through. 1 propose to move the amendment now, nol accepting the principle until we look at it over the recess but on the basis that we cannot risk the Bill not being passed.

Mr Charles Jones:

– We have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Snedden) - by leave - read a third lime.

page 3509

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON - COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - J present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Honourable members will recall that on 25th September last my predecessor made a statement in this House relating to allegations of i lt- treatment of the junior class al the Royal Military College, Duntroon. At the conclusion of the statement he informed the House that, because of the facts then established and other considerations, he had appointed a Committee of Inquiry to examine the whole philosophy underlying the training of the junior class at Duntroon.

In order to ensure the most searching and objective study my predecessor decided that the Committee should be headed by an independent external authority. As was announced at the time, Mr Justice Fox, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, agreed to undertake the inquiry. The members of the Committee were most carefully selected. They were: Dr A. J, M. Sinclair, Consulting Psychiatrist; Professor L. C. F. Turner, then Chairman of the Faculty of Military Studies, University of New South Wales; Brigadier G. D. Solomon, the Director of Military Training at Army Headquarters Canberra; and Brigadier C. M. I. Pearson - now Major-General Pearson - who had been Commander of the Australian Task Force in Vietnam, later Commander of the First Division based in Sydney, New South Wales, and who is now Commandant of the Royal Military College.

The terms of reference of the Committee were deliberately framed in the widest possible terms and indeed the Committee’s investigations covered a wide range of matters well beyond the basic subject upon which it was set up to report.

On 24th December 1969, 1 issued a Press release giving a summary of an interim report I had received from the Committee. This was done because the House was not then sitting and it was the judgment of the Committee that some of the findings - as had been requested by the then Minister - should be applied to cadets first entering Duntroon at the beginning of 1970. It was obviously desirable that all cadets then about to enter the College, and their parents and friends, should know not only that changes at the College were imminent but also the details of those changes.

Accordingly, and following discussion with the Military Board, I announced that approval had been given for the following changes at Duntroon: ‘

First year cadets would arrive at the College on 20th January - 3 days earlier than the originally planned date. This would enable them to see something of the Royal Military College and Canberra, in an informal way, before settling down to normal training.

Academic staff and First Class (senior year) cadets would visit the junior cadets in their orientation camp at Point Hut.

Under-officers and non-commissioned officers of the Corps of Staff Cadets would remain responsible for the management of the day-to-day affairs of the Corps, but the Commanding Officer and his staff would exercise a close, though so far as possible, unobtrusive, supervision of its activities.

The previous system, in which new cadets were required to learn some matters in their own time and under the direction of other cadets, would be replaced by formal instruction and explanation. These matters include the history and tradition of the Army and the College; behaviour and attitude of the cadets inside and outside the College; and the care of rooms, uniforms and equipment.

The Committee, by this time, had received most of the evidence likely to be available to it and was then proceeding to the preparation of its final report. It should be mentioned that the Committee, in discharging its duties, met both in Canberra and in Sydney. It interviewed 91 witnesses in person and considered 10 written submissions from people who were not personally interviewed but who had responded to newspaper advertisements to place views before the Committee.

The witnesses and written statements were drawn from widely differing ranks within the Australian Army, and other armies, and included some still on the Active List and others who had retired. Additionally, evidence was received from members of the clergy, academics, under-graduate educationists, those skilled in psychology and related disciplines as well as others. I have taken the view that the evidence was tendered in confidence and therefore Annexures I - ‘Transcript of Interviews by the Committee’ - and J - ‘Copies of writer submissions considered by the Committee’ - have not been included.

I pause here, Mr Speaker, to record my own appreciation and that of the Fox Committee of those who went to the trouble to make known their views on the matters under consideration by the Committee. Their respective contributions were most valuable.

Under date 24th April 1970, the Committee tendered its full report to me. As 1 mentioned previously, its conclusions and recommendations are comprehensive and cover not only matters coming specifically within its charter but also a range of matters which affect, directly or indirectly, all members of the Corps ‘of Staff Cadets and not just those in first year.

The Committee re-affirmed the view expressed in its interim report that the practices which have become known as ‘bastardisation’ should be banned. This issue was dealt with in detail in the statement made to the House by my predecessor on 25th September and which I have already mentioned. I agree with the views he then expressed and the positive steps which were authorised to prevent a recurrence of these unfortunate breaches of official instructions.

As regards the Corps of Staff Cadets generally the Committee recommended that:

The Regulations dealing with resignation and discharge should be liberalised. There should be no requirement to enter into any bond on joining the College.

The living and working conditions of the cadets should be relaxed and improved. Specific recommendations were made in relation to daily routine, local leave, alcohol, pay, marriage, church parades, cars, dress, the entertainment of visitors and summary punishments.

The Committee also commented upon such mutters as the relationship between the Royal Military College and the University of New South Wales, diversification of the academic curriculum, post-graduate work, the period of appointment of military officers to Duntroon, the revision of College regulations and of the Standing Orders of the Corps of Staff Cadets.

Apart from those recommendations of the Committee which deal directly with the question of ill-treatment of the junior class at Duntroon and which have already been implemented, as announced last December, the wide range of matters which the Committee has covered requires detailed examination and consideration not only by the College authorities, the Interim Council of the Royal Military College and the Military Board, but also in relation to some aspects on an inter-departmental basis. 1 have directed that urgent steps be taken to have all matters considered by the appropriate bodies and brought to finality as early as practicable.

I believe it will be clear to the House that all concerned with the administration of the Army have made every endeavour to take positive action in relation to events at Duntroon which commenced with the allegation of the ill-treatment of junior cadets. The findings of the Fox Committee are concerned with the future, and in concluding I. wish to stress the importance of the Royal Military College to the Army and through it to the nation. It remains for me to record further my appreciation for the workmanlike manner and dispatch with which the Fox Committee discharged its charter. I am most grateful to members of the Committee, both individually and as a group.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– by leave- The Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) has tabled the report of thu Committee of Inquiry into the Royal Military College, Duntroon, headed by Mr Justice Fox. This inquiry was ordered by the Minister’s predecessor, the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch), after considerable controversy in the Press and iti this Parliament over the treatment of junior cadets at the Royal Military College. An interim report was made to the Minister and he released details of it on Christmas Eve last year. As a result of this interim report changes were made in the treatment of cadets entering Duntroon at the beginning of this year. These changes seem to have worked effectively.

The full report which has now been tabled goes beyond these initial measures; it recommends a radical set of reforms designed to transform the whole atmosphere and procedure of the College. The report of Mr Justice Fox and his Committee was submitted to the Minister on 24th April. It has now been tabled 6 weeks later with the parliamentary session drawing to a close. The Minister seems to have encountered some difficulty in getting this report before the Parliament. I am glad he was able to table it before the recess so the House can make a detailed assessment of it.

When this Committee was announced on 25th September I said in this House that its basic task was to solve the problems associated with absorbing a traditional military institution into an academic framework. This followed the affiliation of the College with the University of New South Wales. It was because of this affiliation that the practices collectively described as bastardisation’ of fourth class cadets were revealed. There was a clash between the concepts of academic freedom held by academics and the rigid traditionalism of the Army.

It should be noted here that members of the academic staff showed considerable courage in rejecting the practice qf bastardisation’ and bringing it to the public view. This set in motion the rapid sequence of events which has culminated in this report. I do not want to go over the practice of ‘bastardisation’ which was dealt with in the debate last year. In essence it was the survival of traditional military practice in a changed environment; what once was acceptable in a rigidly-disciplined military college could no longer be tolerated in a changing institution mingling academic and military scholarship, and moving towards greater autonomy. Preliminary measures have been taken to eliminate bastardisation from the College; these have now been supplemented by a much more extensive set of recommendations. The recommendations of the Fox Committee seem to me to be eminently sane and reasonable. The way has been clear for the complete abolition of bastardisation by the recommendation that informal instruction of the fourth class by senior cadets be abolished. This was a major source of pin-pricking by the performance of absurd tasks and the learning in parrot fashion of trivial information. It is proper that instruction in the history, traditions and curriculum of Duntroon be put on a more formal basis.

The recommendations designed to end bastardisation in the mess, the bathrooms and by the imposition of group tasks, fagging, and special restrictions, are extremely judicious. I am sure honourable members will agree with the Committee’s conclusion that bastardisation is senseless and degrading; it is not countenanced elsewhere in the Army and there is no place for it at Duntroon. The report emphasises that bastardisation cannot be ended merely by issuing a decree: lt will have to be closely and energetically supervised until the propensity for such behaviour abates. The Committee goes on to advocate dramatic innovations in conditions of service. The net effect of these recommendations would be to give cadets much more freedom and make their life comparable with that of students at other institutions of higher education.

A most important proposal is the abolition of the requirement that cadets who resign have to pay out sums varying between S300 and $1,500. This condition has been a source of much bitterness and it should be abolished. The recommendations on daily routine, local leave, discipline, alcohol, pay, marriage, cars, dress, and entertainment of visitors will, if adopted, give cadets a much more attractive environment in which to live and work. The report goes on to indicate broad guidelines for the development of the Royal Military College. In brief, these guidelines prescribe a gradual movement towards autonomy of the College, more students, more varied courses, and the relationship between the military staff, the academic staff and the cadets. These recommendations are generally sound and I intend to make only a few comments.

The Committee looks to a closer association with the Australian National University. This is particularly desirable because of the remarkable success and growth of the University’s Institute of Strategic Studies in the past 2 years. A. much more sophisticated and responsive climate for discussion of defence issues is emerging in Canberra and will become increasingly important in the next few years. It is appropriate that Duntroon plays an important role in the more informed evaluation of defence policies.

In considering student numbers, the Committee was inhibited by the lack of precise information about the Government’s plans for a tri-Service college. It is true, as the report points out, that there are too few cadets to ensure a comprehensive and completely autonomous institution with a high calibre staff, full facilities and a desirable variety of courses. A tri-Service college would be one solution. Unfortunately, it is not possible to consider this in the absence of the long-mooted report on the Government’s plans for such an institution. The Committee suggests the widening of conditions of entry so that general students who do not intend to enter permanent military service can enter. It is vaguely suggested that young men who want to be Citizen Military Forces officers could find this attractive. Some broadening of the student body may be desirable but I feel that a concept of this sort is getting much too far away from the basic objective of professional military training. On the extension of the curriculum, the Committee recommends the setting up of courses in psychology, languages - particularly Asian languages - and military law. These are excellent suggestions. The teaching of military law as an academic subject is particularly relevant with the introduction of a joint military code for the Services foreshadowed in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech earlier this year.

In summary, the Committee has made 20 specific recommendations designed to remove for all time the stain of bastardisation from Duntroon and assure an attractive and creative environment for the training of military officers. Many of these changes will be resisted by traditional elements in the Army. It is difficult for successful career officers to recognise the flaws in a system which trained them successfully, and one can sympathise with this attitude. But, with military education developing so rapidly and moving into closer alliance with conventional academic scholarship, bastardisation cannot be tolerated; all vestiges of it must be eradicated. The Minister for the Army acted correctly and promptly by introducing the interim measures recommended by the Committee for the start of the 1970 academic year at Duntroon. It is now his duty to finish the job by adopting in toto the recommendations on assimilation of cadets and conditions of service made by the Committee. There is no reason why these important innovations and reforms should not be operating effectively at the College by the time the 1971 academic year begins. This can only bring immeasurable benefit to the Royal Military College. The Opposition welcomes the report and insists that the sweeping changes it proposes be treated as a matter of urgency. In conclusion, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in making available to me early last night a copy of the Fox report so that I could study it for this debate.

page 3513

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Message received from the Senate intimating that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 3, 8, 10, 11 and 12 disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of the Senate’s amendments Nos 10, 11 and 12.

page 3513

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June (vide page 3083), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition protests against the way the Bill is being rushed through Parliament without a proper opportunity to debate it. Conciliation and arbitration is far too important a question to be hurried through the Parliament with such undue haste as this Bill is being hurried through. This was an opportunity for the Parliament to make conciliation and arbitration work, and we have got to make it work if we are to avoid industrial chaos and a continuation of the kind of industrial disputation that has marked the last 10 or 20 years. Arbitration can be made to work, but it will not be made to work unless this Parliament gets down and grapples with the problem in a businesslike fashion. I am certain I could make arbitration work. Given time to explain what I believe to be the weakness of the arbitration system; I am certain I could convince the Parliament that there Ls a way of making it work. Indeed, I would be prepared to gamble on my reputation as one with a fairly good knowledge of industrial relations that, if my propositions were adopted, conciliation and arbitration and industrial peace would become a reality in this country.

The Government has taken one step towards the settlement of industrial disputes as a consequence of the tripartite agreement made between the employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government itself; but that agreement, which in outline is quite good I believe, will fail because not sufficient attention has been given to some of the details. Nothing has been done to protect the rank and file man in industry from victimisation; nothing has been done to protect the shop steward from victimisation. Moreover, nothing has been done to define the term ‘industrial safety problems’. What are they? The term is just a vague abstract thing in the agreement which could mean anything. I think both the employers of Australia and the unions of Australia will be bitterly disappointed when they read tomorrow’s newspapers and find that the most vital piece of legislation to which this Parliament could possibly apply itself was pushed through the Parliament when most of the members were away and when everybody was in haste to get home. Even as I am speaking now, members on the other side are glaring at me as though I have no right even to take the time’ necessary to say what I am now saying. I believe that this is the wrong atmosphere and that it is the wrong sort of timetable in which to deal with this sort of matter.

Debate interrupted:

page 3514

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! lt being 4 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 6th April, I propose the question:

Thai the House do now adjourn.

Mr Hughes:

– Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3514

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Bill takes away from the court the power to issue an injunction under section 109 of the Act against an organisation or person to observe an award. Section J 1 1 at present provides penalties of $1,000 for a union, $400 or gaol for an official of the union, and $100 for a rank and file member or a shop steward of a union for contempt of such order. These penal provisions are to bc transferred to section 119 of the Act :n a form th’.i makes it unnecessary for an employer to first of all obtain an injunction before proceeding to have, the new penalties imposed. The only difference is that the matter must first be reported to a presidential member, but after this is done - that is, after the presidential member has looked at it - and a certificate has been issued stating that the matter is one that comes within the requirements of thu Act, the court can then bc called upon to impose a fine of $1,000 on a union official instead of the present $400 maximum fine and of $1,000 on a rank and file member of a union or shop steward instead of the present $100 fine.

The only exception there will be to this will be in cases where a special provision k written into an award that each day of a dispute shall be treated as a separate dispute, so that if the dispute lasted for only I day the maximum fine for a union or official, shop steward, job representative or rank and file member of a union would be reduced to $500, but if the dispute lasted for S days the maxima would become $2,500 for even a rank and file unionist or shop steward who was in breach of the award or Act. Similarly, should the dispute last for a fortnight the maximum fine applicable to a union, union official, shop steward or even a rank and file member would be no less than $5,000 in respect of I dispute.

The Bill will preserve all existing bans clauses written into awards by Conciliation Commissioners but will provide that in future only a presidential member will have power to write a bans clause into an award. If it is now recognised that it is wrong in principal for a Commissioner to write a bans clause into an award, the Government should have provided that existing bans already put there by Commissioners should have no effect, as it has in fact done in respect of court injunctions currently in force under the provisions of section 109 of the Act. However, the Government has deliberately set out to incite discontent rather than to allay it by writing into the Bill a provision that all fines still outstanding shall continue to be enforceable. I think costs should not have been permitted by the Government when it was amending the Act, because when costs are permitted against parties appearing before the court they are very often greater than the fines and, indeed, the costs can be a deterrent against a unionist seeking his lawful rights under the Act.

With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the amount of fines and costs imposed upon various trade unions since 1957 for offences that should have been dealt with under section 119, which fixes a maximum penalty of $200.

With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table supplied by the Minister to me some time ago setting out the amounts of fines imposed upon employers for breaches of section 1 19. These range from $1. Some cases were dis missed and some offenders were let off with a warning. The average penalty is of the order of $20.

This Bill is claimed by the Press to be consequential upon the Government’s new proposal for the settlement of industrial disputes under which shop stewards will play a much more important role than in the past. The ACTU disputes the assertion that the Bill is part of a deal made recently with the Government and employers for the settlement of disputes and has asked the Opposition to vote against it. This is what we propose to do if the 3 amendments that we propose to move are not adopted by the Committee and incorporated in the Bill. The Government also denies that the Bill is connected with the agreement. Wilh the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard the text of the agreement to which 1 have referred.

FRiNCIIM.ES FOR GUIDANCE IN ESTABLISHING AND USING EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES FOR AVOIDING AND SETTLING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

The following conditions are required to make the means for avoiding and settling industrial disputes effective:

  1. There shall be effective means of consultation between employees and (heir employees and unions on all matters of mutual interest and concern, irrespective of whether these matters are likely to give rise lo dispute. Particular attention shall bc given lo both the informal and formal means of consultation between management and employees.

Failure lo observe this fundamental principle of consultation would be contrary to the intentions of these procedures and a dispute about failure to consult would be covered by these procedures.

Quoting from the phamphlet: ‘Acceptance of responsibility by employers while planning the introduction of technological innovations:

  1. To consult with employes through their union officials about, and give as much notice as possible, of the contemplated change.’
  2. The sell lenient of disputes procedures to be observed need to be defined and made known lo employers and employees and accepted by employers and unions.
  3. The procedures should cover all matters in dispute and should cover disputes at the plant, industry, State and national levels.
  4. The parties should be obliged to make every endeavour lo facilitate the effective functioning of the procedures.
  5. Unions and employers should notify to each other in writing the names of their duly accredited job representatives who would bc responsible, in the first instance, for dealing wilh matters arising on the job. The job representative of the union thus accredited would be the only person entitled lo make representations on behalf of members of his union employed by the employer and the employer representative thus accredited would be responsible for dealing with matters raised by the union job representative: Provided that these arrangements would not restrict an employer or a duly authorised official of an employers organisation or a duly authorised official of a union making representations to each other.
  6. The accredited union job representative and employer representative should make themselves available for consultation as required under the procedures.
  7. The accredited union job representative should discuss any matter affecting the employees he represents wilh the foreman or supervisor in charge of the work.
  8. If the matter is not resolved at this level the union job representative should ask for the matter to be referred to the employer’s representative nominated under (e), above, who shall arrange a conference to discuss the matter.

  9. Such conference should commence within 24 hours or within such longer or shorter period as is agreed between the accredited representatives of the union and of the employer.

    1. II the matter is not resolved at (he conference convened under paragraph (h), the union representative shall advise the appropriate local official of the union he represents of the matter in issue and a conference on the matter will be arranged to be attended by such official or officials and the union job representative concerned as the union may decide and by the designated employer’s representative and such other representatives of the employer, including his Association, as the employer may decide.

  10. If a matter cannot be resolved when the procedures referred to above have been availed of, the employer and the Union should enter into consultation about it at a higher level, on the employer and union sides, as the parties consider appropriate.

    1. Al any stage in the procedures after consultation between the parties has taken place in accordance with the procedures, either party may ask for and be entitled lo receive a response to his representations willim a reasonable time. If there is undue delay on the part of the other party in responding lo representations, the parry complaining of delay may, after giving notice of bis intention to do so, lake the matter to a higher level in the procedures on his side.
  11. Without prejudice to either party, and except where a bona fide safety issue is involved, work should continue in accordance with the award or agreement existing between the parties while matters in dispute between them are being negotiated in good faith.

Where a bona fide safety issue is involved, the employer and the appropriate Safety Authority must be notified concurrently or at least a bona fide attempt made to se notify that Authority.

  1. At any stage of the procedures, the parties may seek the assistance of a Conciliator, a member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or some mutually acceptable person.
  2. Parties could not have recourse to the formal processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act until they bad endeavoured to resolve the issue between them in full accordance with these procedures.
  3. In the event of a party failing to observe these procedures, the other party may take such steps as are open to him to resolve the matter.

I direct particular attention to the paragraphs from (e) to fi) inclusive. These are excellent propositions. I agree that some thing along these lines should be tried. This would go a long way towards easing the tensions that now build up in industry when they are not resolved by early remedy, lt is like any disease. If you want to cure it before it kills you, you must get in early. So it is with industrial disputes. We see no reason to criticise this. However, 1 criticise the Government, which is calling upon shop stewards to play this very important role now required of them, for not taking steps to protect them adequately from victimisation when carrying out their job. The best way to lose a job in industry is to be a good enough shop steward to convey to the boss all the complaints heard on the job. The unfortunate thing is that when a shop steward does that, the employer may accuse him of being a stirrer and agitator when in point of fact he is merely acting as spokesman for the men with whom he :s working. Because so many shop stewards have been dismissed for merely doing what the agreement now asks them to do, they are loath lo carry out their functions fearlessly, as they ought to be free to do. 1 believe the Government was gravely remiss in failing to attend to section 5 of the Act. This is the appropriate section for writing in lo the law the kind of protection for shop stewards about which I am now talking. It is not that the Government does not know about it. With the concurrence of the House I incorporate in Hansard the full text of section 5 of the Act.

  1. – (I.) An employer shall not dismiss an employee, or injure him in his employment, or alter his position to his prejudice, by reason of the circumstance that the employee -

    1. is an officer, delegate or member of an ororganization, or of an association that has applied to be registered as an organization; or
    2. is entitled lo the benefit of an industrial agreement or ah award; or
    3. has appeared as a witness, or has given my evidence, in a proceeding under this Act; or
    4. being a member of an organization which is seeking better industrial conditions, is dissatisfied with his conditions; or
    5. has absented himself from work without leave if -
    1. his absence was for the purpose of carrying out his duties or exercising his rights as an officer or delegate of an organization: and
    2. he applied for leave before he absented himself and leave was unreasonably refused or withheld.

Penalty: One hundred dollars. (U.) An employer shall not threaten to dismiss an employee, or to injure him in his employment, or lo alter his position to his prejudice -

  1. by reason of the circumstance that the employee is, or proposes to become, an officer, delegate or member of an organization, or of an association that has applied to be registered as an organization, or that the employee proposes to appear as a witness or to give evidence in a proceeding under this Act; or
  2. wilh the intent to dissuade or prevent the employee from becoming such officer, delegate or member or from so appearing or giving evidence.

Penally: One hundred dollars. (2.) An employee shall not cease work in the service of his employer by reason of the circumstance thai the employer -

  1. is an officer, delegate or member of an organization or of an association that has applied to bc registered as an organization; or
  2. is entitled to the benefit of an industrial agreement or an award: or
  3. has appeared as a witness, or has given any evidence, in a proceeding under this Act.

Penally: Fifty dollars. (4). In any proceeding for an offence against this section, if nil the facts and circumstances constituting the offence, other than the reason for the defendant’s action, are proved it shall lie upon the defendant to prove that he was not actuated by the reason alleged in the charge. (5.) Where an employer has been convicted of an offence against this section the court by which the employer is convicted may order that the employee be reimbursed any wages lost by him and may also direct that the employee be reinstated in his old position or in a similar position. lt appears at first blush thai section 5 gives protection against victimisation, lt certainly appears to bc a section thai gives protection against a boss sacking a man for joining a union. But when one looks at it more closely one finds that this is not so. As usual, the judges on the Industrial Court, like judges everywhere else, are always anxious to show that they are superior to the draftsmen and always anxious to show that Parliament does not know how to express itself when it wants something done. Their usual hypercritical attitude towards the meaning of words has ruined this section by the interpretation that they have given to it. The Court’s interpretation is a most ridiculous interpretation if ever there was one, and it has come from judges who pretend that when they interpret the law they are always guided by the principle of commonsense.

I invite honourable members to listen to this example of commonsense. Here is a judgment made by the Full Industrial Court in the case of Gietzelt v. Craig-Williams Pty Ltd in 1959. Among other things, the judgment contains these gems of wisdom from the Chief Justice. He was speaking about the kind of conduct of which the employer was guilty when he sacked a person for joining a union. It was admitted by the evidence that the person was sacked because he joined the union. He then took action against the employer. I will read to the House what the judge said section 5 meant. Perhaps he was technically right, but who wants to live on technicalities. We have too many technicalities, and that is the trouble with the arbitration and conciliation system. This is what the Chief Justice said in the last paragraph of the judgment

This course of conduct was clearly contrary to the spirit if not the letter of section 5. A good deal of evidence placed before us related to this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances although the charge in my opinion must fail because of the failure of the informant to prove a threat to dismiss I would dismiss the summons but make no order as to costs.

Of course, Mr Justice Dunphy agreed with that. He said:

I agree with his decision and 1 adopt his reasons.

But let us look at what the Act says. Section 5 of the Act says:

An employer shall nol dismiss an employee, or injure him in his employment, or alter his position to his prejudice, by reason of the circumstance that the employee - is a member of an organisation.

Sub-section (1a.) then states:

An employer shall not threaten to dismiss an employee, or to injure him in his employment, or to alter his position to his prejudice-

For instance because he is a shop steward or a member of the union. The learned judges say that that only means he cannot threaten him. If he sacks him without the threat it is okay. Mr Justice Morgan, for whose knowledge of the law I have a profound respect, very reluctantly had to admit that in his opinion that is what it meant.

At least he was consistent enough to say that in his opinion the union which took the complaint against the boss for sacking the person without threatening him and therefore acted in accordance with a legal right of the employer to do this ought to be made to pay the boss’s costs.

I asked the Minister’s predecessor whether he would do something to alter this section of the Act in such a way that it would no longer be possible for a boss to sack a man for joining a union or for taking part in union activities. I think to merely say that he cannot threaten to do these things but that it is lawful to do them without threat is ridiculous. The Minister said: I do not know what you are talking about. Will you tell me something more about your question?’ In answer to a request of his that if I knew of any case would I please tell him, I wrote to him as follows:

I refer to your answer to Question No. 936 in which you ask for details of any incidents where dismissal has occurred under the circumstances mentioned in my question. I refer you to the classic case of Gietzelt v. Craig-Williams Pty Ltd (No. 1) (F.L.R. p. 456), and Gietzelt v. Craig-Williams Pty Ltd (No. 2) (F.L.R. p. 465). Trusting that the foregoing will assist you in seeing the need for the amendment which my question suggests.

Yours Sincerely,

page 3538

CLYDE R. CAMERON

I received a letter from the Minister dated 20th February 1969, which is more than a year ago. The Minister wrote:

Dear Mr Cameron,

I refer again to your representations concerning the introduction of legislation to amend section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to remove an apparent anomaly. 1 have noted this section for further consideration when the Act is next being amended. Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours sincerely, Leslie Bury, Minister for Labour and National Service.

He thanked me, but that is all 1 got - no action. I wanted action, I could have done without the thanks so long as I got the action. It is useless for the Government to say that it did not know about this. I took the initiative after this of asking the present Minister for Labour and National Service this question:

Will he codify decisions of the Commonwealth Industrial Court and, where such decisions are found to be contradictory or in conflict with the policy of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, take action to amend the Act in such a way as to eliminate ambiguities and injustices in the law?

Will he at the same time ensure that the law is brought into conformity with the policy of the Act?

Surely it was the policy of the Act to safeguard a member against being dismissed for joining a- union or for taking part in union activities. Therefore my question was based on that belief. This is what the Minister said in reply: lt is the practice of my Department to examine all judicial decisions, including those of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, relevant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, so that these decisions can be taken into account when consideration is being given to amending the Act.

I now have another question on the notice paper. I know that it is like putting the Minister into the witness box and crossexamining him but I find that there is no other way of getting any sense out of the Department or the Minister. 1 now have a question still not answered in which I asked:

In view of his answer to Question 847, can he give the dates on which the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been amended as a consequence of his Department’s examination of judicial decisions, including those of the Commonwealth Industrial Court since 1958?

This decision that I have already referred to occurred in 1 959, 1 1 years ago. My question continued:

On how many occasions since 1958 has the Conciliation and Arbitration Act been amended?

I will be able to show when 1 get the reply that the Act has been amended on numerous occasions since 1958 and since 1959 when this defect in the Act was discovered by the Industrial Court, and 1 am going to show that on not one of those many occasions when the Act was amended did the Government do what the Minister now says his Department automatically and systematically does.

I now return to the question of the protection of the rank and file in the trade union movement, particularly the protection of shop stewards, shop delegates and job representatives in industry, because if this agreement for settling disputes is to succeed, and 1 hope it does - I believe it could succeed if some more things were done - one of the urgent things that have to be done is to provide proper protection for the shop steward who has to carry out this important role. I asked the Minister the following question, and I am still awaiting an answer:

  1. Did the Commonwealth or the National Employers Policy Committee give an undertaking during their meeting with representatives of the ACTU to guarantee against victimisation of accredited job representatives who will be called upon to represent the views of their fellow employees in discussions wilh representatives of employers, in accordance wilh the procedures agreed upon for avoiding and settling industrial disputes?
  2. ls it essential that an accredited job representative should be free to fearlessly slate the views and grievances of those whom he represents without even the slightest possibility nf suffering victimisation?
  3. If so, will he consider amending [he Act in such a way as to prohibit the dismissal of an accredited job representative for any reason which may be related to his union position, with the provision that where a dismissal of a job representative takes place, the onus should be on the employer lo prove that the dismissal was not directly or indirectly due to his activities as a job representative?

I have received no answer. Another question i asked was as follows:

Did’ any discussion take place at the recent conference between the Commonwealth, the ACTU and the National Employers Policy Committee as to whether accredited job representatives should be grunted the necessary time off without loss of pay to:

attend to the enrolment of employees eligible to become members of his union:

to communicate with the full-time officials of his organisation whenever such communication becomes necessary during working hours;

to discuss grievances with fellow employees on the job during working hours; and

to communicate and discuss complaints with management during working hours.

Again I have received no answer. I. also asked the following question relating to the same matter:

Did any discussion take place at the recent conference between the Commonwealth, the ACTU a’nd the National Employers Policy Committee, as to defining (a) what shall constitute a bona fide safety issue, and (b) to determine a code of minimum safety standards against industrial accident and disease?

If ever there was a job to be done this is surely a job that ought to be tackled by the Department of Labour and National Service, ft must lay down a minimum code of safety standards to ensure that no-one suffers from industrial accident or disease. There is still no answer to that question either, and it probably will be some time before I get an answer. When the answer is received I will probably be told, if the rule is followed, that the thing is well in hand.

I would like now, if I may, to refer to some cases that have come before the court concerning victimisation. Let the Minister not continue to say in reply to another question which I have not time to read that there are no, or very few, cases of victimisation. Let me quote a few examples of victimisation. One is the case of the Electrical Trades Union v. the South Australian Railways. A shop steward was dismissed for writing improper remarks on a notice board. After hearing evidence Commissioner Portus said that he was not prepared to make an order for the union representative’s reinstatement but would ask the Railways Commissioner to further consider the matter. The Railways Commissioner refused to reinstate this shop steward, whereupon the Commissioner stated that he considered the dismissal was reasonable and that, although the shop steward had tendered an apology for his remarks, he did not consider the apology was sufficient and would, therefore, make no order. The Commissioner went on to state that the fact that the employee was a shop steward was insignificant. That is the kind of protection they now get from the court when they are dismissed.

In the case of the Transport Workers Union v. W. Woodroffe Ltd a spokesman for the union employees of the company had been dismissed allegedly for leaving his truck without permission. Commissioner Webb decided’ that the union representative had not been victimised because he had acted as the men’s spokesman in various disputes with the company and said: in my view in the absence of evidence of discrimination a’n employee who is dismissed for knowingly disobeying his employer’s orders has not been victimised.

What if the employer tells the union representative that he is not to go to his foreman during working hours? What if he tells the union representative that he is not to ring the union secretary during working hours? What if he tells the union representative that he is not to collect union dues in working hours? What if he tells the union representative that he is not to go from bench to bench seeking information as to grievances during working hours? What if he directs the union representative that he is not to go to the manager’s office during working hours? If he fails to carry out such a direction it becomes a breach of an order. The agreement, of course, in these circumstances can never be implemented because the court will say: ‘You were properly dismissed. Do not come to us for protection against being victimised’.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I agree with the honourable member. I now take the case of the Building Workers Industrial Union v. Clements Langford Ltd. A union representative had been dismissed for informing the timekeeper that he was leaving the job for a short time, on the ground that his action was contrary to a company rule that no employee must leave a job without the permission of the foreman. The company went on to claim that the union representative had abused the foreman. What a terrible thing it is for these wild, red blooded men of spunk to be abusing each other. But he did it, so the foreman presumably sulked in the corner and said: ‘He has abused me so I will sack him*. The union told Commissioner Findlay that its representative had been provoked into using bad language by the foreman and that, as a union representative, he had been deliberately victimised by the company. In giving his decision the Commissioner stated that as the union representative had absented himself without proper authority his dismissal was justified.

In the case of Manufacturing Grocers Employees Union of Australia v. Cede! Products (Australia) Ltd a female employee had been appointed as a shop steward and had been dismissed. Commissioner Matthews, who heard the matter, was told by the union that female employees were not allowed a rest period as prescribed by the award; that uniforms were not provided in accordance with the award; that amenities were not provided in accordance with the award, and that there was no covering on the concrete floor as required under the award. The employer’s defence was that the shop steward had been dismissed because of a reduction in her output of work. The employer admitted that overalls had not been supplied and he admitted that there was no covering on the floor. The Commissioner decided to make no order.

There is also the case of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia v. Granock Engineering Co. Pty Ltd. This involved a union delegate who had been dismissed by the company on the ground that shortage of work necessitated a retrenchment of 2 ironworkers. The delegate’s fellow members on the job claimed that their delegate had been retrenched out of seniority and was being victimised on account of his union activities. Commissioner Apsey, after hearing the parties and conferring privately, said that he had no jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of the retrenched union delegate.

I am asking for jurisdiction. But the Government will not give it. Yet it expects the arbitration system to work when there is no jurisdiction and, it seems, no inclination on the part of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission through its commissioners to give adequate protection against victimisation of shop stewards.

I now refer to the Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia v. Harmony Products Pty Ltd. An employee who had been underpaid for annual leave and public holidays and who had been wrongfully stood down for 2 days without pay had complained to the union about the matter and was subsequently dismissed due to insufficient work. The union claimed that the dismissal occurred as a result of the employee’s union activities and that as a member of the union she should have received preference of employment when the retrenchment was made. Mr S. G. Hastings, Chairman of the Board of Reference slated that the employer had accepted the onus of proof concerning the dismissal, but after hearing certain evidence it was agreed not to submit any further evidence to the Board and tha; on the next occasion when the employer wished to engage another employee he should offer the vacancy to the dismissed employee if, in the opinion of the company, the work could he satisfactorily performed by her. As a result. Mr Hastings decided to take no action.

The next case is Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. Thos. Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Ltd. An employee wilh 21 years service as a boner was dismissed for ceasing work earlier than the normal time. The Chairman of the Board of Reference, Mr M. J. Mansini, stated that evidence had established beyond any doubt that the dismissed delegate of the union had completed the correct mini mum number of quarters for the day. However, he said that he was guilty of misconduct in leaving his place of work before finishing time, and he considered that there was no foundation for the suggestion that the employer had victimised him because of his union activities in the boning room. Always the employer can find some reason which appears to justify the action taken. Always the employer can sieze upon a misdemeanour on the part of a union representative and close his eyes to the same sort of thing happening all round the factory. Everybody knows that employers are not saints and everybody knows that there are employees in industry who are not saints. But after all, they are not kids going to kindergarten. They are all grown up men who will not be regimented like poorly paid mercenaries who are made to act at though they are robots. Of course the employees will do things which the employers are pleased to condemn as indiscretions and misconduct, but why should an employer see a union delegate doing these things and not be able to see the other 400 or 500 men who are also doing the same thing?

Consider the case of the Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v. the Minister of State for the Navy. Here we have the Commonwealth, a party to the award, being responsible for victimisation. A union delegate had been dismissed for allegedly using foul language and refusing to perform his normal duties. What a terrible thing! A man working in Cockatoo Dock had the audacity and, shall we say, insensitivity to use foul language, lt must have been a shock to hear foul language in a dockyard. Anyway, it was sufficient for him to be dismissed. Commissioner McCreadie made this important statement:

The true function of a union delegate or shop steward is, of course, a very important one in which he looks after the interests of his fellow members which, if not dealt with satisfactorily, can lead lo serious events. Bill, refusal of duly or other such serious matters arc noi the prerogative of a delegate. The job delegate or shop steward is not a union official; he therefore should refer important matters, or those which he considers are likely to develop into serious matters, to his union for attention. Such mailers are properly dealt with by union officials with their wider experience, knowledge and understanding of union policy. A stop steward or delegate who understands his functions and their limitations can, as most do, perform very useful work on behalf of his union and its members, and make a valuable contribution to good industrial relations in an establishment.

The Commissioner then went on to say that the evidence of foul language could be left to one side. At least the Commissioner was a man of the soil. He was satisfied, however, that the delegate had, on repeated occasions, refused to perform his normal duties and that the management of the Garden Island dockyards had acted with justification when it dismissed him.

In the case of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia v. Clyde Batteries Pty Ltd Commissioner Hood found that there was no justification for suggesting that the retrenchment of the Union’s shop steward was unjust or harsh in any measure even though the purported retrenchment on the ground of economic recession has taken place - that was the excuse given for his dismissal - while other employees with shorter service had been retained.

In the case of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. Amagraze Ltd a union delegate was dismissed and 32 boners who had attended a union meeting to discuss the dismissal were also dismissed and their accrued annual leave credits were cancelled. The company finally agreed to restore the leave credits but the Chairman of the Board of Reference, Mr Mansini, told the Union that the concession granted by the company rested entirely in the hands of the company. If the company gave it, he said, it was free to take it away at any time it chose.

In the case of the Boilermakers’ and Blacksmiths’ Society of Australia v. World Services and Construction Co. Pty Ltd Commissioner Hood, after hearing submissions concerning the dismissal of a union delegate, held that the dismissal had been justified on the established facts of the case.

In the case of the Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia v. A. A. Ellis & Sutton Pty Ltd 3 girls were dismissed allegedly because of their activities as union delegates. Commissioner Findlay heard submissions and after conferring privately with the parties announced that he was satisfied that the employer had exercised an award right in discharging the delegates. He said that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge that the girls were dismissed on account of union activities.

In the case of the Australian Textile Workers Union v. Stirling Henry Pty Ltd a union delegate with 8 years’ service had been put on to a new job which carried a rate of pay which the delegate considered unsatisfactory. In protest the delegate returned to his former job and was instantly dismissed, with a week’s pay in Heu of notice. The delegate told Commissioner Findlay that the company had asked him to give up his job as union delegate and that he had been victimised because he refused to do so. The Commissioner said that, as the union delegate had returned to his old job without authority, his services could be terminated and in the circumstances he was not prepared to do anything about the matter.

I recall that section 5 of the Act says that nobody shall be disadvantaged, dismissed or made to suffer injury. Surely it is a disadvantage to be shifted from a job that one likes with pay that one likes to a job that one docs not like with pay that one does not like. Surely it is a disadvantage to tell a precision toolmaker that he has to clean the toilets and be satisfied with the lower rate of pay as well as the dirtier work. Yet according to these judgments, a person can be transferred from the toolmaking shop to look after the toilets as a form of lawful punishment. If he refuses to do the work, all the employer has to say is that he refused to carry out a direction and there is then full justification for sacking him.

In the case of the Amalgamated Engineering Union (Australian Section) v. Adelaide Steamship Co., a shop steward with 6 years’ service was dismissed on the ground that a slackness of work necessitated retrenchments. But of those retained in the service of the company 1 was over the retiring age and another had less than I year’s service. When the matter went before Commissioner Portus the company changed its tune and said that the steward was dismissed because on a number of occasions he had not been on the job, that he had been found in the lunchroom during working hours and that he had been away from his work a dozen times in 2i years. The company admitted that he had never been warned that these alleged misdemeanours might lead to his dismissal. The Commissioner, however, said that the fact that the foreman had not warned the steward of the consequences of absence from work was not significant. Nor did he think it significant that one of the employees retained had less than I year’s experience; he said that it did not take long for a good worker to become efficient as a tradesman’s assistant. The Commissioner said he was satisfied that there were good grounds for the employee’s dismissal and that no discrimination had been made against him on the ground that he was a shop steward.

No wonder tradesman’s assistants are noi able to get wage justice from the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission when Commissioners make stupid statements like that - that any person with average intelligence can become a good tradesman’s assistant in a very short time. When we talk about people leaving their job for a few minutes, people being in the toilet when they ought not to be or being there too long, and people being in the lunchroom when they should not be there. I wonder how many of the foremen stick rigidly to the timetables set by their management and how many of the directors of a company stick to the office desk for the working hours that the employees are being dismissed for not observing. 1 could give many more similar cases of where a commission or a chairman of the Board had pleaded lack of power or indicated lack of inclination to take all steps necessary to prevent victimisation of a union delegate, shop steward or job representative. This nonsense, this hypocrisy that we hear from employers whenever cases of victimisation are being dealt with ought not to be tolerated. 1 remind the House of the decision made by Mr Commissioner McCreadie in the case of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v. the Minister of State for the Navy.

The agreement that this Government has made with the ACTU and the employers will not allow the shop steward to do the things that are necessary for him to do, and if he continues to do the things which the agreement calls upon him to do then this decision of Mr Commissioner McCreadie - which in the terms of the Act as it now stands is probably in accordance with the technical provisions of the Act - would continue to apply. No shop steward or union delegate in the future could be expected to carry out the role required of him under the provisions of the new agreement unless he is guaranteed proper protection from victimisation. For these reasons we will oppose the second reading of the Bill. We will move our amendments in Committee and if they are rejected we will vote against the third reading.

Mr WEBB (Stirling) 4.31] - I rise to support the views that have been expressed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Civile Cameron) and also to support the repeal of the offending sections 109 and III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This Act has been subjected to more amendments than any other Act on the statute book. There have been over 50 amendments since 1904. lt is a most controversial piece of legislation and seems to have created as many disputes as it has solved. The first 2 sections of the Act are most important Section 1 stales:

This Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Section 2 states:

The chief objectives of the Aci are:

lo promote good will in industry.

lo encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes.

In the Bill we are now debating the Government at long last lays stress on conciliation and negotiation before proceeding with sanctions. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) in his second reading speech said: . . 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 injunction making powers under section 109 and its power to punish for contempt under section 111, are no longer appropriate or desirable. 1 believe they suffer from two main deficiencies. Firstly, there is the immediacy of their availability. Secondly, they did not allow the Court to take hold of the dispute between the parties and endeavour lo assist the parlies to resolve that dispute. lt has taken the Minister and the Government many years to realise that the main objective of this Act is to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement. It is doubtful whether these amendments will achieve the objective which the Government claims is its aim.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party have been urging for years that the sanction provisions in sections 109 and 1 1 1 should be repealed, but we did not want them repealed and then re-inserted in a different section of the Act, as is being done, in effect, so far as the amendment of section 109 is concerned. Some amendments of the Act were made in 1965 which provided for a cooling off period, but as we said during that debate, the amendments did not go far enough and they turned out to be useless. This could well be the case with the present amendments. We moved in 1965 for the repeal of the injunction and related contempt provisions. Had our amendments been accepted we would not have been faced with the disastrous industrial trouble of May 1968. A ray of light appeared when the Government did not insert these penal provisions, as it was contemplating doing, in the Public Service Arbitration Act when it was amended during March 1969. During that debate and a debate to increase the number of judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, which took place at about the same time, speakers on this side of the House again urged the repeal of the penal provisions. The offending sections have created more strikes than they have settled. Consequently the reason for their insertion in the Act has proved abortive and their repeal is long overdue. When the so called cure prolongs the disease surely it is thru1 to try a new cure. The Government claims it is trying something new on this occasion but it appears to us not to be a cure hut merely a palliative.

Some employers have been sheltering behind these punitive provisions and their actions have been responsible for creating and extending disputes rather than bringing about a settlement. One would think that the inflicting of penalties was an end in itself, ignoring entirely that the end is to settle industrial disputes as quickly as possible and not to extend them by the imposition of severe penalties. It has to be realised that the Act we are dealing with is the Conciliation and Arbitration Act Conciliation comes first. It is placed before arbitration in its importance in the Act. The placing of the word ‘conciliation’ before the word ‘arbitration’ is clearly significant. The Government, the employers and a lot of other people have been ignoring this, and this is the first admission by the Government that conciliation at least comes first.

The Act provides for conciliators and commissioners but it doss not say that the whole process of conciliation should be done exclusively by them. Section 31 of the Act provides for the likelihood that the parties to an industrial dispute may themselves arrive at agreement to govern their industrial relationships. The section does noi say anything about the way in which they should do it. Section 32 of the Act goes on to say that if no agreement is arrived at the Commission shall determine the dispute. The strike by Qantas employees earl;, in 1964 was settled by an outside mediator. This was special arrangement and it served its purpose; the dispute was settled. That should always be the aim. Much more con ciliation is required. Conciliation means bringing the paries to a dispute together into harmony so that their differences mav be settled amicably.

Some sections of the existing Act operate against conciliation. There is a bad section in the Act, and I refer to section 31 (3.) which provides, inter aiia, that the arbitration authority may refuse to certify an agreement if il is of the opinion that ‘it is not in the public interest thai the agreement should be certified’. Who is to define public interest? The words ‘public interest’ mean a lol of different things to a lol of different people. Surely it is ;n the public interest to settle a strike or an industrial dispute as quickly as possible. Negotiation and con ciliation should not necessarily cease when the commissioners finally arrive al a deci sion. There are still avenues open for furthe negotiations

The Government and the employers must realise thai the Commission sets down mini mum standards. After the minimum standards have been established we come to what has been referred to by the President of the Commission as the collective bargaining area The President in his I96f> report said:

It has long been obvious that arbitration foi minimum payments and bargaining for ove award payments must co-exist in this community

He went on to say in that report:

The problems and difficulties should noi obscure the fact that there is no real incompatibility in the mutual existence of a system prescribing minimum rates by arbitration tribunals and of bargaining on occasion about over-award payments.

Some of the employers refuse to negotiate and consequently the conciliation function of the Act fails to operate. There is a certain amount of one-sidedness in our method of controlling wages and industrial conditions.

Let me refer to wages. This Government believes that the price of labour should be controlled and all the forces of our legal machinery are used to prevent the workers from putting their own price for their labour. The unions have to go to the arbitration tribunals and argue their case and support it by evidence. The employers present their case in opposition to any increase. The workers are placed in a difficult position. They have to abide by the decision. But what happens then? The employers increase their prices to cover the increased cost of wages. They do this at their own whim. Decisions are arrived at in private - without evidence - without a case being heard in opposition. Often they combine with other firms selling a similar product and collectively fix the price of similar articles. As a matter of fact, the Arbitration Commission in its 1964 basic wage decision emphasised that there was no control of other incomes and ‘no overall authoritative control of prices’. Increases gained by workers to offset already increased costs can be swallowed up by the employer merely increasing his prices. Those who take huge sums by way of profits and interest payments from the national income take them without having te justify their actions to anyone. No charge is ever made that these companies are taking too much from the national income and thereby endangering the economy and causing production and living costs to rise.

Is it any wonder that workers become dissatisfied and disgruntled and threaten to strike in order to gel their wrongs righted? Workers have a right to complain about the time lag thai lakes place to have their grievances heard and remedied. At times employers deliberately lodge appeals against decisions of commissioners in order to delay paying increased salaries or giving improved conditions. A glaring example is the equal pay case which was deliberately delayed by reference to the High Court. The employers know that each day’s delay means the saving of millions of dollars in the long run if the equal pay decision is favourable to the workers. The strike weapon is not illegal in Great Britain or the United States. Neither is it illegal here. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not prohibit strikes. It did so up until 1930 when the prohibition was removed. It is true the Commission has power to include in its award a ban on strikes. That is where the trouble starts. I emphasise to the House that one cannot expect a system of industrial arbitration to eliminate entirely strikes and other forms of direct action. If anyone believes that, they are attributing to arbitration a function which it cannot possibly fulfil.

Laws are much more easily applied by the State to individuals for the settlement of disputes than they are to exercise compulsion over powerful organisations such as a trade union. This is a powerful section of the community. A huge majority of people accept the fact that the common law and criminal law courts are enforcing a law which they agree with. But the field of industrial conflict is different. No sei principle exists as to what is fair, reasonable or just. The arbitration system deals with questions on which the community as a whole is divided into 2 camps. Workers and employers have their own views on what is reasonable or just. There is no doubt about the value and importance of our conciliation and arbitration system but it is ridiculous to think that it could usher in a reign of peace in industrial relations. No-one will deny the value and importance of international law. but conflicts arise between States which are so severe thai all observance of the law is swept away. Hundreds of issues arise which are successfully settled by our arbitration courts but they cannot settle all of them.

The system would be strengthened if this Government accepted the reality of the situation. Issues and conflicts exist which are so acute that no court could hope to impose an acceptable solution. I suggest to the Attorney-General that the deletion of the injunction and contempt provisions of this Act does not mean that there are no other avenues open to the Commission to deal with unions if they feel disposed to deal with them. Section 119 is available. This section is used when the courts want to discipline employers. They turn to sections 109 and 111 when they want to discipline the unions. These sect:ons contain the contempt provisions. Section ]43U )(h) contains provisions for the deregistration of a union under certain conditions. Since 1958 industrial action has been included as one of the grounds upon which the court can act. Deregistration can apply also where an organisation has wilfully neglected to obey an order of the court. A new ground, which was added in 1958, provides for deregistration for continued breach or non-observance of an award or for an organisation’s continued failure to ensure that its members comply with an award. Prior to 1958 the court had discretion to deregister, but the section now provides that upon one of the grounds being made out the court ‘shall deregister unless it considers to do so could be unjust’. This in itself is a severe punishment because it deprives the organisation and its members of the benefit or protection of the award; the award ceases to have any force or effect. Previously Mr Justice Higgins held the view that deregistration left the award in operation but un ons could not take action for breaches of the award. In my view, and in the view of reasonable people, the power to deregister should be sufficient in itself to discipline a union if that is regarded as necessary.

However other avenues are available to the Commiss on in the present Act. Section 41 (c) entitles the Commission to fix maximum penalties for a breach or nonobservance of an award. The penalty is $200 for an organisation and $20 for a member. The section with which we are concerned now, namely section 1 19, relates fo the enforcement of orders and awards and provides for maximum penalties being imposed by magistrates in local courts. As 1 said a short while ago, this is the section under which employers who offend are punished. Section 62 provides for the cancellation or suspension of an award if it appears that an organisation entitled to the benefits of an award has committed a breach or non-observance of the Act, an award or a court order, or that a substantial number of members of an organisation refused to accept employment either at all or in accordance with existing awards or for any other reason’. The words ‘for any other reason’ are broad enough to cover a multitude of sins.

So we see that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act there are disciplinary powers possessed by the court apart from the penal provisons which the Minister still claims the right to use under the name of sanctions and which we suggest should be repealed. Surely what 1 have said indicates that there is sufficient power available in the existing legislation without the use of the penal provsions. it is psychologically bad to have the penal provisions in the Act. Better industrial relations are not possible while they exist. I repeat what the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said: We oppose the Bill and support the repeal of the sanction provisions in the existing Act.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– Mr Speaker, you and other honourable members may think that this debate has taken a somewhat unusual course. The speech made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) was notable for its lack of any substantial reference to the fundamental provisions of this Bill which, of course, arc those which substitute new sanction provisions of a more moderate character for what were thought to be, and with justification in the light of evidence, the rather draconian sanction provisions that are enshrined in sections 109 and the following two or three sections of the Act. I was most interested in the course followed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh in the debate this afternoon. He made scant reference to the undoubted fact that the Bill proposes an amendment of an enlightened character to the sanctions provisions of the Act. Instead of dwelling upon this fact, which from the viewpoint of his Party is of course an inconvenient one, he treated us to a long disquisition upon the alleged iniquities of section 5 of the principal Act.

I do not stand here this afternoon as an apologist for section 5 in its present form. It would be idle to deny that section 5 could be improved. But that is not the subject we are here to debate this afternoon. We are here to debate the amendments that the Bill will make to the sanctions provisions of the Act, these provisions which have been the subject of so much controversy in the world of industry and in the trade union movement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government could have amended that section while it was introducing these other amendments.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member suggests by interjection that section 5 could have been amended on the run, on the wing as it were. 1 am not the Minister responsible for the administration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but I think it is fairly clear from the documents which the honourable member for Hindmarsh read out this afternoon that amendments to section 5 of the Act appear to be under the close scrutiny of my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden). I know it is easy always to complain that it takes time - and too much time - to get what are thought to be anomalies in statutes remedied or amended. One is used to hearing that complaint. The honourable member for Hindmarsh would be one of the first to recognise that the difficulties in relation to amendments of statutes are caused by a shortage of draftsmen. As he knows, the Government has taken steps in statutory form to remedy that shortage by having passed in this session the Parliamentary Counsel Bill, which comes into force today.

What surprised me about the attitude adopted by the honourable member for Hindmarsh was that while he railed against section 5 and drew attention to what he claimed to be manifest defects in il we have the extraordinary fact - extraordinary in the light of his complaints - that although the Opposition has proposed a number of amendments to the Bill it has not proposed a single amendment to section 5 of the principal Act There is nothing in either the short title or the long title of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1970 which would preclude the honourable member for Hindmarsh from proposing an amendment to section 5. I take it that the honourable member would consider it no discourtesy to him if I drew attention to what is probably very obvious; namely, in formulating the amendments which are proposed to be moved in Committee this afternoon, the honourable gentleman had resort, and properly so, to the services of one of the parliamentary draftsmen. I do nol want to know what went on between the parliamentary draftsman and the honourable member for Hindmarsh, but I would have thought that if the complaints that have been voiced today are as deeply felt as the honourable member wanted to persuade us they are he might have invoked a little further the services of the draftsman to draw some amendments to that section. But not so. No amendment to section 5 is proposed.

What is the lesson to be drawn from this? I do not want to be hard on the honourable member for Hindmarsh at this hour after long days of sittings. Tiredness perhaps produces charity.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You could have fooled me.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member is very difficult to fool. I think the lesson to be drawn from the approach adopted by the honourable member for Hindmarsh is simply this: In order to avoid a discussion upon what is a very enlightened measure, namely, a modification of the sanctions provisions, he tried to lead the House down a rather sterile sidetrack. It would have been much more interesting, I suggest, for the House, for industry and for the trade union movement if we heard a little more from the honourable member as to his Party’s attitude towards the newly proposed sanctions provisions which are substituted for the old contempt provisions which are set out in section 18.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) in his contribution to the debate did not really grasp the principal question raised by this Bill, that is, the appropriateness and the suitability of the new sanctions provisions. He made a few passing references to the question. I thought he was rather guarded and his speech demonstrates the difficulty that the Opposition has in doing anything but refraining from criticism of the newly proposed sanctions provisions. I doubt whether the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will be deliriously delighted when he reads of the contributions to the debate made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the honourable member for Stirling because we did not hear either of those honourable members come out and make an outright denunciation of the sanctions provisions in any form. Of course, that has been the refrain persistently indulged in by certain prominent people in the trade union movement, including the President of the ACTU. I do not criticise him for putting his view. He is fully entitled to do that. But. of course, the Government and the Parliament are entitled to judge as to the correctness of such a view and to my mind there is no doubt whatsoever as to what the judgment must be.

No system of conciliation and arbitration in relation to industrial disputes can work unless at the ultimate stage there is some sort of sanction against disobedience of awards. A law which becomes unenforceable becomes meaningless and in truth no law at all. Therefore, 1 think this is recognised sub silentio by the Opposition this afternoon; this is implicit in the attitude that its leading speakers have taken in this debate. In their hearts they know that no system of industrial arbitration will ever be workable unless sanctions are available as a matter of last resort. I refer here not only to sanctions against employees or employees organisations but equally importantly to sanctions against employers and employers’ organisations. I can never understand the attitude - I think that most people who would like to be considered as having commonsense can never understand the a Kit tide - which is taken up by prominent people in the trade union movement. Again, they are entitled to take up the attitude just as I am entitled to criticise it. The attitude that there must be no sanctions or penal provisions applicable to employees but that sanctions or penal provisions should nevertheless remain and apply against employers seems to overlook the well known principle that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But I believe that at bottom we can say that it has been revealed in this debate this afternoon that the Opposition, in the person of its 2 leading speakers - led, of course, by the shadow Minister for Labour and National Service - recognises that so far as the sanctions provisions are concerned the game is up.

It is recognised implicitly that the old sanctions provisions - depending upon bans clause, injunction and then contempt procedure - have been replaced well and in an enlightened way by carefully thought out new sanctions provisions which will elevate the processes of conciliation at a final stage before enforcement action is allowed to be taken. The critical feature of this Bill is that it elevates in importance the process of conciliation in the attempt to settle what might be described as the ultimate or critical stages of an industrial dispute. This is done by the interposition, as required by the Bill, of a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission before enforcement action, by way of a prosecution for breach of a compliance provision in an award, can be taken.

That is not the only enlightened feature of this Bill. It is also important, I believe, that the House should observe that the penalty for daily disobedience or infringement of an industrial award is reduced by half - from a daily maximum of $1,000 to a daily maximum of $500. The honourable member for Hindmarsh, when he was dealing with this question of the amount of penalties, overlooked the very important feature that the amounts expressed in the Bill are, just as were the amounts expressed in the Act, maximums and not the only amounts that can be levied by way of penalty.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But the maximum became the minimum under the old provisions.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member says so. All I say in reply is that, whilst 1 have not the statistics in front of me. my recollection would not accord with the honourable member’s statement made to me across the table. I believe that it will be found that in dealing with contempt applications under the old provisions - the provisions that are proposed to be replaced by the new provisions - the Commonwealth Industrial Court did exercise a good measure of discretion as to the amount of the fine.

Of course, in the light of recent history it was not a sufficient discretion because to exercise a discretion as to the amount of the fine does not achieve the objective that the Government sees as an objective necessary to be achieved, namely, that before enforcement procedures are taken at all there should be some procedure by which the merits of a dispute can be looked into and fully examined by a presidential member of the Commission so that - one can well imagine this happening - in a case in which there has been a stoppage of work in disobedience of a bans clause or a compliance clause in the relevant award, a presidential member of the Commission, perhaps, can mould his approach to the case so as to render it impracticable or impossible for an employer, whose conduct in relation to the events giving rise to the stoppage has not been altogether meritorious, to have resort to the sanctions provisions. That is the sort of objective - a very important objective it is - that the new sanction provisions are designed to obtain.

Let us be clear: Most people of responsibility - it would be unfair to use the absolute term ‘all’ and to say ‘all people of responsibility’- on both sides of politics and on both sides of what we still regard as the industrial fence - labour and employers - recognise in their heart of hearts that an effective system of industrial operation cannot be attained without some form of sanctions.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not accept that.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the honourable member for Hindmarsh says that he does not agree with that, it is rather strange that he did not say so a little more explicitly in his speech.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did noi have time.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member says that he did not have time. He had a lot of time. In fact, I think he took 30 minutes of his allotted 45 minutes in dealing with section 5 of the Act which he has not even troubled to deal with by way of amendment. If that is not, if I may use a polite term, a little smokescreen, I do not know what is. I was going to say, before my honourable friend’s friendly interruption, that most people with a responsible attitude - I am not suggesting that the honourable member for Hindmarsh has not a responsible attitude; he is fully entitled to his view - on either side of the industrial and political fences know and recognise in their heart of hearts that sanctions must be available if an effective system of conciliation and arbitration is to operate. I refer to sanctions at the end of the road - the end of the road that nobody wants to reach or should want to reach, but nevertheless the end of the road which is reached in the cut and thrust, as it sometimes is, of industrial life.

The need for sanctions was recognised expressly by a great figure in the industrial world, Mr Albert Monk, in 1963. Mr Monk is a man whose views are entitled to the utmost respect. Because of his conduct and performance as President of the Austraiian Council of Trade Unions for so many years, he is entitled to our warmest and deepest respect. I remind the House that, as reported in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 18th September 1963, Mr Monk said:

You cannot - and I have seen it tried in various parts of the world - try to bring about complete repeal of legislation by strike action.

Mr Monk was talking about the repeal of the sanctions provisions. He went on to say, apparently at the same time because it is reported in the same newspaper article:

Try to bring about a complete revocation and you run into trouble.

The revocation about which Mr Monk was speaking was the revocation of the sanction provisions, or the penal clauses as they have sometimes been called, in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. They are the views of a man who is entitled to the utmost respect having regard to his service to the trade union movement and to his vast experience.

He is not the only person on the Labor side of politics or on the employees’ side of industry who has similar views. Let us not forget that the contempt procedure for enforcing an award is to be found, I think, in its original form in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1947, which was introduced by the Chifley Government. Under the 1947 Act, the penalty for contempt of court constituted by breach of injunction enjoining disobedience to an award was unlimited. The hour is late. We all want to go home. I think that I have spoken long enough - or probably too long. 1 therefore conclude by expressing my support for the Bill. I simply say this: lt is not of itself the millenium. It will be a most valuable measure if both sides - that is, employers and labour - recognise the worth of its provisions and try in a spirit of mutual cooperation, forebearance and tolerance to make it work.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 35

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Settlement of matters giving rise to conduct hindering observance of award).

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to make it quite clear now, if I have not already made it clear, that there is on the part of the Opposition an outright denunciation of the sanctions against unions and against people who have only their labour to sell. We are completely and utterly opposed to the penal provisions of the Act, as the Australian Council of Trade Unions is opposed to them. There is a good reason why there should not be sanctions or penalties against those who have only their labour to sell. This stems from the fact that as a general rule the economic position of the individual worker is too weak for him to hold his own in the unequal contest for a fair share of what he produces. I quote now from a judgment of Mr Justice Higgins in the Engine Drivers case contained in the fifth volume of the Commonwealth Arbitration reports at page 27. Mr Justice Higgins said:

The power of the employer to withhold bread is a much more effective weapon than the power of the employee to refuseto labour.

The right to hire and fire gives to the employer an inbuilt power and discipline over every person he employs. Mr Justice Higgins once remarked on the fact that although in theory the court had power to decrease wages as well as to increase them, every case he had ever handled had been to interfere by way of increase. I quote the judgment of the learned judge again, in the same case. He said:

The reason seems to bethat the employer usually needs no court to enable him to reduce wages. He has simply to refuse to give employment at wages which he thinks to be loo high.

No law can prevent an employer from reducing his staff or from closing down altogether, either permanently or temporarily. Indeed, even a lockout is lawful provided that the employer takes the precaution to first of all provoke a strike. One has only to recall the MountIsa lockout in 1964. Mr Justice Higgins also said:

Freedom of contract under such circumstances is surely misnamed. It should rather be called despotism in contract and this court is empowered to fix a minimum wage as a check on despotic power.

During the hearing of the waterside workers case on 9th December 1919 his Honour said he adhered to the view that he had expressed in the 1917 waterside workers case when he had stated that it was not a breach of an award for an employee to refuse to accept work if he did not like the conditions. The minimum rate was the lowest rate at which an employer could employ men but the whole area beyond the minimum wage was open to bargaining between employers and men. The right to bargain is meaningless without the right to strike. Even with this right preserved the worker is at a decided disadvantage. To strike is to starve. The power of the employer to withhold bread is a much more effective weapon than the power of the employee to refuse to labour. In the great maritime strike of 1890 it was starvation that drove the workers back to work. Starvation and now hire purchase as well stand on the side of the employer. The industrial tribunals are on the side of the employer. The law also is on his side and the court stands savagely behind the law. The minimum wage has become the maximum wage and the maximum penalty has become the minimum penalty for those who seek to get above the minimum wage.

We live in a society in which the wage and salary earner has lost the most basic of all human rights, which is the right to decide whether and on what terms he will allow another to use his labour power. The late Mr P. i. Clarey, M.P., who was at one time the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was correct when he declared that the right to strike is the one thing which distinguishes the free man from the slave. The ‘call-out’ is the life blood of unionism because it is the only weapon with which organised labour can defend itself against the greedy employers and biased industrial commissioners. Rob the unions of this weapon and you rob them of their justification for existence. What could be more unjust than a law which fixes the price of the only thing which a worker has to sell - his labour power - but which places no restraint upon the price of the things he has to buy. The savage penalties imposed upon unions whenever they attempt to meet rising costs contrasts with the absolute freedom with which the employing class may fix the price of the things they have to sell.

The law of demand and restricted supply is allowed to fix prices, but the same law is not permitted to fix wages except in times when supply is greater than demand. In the 1930s when there was a great labour surplus the Arbitration Court did not hesitate to order wage reductions in all industries. In 1930, which was 2 years before the pastoral award was due to expire,

Chief Judge Dethridge ot the Arbitration Court reduced the pastoral award by 20%. In post-war years wages were arbitrarily fixed at levels far below what would be obtainable through collective bargaining in a free market. Arbitration has never given more than organised labour has been strong enough to take. Its chief claim to fame has been its capacity to prevent the trade unions from taking what the market would have given.

There is now no need for an employer to conciliate. He can afford to stand flat footed against all demands for wage justice because he knows that arbitration will never order him to grant that which a free trade union movement could obtain by direct action.

Tom Mann, who was one of the greats of the Labor movement and a contemporary of Ben Tillet, John Burns and Keir Hardie, said that arbitration had robbed the unions of their fighting efficiency. Tom Mann went on to say:

The whole of the industrial negotiation was in the hands of the legal fraternity. It was clear that a continuation on such lines would result in the unions becoming virtually a part of the civil service. They would be dominated by the plutocratic forces of the state.

It is inconceivable that early trade union leaders should have been so naive as to trade the right to strike for the kind of arbitration which has since emerged. Once the unions forfeited the power to cease work they placed themselves at the mercy of the arbitrator. Mr Justice Higgins said:

The worker is in the same position, in principle, as Esau when he surrendered his birthright for a square meat, or as a traveller when he had to give up his money to a highwayman for the privilege of life.

From 1930 until at least 1947 there were no penal clauses at all. Occasionally, but very occasionally, provision was made in awards imposing obligations on organisations. In those cases the penalty then provided under the legislation, namely a fine of £100, could be imposed for a breach. The offences would not be continuing offences incurring daily penalties, as is now the case and as is proposed in certain circumstances in the Bill which is now before the House. The first occasion on which penal powers reappeared was in 1947. This happened as a result of a 40-hour week case. When the 40-hour week was introduced the Arbitration Court ordered that reasonable overtime should be worked and that an organisation should not be concerned in any ban on overtime. This was said to be a temporary measure only. The breach of this provision could make an organisation liable to a penalty; but the penalty was £100. 1 believe we now ought lo consider the excuse sometimes put up by people that the laws of arbitration, and the penalties attached to those laws, should apply with equal force to employers and employees. Let us examine this statement for validity. Firstly, let us examine the impact upon BHP, or CSR, General Motors, the Ford Mo:or Co., ICI, Chrysler, AGM, Comalco or the Dunlop Rubber Co.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I rise to allow the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) to proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Let us consider the impact that a $1,000 penalty would have on these companies as compared with the same penalty on a shop steward or a union official. In case anyone thinks otherwise, union officials, with one or two exceptions, are very poorly paid. Compare the impact on the manager of a company whose company will pay the $1,000 fine without so much as blinking an eyelid with a similar penally upon a rank and file member working in industry. It is ridiculous lo suggest that a man working in industry for the wage obtainable under the awards in this country should be made to pay the same penalty as a rich employer such as those 1 mentioned or, for that matter, any employer who owns industry and employs labour. Such a proposition should not fall from the lips of anybody who has his sanity, lt is unreal to suggest that a rich employer is being treated fairly when he is being made lo pay the same penalty as an ordinary worker in industry.

I point out again that whereas it is not the practice of the Commonwealth Industrial Court to impose heavy penalties upon employers, it invariably imposes the maximum penalty upon employee organisations. I can never forget the look of smug satisfaction on the face of Dunphy one day when I saw him impose a $1,000 penalty upon some trade unions which were merely striking for a better deal. The situation in the Industrial Court is that the Court never attempts in most cases to distinguish between the kind of circumstances that led to the dispute. The penalty was nearly always $1,000. It did not matter whether the strike arose out of justified provocation; it was $1,000. It did not matter whether the strike was without justification; it was still $1,000.

Indeed, the judges of the Industrial Court, to their eternal discredit, have been known to refuse a union advocate the right to state a case for the mitigation of costs or fines. Such advocates were immediately sat down and told: ‘You have committed contempt of the court. Do not come here and try to justify it.’ Whether out of whim or humour, or for whatever reason it is that motivates judges when they are sitting on the bench, they usually apply the maximum penalty. 1 do not think the penalties they applied were proper. I know that the unions concerned which now owe the $38,000 will not pay the outstanding fines and I know that this Government is determined to cause a stoppage in industry in order to try to collect them. Here was an opportunity for the Government to wipe out the outstanding fines in the same way as it has wiped the contempt order currently applicable. But no. In order to continue the ferment of discontent which exists in industry today, the Government has deliberately set out to provoke an industrial stoppage in order to bring industry grinding to a halt The Government seems to get satisfaction from handling industrial disputes in this way.

We are now passing through a period in Australia in which there is a surplus of jobs. It is a seller’s market now and the unions are not prepared any longer to take it on the chin. No matter what members of the Government may think, sitting in the padded chairs of the Cabinet room, in isolation from the reality of the factories, despite their feelings of grandeur and their belief that they can do these things, I issue the warning tonight that if the Government is wise it will not attempt to force payment of the fines. If it does it will bring industry to a halt.

The workers have every right to apply the same principle as the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd applied when quite arbitrarily it increased the price of steel by 3.7%. This, mark you, was done immediately following a year in which the company had made a record profit. That increase was arbitrarily imposed upon the Australian community. It is of no use for the Government continually to blame high wages for high prices. High prices always precede high wages. The demand for increased wages comes only as a result of increased prices already established as a consequence of the lack o control of prices of manufacturers’ products. I am sorry that I do not have more time to develop the theme I have started. 1 repeat that in my opinion it is quite wrong that those of us on this side of the chamber who feel keenly about this subject should be compelled to restrict our remarks to a timetable which threatens to prevent even my moving the amendments I would like to move. I will not be calling for a division, on this clause but I have indicated clearly that I am utterly opposed to the clause, and so is the Opposition. The fact that a division was not called for on the clause is because we face the threat of the guillotine, which may prevent even the moving of amendments that we will later seek to move in dealing with the clauses.

Mr BRYANT (Wills) [5.3SJ - I wish to place on record my thoughts about the approach of the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) to the sanctions, representing as I do an industrial area in which people reside who feel the first winds that blow when industrial disputes arise. I believe that there is confusion in the minds of people who designed this legislation and the people who have been administering it for so long as to what are ils objectives. I do not believe that the objectives to be sought when industrial disputes occur include the process of law. We are not seeking a process of law but a system of arrangements between people who perform different functions in the community. Now law will solve the problem. You will not produce industrial peace by even the most beautifully drawn piece of parliamentary draftsmanship. It just will not succeed. The continuing flow of evidence in relation to arbitral proceed ings in this country and the consequent imposition of sanctions shows that they are an exercise in futility. Time after time the courts impose sanctions. Time after time the unions refuse to pay, and indeed, they are likely to continue to refuse.

The Attorney-General has said thai the law has no sense if it is unenforceable. The fact is that in recent times it has been impossible to enforce the penal provisions of the law. lt is therefore an exercise in futility to continue with them. While we tolerate these provisions in our legislation Australia will not be a democracy. I believe that a fundamental civil right is involved, that the rights of some people are involved very deeply and the rights of others are involved indirectly. We impose upon one area of the community sanctions that we do not impose upon other areas. 1 believe that to be an exercise of executive power against people who are least able to resist it. What do we mean by it? The Attorney-General talks about sanctions as though the law embodied some implied duty to the community. He is implying that some parts of the community - in this case the workers in industry who happen to be in an industrial dispute - have a duly to the community. What sort of a duty do they have? They have a duty to work. Why have they a duty to work? Why have they a duty to go to work on terms to which they object? It is against the general attitude of the Australian community.

The Government has just attempted to find some alternative to national service. We have decided to reject the national service system, but it is interesting that the denunciation of the idea of forcing people to work in a form of national service came from all quarters. Even people on the other side for whose democratic attitudes I have no respect whatsoever have forced the Government to change its view. The community as a whole - the leader writers in the newspapers and all sorts of peoples - rejects the suggestion that we have a right to force people in this community to work. I think we have enshrined it in the Constitution and in the social service amendments carried back in 1946 or 1947 - ‘subject to the fact that there shall be no civil conscription’, I think the words are. In other words, the Government is saying that one particular group of people have a duty to the community; they have a duty to work. We reject that view. We believe that each side has its equal rights and neither of them shall be transcended by the rights of the community in this instance.

I am always reminded in these debates of the words that one can find in Mussolini’s The Fundamental Laws of Fascism’. It would be instructive, I think, for those members opposite who have been prepared to stay here and discuss and consider this legislation that is being carried through in their name, to turn to The Fundamental Laws of Fascism’ and see how those duties are described by Mussolini in that work. I believe the House as a whole should reject the suggestion of penal clauses. I do not believe that the individual has a duty to the state that transcends the state’s responsibility to him. I believe the powers not only implied but actually applied in this legislation are of the very basis of the Fascist philosophy, and they ought to be rejected.

I understand there are very few countries that have such pieces of legislation. This afternoon the House should reject the Bill. Honourable members opposite who have remained to do what they consider to be their duty should consider this deeply. Those who have departed from this place and are allowing this measure to be passed in their name ought to pause and look at the situation. There will be no solution to industrial situations by the use of penal clauses or sanctions. I do not know what the answer is and I suppose most people in the community - large employers and so on - do not know what the answers are: but one of them is the working conditions; another is security; another is the actual salary or wage involved. 1 was struck on a visit to Sweden a few years ago by the actual arrangements inside the factory I saw. I visited a light engineering concern. You could have eaten off the floor. Every man worked at his lathe and there was tons of space around him. The whole atmosphere was pleasant, hygienic and, I would say. the kind of place in which a person could work with some comfort. One only has to visit an industrial establishment in my own electoral district to see that conditions in such places are to our shame, as is the case in most of Australia. Many places, particularly those engaged in heavy industry, are unfit for people to work in. It is always instructive to me that the worst relationships are in the industries where the management has been tough and the working conditions are poor. In other instances there are not only happy relationships but also what one might call a close friendly relationship between the management and the workers. I could take some honourable members opposite to visit some similar establishments. Even at election times the way in which the management treats its workers is manifest. When I turn up at a large industrial establishment to a political meeting called by the shop stewards I find the men who do the work and make the profits for the employers have to sit outside on the ground and in the dust, I am affronted on their behalf and on behalf of the community.

When one goes to a place, is invited inside by the management, and taken to the area where the people are having their lunch, one can see that there is a different kind of attitude, an attitude of respect. Until management accords the proper respect to people who work in factories - the same type of respect as is accorded to any other equals - there will not be industrial peace. When people who are treated in an undignified manner and are asked to work in conditions that are a denial of the standard of life we expect in this community strike against governments or owners or anyone else in these matters, I am on their side, as I believe a large section of the Australian community also to be. Until the Government - or what there is left of it at present - applies itself to the human questions involved in the industrial situation, there will not be industrial peace. I appeal to the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) to apply to the industrial area some of the civil rights principles that I often hear him enunciate, and see whether for once we cannot set up a standard for the rest of the world to look at in this area, instead of getting out the knout, the whip or the sanction.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 - by leave - taken together.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh) [5.471 - Although we will oppose these clauses, because of the time factor - and for that reason only - we will not call for a division on them. However, we make it clear that we oppose the proposal contained in clause 7 to give the Commission power to write into an award a provision that each day of a dispute shall be treated as the occasion of a separate offence. We even oppose a presidential member’s being given the right to certify that a breach of an award has occurred. We believe that the thing is obnoxious, and cannot and ought not be accepted in a free society.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 10to 12 - by leave - taken together.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We have no objectionto these clauses because, generally speaking, they give a paid employee the right to appear before the Commission, and we favour that.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 13. (I.) Section 109 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting paragraph (a) of sub-section (I.):
  2. by omitting from paragraph (b) of subsection (1.) the words “or a breach or nonobservance of an award”;
  3. by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “tinder paragraph (a) or (b)” and inserting in their stead the words “under paragraph (b)”; and
  4. by omitting sub-section (3.). (2.) Upon the commencement of this Act, an order of the Commonwealth Industrial Court in force under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 109 of the Principal Act or an order of that Court in force under paragraph (b) of that sub-section enjoining an organisation or person from committing or continuing a breach or nonobservance of an award ceases to have effect but nothing in this Act affects any penalty imposed by that Court before the commencement of this Act in respect of a contempt of that Court that consisted of a failure to comply with such an order.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

I believe that section 109 should be repealed altogether. In fact, in the new legislation section 109 will not have much work to do at all. As it is such an obnoxious section and such a blot on the statute book of a free country, it should be wiped out. For that reason, I have moved my amendment which would also make it impossible to collect fines already imposed.

Question put:

That the clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Clyde Cameron’s) stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 34

NOES: 17

Majority .. .. 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 16a,

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

After clause 16, insert the following clause: - 16a. Section 116 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “116. A party to-

a proceeding before the Court, the Commission or the Registrar; or

a proceeding before the High Court-

being an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the Court; or

being a proceeding in respect of an award made or purporting to have been made, a decision given or purporting to have been given or any other act done or purporting to have been done under this Act or in respect of a failure to make an award, give a decision or do any other act that is required by this Act to be made, given or done, shall not be ordered to pay any costs incurred by any other party to that proceeding.”.’.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I take it that most honourable members on the other side will vote against the amendment. They have no understanding of what it involves. They are following the traditional habit of their Parties in pressing legislation through this place. The question of costs in industrial legislation is of vital importance, particularly to many small unions. Quite a number of unions have only 2,000 or 3,000 members, each of whom pays $5 or $10 a year in fees. After these unions maintain an office they reach the stage where it is impossible for them to go to court secure in the knowledge that they will have enough money to pay costs or to comply with any other sanctions imposed on them. I protest in this Parliament against the manner in which the Government is treating the unions. In all the years that I have been here, I have seen few more miserable performances.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Wills is getting a little wide of the subject matter before the Committee. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:

– It concerns the question of costs. Surely I am discussing the question before the Parliament. One might ask whether the Parliament is giving it serious consideration and whether it is being carried by the appropriate numbers. The Committee is dealing with a matter of substantial social importance, one that has given rise to many difficulties in recent times, and I submit that it is deserving of proper consideration. I put on record that this is a most miserable performance on the part of the Government Parties.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Clyde Cameron’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 17

NOES: 34

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - takenis a whole.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We of the Opposition are completely and utterly opposed to clause 18 of the Bill which proposes to write into section 119 of the Act the savage penalties which are set out in proposed sub-section 1 (d.).I just want to say a few words on this and then we will take the final vote. It is unfortunate that in relation to these penal provisions at least one of the judges has chosen to have the onus of proof shifted to the person charged. I take the case in which Mr Justice Dunphy dealt with a strike by the Victorian railway workers. The only offence alleged to have been committed by 1 union was that 12 of its members were absent from work on the day in question. Mr Justice Dunphy said:

In such a case the onus shifts and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that the minor organisation had become involved with the other organisations.

So there we have the extraordinary ruling from a judge which shifts the onus from the person laying the charge to the person charged. I regret that I have to leave out so much of what I would otherwise have said, but 1 must say this much about the penal powers: As I have said, the penal powers were removed in 1 930 and have been reintroduced largely by judge-made law. There has been no deliberate enactment by Parliament of a properly considered system and, indeed, parliamentary action has consisted of patching up gaps which have appeared or giving apparent relaxations which, in reality, meant nothing. That is what we are doing now. It is obviously time that the powers were looked at independently of the courts’ decisions and of the system which has been built up by the courts. When that is done, the matter is examined in its historical perspective, it will be abundantly clear that the steady growth in penal provisions and in their use has indeed been like the effect of a drug upon a drug taker - the more penal powers there have been, the more there has come to be a reliance on them, although the years from 1930 to 1947 show that the arbitration system can work and, indeed, work better without penal provisions. That is all 1 have time to say. I make it clear that we oppose the Bill and will vote against it at the third reading stage.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted to move third reading forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 35

NOES: 17

Majority .. ..18

Bill read a third time.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3558

CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS’ LIABILITY) BILL 1970

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence Of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech. It reads:

This is a Bill for an Act to amend certain provisions of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959-1962, which prescribes the liability of airline operators in the event of accidents occurring in the course of international and domestic aircraft operations. The right to recover damages arising from travel on international flights is primarily regulated by the Warsaw Convention made in 1929 and the Hague Protocol to that Convention made in 1955. Australia is one of many countries participating in these international agreements, which are given the force of law in Australia by the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act. In addition, Part IV of the Act applies similar conditions to operations by the holders of domestic airline licences, and it is in this regard that the Government proposes the amendments incorporated in this Bill. The basic Warsaw principle, as applied to Australian domestic operations under Part IV of the Act, is that a carrier is liable for assessed damages sustained by reason of the death or personal injury of a passenger resulting from an aircraft accident. This liability of the carrier exists whether the accident was due to negligence on the part of the carrier or not, but the court may adjust the damages payable if it is proved that the passenger caused or contributed to the damages. The Act limits the liability of the carrier in respect of each passenger to $15,000.

This limit of liability is approximately equivalent to the one specified for international operations in the Hague Protocol of 1955. In recent years the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been studying whether the limit of liability and other provisions of the Warsaw Convention should be reviewed, and it is now proposed to hold an international conference early in 1971 for (his purpose. The conference will have before it a proposal to raise the. international limit of liability to $89,000. In the meantime, following indications by the United States Government that it was dissatisfied with the existing limit in relation to international services to and from that country, the airlines operating those services agreed with the United States authorities, as an interim measure, that they would accept a limit of liability of $52,000 for international passengers embarking or disembarking in the United States or passing through that country.

The Government gave careful consideration to these moves in the international aviation world when assessing what would be an appropriate limit of carriers’ liability for Australian domestic air services in present circumstances. The figures mentioned are related primarily to economic conditions in the United States, where personal incomes and damages awarded in accident cases are at a much higher level than they are here. Accordingly, the Government concluded that an increase of this order in the Australian domestic limit could not be justified at the present time. As the nominal average weekly earnings of adult males in Australia have approximately doubled since 1955, when the basis for the existing limit was established, the Government proposes that the same change be made in this limit of liability, that is to say, an increase from $15,000 to $30,000. This will cost the airlines some $250,000 per annum in additional insurance premiums. If the proposed international conference results in a new convention or protocol or carriers’ liability, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate for Australia to become a party to it, in which case a suitable proposal will be submitted to the Parliament. This will also provide an opportunity to review again the domestic limit of liability in the light of what is decided internationally.

I should emphasise that the maximum amounts of compensation specified by the Act, as well as by the Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol, are not automatic entitlements. An injured passenger, or the dependants of a deceased passenger, claiming compensation from an airline whose aircraft is involved in an accident, must prove that damage has been suffered by reason of the accident, and the amount of damages is assessed in accordance with the ordinary principles of law. When the assessed damages are less than the maximum amount mentioned in the Act, they are recoverable in full. Otherwise, the carrier’s liability is limited to that amount. I would also point out that these arrangements and limits refer only to the liability of the air carrier to the passenger or his dependant. They do not require the carrier to insure against this liability, although as a matter of . prudence this is normally done, nor do they prevent a passenger from insuring his life or person quite independently for any additional amount he chooses. There are similar provisions in the Act relating to damage or loss of passengers’ luggage. The present limit of carriers’ liability for registered baggage, that is baggage checked in with the airline and carried in the aircraft hold, is $200, and that for hand baggage, carried into the aircraft by the passenger, is $20. The Government proposes that these limits be raised to S300 and $30 respectively. Here again, these are maximum amounts recoverable on proof of damages, but if the luggage of a passenger is worth more than these amounts he has ready access to insurance facilities and can cover himself against loss for the full value.

As I have indicated earlier, the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act applies only to the carriage of passengers and baggage in aircraft operated by the holders of airline licences under the Air Navigation Regulations. This includes passengers carried on airline charter flights as well as on their regular services. The rights of passengers on air taxi flights, charter flights and joy rides conducted by the holders of charter licences only, however, depend on common law and the terms of the contract between the passenger and the carrier. Commuter service operators hold charter licences and have been exempted from holding airline licences under powers conferred on the Director-General of Civil Aviation by the Air Navigation Regulations. In granting such exemptions, the DirectorGeneral has required the operators to contract with their commuter passengers to accept liability for death or injury to the same extent as if Part IV of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act applied to the carriage. This is not an entirely satisfactory method of achieving adequate protection for commuter passengers. With the general charter operators, it is common to contract out of all liability for death or injury to passengers by including appropriate conditions on the tickets. Whether such provisions are legally effective may be open to question, but on the face of things many passengers carried by charter operators may have no redress in the event of accidents.

The Government cannot see any justification for treating passengers of the airlines and the charter firms any differently in respect to the carriers’ liability arrangements, and the Bill includes amendments which will apply the Act to all chaner flights and commuter services subject to the Act. As with the airlines, this will involve the charter operators in higher insurance costs. On this last point, as will be seen from a perusal of Part IV of the Act. for constitutional reasons its provisions are not applicable to intrastate services, except in the case of those operated by Trans- Australia Airlines. In order to cover this situation, the Government arranged for the various States to enact legislation which effectively extends the rules under Part IV of the Act to intrastate operations. The Stale Premiers have been advised of the Commonwealth’s present proposals and they have indicated their willingness lo amend their legislation correspondingly insofar as this is necessary, both in respect of the inclusion of all charter operations in the arrangements and the increases in the limits of liability.

Sections 14 and 37 of the Act preserve the liability of a carrier to indemnify the employer of a passenger in respect of his commitments under workers’ compensation legislation. The Queensland Workers’ Compensation Act, however, differs from the legislation in other States, as it does not impose a liability on the employer to pay compensation, the injured worker recovering directly from the State Government Insurance Office. The Premier of Queensland has asked that the Act be amended to preserve the right of the Government Insurance Office to recover from the airline any compensation paid to an employee or his dependants in appropriate cases, so that the position in Queensland will be comparable with that applicable elsewhere. In considering this particular matter it has been concluded that the sections concerned should also be modified to cover the position where a person liable to pay workers’ compensation is not necessarily the employer of the person injured or killed and to ensure that they are effective in all cases where this type of compensation, however described, is payable. Clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill are designed to achieve all of these objectives.

Some publicity has been given to a proposal by the Government to introduce a system of automatic interim payments to the dependent spouse and children of passengers killed in aircraft accidents. It is believed this will represent a significant improvement in the carriers’ liability arrangements, and the Government will submit suitable legislation to the Parliament to give effect to the proposal as soon as possible. It has not been practicable to do so at this time as certain legal aspects require further attention, but it was considered desirable to proceed with the basic amendments now included in the Bill rather than delay them until a later session of Parliament The Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act is a significant legislative measure in the functioning of the civil aviation industry in Australia. It affords protection to passengers and their dependants on the one hand and to the operators on the other, and is based on principles recognised throughout the world. The amendments now submitted for consideration by the Parliament are aimed at improving the Act in certain important respects - in particular in relation to the limits of liability and the extension to all charter flights. I commend the Bill.

Leave granted for debate to continue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the honourable member for Newcastle I wish to say that the incorporation of the second reading speech on this occasion has been allowed because of the peculiar circumstances that exist.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Opposition has concurred in the incorporation in Hansard of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) for the simple reason that honourable members are desirous of getting home. We accept that this weekend is a holiday weekend, and therefore we do not propose to be unnecessarily awkward. But I draw attention to the fact that at this late hour of the session the Parliament is being treated as a rubber stamp and new legislation is being introduced. An example is the way that this Bill, the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill and Australian National Airlines Bill have been brought in. I was approached at about 4 o’clock this afternoon and asked whether I was prepared to proceed with a debate on these measures. I agreed on the pure and simple basis that if we did not proceed with the Bills this evening it could well be that we would have to wait until the August session to deal with them. In the event of there being an accident between now and then the unfortunate dependants of anyone killed or seriously injured in that accident would be entitled only to the existing damages of some $15,000. Although we hope that there will be no accidents, we want to ensure that if there is an accident a person’s dependants will be entitled to the maximum rate of damages now proposed in this Bill.

This measure provides for an amendment to the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act to increase the amount of compensation or damages from $15,000 to $30,000. In the case of loss of luggage or baggage the increase proposed is from $200 to $300, and in the case of hand luggage the proposed increase is from $20 to $30. The Opposition is not opposed to the principle of increasing these payments. Honourable members on this side of the chamber feel that because of inflation and Government policy they can agree with the Government that $15,000 today is not a reasonable amount to be paid by way of damages. Therefore we accept the proposition to increase the amount to $30,000.

Another pleasing feature of the Bill is that in future the rights of passengers travelling on air taxi flights, charter flights and joy rides will be protected and passengers will be entitled to damages in the same way as if they were injured or killed in an accident on a licensed airline flight. This is an improvement to the legislation. It is long overdue and the Act should have been amended a considerable time ago to include this provision. I hope that the Government will introduce at an early date the proposal contained in the latter part of the speech delivered by the Attorney-General. That proposal provides for interim payments to a dependent spouse and dependent children of a passenger killed in an aircraft accident. This also is long overdue. In the event of an accident, because of the delay involved in inquiries which have to be conducted, a dependent spouse with children could be in the unfortunate position of knowing that some time in the distant future she would receive a lump sum payment of $30,000 but that in the meantime she would have difficulty in making ends meet. I know that it will be said that she would be able to apply for a widow’s pension, but that is not the answer. The Government should amend the Act as early as possible to include the provisions mentioned in the second reading speech.

The Opposition is concerned about the limit of liability. Members of the Opposition have always considered it to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that airline operators have been excluded from an obligation to pay unlimited damages in the event of a person being killed in an aircraft accident. The most that a dependent spouse or dependent children will be able to receive in damages will be $30,000 under this Bill.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-That should apply to all transport.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Why should it?

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Why should it not apply also to the railways?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I agree with that. Do not misunderstand me. I can assure the honourable member for Chisholm that members of the Australian Labor Party believe that there should be no limitation of liability. We have only to pick up a newspaper to read cases of people being badly maimed. It is not rare to see awards of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or even $100,000. Why should the insurance companies who insure people travelling in motor cars have to meet this commitment when the transport systems, whether they be rail or air, be excluded from it? There should not be any exclusion. If the court of the land says that a person has suffered a certain amount of disability why should he not be compensated? Why should the airlines and the railways be permitted to impose a maximum liability of $30,000? It is unfair, it is unjust and it should be removed.

I was pleased to read a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on 18th and 19th September 1968, question No. 585. The answer from the then Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr Swartz, clearly establishes that the United States Government is trying to do something about this problem in a most practical manner. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer that was given.

Civil Aviation: Carriers Liability (Question No. 585)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has Qantas Airways Ltd made an arrangement with the United States Government to enter into special contracts with all passengers on journeys to, from or through the United States for a limited liability of $us75,000 inclusive of legal costs or $US58,O00 exclusive of legal costs in heu of the limited liability of $ Al 5,000 set by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol?
  2. Has Qantas also made an arrangement to waive certain defences available under the Convention?
  3. When did Qantas make these arrangements?
  4. Has the Government considered making similar arrangements with the principal carriers operating air services to, from or through Australia?
  5. Has the Government considered amending the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act to substitute a similar liability in regard to air carriage within Australia?
  6. Has the Government consulted with the States and other nations and the airlines on this matter; if so, on what dates and with what results?
Mr Swartz:

– The following answers are now supplied:

  1. On 15th November 1965, the United States Government served notice of denunciation of the Warsaw Convention with effect from 15th May 1966. At the same time it indicated it was willing to negotiate a new international agreement preserving the benefits of the Convention but with an increase in the limit of liability to around $US 100,000 per passenger. This high figure was considered more appropriate having regard to the income and cost structure in the United States. Several countries, including Australia, made representations to the United States pointing out the serious affects that denunciation of the Convention would have for civil aviation. After protracted -negotiations, the Government of the United States approved an interim agreement made between the international airlines operating to that country, including Qantas, and a’ number of US domestic carriers, whereby the carriers agreed that the limit of liability for death or injury to passengers on services including a point in the United States as a point of origin, destination or agreed stopping place was raised to $US75,000 including legal fees and costs, or $US58,O00 .exclusive of such fees and costs where the claim is brought in a country where costs are awarded in addition to damages. The United States then withdrew its notice of denunciation of die Warsaw Convention.
  2. The agreement provides that the airlines will not avail themselves of the defence, provided in Article 20 (1) of the Warsaw Convention, that they have taken all necessary measures to avoid damage or injury to passengers or that if it was possible to take such measures.
  3. Qantas entered into these arrangements in May 1966, and the agreement became effective on 16th May 1966.
  4. As a result of the action taken by the United States, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has undertaken a study of the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol, including the limits of liability. Australia has taken an active part in this study and will be represented at the international conference which is expected to be arranged to consider the outcome of the ICAO study. The Government believes it would be inappropriate to alter, unilaterally, the Warsaw/Hague provisions in relation to services to, from or through Australia prior to such a conference.
  5. The Government is currently examining the question of amending certain provisions of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act, including the limits of liability, insofar as they apply to domestic air services.
  6. No detailed consultation has yet taken place with the States on the limits of liability on domestic air services, but the State Ministers for Transport were advised of the Commonwealth’s proposed review of its legislation, including the limits of liability, during the recent Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting. As mentioned above, the Government has taken part in negotiations regarding the international limits leading to the study of the matter by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. These negotiations have largely been conducted through ICAO and have taken place over a period of the last 3 years. The domestic operators were asked for their comments on proposals to amend the legislation as it affects them on 29th July 1968. No replies have yet been received.

The answer to that question indicates that it is proposed at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to submit a proposition that the limit be lifted to $100,000. That amount is fair and reasonable. If a person can go into court and establish that the loss of the breadwinner has cost them something which could be compensated for by $100,000 then we are getting nowhere near it. The Opposition is still completely opposed to any limitation, but at least the Americans are approaching the matter in a fair and reasonable manner. They are talking about a reasonable amount of compensation.

As a result of negotiations the United States Government threatened to denounce the conditions of the Warsaw Convention unless the airline operators lifted the amount of limited liability. The denouncing of the conditions of the Convention would really put civil aviation in a turmoil. As a result of that action it is now possible for a person travelling on an American aircraft or any aircraft operating through the United States of America to have a coverage of $US58,000, or approximately $A52,000. Honourable members might bear in mind the next time they travel overseas that any person travelling with a round the world ticket on an aircraft which takes him through the United States of America is covered by the American system of liability. It is important to bear this in mind. If a person leaves Australia and travels to New Zealand, Japan, across the United States of America, to London and down through Europe and back to Australia, he is entitled to the insurance coverage which the American Government has laid down for persons travelling on aircraft operating to, from or within the United States of America. This is true. This astounds honourable members on the other side of the House but it is factual, because I have checked these facts. I am not making an idle statement. I obtained the information from the legal officer of Qantas so that I would know our position. So I can at least back up my statement. If need be, I can name the gentleman, because I made the inquiry quite openly as if I were a passenger and that is the assurance I was given. So when honourable members vote against the amendment I intend to move very shortly they must realise what the position is.

I repeat, any person who has a round the world ticket, or a ticket to the United States of America, provided it is with one of the 60-odd airlines that have entered into this agreement with the United States - and bearing in mind that unless airlines enter into this agreement they cannot operate through America - and the journey includes a city in the United States, named on the ticket, is entitled to the coverage to which I have just referred. The amount of the limited liability is $US58,000 or. i» round terms $A52,0Q0. However, if a person Mies from Australia and names his point of destination as New York and his ticket states he is flying ‘Australia-New York-London-New York-Sydney’ and when he arrives in London he then decides to extend his holiday and travels around Europe from London to Paris, Rome, Vienna and back to London he is not covered on that portion of his journey should anything happen. If the aircraft is in a crash and he is killed or in any way injured his dependents have no claim in respect of that section of the journey. But so long as his flying trip passes through the United States he has the coverage I am talking about.

So when honourable members opposite vote against this amendment which I intend to move on behalf of the Opposition they should be aware of what they are doing, because at the present time our national airline, Qantas, is completely covered. It is paying these insurance premiums. That is no thanks to this Government, but thanks only to the United States Government for having imposed this condition. It is wide ranging, but the facts are there, and I challenge the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes), who is at the table, to deny that what I have said is true. I hope that the information he is now getting is sufficient to convince him that what I have said is true. That is the position as far as we are concerned. Another thing which concerns me on this question of the limitation of liability is that an airline can be most negligent in the maintenance of its aircraft. I will just refer to a couple of serious accidents that have occurred in this country. Let us take the crash at Port Hedland on 31st December 1968. A subsequent inquiry clearly established that it was caused by negligence on someone’s part because a bush in an important part of the structure of that aircraft was hammered into position and not put in by the normal method that would be adopted by any experienced engineer. If that is not negligence then I do not know what is. The inquiry into the Winton air disaster some years ago clearly established that it was due to negligence because a part of the engine of that aircraft had been put in the wrong way. It was put in upside down.

I could cite a number of accidents that have occurred in Australia where it has been evident from the inquiries conducted that there was negligence as a result of which aircraft have crashed and people have lost their lives. Why should the airline operators in these cases be in the privileged position of not being required to pay maximum damages? It is quite easy to overcome this. It has been said that if any set amount is removed from the Act the dependants of a deceased passanger will have to go to a court and establish their entitlement but in this way they can get $30,000 without any trouble at all. As dependants of a deceased passenger and in view of what his income had been they are entitled to $30,000 compensation. Why should the airline operator who has committed serious breaches of the regulations be excluded? If a passenger is killed in a motor car accident it is the accepted thing in the courts today that the driver must have been negligent otherwise the accident would not have occurred. The courts determine the amount of damages to be awarded to the deceased passenger’s dependant spouse or children. The same thing should apply to the airline industry. Airline operators are in ari unfair and privileged position and this privilege should be taken away from them immediately.

I admit that as far as international operations are concerned we should wait until the next meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation takes place, which I understand. is to be in 1971, when this proposition to remove the limitation of liability can be dealt with on an international level. However, there is nothing to prevent this Government from accepting the Opposition’s proposal in regard to Australia’s internal airlines. The Government may, of course, say that it has already negotiated an agreement with the State Premiers. In that case there is nothing to prevent the Government from negotiating fresh agreements with the Premiers which can then be brought into this House. I do not think that any State Premier would object to something that is fair and reasonable such as removal of the limitation of liability. We on this side of the House realise what is taking place and on behalf of the Opposition 1 move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

While not opposing the passage of the Bill, the House is of opinion that the limits of liability under International Convention are unjust and therefore requests that the Government take action to have the injustice rectified by pressing for a revision of the International Conventions to increase the limits applied in the absence of negligence and to remove the limits where negligence is proved and, in the meantime, to take action similar to that taken by the United States Government in 1965 and 1966, that is, to obtain agreement with the international airlines operating to this country and our international airline, whereby the limit of liability for death or injury to passengers on services including a point in this country as a point of origin, destination or agreed stopping place will be raised to an amount of $A52,000.00 exclusive of legal fees and costs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Crean:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– Briefly 1 wish to make the Government’s position known on the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Bill. I think my friend the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) will know the position already because he will have picked it up from the debate in the Senate.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I gathered that the Government was opposed to it.

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes.

Mr Charles Jones:

– But in view of the fact that I gave you a little more information as to just what is involved, namely, that only half of the people leaving Australia are covered, I thought there might have been a change.

Mr HUGHES:

– 1 do not suggest for one moment that what the honourable member for Newcastle has said in his speech in the second reading debate ought not to engage the attention of the Government. Please do not let it be thought that I am endeavouring in any way to dismiss lightly what the honourable member has said. The Government must tread carefully in this field because an international convention is involved. We do not want to take any unilateral action which might be construed as a denunciation of an international convention by which we are bound. An international conference on this and other questions involving international civil aviation is to be held in early 1971. At that conference amendments to the Warsaw Convention will be taken into considera tion. Australia will participate in the conference. Indeed, it has had a representative on the committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which has been instrumental in examining proposals which will be put to the conference. In the meantime the Government will consider its position on the limit of liability in regard to international flights. That may not be as much comfort or satisfaction as the honourable member for Newcastle may wish but it may go some of the way towards meeting his point. I am afraid, however, that this is as far as the Government can go. We reject the proposed amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– The question is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I seek leave to move 3 amendments together. Two of the amendments propose the insertion of new clauses and the third . is to omit clause 7 and insert a new clause in its place.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Clause 7 reads:

Section 37 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (a) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: “(a) to indemnify an employer of a passenger or any other person in respect of any liability of, or payments made by, that employer dr other person under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth providing for compensation, however described, in the nature of workers’ compensation; or”.

  1. move:

After clause 5, insert the following new clause: . “5a. Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words ‘, and not otherwise,’ “.

After clause 6, insert the following new clauses: “6a. Section 32 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: (3.) The preceding provisions of this section apply in relation to liability of a carrier (including liability in respect of baggage) under a law (including the common law) other than this Part arising out of carriage of a passenger to which this Part applies in like manner as they apply in relation to liability in accordance with this Part.’.”. 6b. Section 33 of the Principal Act is repealed.’. 6c. Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2.)

Omit clause 7 and insert the following clause:

Sections 36 and 37 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following section inserted in their stead: “37. - (1.) Subject to this section, nothing in this Part shall be deemed -

to exclude any liability of a carrier, or a servant or agent of a carrier, under a law (including the common law) other than this Part; or

to limit the amount recoverable in an action in respect of any such liability. “(2.) In an action against a carrier under this Part in respect of the death of, or injury to, a passenger, or the destruction or loss of, or injury to, any baggage, there shall be deducted from any damages awarded any amount payable by the carrier (or a servant or agent of the carrier) under a judgment or settlement in respect of liability otherwise than under this Part in respect of that death, injury, loss or destruction. “(3.) In an action against a carrier, or a servant or agent of a carrier, otherwise than under this Part in respect of the death of, or injury to, a passenger or the destruction or loss of, or injury to, any baggage there shall be deducted from any damages, compensation or other amount awarded any amount payable by the carrier under a judgment or settlement in respect of the liability of the carrier under this Part in respect of that death, injury, loss or destruction.”.’.

I do not propose to repeat what I said in my speech in the second reading debate. I have covered all of the points. This is the necessary procedure that should follow.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) was good enough to outline the nature of the amendments he proposed to move, and now has moved, when he made his second reading speech. He will be aware of the Government’s attitude because it was declared by my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), in the Senate when the Bill which originated in that chamber was debated there. Very briefly, speaking as the Government, we are unable to accept the amendment. My honourable friend will agree that I had given the Committee something of a clue to the reasons when I indicated why we proposed to reject the Opposition’s amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time.

In short, the amendments propose a fundamental change in the legislation. They propose a radical departure from worldwide practice in aviation which has tended to move away from a situation where the plaintiff has to prove negligence on the part of the carrier and to replace, and not supplement, this common law principle or arrangement with a situation of automatic liability. What the amendments really propose is that a passenger should have the best of both worlds. At present, having regard to international practice, the Government feels unable to go along with the Opposition’s detailed proposal. I doubt whether I need say any more at this stage, because those members of the Committee who are familiar with the provisions of the Bill and of the detailed amendments which have been moved by the Opposition would have gathered fully the reasons from a perusal of the Senate Hansard.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) says that the Opposition is trying to give the passenger the best of 2 worlds and that the amendments provide for a movement away from the accepted and customary procedures in respect of civil aviation. We plead guilty to that because we consider that civil aviation has been living and moving in a very privileged sphere for too long and that it is time it was taken out of this field of privilege and of limited liability. My interpretation of the Workers Compensation Act is that it permits a dependent spouse or dependent children to accept the amounts laid down in the Act of so much for death and so much for loss of limb or, if they feel that they have a common law action that they can take where the employer has been negligent, they can go to the court to try to get a greater amount by way of damages. If they miss out there they can take the amount prescribed by the legislation. This is the provision that the Opposition is trying to write into this legislation. If a dependent spouse or dependent children feel that an airline operator has been negligent - and I could go into extensive detail if circumstances permitted in respect of cases where I think there has been negligence in airline accidents - they should be entitled to the best of both worlds. We admit that we are trying to take airline operators out of the privileged class and to give their passengers the opportunity of taking, to use a popular term, the money or the box. We feel they are entitled to do so.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3566

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1970

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

May I with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, raise a point of procedure on this Bill and the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1970? I suggest that the 2 Bills be treated as cognate measures.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As there is no objection, that suggestion will be adopted.

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard as my second reading speech the second reading speech of my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Drake-Brockman). It reads: The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 66 of the Australian National Airlines Act. This section of the Act provides that in any action brought against the Australian National Airlines Commission to recover damages for death or injury, other than in cases subject to the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act or the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover more than $15,000, this limit being related to that specified in the latter Act. In an action not covered by the 2 Acts mentioned, therefore, such as one arising from an accident caused by the Trans-Australia airlines vehicle, the plaintiff firstly has to prove negligence on the part of the Commission and also has a ceiling on the amount of damages he can recover.

This is quite contrary to the normal common law situation, where negligence has to be proved but there is no limit on the damages recoverable. It also differs from the carriers liability legislation principle, whereby the damages are subject to a limitation but the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence. In effect, section 66 results in an injured party having two constraints on his ability to recover reasonable damages. A similar provision existed formerly in the Commonwealth Railways Act, and the Parliament repealed the relevant section in 1968.

As the limit of liability in section 66 of the Australian National Airlines Act is related to that specified in the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act, and the latter is to be amended, the Government has considered what action should be taken concerning this section. It has concluded that the Australian National Airlines Commission should not be in a specially favoured position in this respect, and proposes that section 66 be repealed, as was done in the case of the comparable section in the Commonwealth Railways Act. I commend the Bill.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– Very briefly, the Opposition supports this Bill and the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill, which will follow this Bill. As I said in a debate earlier this evening, civil aviation has been in a privileged class. I am pleased that in one particular field the Government has removed civil aviation from that privileged class. The Bill repeals section 66 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-66. This Bill indicates to honourable members that the privilege in relation to airlines has been removed. Formerly if a passenger were travelling in an airline bus from the city terminal to the airport, or vice versa, and were involved in an accident, limited liability would apply. If a passenger were travelling in a private bus and were involved in an accident and injured, be could take the case to court and liability would not be limited. The passenger on the airline bus would be entitled to only limited damages. If the passenger were killed, his dependants could take the matter to court and would get only limited damages. This provision should never have been written into the Act. I am pleased to see that the Government is removing it from the Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3567

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY) BILL 1970

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowa · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard as my second reading speech a copy of the second reading speech of my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). This Bill replaces the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1970, introduced in the House on 19th March 1970 but which has now been withdrawn. That Bill was consequential on the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970 and the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1970 and will be reintroduced at a later time as the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill (No. 2) 1970.

The purpose of this Bill is to make amendments to the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Act consequent upon the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Bill 1970. The amendments raise the limit of liability quoted in sections 8 and 14 of the Act to keep the maximum liability of the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authorities for death or personal injury of air passengers in line with the new limit proposed in the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Bill. I commend the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3567

AMANDA MULLER

Ministerial Statement

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · New England · CP

– by leave - On the night of Saturday, 18th April 1970 a fire occurred at the No. 4 shipbuilding berth of the Whyalla Shipyard and Engineering Works, a division of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. The fire burned fiercely and as a result the ‘Amanda Miller’, a 62,000 deadweight ton tanker being built for R. W. Miller & Co. Pty Ltd, was very severely damaged. As ships built under the subsidy scheme remain the property of the Commonwealth until completion and handover to the owner, I made an on the spot inspection of the damage on Monday, 20th April at which time the fire was still smouldering although the main fire was out. It was plain at that time that the partially built tanker was severely damaged. The blocks supporting the keel had been burnt out for some distance and the structure had fallen to the ground, severely buckling the steelwork. Assessments since made of the damage suggest that more than 80% of the steelwork will have to be replaced.

At the time of my inspection I arranged with BHP that an inquiry would be carried out by a senior departmental officer, Mr E. S. Clarke, First Assistant Secretary (Shipbuilding.) The company readily agreed to the suggestion. The company itself proposed to conduct its own separate investigation. It became apparent, however, as the investigations proceeded that there would be considerable duplication and overlapping as witnesses were questioned, tests were made and so on. Accordingly it was decided that the report as such would be prepared by Mr Clarke in collaboration with BHP and with full and complete access to all the information obtained by BHP concerning the fire. The investigation has concluded that the most likely cause of the fire was that hot metal, slag or sparks from welding, cutting or gouging lodged in cracks in, or gaps between, softwood blocks below the ship. Alternatively a small fire, started by such operations and thought to have been put out by the operators concerned, may not have been completely extinguished. After some hours of smouldering a fire flared up, perhaps due to a change of wind. In addition, the release due to heat of highly inflammable propane gas and oxygen both used in cutting steel, contributed to the rapid establishment and fierce spread of the fire.

Whilst the shipyard is patrolled at regular intervals by the company’s watchmen the fire was not detected until it was well established. The report states that both portable and permanent fire fighting equipment is provided near the shipbuilding berths. It also concludes that the training and equipment at the Whyalla Shipyard, for the detection and fighting of small fires which frequently occur during working hours near welding and cutting operations, appeared to be adequate. The report does point, out, however, that delay in opening a partially closed valve in the fire main serving the berth contributed to the difficulty in containing the fire in the early stages and that the narrow clearance between the ship’s side and the wall of the berth appears to have added to the difficulty of access to hydrants and to the fire. Damage to the tanker is valued at about $3m. The insurable interest in the tanker by the shipowner, the Commonwealth and the builder is covered by comprehensive insurance with London underwriters.

I would point out that no major building berth fire had been experienced in Australia prior to that of the ‘Amanda Miller’. Even by world standards the fire was unusual in its intensity, the speed with which it spread and the damage which it caused. In these circumstances the Shipbuilding Board had been satisfied with the facilities available at Whyalla and other shipyards. I should point out that the contractual arrangements between the companies and the Commonwealth place the responsibility for the care and efficient protection of the vessel and any opponent upon the builder himself. The investigation following this fire has shown, however, that some improvements are necessary. I have therefore asked the Shipbuilding Board to proceed immediately with action to ensure that fire precaution and fire fighting procedures are adequate not only at Whyalla but at all shipyards building vessels under the Commonwealth shipbuilding subsidy scheme. In particular they are to look at any special precautions that may be necessary in the use and location of bottled highly inflammable gases.

The discovery during the fire that an isolating valve in a fire main was only par tially opened indicates the need for regular inspection of fire prevention equipment to ensure that it is always ready for immediate use. This is a further matter which I have asked the Shipbuilding Board to investigate. Since the fire BHP has already taken a number of steps to improve fire prevention facilities at the Whyalla shipyard. In addition the Australian Shipbuilding Board has asked all, yards recognised for the purposes of Commonwealth shipbuilding subsidy to forward immediately details of fire precaution and fire prevention measures in their shipyards. I would also mention that very good progress is being made in the rebuilding of the ‘Amanda Miller’. The Whyalla shipyard is making a determined effort to have the vessel finished as close as possible to the original contract date. 1 present the following paper:

Report on Fire on Building Berth at Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– by leave - I thank the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) for giving me leave to make a statement. Once again I regret that 1 have to rise at this time of the evening. I also regret that I have to speak at some length on the Minister’s statement. I have read it and the paper that has just been tabled. 1 find so much of the Minister’s statement and so much of the report so difficult to understand and so unhelpful in working out just what happened on the night concerned that I must speak to the statement. The first comment I wish to make is that I regret that up to this stage the Minister has been unable to answer question No. 969, which I placed on the notice paper-

Mr Sinclair:

– All the questions have been answered, at least today.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– They are in the process of being answered, are they?

Mr Sinclair:

– The last answers were sent in last night, I think it was.

Mr CHARI ES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I have not yet received them. But I accept the Ministers assurance that some time today or some time in the near future I will receive answers to questions Nos 969, 970 and 971. But I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation in respect of question No. 972. It was a very simple one to answer. A phone call to the fire commissioner in Adelaide would have provided the answer to lt. Yet it lay on the notice paper from 8th May until today. So I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation in respect of that one.

One thing that strikes me in regard to the report is the attempt to throw the blame on to a boilermaker and an apprentice. At page 7 of the report details are given of the fires that allegedly took place. I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that when gouging is being carried out on this type of work - I am talking on a subject about which I know a fair bit - there is a lot of spark. A nozzle is fitted to burning gear and it throws a lot of spark, lumps of red hot slag drop on to the floor of the slipway or wherever the burning is being done, and it splashes.

Just to allow this type of work to be carried out and then to have an inspector come along at some later stage and not carry out a real and close inspection, in my opinion, represents criminal negligence on the part of the builder. I do not want to give the impression that I am having a crack at BHP because I am not. I consider that this incident shows a serious case of negligence. The more one reads the report, the more one must come to this conclusion.

Here we have a case where a boilermaker and an apprentice were carrying out work of a dangerous nature - that is probably the only way the work can be described - as far as the safety of the ship was concerned. It was work as I indicated a moment ago - I do not wish to repeat myself - where a lot of hot metal was flying around. A 25 knot wind was blowing at this time. So, this hot metal could have been blown around. Sparks and hot metal could have lodged in almost any place and caused the fire at some later stage. The fire inspector should have been placed in a position to observe these things. The watchman, whose duty it was to go around and look for fires, should have been warned that gouging had been carried out. Gouging is not something which occurs occasionally. It is a regular procedure in building ships of this type. This man should have been charged with the responsibility by his employer of carrying out a very close and thorough investigation to make sure that no hot metal was left around in areas where a fire could be caused.

The Minister in his statement said that the hot metal had landed somewhere and that it just lay there. Then, when the wind changed direction, apparently the fire just blew up. To use the Minister’s own words:

After some hours of smouldering a fire flared up perhaps due to a change of wind.

I ask honourable members to look at appendix 2 to the report. It shows that at 3 p.m. the wind was from die north at 25 knots. At 9 p.m., half an hour before the fire was detected, the wind was from the west at 9 knots. But the slipway is oriented to the north west. So, the position is this: Whether the wind blows from the north or from the west it will be blowing almost down the slipway. If a fire were to break out as a result of these men having worked there earlier in the day surely a 25 knot wind which blew sometime during the afternoon and which changed direction sometime between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. could have flared up a flame. I draw attention to (hat fact.

I turn to another part of the report in which it is stated that the night watchmen proceeded around at 4.35 p.m. They left the main gate at 4.35 p.m. They completed the patrol in 65 minutes and returned to their office. This is the important part: It is disclosed at page 9 of the report that the first patrol was from 4.44 p.m. to 6.26 p.m. The second patrol was from 7.14 p.m. to 9.22 p.m. The report goes on to say:

This placed him along the road in front of the Amanda Miller’ on 5 or 6 occasions up to 9.25 p.m. and there was nothing unusual that he observed from the roadway.

I draw the attention of honourable members to one fact. It is that at 9.35 p.m. there was a huge flame which was visible from another part of the steelworks industry. At 9.25, when that inspection was completed, the report states - and I repeat it:

  1. . there was nothing unusual that he observed from the roadway.

The next paragraph of the report stales:

He did not make an inspection beneath the Amanda Miller’ or along the slipway crane track during the shift.

Why not? What is wrong with making such an inspection? He should have been under the ship. He should have gone down under it every time that he carried out an inspection. Once again I want to qualify my remarks by saying that I am not blaming the inspectors. Their duties are laid down by the company. Yet a ship costing millions of dollars was being built and dangerous work was being carried out around the ship. I emphasise that point But the night watchman did hot make any inspection beneath the ‘Amanda Miller’ or along the slipway crane track during the shift. What the heck is the use of carrying out an inspection if you do not carry out a close inspection and get down underneath the ship? In other shipyards I have seen men burning and welding and a man has been standing by with a portable fire extinguisher. If something went wrong and a fire broke out he could put the flames out.

I will admit that fire fighting equipment was available at the Whyalla shipyard. That is mentioned in the report, and I accept it as a fact. But the point is that trouble occurs after men cease work. If a fire begins while men are on the job they can see it and put it out very quickly. Inspections were carried out from 4.44 p.m. to 6.26 p.m. and from 7.14 p.m. to 9.22 p.m. In my opinion, the inspections were too casual. They should have been much more detailed and thorough. The report states:

Up to 9.35 p.m. no sign of - the fire beneath or around the ‘Amanda Miller’ was reported by any shipyard or steelworks personnel.

The lighting around the ‘Amanda Miller’ was described as brilliant.

At approximately ,9.35 p.m. a flare was seen by the Weighbridge Attendant at the vehicle weighbridge in the steelworks area.

The weighbridge attendant saw the flare. He immediately rang the security officer who was sitting in an office. The security officer could see the fire from where he was sitting. The reason given for the security officer not having seen- the fire previously was that there was a bright desk lamp in front of him. All right, I accept that, but probably other people will not accept it. To me it is a very paltry explanation for his not seeing the fire. The report continues:

The events to 9.35 p.m. suggest that the fire which was started in the blocks of the starboard launching way by the gouging operation near the end of the day shift was not effectively quenched and later produced sufficient heat to cause smouldering in the timber blocks and eventually fire.

I am not questioning that that did cause the fire. But what I am saying is- that the blame for this fire should and must not be sheeted home to the men who were working in the shipyard. The blame lays in the inadequate inspection procedures which the company had laid down. I keep coming back to the point that the night watchman did not make an inspection beneath the Amanda Miller* or alo’ng the slipway crane track during the shift. Dangerous work was being carried out but sufficient supervision was not given to guard against a fire such as that which happened at the shipyard.

Another interesting fact is that the fire was first noted at 9.35 p.m. in -the blast furnace area of the steelworks. The security officer was immediately advised of it by telephone. So both the weighbridge attendant and the security officer were aware of the fire at 9.35 p.m. To me, the sensible and logical thing for them to do was ring the shipyard watchman and advise him that there was a fire. There is no doubt that at this stage it was a serious fire. But did these men do that sensible and logical thing? According to the report they did not. They then collected the head security officer and went around by vehicle to the shipyard gate. On . page 14 of the report it is stated: the Weighbridge Attendant, the Blast Furnace Security Officer . . . picked up the Security Officer, drove to a Security Store to pick up some fire fighting equipment, then drove to the Shipyard Main Gate where they were let into the Shipyard by the Main Gate Watchman at aproximately 9.50 p.m. The Main Gate Watchman was unaware of the fire at the ‘Amanda Miller’ at this time.

That means that for 15 minutes someone could at least have been trying to do something. The security staff’ in the shipyard could have been trying to do something in that 15 minutes to put the fire out, but they were not, because they had not been advised. This is another breach of the part of the company. This report, at page 15, reads like a Gilbert and Sullivan comedy. It says:

Some minutes were lost before a hose was connected to a hydrant at the bow of the ‘Amanda Miller’. Three lengths of 100 ft hose were finally run out and an initial effort was made to fight the fire from the starboard side. This was at 9.57 p.m.

Bear in mind, the fire was first noticed at 9.35, so this took place 22 minutes later. The report continues:

The water flow was lost after a few minutes, probably due to the hose being burnt through towards the forward end of the ship.

Should this type of thing happen? I suggest it should not. The report continues:

The BHP Steelworks Fireman arrived at the Amanda Miller’ with a BHP fire unit at 10.03 p.m. about the same time as two Shipyard safety officers arrived on the scene.

The fire was noted at 9.35, so that was 28 minutes after. That is officially noted in this report The report goes on to say:

Seeing the seriousness of the situation, he immediately called radio control to call the Whyalla Town Brigade and all BHP and Shipyard Firemen that could be mustered.

This is after the fire had been raging for some 28 minutes. I give credit to the Whyalla Town Brigade that the bells were rung at the fire station at 10.05 p.m. and the town firemen were on the scene at 10.18, 13 minutes later. The question I ask is: Why, when the fire was first noted - and from this report it was obviously at that stage a bad fire - was not the town brigade alerted - at 9.35 p.m., instead of 10.05 p.m., 30 minutes later? These are the things that really concern me.

Then more farce. The report continues:

The Shipyard General Manager and other Shipyard senior officers arrived at 10.10 p.m. The Maintenance Engineer reaching the Main Gate at 10.20 p.m.-

That is all right; I can understand their being a little delayed - immediately checked the fresh water main pressure which was 95 to 100 lb/sq. in. On arrival at the slipway he saw that the fire was threatening the main transformer and returned to the substation with the Electrical Engineer and cut power from the slipway area. This was at 10.34 p.m. Various attempts were made to supply water to the suctions of the pumps, but these were unsuccessful.

The time - 10.34 p.m., 59 minutes after the fire was reported. The report continues:

However, at approximately 10.50 p.m. an examination of the isolating valve for No. 4 Slipway was made and this was found to be partially closed. On fully opening this valve full pressure was obtained in the hydrant main.

That is the position. At 9.35 the fire is reported, and it is not until 10.50 p.m. that somebody finds this serious error which caused water to be withheld. It must be obvious to honourable members that it was in this first critical hour that the fire really got out of control and that the ‘Amanda Miller’ was doomed. The photographs in this report show oxy-acetylene and propane bottles, containing substances which are highly inflammable, scattered all over the ship. This shipyard works to a different procedure to other shipyards. The shipyard where I worked for so long works on the basis of having no more than half a dozen oxy bottles on board a ship. The rest of the equipment is connected to lines that have been put right through the shipyard so that if a fire such as this occurs they will not be in the position where they have highly inflammable oxy-acetylene or propane all over the ship which, if the ship catches fire, becomes a ready made fuel to keep the fire going. If any honourable member examines the photographs he will see large heaps of welding leads all over the ship. I accept this state of affairs. This is unavoidable. It is quite probable that there were 70, 80 or even more welders working on the ship at the time. Welding leads would be excellent fuel in a fire. I do not think that one could get anything better, than rubber to burn other than oil or, as in this case, oxygen and propane bottles. I am certain that the shipyard must review its method of operations. It should have a much safer system; I do not know whether it has since been changed. As did the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), I went over there to have a look at the shipyard. I waited until about a week or 10 days after the fire before doing so. I saw a lot of things which he would have seen. I accept the situation as far as welding leads are concerned, but I cannot accept that the shipyard was operating under safe working conditions when propane and oxygen bottles were lying around the ship. Oregon blocks were also used. Some shipyards use hardwood blocks, but this yard saw fit to use Oregon blocks, which are highly inflammable. There was tallow all over them because they had been used for a number of years. Tallow is used to grease the way so that a ship will slip down into the water. Tallow is also highly inflammable. Once the fire got under way it would be hopeless to try to stop it.

I feel that the people who were responsible for fighting the fire in the shipyard were remiss. I know that it is all right to talk after the event, that one can always be wise the next day, but people who are trained in handling fires should have realised these things. The valve was partially closed and they were getting only a trickle of water through. That should never have occurred because during their training they should go through the process of checking to see that everything is right. They should check to see that the hoses have not been cut in half or have holes in them. They should also check to see that the valves are operating efficiently. As far as I am concerned, this is all part of the fire drill.

But why was the Whyalla town fire brigade not called much earlier? It was called over half an hour after the fire had been first reported. When it was obvious that the fire was very bad why was not the Port Augusta fire brigade contacted and asked to come to the fire? There are 2 brigades at Port Pirie - a full time brigade and a back-up brigade. Why was the backup crew of the Port Pirie brigade not taken to Port Augusta to replace the Port Augusta fire crew so that it could assist in fighting this fire? Why was the fourth executive officer from Adelaide not alerted much earlier? If I remember rightly, he did not arrive at the fire until 7.15 a.m. although the fire had been reported at 9.35 p.m. the previous day. Why was he not at the scene of the fire much earlier? Why did it take him 9 hours and 40 minutes to get to the fire?

The Port Pirie fire brigade did not arrive at Whyalla until 4.15 a.m. on the Sunday, which was 6 hours and 40 minutes after the fire had been reported. This fact appears at page 18 of the report, which states:

It does appear that any possibility of effectively dealing with the fire under the conditions pertaining had faded by 1 1 p.m.

A fire engine should have been able to get from Port Augusta in about an hour. A back-up machine could have come from Port Pirie to Port Augusta. A fire engine from Port Augusta should have been at the scene of the fire no later than 11 p.m. There are so many things wrong with this that I regret to say that I cannot accept the contents of this report. I ask the Minister: Will we get a copy of the report from the South Australian Fire Brigades Board? Is it to be tabled? Will we be told what actually happened? What is the interpretation of the Fire Brigades Board of what happened? I cannot understand why the Government tables a report on this matter in the Parliament without including in it a report from the Fire Brigades Board. They are the experts.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is quite outside our responsibility.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– It might be but the Commonwealth has $lm involved in this fire.

Mr Sinclair:

– Everything is completely insured in terms of the Commonwealth’s obligation. There is a contractual exclusion of responsibility under the contract.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The Commonwealth may be insured but all that that means is that the Government will have to pay higher premiums the next time it wants to take out a policy. Insurance companies will be a little warier in the future when insuring ships under construction. The answer by the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) to question No. 944 asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is an indication that probably fire fighting facilities in shipyards are not satisfactory, particularly when one reads that the Minister advised the Leader of the Opposition that there should be fulltime fire fighters in every shipyard and that they should work on a 24 hour basis. I do not want to incorporate the question in Hansard but for the information of honourable members it appears at page 2887. Now that the Commonwealth Fire Board has made this recommendation about Cockatoo Island, I think that wherever the Commonwealth has ships being built on which it is paying subsidy, the Board should be asked to send an inspector to inspect the fire fighting equipment, make recommendations and give advice. I am confident that the shipyard management would be only too happy to have inspectors visit their establishments and would accept their advice. If Cockatoo Island warrants a fulltime fire officer then I think that every shipyard in Australia, particularly the larger ones such as Evans Deakin, the State Dockyard and Whyalla, should be able to afford them.

I reiterate what I said earlier. I do not think that the boilermaker and the apprentice should have the blame sheeted home to them. Let us forget for a moment that boilermakers and I are members of the one union, but at least I know a little bit about shipbuilding. The blame has to be sheeted home to the employer for having failed to lay down a system of inspection which would require the night watchman to go over the ship not once but continually after the men had finished work. I have fished at night in the State Dockyard after men have finished work. It is one of the best fishing spots in Newcastle for jewfish - or it used to be. Other men also have fished there at night. I have seen the watchman making his rounds night after night, going over ships to make sure that there were no fires. I think a similar procedure should be followed at Whyalla. I hope that the workmen on the job, the boilermaker and the apprentice, will not be blamed. I do not blame the watchman for having failed to carry out his duties. All I say is that the duties of the watchman were not extensive enough to ensure that an accident like this did not occur. 1 hope that the lessons that have been learned from this fire will ensure that there will be no similar fires in the future because they are disastrous to the industry. I give credit to BHP because none of the men lost time as a result of the fire. Those who could not be employed usefully in the shipyard were transferred to another part of the company’s establishment - the steelmaking section - and in this way continuity of employment was ensured.

page 3573

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– On behalf of the Chairman of the Publications Committee I present the Committee’s first report. Copies of the report have been circulated.

Report - by leave - agreed to.

page 3573

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1970

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3573

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

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

page 3573

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

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

House adjourned at 7.27 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker.

page 3574

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Social Services: Regional Offices (Question No. 1158)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

In view of his advice that it has been decided, upon completion of a Department survey, to extend the network of regional offices of his Department to various locations in both the Sydney suburban and country areas of New South Wales, can he now state the intended locations of these offices, apart from Blacktown.

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

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

A total of 16 Regional Offices of the Depart ment of Social Services already exist in New South Wales and, as a result of the recent survey, a programme has been drawn up for extensions to this network over the next few years.

Necessarily in formulating a plan of this nature a number of assumptions have to be made in forecasting workloads, population trends, etc., and the programme must therefore be administered with some flexibility. However, the broad plan is to establish offices at the following places in New South Wales:

Bathurst

Blacktown

Bondi Junction

Burwood

Caringbah

Castle Hill (or Windsor)

Chatswood

Coffs Harbour

Fairfield

Goulburn

Hornsby

Hurstville

Liverpool

Maitland (or Cessnock)

Moree (or Inverell)

Nowra

Penrith

Port Macquarie

Tamworth

West Ryde

The actual date of opening of each office will depend upon a number of factors such as the availability of suitable accommodation, properly trained staff and the rate at which the workload develops. The programme will, however, be pressed forward as quickly as possible.

Bank Charges

Question No. 959)

Mr Armitage:

askedthe Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Was approval given for the banks to impose charges for the keeping of cheque accounts for social clubs, P. & C. organisations, etc.
  2. If so, why was the approval given.
  3. Was consideration given to the recent decision of the New South Wales State Government to impose stamp duty on the cheque accounts of societies and similar type of organisations, thereby increasing the costs of these organisations.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. and (2) These bank charges are not within the nature of interest rates and, therefore, do not fall within the area in which the Treasurer or the Reserve Bank has responsibilities under the Banking Act.

I have been informed that over the years the number of accounts qualifying for concessions (by way of cheque-issuing facilities free of all charges and payment of interest on current account deposits) has increased significantly, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total deposits. The banks have decided that, in the light of rising costs, these concessions should be restricted.

It is understood that concessions continue to be available in respect of a substantial number of accounts conducted by community service and educational organisations including parents and citizens’ associations.

  1. This is a matter for the New South Wales State Government.

Value of Imports into Australia from United States . (Question No. 1045)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of imports from the United States in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What was the value of Australian exports to the United States in each of these years.
  3. What restrictions exist withregard to the entry of Australian exports to theUnited States.
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

Source: Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Overseas Trade

  1. Like most other countries the United States imposes tariffs on a wide range of imported products. For example imports of Australian greasy wool are subject to a high tariff of 25.5 U.S. cents per pound (clean basis).

In addition to tariffs the United States maintains quantitative restrictions on imports of a number of primary products, including sugar and most dairy products. Import quotas may also be imposed on fresh, chilled or frozen beef, veal and mutton under certain circumstances, but in order to avoid the imposition of such quotas the United States has negotiated export restraints with major supplying countries.

Value of Imported Handicraft and Other Goods (Question No. 672)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What isthe value of (a) items of handicraft imported into Australia from less-developed countries and eligible for customs duty exemption and (b) other goods imported from less-developed countries and subject to preferential duty introduced by the Government, in each of the years 1966-1967, 1967-68 and 1968-69.
  2. What is the estimated loss of customers revenue as a result of duty concessions granted on imports from less-developed countries.
  3. What is the value of quotas granted for the importation of specified goods from less-developed countries in each of the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.
  4. What is the value of quotas taken up by importers in each of the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. The value of handicraft and other goods imported under the system of tariff preferences for developing countries since the concessions became operative in May 1966 has been as follows:
  1. The value of duty concessions on these goods is estimated at $3,134,000.
  2. The value of quotas available for the importation of specified goods from less-developed countries for the three years mentioned was as follows:
  1. The value of quotas actually taken up by importers was $3.7 million in 1966-67, $9 million in 1967-68 and $14.6 million in 1968-69.

Transport and Power Projects:

Commonwealth Grants (Question No. 51)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. For what (a) railway, (b) road, (c) port, (d) water and (e) power projects has the Commonwealth made (i) grants and (ii) advances inthe last 25 years, and what was the amount in each case.
  2. In the case of each advance, what period of repayment and rate of interest have been set, what annual repayments are being made and what total repayments will be made.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

The grants and loans which the Commonwealth has made to the States for each railway, road, port, water and power project in the 25 years ended 30 June 1969, together with the amount involved in each case, the period of repayment of and rate of interest on loans, the repayments made in 1968-69, and total repayments required on advances made by 30 June 1969 are shown in the attached table.

In addition tothe projects shown in the table, the Commonwealth has also passed legislation to provide grants for the Copeton Dam in New South Wales ($20 million), the Tailem Bend to Keith Pipeline in South Australia ($6 million), the Cressy-Longford Irrigation Works in Tasmania ($0.75 million) and proposes to provide a grant to Queensland of $12.8 million for the Bundaberg Irrigation Works. The Commonwealth is also proposing to make a loan of $80 million to Queensland for the Gladstone Power Station.

Inthe case of loans, it is not possible to provide complete details of total repayments which the Commonwealth will receive in respect of projects for which Commonwealth advances are still being made, as these will depend upon the amounts of the loans still to be made, the date on which each advance is made and the rate of interest which will apply to each advance. Not is it possible, with the exception of the Weipa harbour works, the Mount Isa railway reconstruction project and the development component of the Western Australia railway project, to give details of the annual repayments to be made by the States. Annual repayments in respect of all other projects vary from year to year as, in cases where loans have not yet been fully taken up, the advances still to be made will cause repayment obligations to increase progressively until the loans are complete. In the case of completed loans, the decreasing interest component on the reducing outstanding balances results in progressively smaller annual repayments. Repayments of principal and payments of interest in respect of the three projects mentioned above are payable on a credit foncier basis and, consequently, there are equal annual amounts repayable in respect of each project. The details of these are as follows:

Pensioner Medical Service: Number of Doctors (Question No. 106)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Will he bring up to date the answer which he gave me on .28 November 1968 (Hansard, page 3513) on the number and payment of doctors.
  2. What progress has been made in the recognition of overseas medical qualifications since his answer to me on 28 November 1968 (Hansard, page 3500).
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. (a) The number of doctors participating in the Pensioner Medical Service in 1969-69 was 6,417.

    1. The average payment to each doctor (per annum) in 1968-69 was $2,665.
  2. (a) and (b) This information is not available in my Department.
  3. Doctors employed other than in hospitals:
  4. (a) Number of doctors employed by approved hospitals:
  1. Number of doctors employed by mental hospitals:
  1. M.B., B.S.- 1968- 747 Graduates.

The honourable member will recall that in my previous reply I informed him that the problems associated with attaining uniformity in this matter would be further considered by the several State and Territory Medical Boards. Discussions were held at their meeting in September 1969 and the matter will be considered at a future meeting.

As the honourable member will be aware, the question of whether an individual with particular overseas qualifications be permitted to practice in an Australian State or Territory, is decided by the authorities responsible - in the case of medical practitioners the medical registration boards.

The honourable member may be interested to know that at present the Australian Capital Territory Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance 1930-1969 is being reviewed with the intention of providing for the establishment of an expert advisory committee whose functions would be to recommend a new schedule of acceptable qualifications for the Territory and to keep the schedule under review in relation to deletions and additions. It is also intended to provide for. the appointment of a further Committee which would report to the Australian Capital Territory Medical Registration Board on the acceptability of overseas applicants with qualifications not included in the proposed new schedule.

Hospital Bed Statistics (Question No. 109)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

How many beds have there been in (a) public wards, (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards in each State and Territory in each year since hospitals were first approved or recognised under Commonwealth legislation.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The information requested has been provided by Schedule A - public hospitals, and Schedule B - private hospitals, both Schedules containing the numbers of hospital beds in institutions approved under the National Health Act.

In respect of Schedule A the following further information is provided.

In most States, classification of wards in public hospitals into public, intermediate and private is dependent to some degree upon the varying demand for one type of accommodation or another. Only in New South Wales have the State Authorities been able to supply complete details of the number of beds in public hospitals available in each category since 1948. In Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania intermediate and private ward accommodation in public hospitals is considered together, while in South Australia and Western Australia no individual classification is made.

Medical Benefits Scheme: Most Common Fee (Question No. 116)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. On what dates since the commencement of the Medical Benefits Scheme on 1 July 1933 has his Department carried out surveys of doctors’ fees to ascertain the most common fees charged for particular medical services.
  2. What were the most common fees charged on those dates for (a) surgery consultations, (b) home consultations and (c) confinements in each State and Territory.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Surveys of doctors’ fees were conducted by my Department on an Australia-wide basis, to ascertain the most common fees charged for particular services, during the years 1935, 1957, 1959, 1963, 1966, 1967, and 1968. My Department has not itself conducted a survey of fees since 1968.

Representatives of the larger medical benefit organisations formed a joint working party with the Australian Medical Association in 1968, and in 1969 produced fee data derived from information in claims lodged by contributors with the insurances funds, and from surveys carried out by the Australian Medical Association. Officers of ray Department made an examination of this data in January 1970 in association with representatives of the Australian Medical Association. The fees arrived at as a result of the survey made by the insurance funds and the Australian Medical Association and the subsequent examinations of the data were the fees notified to my Department by the Australian Medical Association in January, 1970, as the fees most commonly charged. These are the fees on which the medical benefits included in the National Health Bill 1970 are based.

  1. (a and b) - The most common fees charged for general practitioner consultations, as indicated by the surveys carried out by my Department, were as follows:
  1. (c) Fees for confinements, including antenatal and postnatal care are not available for the years prior to 1963. However, the most common fees as revealed in surveys since that date are as follows:

Separate figures are not available for the Australian Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory.

Australian Medical Association: Accreditation of Hospitals (Question No. SIO)

Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has he held discussions with the Australian Medical Association or other organisations representing medical practitioners, with a view to the institution by them of a system of (a) accredita tion of hospital and (b) medical and surgical audits of performance of medical practitioners using such accredited hospitals.
  2. Can he say whether adoption of such a system is considered necessary to preserve the quality of medical care under the fee for service system which exists in the United States of America.
  3. Can he say what principles country medical associations and insurance companies apply to differential payments under the most common fee system in the United States.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The question of the accreditation of hospitals is primarily a matter for consideration by the respective State Governments. Officers of my Department have from time to time participated in seminars and other forms of discussion on the general question, but no firm proposals on the subject have been advanced by State Governments or by the medical profession.
  2. Detailed information is not available on the principles country medical associations and insurance companies apply to differential payments in the United States. From such information as is available, it appears that differential payments are made both under the Federal ‘Medicare’ programme and by private insurers in that country.

Hospital Benefits Organisations: Contributions (Question No. 565)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. When were hospital benefits organisations first registered under Commonwealth acts or regulations.
  2. What was the rate of Commonwealth benefit payable at that time in respect of a contributor to a registered hospital benefits organisation.
  3. What was the weekly family contribution charged at that time for maximum insurance by the major registered hospital benefits organisations in each State and Territory.
  4. On what dates and to what rates have changes subsequently been made in the (a) Commonwealth benefit and (b) weekly contribution.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. 1st January 1952.
  2. $1.20 per day.
  3. The weekly family contribution rates have 1st January 1952 for maximum insurance by the major funds were:

  1. (a) Commonwealth benefit was increased to $2.00 per day from 1st January 1958.

    1. The changes made since 1st January 1952, and the dates of the changes to the maximum weekly family contribution rates were as follows:

New South Wales-

September 1953-30 cents

October 1955-40 cents

January 1961-50 cents

May 1963-80 cents

October 1966- $1.10

October 1968- $1.20

Victoria-

November 1955 - 30 cents

November 1956 - 35 cents

May 1960-50 cents

December 1964 - 80 cents

December 1966- $1.30

Queensland -

July 1955-20 cents

June 1959-40 cents

September 1961-50 cents

November 1964-60 cents

January 1967-80 cents

January 1968- $1.10

South Australia -

November 1958-45 cents

April 1960-60 cents

August 1962-76 cents

May 1966-95 cents

February 1968- $1.15

Western Australia -

July 1963-70 cents

October 1966- $1.30

When the major fund in Western Australia was first registered it operated two hospital tables, the lower table having a weekly family contribution of 10 cents. Members were permitted to contribute for multiples of this table with a maximum contribution of 50 cents per week. Higher tables were subsequently introduced but 5 times the lowest table remained the maximum insurance until July 1963.

Tasmania-

October 1953 - 50 cents

April 1962-80 cents

November 1963-80 cents

March 1967- $1.10

Medical Benefits Organisations: Contributions (Question No. 566)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. When were medical benefits organisations first registered under Commonwealth acts or regulations.
  2. What was the weekly family contribution charged at that time for maximum insurance by the major registered medical benefits organisations in each State and Territory.
  3. On what dates and to what rates have changes subsequently been made in the weekly contribution.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. 1 July 1953.
  2. The weekly family contribution rates as at 1 July 1953 for the major funds operating in each State were -
  1. The changes made since 1 July 1953 and the dates of the changes to the maximum contribution rates were as follows -

Training of Nurses (Question No. 655)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to lay how many persons (a) commenced and (b) completed training in the nursing profession in each State and mainland Territory in each of the last 10 years.
  2. If so, what did the number represent per. thousand of population in each case.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information contained in this reply has been obtained, where appropriate, from the relevant State Government authorities. It is based on the number of persons commencing and completing general certificate trailing, since this is the only area in which a comparable basis for calculation can be obtained.

In New South Wales and the Northern Territory, the length of the training was reduced from 4 to 3 years from 1 July 1968. The phasing-out process will be completed in 1972.

In the Australian Capital Territory the length of training was shortened from 4 to 3 yean in 1967. The phasing-out was completed by 1 January 1968.

In Queensland, the length of the training course was reduced from 4 to 3 years from 1 May 1969 using a similar phasing-out scheme as New South Wales.

In the other States, the period of training ls 3 years with the exception of South Australia where the period varies from 3 years 3 months to 4 years.

Cheese (Question No. 698)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are the health requirements which he introduced some months ago relating to cheese imported into Australia, and which were temporarily suspended, now being applied.
  2. Is Australian cheese for export required to be pasteurised.
  3. Does Australia impose a pasteurisation requirement on imported cheese.
  4. Have the reasons given at the time of imposing the limitations .changed during the last 12 months.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. No. The Commonwealth health requirements in respect of imported cheese have been suspended because of further recommendations on this subject which were made by the National Health and Medical Research Council. These are currently under consideration by the Food Standards Committee of the Council for inclusion in the relevant recommended standards. Until new standards have been determined and approved by the States the legal position is that all cheese sold in the States must, in accordance, with States’ legislation, be made from pasteurised milk.
  2. Yes. Cheese for export is required to be made from pasteurised milk under the Exports (Dairy Produce) Regulations under the Customs -Act 1901-1963 and the Commerce Trade: Descriptions Act 1905-1950.
  3. As indicated in (1) present State legislation requires that all cheese sold be made from pasteurised milk.
  4. No.

Foot and Mouth Disease (Question No. 864)

Mr Maisey:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is he able to state which countries. in Europe are subject to foot and mouth disease.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Foot and mouth disease is endemic in Europe and all countries of Continental Europe are subject to foot and mouth disease, although the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden and Finland have remained free of the disease for some years, and England has remained free since 1967-68. Hence Australia, for animal quarantine purposes, regards the whole of Europe as a foot and mouth disease area, recognising that certain countries while free of foot and mouth disease at a particular time are, by reason of their geographical and commercial situation, vulnerable to introduction of the disease.

Public Hospitals: Expenditure! (Question No. 902)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated increase in recurrent expenditures of public hospitals per patient bed day over the past 10 years.
  2. What was the increase in the cost of living index over the same period.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Figures relating to the expenditures of public hospitals are only available for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68. Figures for earlier years relate to the combined expenditures of public hospitals and nursing homes. It is estimated that over the period 1963-64 to 1967-68, recurrent expenditures of public hospitals (including outpatient’s expenditure) per patient bed day increased from $15.21 to $20.75, an increase of 36.4%
  2. The consumer price index for the six capital cities increased from 100 to 114.1 between 1963-64 and 1967-68.

National Health Scheme: Pharmacists (Question No. 920)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the salary range applicable to pharmacists employed by his Department in each year since 1958.
  2. What was the dispensing fee for ready prepared prescriptions under the National Health Scheme for those same years. (3 Is he able to say what was the average annual salary of manager-pharmacists in retail pharmacies, for each of those years.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Salary ranges (actual) for Pharmacists and Pharmacists (Inspection) employed by the Department of Health, for each year since 1958, are set out hereunder. The ranges are those effective as at 1st January for the year shown and are the rates for male pharmacists.

In addition to dispensing fees chemists also receive, as part of their remuneration for dispensing National Health prescriptions, a mark-up on the wholesale price ofthe drugs supplied. The rates of mark-up are 33½% for ready-prepared benefits and 50% for extemporaneously-prepared benefits (i.e. those where the chemist mixes the ingredients).

  1. My Department does not have information on the average annual salary of manager-pharmacists in retail pharmacies for those years.

Cigarettes: Advertising of Dangers (Question No. 967)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a recent report from the American Cancer Society establishing beyond doubt that lung damage due to smoking is directly related to the amount of tar and nicotine inhaled.
  2. In view of the finding that cigarettes with low tar and nicotine content are less dangerous than those with high content, and in view of the recent Gallup Poll which showed that 80 per cent of the public thought tar and nicotine levels should be shown on the cigarette packet labels, will he consider the possibility of legislation, if necessary in co-operation with the States, to ensure this information is shown on cigarette packets.
  3. Will he also consider the possibility of legislation to ban all press, radio and television advertising of cigarettes.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Yes.

These matters are currently under consideration by the Government. The honourable member may be interested to know that a subcommittee of Ihe “National Health and Medical Research Council has been established, at the request of the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference, to consider standard analytical methods for determining the ‘tar’ and nicotine content of tobacco smoke. ‘ The sub-committee’s report will be presented to the Ministers for study.

Dental Therapists (Question No. 989)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Was the Government’s proposal to give dental therapists in the Australian Capital Territory total patient responsibility originally based on a recommendation to the National Health and Medical Research Council by the Dental Health Advisory Committee.
  2. Has he referred the matter back to the National Health and Medical Research Council because of a dispute over the interpretation of that recommendation.
  3. Has the National Health and Medical Research Council referred the matter to the Public Health Advisory Committee on which no dentist is a member
  4. Is it a fact that the National Health and Medical Research Council has not referred the matter back to the Dental Health Advisory Committee which made the original recommendation; if not, why not.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Government has not made any proposal to give dental therapists total patient responsibility in the Australian Capital Territory.

In October1965 the National Health and Medical Research Council adopted a report from the Public Health Advisory Committee prepared by the Dental Auxiliary Personnel Sub-Committee of the Dental Health Committee. Council endorsed certain principles which it believed would, by an extension of the use of dental auxiliary personnel offer a more adequate dental service. These principles included; that auxiliary dental personnel are complimentary to and not a substitute for the qualified dentist; that auxiliary personnel must serve as an integral part of a dental health team with appropriate status and conditions and in view of the limited knowledge and scope of the individual dental auxiliaries the direction and control of their services should be vested in a registered dentist.

The Council also made special recommendations relating to school dental nurses in that it considered any instrumentality responsible for a comprehensive and systematic programme for dental care of Australian school children should give consideration to the utilisation of auxiliary personnel in the form of school dental nurses. The employment of these auxiliaries should be in accordance with the principles endorsed by Council.

  1. Yes. The Council advised that the legislation introduced in the Australian Capital Territory does not conflict with its recommendation.
  2. The Chairman of Council bad this matter referred to the Public Health Advisory Committee, which meets before Council. The Chairman of the Dental Health Committee, a dentist, who was also the Chairman of the Dental Auxiliary Personnel Sub-Committee, attended the Public Health Advisory Committee during the discussion.
  3. The National Health and Medical Research Council has not referred the matter back to the Dental Health Committee as there would not have been time to convene a meeting before Council met. The matter was discussed with the Chairman of the Dental Health Committee.

Canberra Community Hospital:

Domiciliary Services (Question No. 1022)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1960 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in its report on the new Main Hospital Block at the Canberra Community Hospital recommend that a study of domiciliary service should be made to determine whether it should be introduced in Canberra.
  2. Was such a study made.
  3. If so, what were the findings of the study and was a report on the findings of the study prepared.
  4. If such a report was prepared, can it be made available to interested Members.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

  3. The findings of the study were that:

    1. the Hospital Board be encouraged to develop their rehabilitation services and;
    2. that the domiciliary care programme be developed through the existing district nursing service.

The report on the findings took the form of an intradepartmental paper which after examination within the Department was submitted to the Minister for his consideration.

  1. The findings contained in the paper were accepted by the Minister who conveyed these by letter to the Chairman of the Canberra Community Hospital Board. The Minister’s letter was reported on fully in the Canberra Times of 20th March 1963.

National Health Act: Nimmo Committee Recommendations (Question No. 1024)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What recommendations of the Nimmo Committee, which he indicated in his statement on 4th March 1970, the Government would undertake, have not been covered by the current amendments to the National Health Act.
  2. Why have these recommendations not yet been undertaken, when will they be implemented and in each case what will be their cost
  3. In the case of those recommendations which he stated would be the subject of further negotiations with the States, what will be the estimated cost of implementing each recommendation.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the. honourable member’s question is as. follows: (1), (2) and (3) The measures based on Nimmo Committee recommendations which I indicated in my statement on 4th March 1970, would be undertaken or considered, and which were not encompassed by the National Health Bill 1970 as introduced into Parliament or by administrative arrangements associated with that Bill, are -

  1. The decision to establish a National Health Insurance Commission (based on .Nimmo Committee recommendation- 1) - As indicated in my statement, it is necessary for the Government to give detailed consideration to the composition and functions of the proposed Commission.
  2. Proposals directed towards the establishment of a closer relationship between hospital fees and hospital benefits (based on Nimmo Committee recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,. 9, 11 and 17)- As indicated in my statement, these proposals have farreaching implications and will involve prolonged negotiations with the States. These negotiations have commenced and will be pursued without delay.
  3. The decision that 3 hospital benefit tables related to standard, intermediate and private ward charges be operated in each State (based on Nimmo Committee recommendation 7) - As indicated in my statement, this- will be implemented as an administrative measure over an appropriate phasing-in period. It is to some extent related to the proposals referred to in (b) above.
  4. The proposal that hospital benefits should not be paid in excess of the amount of hospital accounts (as referred to in Nimmo Committee recommendation 12) - As indicated in my statement, the Government will give further consideration to this matter in the light of other relevant factors such as the proposal for an all-inclusive hospital fees system, as proposed by Nimmo Committee recommendation 5 (see (b) above).
  5. The proposal for periodic adjustments of established common fees for medical services (as referred to- in Nimmo Committee recommendation 18) - This important matter is under discussion between the Government and the Australian Medical Association.
  6. The proposal to provide for disciplinary action to be taken in relation to any abuses of the health insurance system (as referred to in Nimmo Committee recommendation 19) - As indicated in my statement, the Government is examining appropriate methods of implementing such action.
  7. The provision of facilities for the deduction of health insurance contributions from employees’ wages or salary (based on Nimmo Committee recommendations 27 and 28) - The details of implementation of this proposal are under consideration by the Government.
  8. The proposal for a new system to replace the present Special Account system (based on Nimmo Committee recommendation 25) - As indicated in my statement, this matter will be examined in depth with a view to the development of less complex arrangements.

  9. The proposal to provide for penalties to be imposed on the officers of health insurance funds for serious neglect of their responsibilities (as referred to in Nimmo Committee recommendation 37) - As indicated in my statement, this proposal is under consideration by the Government.

    1. The proposal for the Commonwealth and the States to jointly investigate all problems associated with nursing homes (as referred to in Nimmo Committee recommendation 40) - This matter is under active consideration.

The scope and complexity of these recommendations are such that they require examination in depth and, in some cases, extensive negotiations with the States. For these reasons, it is impracticable to forecast when they will be brought to finality.

It is also impracticable to provide financial estimates in relation to these matters, because they have not yet been finalised. This applies particularly to proposals involving negotiations with the States, since many of these proposals are interrelated and the final results of the negotiations obviously cannot be forecast.

Papua and New Guinea: Punishment of Offenders (Question No. 1032)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Why was the Visiting Justice for Kerevat Corrective Institution advised on 25th March U970 that leg irons were placed upon the detainee Klak between 3rd December 1969 and 18th February 1970 but not advised that they were also placed upon the detainee Tobebe between 5th and 17th March 1970 (Hansard,8th May 1970, page 1941). (?) Why did the Visiting Justice’s reportof 27th March not reach the Administrator until after his report of 18th April (Hansard, 8th May 1970, page 1941).
  2. Had the Visiting Justice visited Kerevat between the date of the two reports, if so, when.
  3. On what earlier occasions had the Visiting Justice been advised of the wearing of leg irons.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. The Visiting Justice was told on 25th March 1970 that leg irons had been placed on Tobebe as well as on Klak.
  2. Due to an oversight by the Visiting Justice, he did not post bis report dated 27th March 1970 until after 18th April 1970.
  3. Yes, on 15th April 1970.
  4. None.

Australian Communist Party: Membership (Question No. 1050)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has he any information regarding the current membership numbers of Communist parties in Australia.
  2. If so, what are those numbers.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

There are two Communist parties in Australia, the Communist Party of Australia, and the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist/Leninist). Laurence Aarons, the National Secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, recently said that current Communist Party of Australia membership is about 4,500. However, Rupert Lockwood, an ex-Communist Party of Australia member, was reported in The Australian’ of 24th January 1970 to have said that there would be no more than 3,000 card carrying members of the Communist Party of Australia. I have no information as to the number of members of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist/Leninist) butI believe the number of members to be small.

Taxation: Reimbursement to Victoria (Question No. 1053)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What increase in Commonwealth tax reimbursement to the State of Victoria will accrue in the next financial year under the existing formula.
  2. What will be the increase in Victoria’s interest repayment liability to the Commonwealth in the next financial year.
  3. Has the Government of Victoria given any indication of the anticipated budget increase which will face that State in the next financial year because of the increased cost of labour, goods and services.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Under present arrangements the increases in the financial assistance grants to the States are determined each year under the formula laid down in the States Grants Act 1965-1968, which provides that the grant for each State for each year be determined by taking that State’s grant for the previous year (with the addition of $2 million each year up to 1969-70 in the case of Queensland) and:

    1. increasing it by the percentage change in the population of that State during the year ending 31 December of the year of payment;
    2. increasing the amount so obtained by the percentage increase in average wages for Australia as a whole for the year ended 31 March of the year of payment; and
    3. increasing this amount by the betterment factor of 1.2 per cent

The increase that would accrue to Victoria next year under the existing formula cannot yet be estimated with any degree of precision. The final grant for the present financial year, which would form the base for determining next year’s grant if present arrangements continued unaltered, has not been determined, and the relevant increases in average wages and population for next year are, of course, also unknown. Further, the honourable member will be aware that the Prime Minister announced at the Premiers’ Conference held in February that the Commonwealth was willing to increase both the base level and the rate of escalation of these grants. The decisions taken in relation to this undertaking will affect the increase in Victoria’s general revenue grant.

  1. Victoria’s interest payments to the Commonwealth include interest on Commonwealth advances under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, interest on other specific purpose advances by the Commonwealth (e.g., on account of War Service Land Settlement and rail standardisation advances) and interest on Commonwealth subscriptions to ‘special loans’ raised to complete the State’s loan programmes. Some of the securities issued in special loans have since matured and have been either redeemed or converted; others have been exchanged by the Government for securities held by institutional investors. It would not be practicable to determine which of the Commonwealth’s existing holdings of securities are the residue of securities originally representing Victorian debt arising from special loan subscriptions. It is therefore not possible to say what interest payments by Victoria would be in respect of securities held by the Commonwealth.

Nor it is possible at this stage to make a reliable estimate of the increase next year in Victoria’s total interest payments. The increase will depend, amongst other things, on future interest rates, the State’s share of the Loan Council borrowing programme for next year and the results of loans offered next year. It will also be considerably affected by the decisions taken in relation to the Commonwealth’s offer announced at the February

Premiers’ Conference to take over, progressively over the next five years, responsibility for a portion of existing State debt and to provide part of the State’s loan programmes for works and housing as grants rather than loans. In recent years total interest payments from the Victoria budget have increased as follows:

  1. The Victorian Government has given no such indication tothe Commonwealth and I am not aware of any public statement issued by that Government containing information of this nature.

Commonwealth Financial Water and Power Projects (Question No. 1104)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he before the resumption of the debate on (a) the Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Bill and (b) the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill provide an answer to my question No. 51 (1) (d) and (3), on Commonwealthfinanced water and power projects, which I placed on the Notice Paper on 4 March 1970.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

See answer to Question No. 51.

Papua and New Guinea: Fishing (Question No. 1076)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. In what districts and through what ventures has the fishing industry been promoted in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the last 5 years.
  2. In what aspects and to what extent do indigenes participate in these ventures.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The Kiwia Fishermen’s Association, Dura, has been formed by about 100 self-employed indigenous fishermen who net the barramundi during the season which runs from November to April. The indigenous fishermen use small boats powered by outboard motors and sell their catch to processing boats or shore-based freezers operated by expatriate firms. Indigenous people are also employed by the expatriate firms in cleaning and packing the fish and as crew members on processing boats. The barramundi resources of the area have been reserved by the Administration for exploitation by indigenous people and licences issued to other fishermen exclude them from operating in the Daru area.

Yule Lobster Enterprises is a joint venture between an indigenous co-operative and a local company and employs several hundred indigenous people in catching crayfish and in operating a freezing and processing factory on Yule Island.

Gulf Fisheries (NG) Pty Ltd has eight prawn vessels Territory Fisheries (NG) Pty Ltd and Gulf

Enterprises (NG) Pty Ltd each has two prawn vessels and Torres Shipping Co. Pty Ltd has one prawn vessel, operating from Territory bases. Each of these companies employs indigenous people as deck hands and in processing and packing of prawns and fish.

Gollin Kyokuyo Fishing Co. Pty Ltd has one tuna processing vessel and three tuna catchers based on Kavieng. Some indigenous people are employed on the processing vessel. The Company plans to train indigenous people to crew the tuna catchers and in methods of catching live bait required for the tuna fishing operations. If the survey of tuna resources is successful, the Company proposes to establish a shore-based processing plant which will employ indigenous people.

Both South Seas Fishing Co. Pty Ltd and Carbir Fishing Co. Pty Ltd employed indigenous people as deck bands during their unsuccessful surveys in Territory waters.

Mousing Loans (Question No. 1070)

Mr Hansen:

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

  1. What are the maximum loans available from each State housing authority.
  2. What is the minimum deposit required by each State authority for the purchase of a new home.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Question No. 1094)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

What percentage of the commercial pharmaceutical drug market has been held by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories each year since 1961.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member is not available. It is believed, however, that the Laboratories share of the market is approximately 2% at the present time. ‘

I would emphasise that there is no percentage limitation imposed on the output of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in relation to that of other pharmaceutical companies. The share of the market referred to above is that attained by the Laboratories in competition with other firms.

Health Expenditure (Question No. 1096)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. What estimated amount was provided for health expenditure in Australia from (a) private, (b) public, and (c) total sources for the last year for which figures are available and the year 10 years earlier.
  2. What were these amounts expressed on a per capita basis.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Estimates of total recurrent health expenditure in Australia have been made by my Department only in respect of the years 1960-61, 1963- 64 and 1966-67. The amounts provided from (a) private (b) public, and (c) total sources in those years were as follows:

Pollution (Question No. 1139)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what are the existing laws within each State and Commonwealth Territory which control pollution of our (a) atmosphere, (b) waterways and (c) countryside?
  2. If so, what is in each State and Territory the maximum penalty under existing Acts imposed on (a) an individual and (b) a company for violating pollution provisions.
  3. Can he give details of prosecutions launched in each of the last 5 years in each State and Commonwealth Territory?
  4. Has the Government considered the adequacy of existing laws; if so, with what result?
Mr Hughes:
LP

– The answer to the honurable member’s question is as follows: (1). (2), (3) and (4) In order to sipply answers to these questions it would be necessary to conduct extensive research into a variety of Territory, State and municipal laws, none of which is under my administration. My Department does not have the resources to undertake that research. 1 am not aware what consideration is being given to these laws by the relevant Commonwealth and Stale Ministers.

Zone Allowances (Question No. 1141.)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that zone allowances for workers north of the 26th parallel are not available to off-shore drillers north of that line.
  2. If so, (a) why are those allowances not available to these drillers and (b) will consideration be given to removing this apparent anomaly.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The income tax zone allowances are available only to persons who reside in or who have been in prescribed zone areas for more than onehalf of a year of income. Those areas, which are prescribed quite specifically to the Income Tax Assessment Act, do not extend to off-shore areas. Accordingly, periods of employment on off-shore drilling rigs do not qualify as periods of residence in zone areas.

  2. (a) See the answer to (1) above.

    1. I have received representations from other quarters concerning this matter and it has been noted for consideration, along with other requests for revision of the zone allowance provisions of the income tax law; when those provisions are next under review.

Travel to Medical Centres: Taxation Deduction (Question No. 1142)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that residents living outside areas where adequate medical attention is available are gravely disadvantaged by having to incur travelling expenses to obtain adequate medical
  2. If so, will he consider making expenses incurred in obtaining medical attention, such as travel to medical centres for specialist attention, an allowable deduction for taxation purposes.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The question of allowing taxation deductions for the cost of travelling expenses incurred in seeking medical treatment has been the subject of representations on a number of occasions. The representations come mainly from country areas.

As the honourable member will be aware, it is the practice of the Government to examine at the time the annual Budget is being prepared the many requests it receives for taxation concessions. The present request by the honourable member has been noted for consideration when the 1970-71 Budget is being prepared.

Drug Prescription (Question No. 1157)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that if a doctor prescribes the drug Intal to a patient and that patient wishes to obtain that drug for a 50c charge, the doctor has to complete Form PB10a 4/70.
  2. Is it also a fact that this form requires the doctor to answer 34 questions on this 4-page, printed quarto form .
  3. If the position is as stated, will he give consideration to varying this procedure so as to make it easier for doctors to assist their patients in claiming the benefits of this drug.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, for the initial supply. Thereafter the applicant doctor is required to complete part 3 of the form only, i.e. 10 questions.
  3. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee currently has this matter under consideration.

Public Hospitals: Expenditure (Question No. 1175)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What was the average cost per occupied bed day at public hospitals in each of the States and Territories for each of the past 10 years.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Figures relating to the expenditures of public hospitals are only available for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68. Earlier figures relate to the combined expenditures of both public hospitals and

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Losses (Question No. 1176)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that losses sustained on projects carried out by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission under section 19 (b) of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, are do be covered by profit, if any, made by the commercial activities of the Commission except where an overall loss is made, in which case the Commonwealth covers the lesser loss between that sustained overall and that sustained on activities under section 19 (b) of the Act.
  2. If so, has he given any consideration to the Department of Health becoming a client of the Commission in respect of all section 19 (b) production and research activities so as to ensure that undertakings accepted under this section are, in fact, covered on a commercial basis.
  3. Would such a course be consistent with the general principles of operation of the Commission which the Government sought to implement under the Act.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. This matter has been under consideration by my Department in consultation with the Commission and Treasury. It is currently under consideration by the Government.
  3. It has always been recognised by the Government that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have an important role to perform in the field of research associated with public health. The Laboratories make a significant contribution in this area. In my view, it is not unreasonable that such activity by the Laboratories be a first charge against profits earned by the Commission from its commercial operations. However, as indicated in the reply to (2) above, this matter is under review.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Borrowings (Question No. 1177)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report (104th) on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission express the need for refinement of the statutory authority covering the Commission to over-come lack of explicitness in that legislation in relation to (a) controlling the rate of interest at which borrowings may be made, (b) consent by the Minister to borrowing by the Commission and (c) limiting the amount that may be borrowed by the Commission.
  2. If so, can he say whether, in the case of the Australian National Airlines Commission and the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, appropriate controls on these matters are written into the legislation under which these instrumentalities operate.
  3. Has he given consideration to the concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee, and what steps has he taken in response to the Committee’s report on these points.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Restrictions and Limitations (Question No. 1178)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Chairmanof the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, in evidence given to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts state that section 19 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961 restricts and limits the activities of the Laboratories in such a way that the Commission does not have the flexibility of operation and the opportunity to diversify which is available in private enterprise.
  2. If so, has the Government given any consideration to amending section 19 of the Act to overcome the cause of this complaint by the Commission’s Chairman.
  3. If the matter has been considered, what action is contemplated.

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department They are currently under consideration by the Government

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Return on Funds (Question No. 1179)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission state that the Committee was surprised to find that representatives of the Department of Health, which had framed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories legislation, were unable to define the meaning of a reasonable return on funds as used in the 1961 Act.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken by his Department to clarify this point
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Return on Capital (Question No. 1180)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Helath, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission recommend that the Department of Health and the Department of the Treasury should seek to clarify, for the guidance of the Commission, the meaning of the expression ‘reasonable return on capital’.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to conform with this recommendation.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department. They are currently under consideration by the Government

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Capital Employment (Question No. 1181)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission comment on the necessity for the capital employed by the Commission to be dissected so as to isolate the capital employed in commercial activities in order to determine a reasonable return on such capital as distinct from that capital used for public health services under section 19 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to comply with this suggestion.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Membei relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department. They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission: Decentralisation (Questiin No. 1182)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission recommend that for strategic reasons consideration should be given to a greater decentralisation of development of production facilities for vital sera.
  2. If so, has his Department and the Commission given consideration to this recommendation.
  3. If the matter has been considered, what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department. They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories

Commission: Flexibility (Question No. 1183)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboraories Commission state, in relation to section 16(2) of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act, that his Department should confer with the Commission to assess whether an amendment to that section is desirable in the interests of flexibility of convening Commission meetings.
  2. If so, have his Department and the Commission yet conferred.
  3. If they have conferred, what were the dates of the conferences.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the Honourable Member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department. They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories

Commission: Delegations (Question No. 1184)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Report on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission recommend that, in the interests of efficient administration the Commission should complete the re-development of its scheme of delegations in written form at the earliest opportunity.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to conform with this recommendation, and when will action be completed.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The question by the honourable member relates to matters raised in the 104th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or are associated with that Report.

The contents of this particular Report of the Committee have been considered by the Treasury, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and my Department. They are currently under consideration by the Government.

When this has been completed, the views and action taken will be conveyed to the Committee in a Treasury Minute in accordance with the agreed arrangements. These will be made public when the Treasury Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

Training of Nurses: Supplying of Information (Question No. 1190)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

Did he omit information on New South Wales and Queensland from his answer to me about the number of nurses who commenced and completed training in each State (Hansard, 19 May 1970, page 2380) because (a) New South Wales and (b) Queensland were (0 unable or (ii) unwilling to supply that information.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

In New South Wales and Queensland, the relevant authorities were unable to provide the information sought by the honourable member.

Therapeutic Goods Act (Question No. 1232)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Was the Therapeutic Goods Act assented to on 24 May 1966.
  2. Why has the Act not yet been proclaimed to come into operation.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 has not been proclaimed because’ the Regulations to be made under that Act and which will be necessary before the Act can be implemented have not been finalised.

The first proof of the Regulations has been received from the Parliamentary Draftsman and some small amendments have been necessary. These amendments have been conveyed to the Parliamentary Draftsman and it is anticipated that the Regulations will be tabled during the next Session of Parliament

International Conventions (Question No. 43)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date and consolidate the information on international conventions which his predecessors gave me on 18th August 1964 (Hansard, page 338), 12th October 1965 (page 1722), 27th October 1966 (page 2366), 3rd October 1967 (page 1631), 19th September 1968 (page 1352) and 9th September 1969 (page 1014).

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

– The answer to the honourable member’s question falls into four parts, the individual headings to which are self-explanatory. The details supplied to me are as follows:

Developments in regard to ratification by Australia of above conventions:

No. 14. The Government has decided to accede to this Convention after amendments to Commonwealth and State legislation which will be necessary to enable Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Convention have been made.

No. 38. Further consideration of this Agreement has been deferred until the related Draft Convention on Liability for Damage Caused by Objects Launched into Outer Space is completed.

No. 39. Australia has signed’, but has not yet ratified this Treaty.

No. 118. The Civil Aviation (Offenders on International Aircraft) Bill to enable Australian accession and to give effect to this Convention was passed by Parliament on 9 June 1970.

No. 121. Further consideration of accession by Australia to this Agreement is delayed by Government enquiries into the book industry and possible bounties for that industry.

No. 124. The Australian Unesco Committee for Museums is at present reviewing, and will probably make recommendations concerning, the situation on this Convention. 1LO Conventions. The Australian position in regard to ILO Conventions Nos 1-128 is stated in the ‘Review of Australian Law and Practice Relating to Conventions Adopted by the International Labour Conference’, published in October 1969, by the Department of Labour and National Service.

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

Can he say what land reform and social legislation has been passed and brought into operation in South Vietnam since 19567

page 3603

PART B

page 3608

PART ‘D

South Vietnam - Land Reform and Social Legislation (QuestionNo 995)

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Land Reform

A decree promulgated in 1956 provided for expropriation by the Government of all holdings of rice land in excess of 100 hectares (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres), together with legislation providing that an owner of 100 hectares must farm at least 30 hectares on his own behalf. In 1958 French citizens were permitted to surrender their land holdings to the Government at current market values. By these two measures the Government acquired title to approximately 650,000 hectares of rice land, a little over 30% of the total. By the end of 1969 about 600,000 hectares of this land had been redistributed to the peasant population and since early 1969 people receiving redistributed landhave now been required to pay for it. The redistribution programme was accompanied by an agricultural credit programme to help the new owners to finance their production costs.

On 26th March 1970 a new land reform bill was promulgated which incorporated the ‘Land to the Tiller’ programme. This aims at abolishing all tenancy of farm lands and at promoting security of tenure to the tiller. Any tenant who has been farming land for one season may now claim title to that land and village administrative committees have been empowered to grant such titles for areas of up to 3 hectares in the southern regions and the central highlands of 1 hectare in Central Vietnam. The titles are granted free of charge and the new owners are exempted from land tax for a period of 12 months.

Former land owners may retain up to 15 hectares of rice land provided that they have been farming this land themselves. Otherwise they may claim compensation which would be paid 20% in cash and the balance in interest bearing bonds convertible over 8 years.

Social Legislation

A list of social legislation passed and brought into operation in South Vietnam since 1956 is being prepared and 1 shall pass it to the honourable member when it is complete.

Australian Capital Territory: Residential Blocks (Question No. 958)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What was the (a) date and (b) nature of the action taken on each of the recommendations by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in its report of 1st September 1965 on the supply of residential blocks in Canberra.

Mr Nixon:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

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

The Committee recommended:

That the Government endorse, as a basic minimum, the 5 years residential land development programme of the National Capital Development Commission, and that funds be provided to finance any acceleration of this programme found physically possible, in consonance with the provision of essential community services.

That the aim of the Government should be to ensure that, as rapidly as possible, the supply of serviced residential sites should be brought to a level adequate to meet the needs of private builders in all categories as well as to permit a substantial increase in Government home construction for rental.

Reply:

  1. Over the past 6 years funds have been made available to finance and accelerate the programme of residential development The number of blocks serviced in each year is as follows:

Subject to the usual budget considerations the National Capital Development Commission hopes to service at least 3500 blocks in 1970-71.

  1. The best overall indication of the adequacy of the supply of residential blocks is gained from an examination of premiums paid at land auctions. Between 1964-65 and 1966-67, premiums at all auctions dropped. They rose again under pressure of heavy demand in 1967-68 and 1968- 69 although generally not to 1964 levels. Premiums have fallen again during the current financial year. The following table gives details:

Generally over the past 6 years the requirements of private builders are considered to have been met.

The following table sets out the number of houses completed by the National Capital Development Commission in each year:

Subject to budget considerations a further increase in the number of Government houses to be built is contemplated for 1970-71.

The Committee recommended:

  1. That the minimum covenants in respect of group blocks be reduced so that building companies may be encouraged to seek the lower price market and establish its existence.

If this move proves unsuccessful in reducing sale prices -

That an additional auction section be created in which bidding is limited to builders of of proven size and ability and that a maximum sale price covenant be placed onthe houses built onthe blocks within this section.

  1. That the number of blocks made available at group auctions be raised to and maintained at notless than 40 per cent of the total blocks made available for auction in a financial year, while demand continues.
  2. That, while some smaller parcels ofland should be available at each group auction for the small building company, there should be sufficient groups offering at least 12 blocks in each stage. The lesser ‘number parcels would remove small builders from competition with individual home seekers at the unrestricted auctions, and the large number parcels would permit building economies.
  3. That group auctions be held’ at regular three monthly intervals.
  4. That, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of blocks be released at each of the four group auctions in a financial year.
  5. That, where practicable, a large percentage ofthe group blocks be made available on the flatter areas of a sub-division so to reduce foundation costs.
  6. That the level of building covenants on all types of residential leases be reviewed, to encourage the construction of lower-cost housing, recognising that required approval of building plans and specifications ensures the maintenance of desired standards.

Reply:

  1. to (9) The intention behind each of these recommendations has been substantially met.

Since 1966 a minimum covenant of $7000 has been placed on a large number of sites offered both in groups and individually. It is found in fact that builders and lessees build homes costing well above the minimum covenant specified.

Auctions have been held at three monthly intervals between 1965 and December 1969 at which time regular two monthly auctions were introduced.

The other recommendations in respect of group auctions have been largely met.

The Committee recommended:

  1. That a departmental committee of inquiry be set up to examine the method of assessing land rent and general rates with a view to ironing out the inequities that have arisen and producing a more equitable and consistent formula. Specifically that consideration be given to providing that, during the currency of a lease, reassessment ofland rent be made only at point of sale or transfer.

Reply:

  1. Following an inquiry by the Department into this complex issue, the Prime Minister recently announced the intention of abandoning the present system of land rent payments as from the end of this year.

The Committee recommended:

  1. That restricted and unrestricted auctions be held at regular three monthly intervals in conjunction with group auctions, and that the need to continue with restricted auctions be progressively reviewed as supply of service sites approaches parity with demand.
  2. That, prior to the commencement of each auction, an announcement be made indicating the land to be made available at the succeeding auction.
  3. That provision be made in the Conditions of Sale for group auctions that the successful bidder construct the houses on those blocks.
  4. That, if it is impossible for all land to be serviced prior to a group auction, some compensation be available to the lessee when the construction of mains and roads affects a block to a marked degree.

page 3614

OR

That the Commission ensure that the unserviced blocks are not in an area where large amounts of fill are required and so avoid a substantial rise in the cost to a lessee in respect of foundations.

Reply:

The Committee recommended:

Reply:

The Committee recommended:

Reply:

Rural leases in the A.C.T. are not valued for probate purposes although they are valued for the purpose of determining estate duty. In the past some prices paid by purchasers of rural leases have exceeded the value of improvements and in these cases, when it became necessary to do so, estate duty was assessed on such amounts. Nowadays however, the value for estate duty purposes is found generally to be more or less equivalent to the value of the .improvements.

International Affairs: Cambodia (Question No. 994)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to give the estimated number of foreign troops in Cambodia.
  2. From which countries did they come.
  3. When did these troops first occupy any part of Cambodia.
  4. Has the Cambodian Government publicly acknowledged and aproved of their presence.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Although the number of foreign troops in Cambodia fluctuates, and it is not possible to give precise figures, I believe the total has reached approximately 12S.000. Of these about 50,000 are North Vietnamese and Viet-Cong forces, an increase of 10,000 above the figure publicly mentioned by the former Head of State of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, on 13th October 1969. At the height of the operations against the Vietnamese Communist sanctuary and base areas, there were approximately 43,000 South Vietnamese and 31,000 United States troops in Cambodia. However, some of these have already been withdrawn following the achievement of their objectives. The

United States Government has stated it will withdraw all its combat force by the end of June.

  1. The Vietnamese Communists’ occupation of Cambodian border areas begun about five years ago. Its extent has been progressively expanded as the Communists have developed complex base and sanctuary areas and other facilities. Operations across the border against these facilities were begun by South Vietnamese forces on 27th April 1970, and by United States forces on 30th April 1970.
  2. The Cambodian Government both before and after the replacement of Prince Sihanouk as Head of State has strongly disapproved of the presence of Vietnamese Communist troops. On 13th October 1969, Prince Sihanouk himself complained publicly that parts of at least ten Cambodian provinces has been ‘occupied by 40,000 Vietnamese who consider it their territory because we cannot retake it’. The Cambodian Prime Minister, in a report prepared on Prince Sihanouk’s instruction and published in October 1969, denounced the breach of faith by North Viet-Nam, which had undertaken to respect Cambodia’s neutrality, independence and territorial integrity and yet had proceeded with the military occupation of strategically advantageous zones’ in Cambodia.

On 4th May, the Cambodian Government expressed its gratitude for the United States decision to send its forces into Cambodia. The Government noted ‘with satisfaction that the President of the United States of America in his decision (to send American forces into Cambodia) has taken into account the legitimate aspirations of the Khmer people*.

The Cambodian High Command on 5th May issued a communique in which it described the operations of the American and South Vietnamese forces as ‘indispensable to clear our territory of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese aggressors and invaders’.

Cost of Specific Services (Question No. 742)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Will he bring up to date the comparative figures for the cost of specific services in Canberra and other cities and provincial centres which he gave me on 25 February 1969 (Hansard, page 136).
  2. Can he provide further comparative figures for cities and provincial centres for which he was not able to supply information at that time.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. As I pointed out in answer to the honourable member’s previous question on this subject, it is difficult to make rigid comparisons of development costs between cities, as these costs vary accordingly to terrain, scale etc. However recent figures for broad average comparative costs of providing the services specified are given below.
  2. In addition to the cities for which information was previously given, data is now available from the Tasmanian Housing Department, the Campbelltown City Council (New South Wales) and the Waverly City Council (Victoria). Not all authorities which were approached for appropriate information, have been able to provide details.

Australian Capital Territory: Access Highways (Question No. 1102)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has there been any discussion between the Government and! the State Government of New South Wales on the future growth of Canberra.
  2. If so, what proposals have been made by the Commonwealth Government to prevent ribbon development on highways leading to Canberra.
  3. Is it a fact that, unless there is agreement to prevent this ribbon development the future growth of Canberra will be prejudiced.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) The Interim Development Orders made by the Shires of Yarrowlumla, Goodradigbee and Gunning under the Local Government Act of New South Wales, contain provisions for the Councils concerned to seek the comments of the National Capital Development Commission on a’ny proposals for subdivision or development adjoining the Federal and Barton Highways.

Joint Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and British Aircraft Corporation Design Study (Question No. 286)

Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Government given its consent and backing to a joint project between the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the British Aircraft Corporation for the development and manufacture of a variable geometry dual-purpose supersonic attack/trainer.
  2. If so, can the Minister nominate a commencement date for the project.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The honourable member is referred to my Ministerial Statement of 22 May 1970 (Hansard, page 1760) in which 1 announced that continuation of work on this project could not be justified.

Canberra Hospital: Means Test (Question No. 1079)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What means test is applied for outpatient services at the Canberra Hospital.
  2. When was this means test adopted and how has it been varied since its adoption.
  3. Can he say what means tests are applied to outpatient services in hospitals conducted by each State Government.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Canberra Hospital provides outpatient treatment without charge to a person, or dependant of a person who is normally resident in the Australian Capital Territory and who satisfies the Board that the balance of the person’s gross income remaining after allowable deductions have been made is equal to or less than the wage as prescribed for a ‘Labourer not otherwise classified’ as employed under the Miscellaneous Workers (ACT) Award 1968.

Allowable deductions are:

  1. Dependant allowance - the amount(s) specified in sub-section (2) of section 82b of the Income Tax Assessment. Act 1936-1969, as set out below:
  1. House rent or repayment - the amount to be actual and not exceeding the average rent for government owned rental dwellings as advised by the Australian Capital Territory Assistant Secretary (Housing) Depart- ment of the Interior.

The Hospital Board has the authority to remit or vary charges in special circumstances.

  1. The present means test was adopted on 18th September 1969 and no variation has been made since its adoption.
  2. The following information concerning the means test applicable to outpatient services in State Government hospitals has been furnished by the respective State Hospital authorities:

New South Wales - The means test for outpatient services is the same basis as that applicable to public ward inpatient accommodation, namely: Gross income less an amount of $4.00 for adult dependant (wife, mother if dependant), $3.00 for first child, $2.00 for each other child and less rental repayments.

Where the net income after those deductions are made does not reach the current basic wage, the patient qualifies for public ward accommodation. Charges may be varied in cases of hardship.

No means test is applied for emergency outpatient treatment in casualty cases. If further outpatient medical treatment is required, the patient is means tested.

Victoria - The application of a means test based on income rests with each individual hospital. The patient’s income is assessed against a sliding scale of charges, with a maximum charge of $2 per visit for patients who qualify under the means test. Additional charges are made for radiology and pathology services.

A Pharmacy charge is also subject to a means test on income, with charges commencing at 50c per prescription.

Queensland - No means test is applied.

South Australia - A means test based on income is applied at Royal Adelaide and Queen Elizabeth Hospitals. Detailed information on this means test is not available.

No means test is applied in Government owned country hospitals.

Western Australia: In the metropolitan public hospitals a means test is applied. From the gross income (excluding Child Endowment) are deducted - $6 for dependent wife or husband, $4 for the first child, $3 for each other child, and an amount up to a maximum of $10 for rental or home purchase.

If the net income is below $30.00 per week the patient is eligible for outpatient treatment on a sliding scale basis as follows:

Adjusted income $25-$30 per week- $2.00 per visit.

Adjusted income $20-$25 per week- $1.50 per visit.

Below $20 per week- $1.00 per visit

Weekly assessments are made in lieu of per visit basis where a patient has to attend frequently. Waiver of charges rests with the individual hospital authority.

Tasmania: No means test applicable. Charges are raised for electro-encephalography, radiology and pathology services but no charge is made for other services.

Hospital Boards have authority to remit or reduce charges in cases of hardship.

Northern Territory: A means test is applied. The weekly rate of $41.85 above the 20th parallel and $40.25 below that parallel for a skilled builders labourer under the Building Trade General (N.T.) Award is used as a basis. Those exempt from the payment of hospital charges are:

  1. a single person earning the minimum wage of $41.85 less 174% i.e. $34.65
  2. a married person without dependent children where the combined weekly income of the husband and wife does not exceed $41.85
  3. a married person with dependent children where the combined weekly income of the husband and wife does not exceed $41.85 plus an additional amount of $2 in respect of each dependent child
  4. a widow or widower who has dependent children whose weekly income does not exceed $41.85 plus $2 in respect of each dependent child
  5. pensioners and persons in receipt of sickness or unemployment benefits.
  6. persons suffering from an infectious disease as listed in the Public Health Regulations schedule.

Repairs to HMAS ‘Brisbane’ (Question No. 1307)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. When was HMAS ‘Brisbane’ received into the Royal Australia Navy from the United States.
  2. What was the cost of the ship.
  3. Is this ship now in Garden Island dockyard undergoing extensive repairs.
  4. What is the cost of these repairs, and who will pay for them.
  5. Why are the repairs necessary.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 16th December 1967.
  2. Subject to final adjustment construction cost was $33,770,065.
  3. Periodic refit work is being undertaken at Garden Island Dockyard concurrently with the scheduled installation of the Ikara weapon system.
  4. Refit work is estimated to cost $690,000. Estimated installation cost of the Ikara system is $532,000. Costs are being met by Department of the Navy.
  5. See (3) above.

Prescription of Intal (Question No. 937)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Is form P.B.10A4/70, Application for Authority to prescribe Intal. used to enable a Commonwealth Director of Health to decide whether authority should be granted.
  2. Are the answers to be used for research purposes.
  3. Will he indicate the reason for the use of this rather long questionnaire.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Although the forms P.B. 10A were not specifically designed for research purposes, it is recognised that the information provided as a result of their use may prove to be of value to researchers.
  3. The design of this form and its contents are considered to provide the minimum information necessary to assess whether the patient qualifies to receive Intal as a benefit In this respect advice received from specialists in asthma was considered.

Commonwealth-State Conferences (Question No. 35)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers and officials have taken place since those listed in his answer of 25th March 1969 (Hansard, page 878) to my question of 5th November 1968.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

Information, provided by the relevant Departments, regarding formal meetings which have taken place during the period November 1968 to March 1970 is set out in the following table.

Details given are of conferences and meetings which were attended by Ministers and/or officials of Commonwealth Departments and Ministers and/or officials of more than 1 State.

There have been other conferences and meetings concerned with policy matters the subjects of which are confidential. Details have not been provided of these, nor of other discussions which occurred as part of day-to-day administration.

Public Service: Promotions and Transfers (Question No. 37)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which officers have been transferred or promoted to vacancies in the First, Second and Third Divisions of the Public Service in his Department since he became Prime Minister.
  2. Which vacancies were notified in the Gazette’.
  3. Against which promotions were appeals lodged.
  4. What was the former position of each officer transferred or promoted.
  5. Why was he unable in the last Parliament to answer the similar question I put on the Notice Paper for him on 19th March 1969.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The following information has been provided by the Secretary to the Department:

  1. I refer the honourable member to the answer which I gave to a Question without Notice by the honourable member for Evans on 14th May 1970. (Hansard pages 2128-29).

Benefit Organisations: Operating Expenses (QuestionNo. 1 18)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

How many registered benefit organisations have exceeded, in each ofthe last 10 years, the limit on operating expenses laid down by his Department.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The management expense limits in force in I960 and the years immediately following were determined in accordance with (he following formulae:

Credit Unions: Maximum Loans (Question No. 549)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say whether the maximum loan fixed by the New South Wales Credit Union Act for credit unions is $4,000 whereas the Government’s proposed legislation extending Home Savings Grants to credit unions stipulates that at least15 per cent of total lending by credit unions should be in housing loans of not less than $7,000.
  2. If so, does this show that the Government’s proposed legislation may be impracticable.
  3. If it is impracticable, what action does the Minister contemplate to meet the position.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3)- The honourable member will be pleased to know that the maximum amount of a loan that may be made by a credit union in New South Wales has recently been raised to $5,000. He will already be aware that, as the result of a Government-sponsored amendment during the passage through the Parliament of the legislation to which he has referred, the minimum amount of a loan by a credit union that may qualify as a prescribed housing loan’ is $5,000, not $7,000 as originally proposed.

Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 768)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What would be the cost to revenue of making Citizen Military Forces earnings non-taxable.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

As a result of amendments made with effect from the commencement of the 1964-65 income year, pay and allowances received by members of the Citizen Forces are already exempt from income tax in respect of service, other than continuous full-time service. It has been estimated that the further cost to income tax revenue of making all pay and allowances of members of the Citizen Forces non-taxable would be approximately $500,000 per annum.

Immigration Advisory Council: Expenses (Question No. 779 )

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration upon notice:

What amount has been paid in:

fares; and

expenses and fees to each of the present members of the Immigration Advisory Council in each year since 1st January 1964?

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The cost of members’ fares to and from meetings of the Immigration Advisory Council are paid directly to the carriers by the Department of Immigration. Payments in respect of individuals cannot be isolated readily in the bulk periodic payments made to carrier companies. For this reason the fares given in the accompanying table as paid for members have been calculated on the basis of actual attendance at meetings and on the fares prevailing at the times when these were held.

Immigration Advisory Council: Expenses (Question No. 780)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

What was the total cost in fares, fees and expenses paid to member, officer and staff of the Immigration Advisory Council in each year since its establishment?

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Because the Department is required to retain records of this kind for a period of six years only, figures are available from 1st January 1964.

The Council meets twice each year. Its five Standing Committees meet as required for special projects.

The total cost in fares, fees and expenses paid to members, officers and staff of the Immigration Advisory Council in each year since 1 January 1964 has been:

Marriage Statistics (Question No. 891)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many persons under 35 years of age were married in each year during the past 6 years.
  2. What is the estimate of the number of marriages of persons under this age which will occur each year during the next 5 years.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The number of persons under 35 years of age who were married in each year during the period 1963-1968 is shown in the following table. The table shows the annual numbers of marriages in which at least one person was under 35 years as well as the annual numbers of persons marrying under 35 years of age. The figures for 1969 are not yet available.
  2. There are no official estimates of future marriage numbers. Population projections have been prepared and published enabling the population at particular ages at certain future dates to be calculated on the basis of assumed fertility and mortality and chosen rates of net migration. These projections do not, however, yet distinguish married population or give the number of marriages.

Housing Loans (Question No. 892)

Mr Uren:

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

  1. Is he able to say what total amount was loaned by fringe banking institutions, e.g. hire purchase companies, for the purchase of land or the construction or purchase of houses in each of the past 10 years.
  2. What was the n,ling rate of interest charged by these institutions on loans made by them for house purchases, etc., during each of the past 10 years.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The only official statistics available on lending by fringe banking institutions for land or home construction and purchase are those for finance company lending over the last 5 financial years. The data given below are the total value of all loans (for any business or private purposes) which are secured over houses, home units and residential land.
  1. There are no official statistics for the interest rates charged by finance companies, hut information collected by the Department of Housing from a rmm her of finance companies suggests that at the end of each of the years, :he average interest rate chargeable on new housing loans was as follows:

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Question No. 915)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will final disbursement of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund surplus be made lo contributors.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

On 2nd June l°70 I matte a statement in the House concerning the .second pari of the distribution of the surplus assets from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund to eligible contributors. The issue of cheques for these payments commenced on Monday, 8th June.

Taxation - Deductions for Insurance (Question No. 951)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice.

  1. What was the net cost to revenue of raising the maximum tax deduction for insurance and superannuation cover from 1800 to $1,200 in the 1967-68 Budget.
  2. How many taxpayers claimed the ceiling deduction of $1,200 in 1967-68 and 1968-69.
  3. What was the average income of those who claimed the ceiling deduction in 3967-68 and 1968- 69.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. lt is estimated, on the basis of statistics of taxable individuals for the 1967-68 income year, that the cost to income tax revenue of raising from $800 to $1,200 the maximum deduction for life insurance payments and contributions to superannuation funds, etc. was approximately $I2.5m.

The second and third parts of the honourable member’s question relate only to those taxpayers who claimed the maximum deduction of $1,200 for life insurance and superannuation paymentS etc.

  1. The latest available statistics, in respect ot (usable individuals for the 1967-68 income year, show that the number of taxpayers who were allowed deductions of $1,200 for life insurance ami superannuation payments, etc. in that year was 37,387.
  2. lt has been estimated that the mean actual income in the 1967-68 income year of taxpayers who were allowed the maximum deduction of $1,200 for life insurance and superannuation payments, etc. was approximately $11,000.

Royal Tour (Question No. 956)

Mr Daly:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the recent Royal Tour of Australia.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

An appropriation of $350,000 was included in the Appropriation Act (No. I) 1969-70 - Division 430/3/12. An additional appropriation of $20,000 was included in the Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1969-70. The principal costs to be met from these appropriations are for motor transport, non-departmental staff engaged in connection wilh the visit, hospitality, communications, printing of. programmes and provision of temporary stands, All costs have not yet been brought to account and it is anticipated thai there will be some carry over to 1970-71.

The costs of flights by RAAF aircraft of No. 34 Squadron in connection with the Royal Visit will be included in payments to the Department of Air by the Prime Minister’s Department from the appropriation for Division 432.

In accordance with past practice, the salaries and incidental costs of departmental staff who provided assistance, e.g. the staff of the Ceremonial and Hospitality Branch of my Department, the Service personnel who provided guards of honour and Service bands, are met from normal departmental appropriations.

Australian Territory Liner Services (Question No. 965)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has a licence been given to Australian Territory Liner Services, a joint company formed by the Karlander-Nabalco Group, to introduce 2 new Bulgarian built freighters the ‘Safia’ and Sariba’, to trade in the North Queensland and Gulf of Carpentaria area.

  2. Has the licensing of these foreign built vessels to the Gulf service:

    1. disadvantaged the Australian shipping company, John Burke Pty Ltd, causing it to defer indefinitely construction in an Australian shipyard of its second roll-on rolloff freighter;
    2. caused over tonnaging in the Gulf service which may lead to rises in freight costs;
    3. set new freight rates for the Bulgarian built vessels with which Australian built vessels cannot compete;
    4. breached the spirit of the Navigation Act and the 1957 Coastal Shipping Agreement by not giving priority to established operators to supply the increased tonnage required; and,
    5. given Australian Territory Liner Services extensive Taxation and depreciation benefits not available to operators registered on the Australian mainland.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) I understand John Burke Pty Ltd, which is a fully owned subsidiary of Dillingham Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd, and Nabalco Pty Ltd have concluded negotiations regarding Nabalco shipments between Queensland ports and Gove in the Northern Territory. These 2 companies have reached agreement on the types and quantities of cargo which Nabalco expect to ship in vessels operated by John Burke Pty Ltd.

    1. No.
    2. No.
    3. No.
    4. Australian Territory Liner Services Pty Ltd has undertaken to place orders to build in Australia 2 vessels to replace Safia’ and ‘Sariba’. Tenders for these 2 ships, which are to be registered in Australia and manned by Australian crews have already been called by the Australian Shipbuilding Board. These tenders close on17th June 1970.

The operation of the 2 temporarily imported vessels with Australian crews by Australian Territory Liner Services Pty Ltd has been permitted as an interim measure only pending delivery of the C Australian built ships. John Burke Pty Ltd has been given approval to temporarily import the Norwegian vessel ‘Jo-Tor’ and the Danish vessel ‘Titan Scan’ pending delivery of the company’s new ships John Burke’ and ‘Walter Dillingham’. I am advised, however, that the construction of ‘Walter Dillingham’ has been deferred and, in the circumstances, the company does not propose to import ‘Titan Scan’. It has also been permitted to temporarily import the Danish vessel ‘Tobi Clipper’ pending delivery of new landing craft for the North Queensland trade.

Amanda Miller’ Fire (Question No. 969)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. At what time and by whom was the fire on the ‘Amanda Miller’ reported and to whom was it reported. ‘
  2. At what time was the fire reported to the Whyalla Fire Station and at what time did the brigade arrive at the fire.
  3. What was the wind force and direction at the time the fire was reported.
  4. At what position on the slipway did the fire start and what caused it.
  5. Were any men working on the slipways between 3.30 p.m. and the time the fire was reported; if so, what work were they doing.
  6. Is a watchman detailed to keep the ship under observation; if so, at what points was he required to click a bundy and at what times after 3.30 p.m. did he click it.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– From investigations made by a senior officer of my Department on the matters covered by the honourable member’s question the answer I believe to be as follows:

  1. The fire was first noted at approximately 9.35 p.m. on Saturday 18th April by a weighbridge attendant in the steel works. The attendant immediately reported his sighting to the security guard on duty at the blast furnace gate.
  2. The fire was reported to the Whyalla Town Brigade at 10.03 p.m. The town fire alarm sounded at 10.05 p.m. and the town unit arrived at the scene of the fire at 10.18 p.m.
  3. The official wind force readings were:- - at 3.00 p.m. 25 knots northerly - at 9.00 p.m. 9 knots westerly
  4. The position of the start of the fire is not certain, but it is believed to be amongst timber blocks supporting the keel at about midlength of number one cargo tank. Although the cause is uncertain the fire was probably due to hot slag or metal from gouging operations, dropping onto, or between, keel blocks, where fire smouldered for some hours and later burst into flames.
  5. No men were working on the forward part of the ship after 3.30 p.m. There were five men working until 625 p.m. at the after end, about 300 feet from where the fire started. These men were positioning and securing a prefabricated unit which had not been completed by 3.30 p.m.
  6. A watchman is detailed to patrol the yard regularly and is required to punch a recorderat three points near the building berth. The three points are on the starboard side abreast of the engine room, near the starboard bow and below the bow in line with the centre line of the ship. A study of the recorded times showed that he had completed two patrols, the first from 4.44 p.m. to 6.26 p.m. and the second from 7.14 p.m. to 9.22 p.m.

Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works (Question No. 970)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What fire fighting equipment is there at the Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works. South Australia.
  2. How many fire ladders were available on the day the ‘Amanda Miller’ was on fire and how much foam equipment was on or adjacent to the slipway.
  3. How many pumps were used to fight the fire and were they powered by petrol driven motors or electricity.
  4. If powered by electricity, was there an independent supply or was power from the main supply line to the slipway.
  5. Has the South Australian Fire Brigade Board been called upon to prepare a report on the fire; if so, will he table this report in the Parliament or will he advise me of its contents.
  6. Have the police investigated the possibility of sabotage.
  7. When will the coroner’s enquiry be held
  8. Has the South Australian Government taken any action to hold a full and independent public inquiry into the cause of the fire and everything associated with it.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– From investigations made by a senior officer of my Department on the matters covered by the honourable member’s question the answer 1 believe to be as follows:

  1. The fire fighting equipment at the shipyard includes two four inch fire mains, one on either side of the building berth; four ready use one inch hose reels, two either side of building berth; a large number of portable pressurised water extinguishers, distributed along the building berth and a trailer type fire pump.
  2. No fire ladders were available. No foam equipment was on or adjacent to the slipway at the time of the alarm. Foam equipment was available for small electrical and oil fires.
  3. Seven portable fire pumps were used. All were petrol driven. There are two salt water booster pumps positioned at. (he head of the berth. These are electrically driven.
  4. Electricity supply for the salt water booster pumps is independent of the main supply line to the slipway.
  5. The fire has been the subject of a routine report within the South Australian Fire Brigade.
  6. The police have investigated the circumstances of the fire with the object of establishing the cause.
  7. It is not known whether a Coronial Enquiry will be held. This is a matter for the South Australian Government.
  8. The question of an independent inquiry is also one for the South Australian Government. As far as I am aware no steps have been taken towards holding a full and independent public inquiry.

Amanda Miller’ Fire (Questran No. 971)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice: (I.) Has he any information associated with the reticulation of water, the mains, valves and pressure utilised at the lime of the fire on the Amanda Miller.

  1. Is the Engineering and Water Supply Department of South Australia responsible for (he reticulation of water within the Broken Mill Proprietary Company Ltd boundary.
  2. Was there a failure of water pressure resulting from outdated flanges on the water main extending from the trunk main leading up to and alongside the slipway or was therea failure for some other reason.
  3. What ancillary or back-up water resources were utilised to fight thefire.
  4. Is there a fire float in the Port of Whyalla.
  5. Is a fire float considered essential to afford minimum protection for a major port.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– From investigations made by a senior officer of my Department on the matters covered by the honourable member’s question the answer I believeto be as follows:

  1. There are two 4” fire mains, one on either side of the berth. The fresh water main pressure was checked at 10.20 p.m. and was at 95 to 100 Ibs/sq. ins.
  2. No.
  3. Early in fire-fighting operations water pressure was lost. This is believed to have resulted from a burnt hose. Subsequently there was insufficient water pressure for multiple hoses and it was discovered that an isolating valve in a branch main was partly closed. When this was opened volume and pressure were restored.
  4. Water for fire-fighting was available from the town supply to the shipyard, from the 12 in cooling water main from the blast furnace, from road water tankers and from fire brigade units. Water was also pumped from the harbour by fire units.
  5. There is no fire float unit stationed in Whyalla Harbour.
  6. A decision on the necessity of a fire float must await the outcome of a detailed study of fire prevention practice and recommendations flowing from it.

Vietnam: Trade Unions (Question No. 996)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say what trade unions there are in South Vietnam and what is their membership.
  2. Have any trade unionists been imprisoned since 1956; if so, for what reason.
  3. Will the Government arrange and finance a fact finding interchange of trade unionists between the 2 countries.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The major trade union organisation in the Republic of Vietnam is the Vietnamese Confederation of Labour (Confederation Vietnamienne de Travail - C.V.T.). which claims a membership of some 500,000. The C.V.T. is comprised of the following trade union federations:

Tenent farmers, which states it has 180,000 members.

Fishermen, 71,000 members.

Transport workers, 16,000 members.

Textile workers, 1,600 members.

The C.V.T. also includes a number of national unions such as the Vietnamese Petroleum and Chemical Workers Union (1,700 members), the USAID Employees Union (2,000 members) and many smaller unions, including the Commercial Clerical Technical Employees Union, and various dockworkers’ and airline workers’ unions. Published information is not available on the number of members actually paying dues. In addition to the C.V.T. there are other, smaller groups of unions such as the Confederation of Vietnamese Workers’ Unions and the Vietnam Confederation of Industrial and Agricultural Workers.

  1. Detailed records of arrests and imprisonment of trade unionists since 1956 are not available, although a small number of arrests related to trade union activities were noted in 1968. I am not aware of any arrest of trade unionists as such in 1969 or 1970
  2. 1 shall discuss this suggestion with my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service.

Over-Award Payment: Statistics (Question No. 10 13)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Government give urgent consideration to setting up machinery for securing statistics relating to over-award payments in the nonGovernmental work force in Australia.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Official statistics of earnings and rates of pay are collected and published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics.

Direct estimates of the amount of ordinary time earnings in excess of award, etc., rates were obtained by the Bureau in the course of special surveys of the structure of earnings as at September 1960 and October 1965. These particulars are shown in the published results. Those for the second survey were shown in terms of average amounts per employee for adult males working full time classified by industry. State, Governmental or other, managerial, etc., and other.

I am advised by the Commonwealth Statistician that it is intended to conduct the third of these special surveys in the first half of 1971. The Statistician also advises that he is exploring the possibility of (i) conducting these surveys on an alternative basis which would enable them to be more frequent and (ii) obtaining from these surveys estimates of the proportions of employees who receive ordinary time payments in excess of award, etc., rates.

Public Service Board (Question No. 1019)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice:

Has the Government ever sought either directly or indirectly to influence the Public Service Board in the manner in which it determines applications for wage and salary increases.

Mr Gorton:
LP

-I refer the honourable member to my answer to a question without notice by the honourable member for Hughes on 15th April 1970 (Hansard 1119).

Life Insurance Premiums (Question No. 1029)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. For how long have life insurance premiums been an allowable deduction for income tax purposes and what has been the maximum amount claimable from time to time.
  2. Are there any limitations or qualifications which apply to a life policy in order that the premiums thereon may be treated as allowable deductions.
  3. What is the approximate cost to revenue of these deductions.
  4. Is he aware of any abuse of the income tax provisions such as the offering by insurance companies of life policies for a short term of years.
  5. If so, has any consideration been given to amending the conditions under which life insurance premiums qualify as tax deductions.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. A concession has been available for life insurance premiums since Commonwealth income tax was introduced in 1915. The concession has taken the form of deductions against assessable income for all years of income except the years ended 30 June 1942 to 1950, inclusive, when rebates of tax were substituted for concessional deductions.

The maximum amounts that have been allowable as deductions against income or subject to rebates of tax are -

  1. for premiums securing life insurance or deferred annuities - e years ended 30 June 1915 to 1935- £100;

    1. for payments of the nature specified in (i) and including also any amounts paid as contributions to superannuation funds, sustentation funds, widows funds, orphans’ funds and friendly societies - e years ended 30th June 1936 to 1949- $200 e year ended 30th June 1950- $300;
    2. for payments of the nature specified in (i) and (ii) and including also any amounts paid as premiums for sickness insurance, personal injury or accident insurance and contributions to medical or hospital benefit funds - e years ended 30 June 1951 to 1956- $400;
    3. for payments of the nature specified in (i), (ii) and (iii) (other than contributions to medical or hospital benefit funds) - e years of income ended 30 June 1957 to 1959- $600 years of income ended 30 June 1960 to 1967- $800 o years of income ended 30 June 1968 to 1970- $1200.
  2. In order that premiums .paid on a life policy may qualify for deduction, the insurance is required to be effected on the life of the taxpayer himself (being a resident of Australia) or of his spouse or child.
  3. The latest available statistics that relate to life insurance deduction are included in the statistics of deductions for life insurance and superannuation payments, etc., allowed to taxable individuals for the 1967-68 income year. No separate statistics of life insurance deductions are available, but it has been estimated that the cost to income tax revenue of allowing deductions in respect of life insurance premiums in the 1967- 1968 income year was about $120m.
  4. It is understood that most insurance companies do not issue ordinary endowment policies for terms shorter than ten years, except in special circumstances. In recent times, however, certain companies have been offering endowment policies for shorter terms and there has been some evidence of a growing interest in the use of these policies for tax-saving purposes.
  5. An examination of developments in the use of the taxation concession for life insurance premiums is being made to determine whether the conditions governing the concession should be amended.

Papua and New Guinea: School Fees (Question No. 1034)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What is the scale of boarding school fees introduced’ in each sub-district in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea this year (Hansard, 21 April 1970, page 1404).
  2. How many pupils (a) board and (b) pay boarding fees at the schools in each sub-district.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Secondary school boarding fees for each pupil at a high school are fixed according to the sub-district from which the pupil comes. The rates of secondary school boarding fees payable in respect of pupils from each sub-district of the Territory are set out in the following table. The fees apply to pupils boarding at Administration High Schools and have also been applied by mission high schools. The maximum fee for each district within the overall ceiling of $30 was set by the Ministerial Member for Education acting on the advice of the local District Education Committee. The rates payable in each area within a district were set in turn by the District Education Committee subject to the Ministerial Member’s approval. As shown in the table, the rates therefore vary within sub-districts. Provision is made for the fee for individual students to be reduced or waived by the District Education Committee in cases of hardship.
  1. This information has not as yetbeen centrally recorded in the Territory. The statistics are being collected from Administration and mission high schools throughout the Territory and will be provided as soon asavailable.

Australian Capital Territory: Education (Question No. 1036)

Mr Whitlam:

asked theMinister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What number and percentage of (a) male and (b) female teachers (i) resigned or (ii) look leave from government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in the last year for which he can obtainthis information.
  2. How many (a) male and (b) female teachers were employed in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in (he lust year for which he can obtain this information.
  3. How many (a) male and (b) female students were being trained as teachers for government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in the last year for which be can obtain this information.
  4. Can he give separate information in respect of (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The following information relatesto the period 8th May 1969 to 7th May 1970.

Note - Figures given in 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) (ii) represent the number of leave applications. Because of multiple applications for various types of leave duringthe year, it is not considered meaningful to express the figures in these categories as a percentage of the total number of male and female teachers.

  1. (a) 324 males

    1. 710 females
  2. (a) and (b). All trainee-students at the Australian National University are under bond to the New South Wales Department of Education and none is trained specifically for work in the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. (a) and (b). No.

Death of Mr Justice Wright (Question No. 1041)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the death of the late Mr Justice Wright made it necessary for the Association of Professional Engineers of Australia to abandon its High Court action against the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission’s decision to disregard the view of some of its own members in favour of the view taken by the Public Service Board on salaries for professional engineers.
  2. In the light of developments since the Commission delivered its Award, will he ask the Board to reconsider the question of professional engineers with a view to removing the apparent anomalies that now exist in the Public Service salaries scale.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia has decided not to proceed with its proposed High Court application concerning the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s decision in the professional engineers case. However, 1 am not aware of the reasons which led the Association to make this decision. (2)I am informed by the Public Service Board that the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia and the Professional Officers’ Association have recently lodged new salary claims with the Board seeking increased pay rates for professional engineers and that the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia has also recently corresponded with the Board on this matter. The Board has also informed me that it will respond to these claims after it has completed its consideration of the material submitted by the Associations.

Accountancy Qualifications (Question No. 1042)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Public Service Board last year alter the prescriptions of accountancy qualifications.
  2. If so, what was the nature of, and the reasons for, such alterations.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– I am advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. In the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 27th February 1969 the Public Service Board published new determinations relating to a variety of positions, including positions of Cost Investigator, Official Receiver, Investigation Officers in the Department of Primary Industry, Realisation Officers Grade 2, and certain positions in the Commonwealth Taxation Office engaged in assessing, investigation and appeals work.
  2. In 1965 and 1966, following joint reviews by the Board and relevant Departments, the Board determined that the educational qualifications required for the performance of the duties of these positions would be set at the standard represented by the associate membership examination of the Australian Society of Accountants.

With effect from the beginning of 1967 the Australian Society of Accountants raised the standard of educational requirements for associate membership. The new standards adopted by the Society required completion of a university degree or a diploma in Accountancy from an Institute of Technology, followed by a qualifying examination conducted by the Society.

Following these changes the Board, in conjunction with relevant Departments, re-examined the educational needs for the positions referred to and the implications of the new standards adopted by the Society. It was decided that the needs of these positions were met by the previous standards. This decision required a change in the determinations made by the Board in 1965 and 1966 because those determinations were related to the membership standards of the Society.

Pacific Islanders: Conditions of Entry (Question No. 1120)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for immigration, upon notice:

Can he state the differences between the laws and procedures of Australia and New Zealand with respect to the admission of Pacific islanders as (a) residents and (b) visitors.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Pacific islanders seeking to travel to Australia for any purpose other than transit to another country are required to obtain visas or other forms of prior permission to do so, on the same basis as residents of other countries, as described in the concurrent answer to Question No. 1121.

Government policy as announced in this House on 9th March 1966 permits consideration of applications for entry to Australia for residence by persons of non European descent, on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily and their possession of qualifications which are in fact positively useful to Australia. Since the 1950s the spouses, fiances, fiancees and close dependent relatives of residents of Australia have also been eligible to enter for residence.

In order to facilitate travel and tourism persons seeking to travel to Australia as visitors are promptly granted permission to do so unless there is reason to doubt that a genuine visit is intended.

Visa officers are expected to exercise care and discretion in such assessmentsto avoid numerous deportations of spurious visitors. However in the great majority of applications permission is granted quickly.

It is understood that New Zealand’s laws and procedures relating to Pacific islanders seeking to enter for residence or visits are essentially similar except that the peoples of the Cook Islands, Nine and Tokelau Islands are New Zealand citizens and are entitled to enter New Zealand. They have to satisfy certain conditions before being permitted to leave their islands.

Entitlement for Entry to Australia from New Zealand (Question No. 1 121)

Mr Whitlam:

. asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

In what circumstances are persons from New Zealand entitled to enter Australia as (a) residents and (b) visitors.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Persons entitled to enter Australia are those who may not be regarded as immigrants in the legal sense because Australia is their home through prior residence. Residents of New Zealand do not as such have a legal entitlement to enter Australia.

By administrative arrangements British subjects of European descent may in general come to Australia without prior permission - from New Zealand or elsewhere. These arrangements have long applied also to Maoris coming here from New Zealand.

All other persons wherever resident are required to obtain visas or other forms of prior permission to travel to Australia, for residence or other purposes excepting transit through Australia to other countries. The rules as to eligibility for visas or other forms of prior permission to travel are the same for residents of New Zealand as for persons living elsewhere.

Since 1920 British subjects travelling between New Zealand and Australia have not been required to present passports upon entryto either country.

Cultural Attaches

Question No. 1170)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which Australian overseas representative officers have been appointed cultural attaches.
  2. In each case where attaches have been appointed what is their number and what are their qualifications.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. It is not customary to make public the names of departmental staff who may be working or have worked in particular areas.

    1. Cultural matters are normally handled by the diplomatic staff of Australian missions overseas as part of their normal duties. The only post to which an officer has been specifically assigned in the past to handle cultural matters on a fulltime basis is the Embassy in Tokyo. Two officers have been assigned there in this capacity and both were members of the Department’s diplomatic staff. In addition, an officer in the Embassy in Paris is responsible for matters affecting Australia’s relations with UNESCO, and in this capacity he also handles a number of cultural matters.

Pre-School and Child Minding Centres: Fees (Question No. . 1195)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Are fees paid by working mothers to pre-school and child minding centres allowable as a tax deduction; if not, why not

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Income tax deductions under the heading of education expenses are allowable to a parent if the child is receiving full-time education at a school. This requirement is satisfied where the child is of an age to receive education of the kind furnished by a standard kindergarten and the establishment to which the fees are paid provides such educational facilities. Payments made to a child minding centre solely for the purpose of providing for the care or supervision of a child do not qualify as education expenses and are outgoings of a private or domestic nature. The question of amending the law to allow deductions for fees paid by working mothers to child minding centres will be considered during the preparation of the 1970-71 Budget.

Education Expenses (Question No. 1 199)

Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he take steps to amend the taxation law: (a) to allow part-time students a claim for education expenses on a basis similar In that applying to full-time students; and (b) to allow the parents of students over age 21 the same deduction as that applying to students under 21.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

In accordance with usual practice, the question of amending the incometaxlaw to authorise the concessions referredto by the honourable mem- ber will be considered, along with other requests for new or extended taxation concessions, when the 1970-71 Budget is being prepared.

Commonwealth Savings Bank (Question No. 1201)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the (a) prevailing interest rate paid to depositors, (b) number of depositors and (c) the total amount of deposits in the Commonwealth Savings Bank where the amount of the bank deposit is (i) less than $4,000 and (ii) more than $4,000.
  2. What is the (a) prevailing interest rate paid to depositors, (b) number of depositors and (c) the total amount of deposits in the private savings banks where the amount of the bank deposit is (0 less than $4,000 and (ii) more than $4,000.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) The Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the private saving banks are currently paying interest on ordinary deposits of individuals at the following rates: (0 on the first $4,000 of an account - 3.75% per annum,

    1. on the excess over $4,000 up to $20,000- 4.25% per annum,
    2. and (c) This information is not published.

Transport: Employee Statistics (Question No. 1204)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Is he able to say how many people are employed’ directly and indirectly iti (a) shipping, stevedoring and ship building, (b) railway, and (c) road transport activites.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Figures are not available for persons employed indirectly by the activities mentioned. Direct employment in those activities at March 1970 was:

shipping and stevedoring - 41,900 shipbuilding - n.a.9

railways - 64,200

road transport - 105,700

Latest figure available ls for June 1968, when the total employment in ship and boat building and repairing and marine engineering was 18,550.

Labour Report (Question No. 1224)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the printing of Labour Report for 1967 was not completed until May 1970.
  2. Is it also a fact that the Government Printer did not receive this Report from the Common? wealth Bureau of Census and Statistics until after December 1969.
  3. In view of the importance of up-to-date industrial statistics to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and those who appear before the Commission, will he take urgent steps to have the Labour Report for 1968, 1969 and 1970 published before the National Wage Case commences next year.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, with regard to the last parts of the manuscript.
  3. I am advised by the Commonwealth Statistician that the next issue of the Labour Report will be a combined one for the years 1968 and 1969 which it is expected will be published early in 1971. It is intended that the issue for 1970 will be published by the end of 1971.

The Labour Report provides, for a large number of statistical series, a consolidated reference source of descriptive material and figures for a long run of years. Current figures for these series are published in regular monthly or quarterly statistical bulletins or special publications as soon as they become available.

The needs of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and those who appear before it in National Wages Cases arc met so far as the relevant series are concerned by the inclusion in a common exhibit book (prepared by the Department of Labour and National Service) of publications containing the latest available figures. This book, which also contains other data relevant to the hearing, is kept up to date during the proceedings. Delay in publication of the Labour Report does not therefore prevent convenient access during National Wage Cases to the latest available figures.

Airlines: Charge to Commonwealth (Question No. 1226)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the amount paid for (a) fares and (b) freight by each Commonwealth department and instrumentality to (i) Trans-Australia Airlines and (ii) Ansett Tarnsport Industries or its auxiliaries in each year since 1950.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The information sought is not available from Treasury records. However, statistics provided to the Department of Civil Aviation by the airlines indicate that the amounts paid to the airlines for total Commonwealth Government business in each year since 1956-57 were as follows:

Commonwealth Aid Roads Funds (Question No. 1262)

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: ls he able to state what amount was spent from Commonwealth aid road funds on (a) street lighting and (b) traffic control equipment and signs by each state during the last 12 months.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Commonwealth Aid Roads funds are made available direct to State Governments for expenditure on urban arterial roads, rural arterial roads, rural ‘other’ roads and for planning ‘and research. The requirements of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 necessitate each State providing the Commonwealth with certain details of expenditure. However, there is no requirement for the States to provide information about the amount of Commonwealth funds spent on street lighting or traffic control equipment.

Consequently, I am unable to provide the information which the honourable member seeks.

Census Statistics (Question No. 607)

Mr Hayden:

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

In respect of each of the past three censuses, what was (a) the total stock of dwelling units in each State, (b) government rental housing expressed as a percentage of (a) in each state, and (c) total government housing (sold and rented) expressed as a percentage of (a) in each State.

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has provided the following answer lo the honourable member’s question:

  1. Total stock of dwelling unit* in each State.
  1. Government rental housing expressed as a percentage of (a) in each Stale.
  1. Government housing (sold and rented) (1) expressed as a percentage of (a) in each Stale..

dwellings built by the six State housing authorities and do not include, for example, (i) dwellings built with finance provided by the State housing authorities to individuals, (ii) dwellings built by or with finance provided by War Service Homes Division, (iii) dwellings built by or with finance provided by other government bodies, either Commonwealth or State.

  1. Includes 22,926 dwellings built by the State Advances Corporation from 1909 to the cessation of house construction due to World War II.
  2. ’ Until 30 June 1953 State housing schemes were administered by the Agricultural Bank of Tasmania.

  3. This figure is lower than the comparable figure in answer (b). The reason is that in answer

    1. the percentage is calculated from a basic figure which includes not only housing authority dwellings but also housing rented from other government authorities. The basic figure in answer
    2. covers only housing provided by the Victorian Housing Commission, which, in 1954, comprised almost entirely rental dwellings.

Education: Technical Colleges (Question No. 86)

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 in technical colleges exceed the fees payable in 1965 when Commonwealth technical scholarships were first awarded.

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

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

There is a wide range of -fees levied for the various courses offered by more than 200 technical colleges throughout Australia, and it is not practicable to provide complete details. Furthermore, in some cases the fee structure has changed since 1966 making direct comparison impossible. However, some indication of changes, if any, is given in the following information:

page 3647

NEW SOUTH WALES

The Fee Schedules published by the Department of Technical Education indicate only minor changes in fees in New South Wales Technical Colleges for Certificate Courses; the general pattern is one of no increases for full time courses.

page 3647

VICTORIA

The fee structure was changed in 1968. Before that year a charge of $3.00 was made for each hour’s instruction per week up to a maximum of $36.00 per year. Since 1968 the first 2 years tuition have been provided free, and subsequent years of any course have cost $48.00 per year. (

QUEENSLAND j

Central Technical College

There has been no change in fees charged between 1965 and 1970. For example fees for Full Time Certificate Courses in Applied Art and Wool Classing have remained at $25.00 per term.

On a part time basis fees have not increased and remain at $2.00 a term for an hour’s instruction in each week, to a maximum of $16.00 per term.

School Dental Services (Question No. 104)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he bring up lo date the answer which his predecessor gave me on 25 February 1969 (Hansard, page 143) on school denial services.

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

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

  1. Figures given for enrolments in government and non-government primary and secondary schools have been updated to include the last 5 years to 1969 inclusive. Some variations in earlier figures given in my predecessor’s reply on 25 February 1969 (Hansard, pages 143 and 144) result from revisions given in the Commonwealth Statistician’s Schools’ Bulletins.

Later information in respect of the States to update the replies to parts 2 to 5 of the previous question is not availableto me. The information is not at present collected by the Commonwealth Statistician, nor dries the Commonwealth Department of Health have available to it statistics on dental services which are the primary responsibility of the States. Information in respect of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is as follows:

  1. (a) Nil.

    1. (1) Australian Capital Territory - Com monwealth Department of Health.

  2. Northern Territory - Commonwealth Department of Health.

    1. Nil.

  3. Australian Capital Territory- (a) and (b). Data is not available for (a) and (b) separately. Dental inspection and treatment is given to children irrespective of whether they attend a government or a non-government primary school.

(c)and(d) Nit.

Northern Territory. No record is kept of inspections as distinct from treatments.

  1. Australian Capital Territory- -(a) and (b).

Data is not available for (a) and (b) separately. The following number of children received dental treatment as a result of the routine annual inspection.

In addition there were a number of children who were given denial treatment of an emergency nature quite independently of the normal annual routine examination.

  1. Nil.
  2. Nil.

Northern Territory- The number of children treated at all Northern Territory schools over the past 2 years are:

Operation of’Boonaroo’ (Question No. 1265)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has the ship ‘Boonaroo’ owned by the Australian National Line operated in the last 2 years at less than half its capacity; if so, when, and between what ports.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

No. However, when engaged in trades where the cargo flow is essentially one way, ‘Boonaroo’ has operated in an empty or near empty condition while returning to the port of loading or discharge.

Arbitration Commission: Appeals (Question No. 520) Mr Clyde- Cameron asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many appeals has the Arbitration Commission heard from decisions of Commissioners each year since the appeal provisions were written into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
  2. In which cases and upon what issues did the Commisison uphold an appeal from a decision of a Conciliation Commissioner.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is set out in the following schedule which has been provided by the Industrial Registrar:

  1. Appeals upheld by Commission and issues involved.

1952

page 3650

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS (STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES) AWARD, 1952

Reference 75 C.A.R. p. 50.

1953

page 3650

GLASS WORKERS AWARD 1948

Shift work provisions for working a seven day week.

Reference 76 C.A.R. p. 122.

1954

page 3650

CLERKS (OIL COMPANIES) AWARD, 1950

Additional rates for female stenographers computer operators etc. at ages 17, 18, 19 and 20 years of age.

Reference 79 C.A.R. p. 27.

page 3650

SHIPPING OFFICERS AWARD, 1950 AND CLERKS SHIPPING AWARD, 1948

Rates of pay for adult males and females.

Reference 79 C.A.R. p. 37.

page 3650

CLERKS (SHIPPING) AWARD 1948

Power of Commissioner to make an order.

Reference 79 C.A.R. p. 87.

1955

page 3650

RAILWAYS METAL TRADES GRADES AWARD, 1953

Reference 81 C.A.R. p. 30.

1955

page 3650

MEAT INDUSTRY (SHOPS AND SMALLGOODS FACTORIES) AWARD 1951

Order varying the award was beyond the ambit of the original dispute. Reference 83 C.A.R. p. 35.

page 3650

AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS AND R. F. ANDERSON AND OTHERS

1956

page 3650

SHIP CARPENTERS AND JOINERS AWARD, 1949

Rates of pay for apprentices. Reference 84 C.A.R. p. 141.

page 3651

THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA AND CITY OF BURNS1DE AND ANOTHER

Refusal of Commissioner to farther hear or determine a dispute - Dispute proper to be dealt withby State Industrial Authority.

Reference 85 C.A.R. p. 114.

page 3651

CLERKS SHIPPING AWARD 1948

page 3651

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAMWAY AND OMNIBUS AWARD, 1955

Appeal allowed in) (i), iii) and (iii) above. Order of Commissioner varied. Reference 85 C.A.R. p. 312.

page 3651

METAL TRADES AWARD. 1952

1958

page 3651

WOOL AND BASIL WORKERS AWARD, 1957

1959

page 3651

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA AND METROPOLITAN (PERTH) PASSENGER TRANSPORT TRUST

Refusal by Commissioner to refrain from further hearing industrial dispute: Matter proper to be dealt with by Stale Industrial Tribunal. Reference 92 C.A.R. p. 236.

page 3651

TRANSPORT WORKERS (GENERAL) AWARD 1959

page 3651

SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS AWARD, I960

page 3651

COMMONWEALTH STEAMSHIP OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND E. P. SEXTON

” JOURNALISTS (METROPOLITAN DAILY

page 3651

NEWSPAPERS) AWARD 1958 JOURNALISTS (SYDNEY NEWSPAPERS) AWARD, 1959

page 3651

RAILWAYS SALARIED OFFICERS AWARD, 1951

page 3651

FEDERATED CLERKS UNION OF AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIAN IRON AND STEEL PTY LTD, B.H.P

Matter proper to be dealt with by a State Industrial Tribunal.

Reference 98 C.A.R. p. 481.

1961

page 3651

GRAPHIC ARTS AWARD 1957

Reference 98 C.A.R. p. 602.

1963

page 3651

WOOL AND BASIL WORKERS AWARD, 1960

page 3651

LIQUOR TRADES (BREWERIES) AWARD

1963

page 3651

HEALTH INSPECTORS AWARD 1958

Reference 104 C.A.R. p. 253.

page 3651

SLAUGHTERING, FREEZING AND PROCESSING WORKS (MEAT INDUSTRY) INTERIM AWARD 1962

Reference 104 C.A.R. p. 312.

page 3651

BUILDERS LABOURERS (CONSTRUCTION ON SITE) AWARD 1962

Reference 104 C.A.R. p. 298.

1964

page 3651

SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS AWARD

page 3651

MEAT INDUSTRY (HAM AND BACON SECTION) AWARD

Reference 107 C.A.R. p. 588.

page 3651

RETAIL AND WHOLESALE SHOP EMPLOYEES (A.C.T.) AWARD

1964

page 3651

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (TASMANIA) AWARD

page 3652

FEDERAL MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD, 1959

page 3652

FOOD PRESERVING AWARD

Reference 108 C.A.R. p. 881.

page 3652

LITHGOW SMALL ARMS FACTORY (INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING) AWARD

Commissioner’s award rescinded and new award made.

Reference 108 C.A.R. p. 1151.

1965

page 3652

CLOTHING TRADES AWARD

Reference 110 C.A.R. p. 3.

page 3652

TRANSPORT WORKERS GENERAL AWARD

page 3652

GENERAL CLERKS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AWARD

page 3652

METAL TRADES AWARD, 1952

1966

page 3652

AIRCRAFT FLIGHT STEWARDS AWARD

Reference 114 C.A.R. p. 700.

page 3652

TRANSPORT INDUSTRY (PASSENGER COACHES) AWARD

Reference 115 C.A.R. p. 279.

page 3652

AIRLINE FLIGHT HOSTESSES (QANTAS)

page 3652

AIRLINE FLIGHT STEWARDS (QANTAS)

page 3652

AWARDS

page 3652

CLERKS (AIRWAYS OPERATING INDUSTRY)

page 3652

AWARD

page 3652

WOOLCLASSERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA AND UNITED GRAZIERS ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS

1967

page 3652

FEDERATED ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION; A.W.U. AND ADELAIDE CHEMICAL COMPANY AND OTHERS

1967

page 3652

FEDERAL MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD

page 3652

FEDERAL MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD

page 3652

METAL TRADES; SHIPWRIGHTS SHORE; SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS AND ENGINE DRIVERS AND FIREMENS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) AWARDS

page 3652

PASTORAL INDUSTRY AWARD

1968

page 3652

SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS AWARD

page 3652

COMMONWEALTH HOSTELS AWARD

Reference Pamphlet B. No. not printed as yet.

page 3652

METAL TRADES AWARD

Commission, Tasmania.

page 3652

FIRE BRIGADE EMPLOYEES (A.CX) AWARD

1969

page 3653

METAL TRADES AWARD

page 3653

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS AWARD

1970

Nil to date.

Education: Mature Age Scholarships (Question No. 531)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many mature age scholarships are given each year.
  2. What qualifications do applicants require.
  3. When do applications close, and when are applicants notified of the results.
  4. What is the value of the scholarship to the individual student.
  5. Do scholarship winners obtain any lax concessions on any expenditure they may make in undertaking the education the scolarships facilitate.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Prom the quota of Commonwealth Uni versity scholarships available each year 250 awards are reserved for Mature Age applicants. Most are awarded to students who are already enrolled in approved ‘university courses to enable themto complete their course. A number is also awarded to persons who desire to commence approved university study.
  2. The conditions for (he award of Commonwealth Mature Age scholarships are the same as those applying to other awards made under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme, with the exception that Mature Age awards are reserved for persons who are at least 30 years of age on 1st January of (he year in which they are awardedthe scholarships. Prior to 1970 the minimum age limit was 25 years. Mature Age scholarships are awarded on merit. Selection is conducted on an Australia- wide basis. Mature Age candidates who have completed at least1 year of a university course compete on their university record. The remainder compete on their results in an Australian matriculation level examination.
  3. Applications close on 30th September each year. Successful applicants are notified by mail in February or March of the following year. When selection is finalised, unsuccessful applicants are notified by mail.
  4. Like all Commonwealth University scholarships, Mature Age awards provide for the payment of all compulsory tuition fees and other statutory fees and. in appropriate cases, a travelling allowance. In addition a living allowance is also payable to full-time students. This is subject to a means test bused on the scholar’s own income and, if he is married, the income of bis wife. The maximum allowance payable is $19.23 per week (equivalent to $1,000 per annum). For single scholars the allowance abates at the rate of 20 cents for every 30 cents by which the scholar’s income exceeds $7 per week. Different abatement rates apply in the case of married scholars. Provided a scholar is receiving a living allowance, an allowance of up to $7 per week is payable for a dependent wife and an allowance of $2.50 per week for each dependent child under 16 years of age.
  5. As tuition fees and other statutory fees incurred by the holder of a Mature Age scholarship are paid direct to the university by the Department of Education and Science, the holder does nor pay such fees from his own resources. A living allowance received by a scholarship holder studying full time at the university is exempt from income tax. Any additional expenditure incurred personally by a Mature Age scholarship holder in attending the university, whether on a full time or part lime basis, is not deductible.

Department of Civil Aviation:

Londonderry Survey (Question No. 550)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did Officers of his Department carry out a survey in the Londonderry area of New South Wales in August 1969.
  2. If so, was this survey made at the request of the Department of Civil Aviation.
  3. Wasthe survey made in connection with a proposal that a north-south runway should be constructed as an addition to the Richmond airport.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Several land surveys were undertaken on and adjacent to Richmond RAAF Base during 1969.
  2. No.
  3. The survey carried out in connection with RAAF future planning at RAAF base Richmond. The Department of Air has advised that there is at present no proposal by RAAF to construct a new runway at ihis base.

Housing: Building Statistics (Question No. 610)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. How many bouses were completed in each State and the Commonwealt in each year since 1949.
  2. What was the (a) number of houses and (b) percentage of total houses completed in each state by State housing authorities in each of those years.
  3. How many (a) new and (b) other houses were sold in each of these years on minimum depositby State housing authority, specifying in each case the deposit level.
  4. What number of applications was (a) received and (b) outstanding for the’ (i) purchase and (ti) rental of a home from each State housing authority in each of those years.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Information regarding sales of dwellings by State Housing Authorities is available to my Department only in respect of dwellings built under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements. These would represent the bulk of sales in most States. However, no distinction can be made between new’ and other dwellings sold, nor between sales effected on minimum deposit and on higher levels of deposit. Details of the number of sales and of minimum deposit requirements since 1949 are set out below.

page 3655

MINIMUM DEPOSIT REQUIRED FOR SALE OF DWELLINGS BUILT UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH-STATE HOUSING AGREEMENTS

Provision was not made originally inthe 1945 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for the sale of dwellings on terms. By amendment of that Agreement in 1955 each of the States concerned was authorised to sell dwellings on terms requiring a minimum deposit of five per cent ofthe first $4,000 of the purchase price plus 10 per cent of the balance, subject to a maximum loan of $5,500. The minimum deposit in respect of bouses built under the 1945 Agreement remained the same until 1961 when a further amendment permitted each State to fix its own terms of sale. Queensland then continued to require a minimum deposit of 5 per cent of the first $4,000 plus 10 per cent of the balance of the purchase price, but without any fixed limit of maximum loan; each of the other States determined that the terms of sale (including minimum deposit) would be the same as for sale of 1956 Housing Agreement dwellings (see ii below).

The position in the individual States has been as follows:

New South Wales - 1956- to date- $100

Victoria - 1956-1959-5% of first $4,000 plus 10% of balance of purchase price 1959- to date- $200

Queensland- 1956-1959- $500 or 10% of purchase price whichever the less 1959- to date- $500

South Australia -

1956-1959- $600

1959- 1964- $400

1964- to date- $100

Western Australia -

1956-1960- $100

1960- 1962-10% of valuation 1962- to date- Mortgage: 10% of valuation -Contract of Sale: $200

Tasmania - 1956- to date - nil.

Housing Commission Homes (Question No. 654)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. What is the waiting time for Housing Com mission or Housing Trust homes for rental in each of the States over the past 10 years?
  2. What means test applied in each instance?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information which follows was provided by the State housing authorities to my Department, which sought their assistance in furnishing details for the Honourable Member -

New South Wales - The following table shows the waiting times for rental accommodation in two, three and four bedroom cottages from 1961 to

Since its inception the Government Housing Scheme in New South Wales has been designed primarily to cater for the needs of those people in the low and middle income brackets who, because of various factors, experience difficulty in solving their own housing problem. In more recent years greater emphasis has been placed on determining whether or not an applicant can reasonably be expected to provide bis own accommodation from within the private sector of the housing industry. Arbitrary standards based on family income, which may automatically exclude persons who do not meet those standards, have not been laid down.

Responsibility for determining eligibility rests with independent Housing Applications Committees established in all centres in which the Housing Commission has undertaken construction of homes. In assessing the applicant’s ability to satisfy his own housing need a Committee has regard to the availability and price level of accommodation, for both rental and purchase, in the private sector and relates this information to the family income, assets and liabilities of members of the family and any outer special factors considered relevant.

If it is decided that an applicant should be able to satisfy his housing need privately, his application is not admitted to the waiting list and the position is explained to him. Otherwise, his name is admitted to the list for allocation of accom modation in due course when his turn is reached. All decisions of the Committees are made on the understanding that if there is any significant change in an applicant’s circumstances, the decision will be carefully reconsidered. In addition, policy provides that the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to eligibility must be extended in the applicant’s favour.

Victoria - Due to the Slum Reclamation programme in the Melbourne metropolitan area the trend has been towards providing flat accommodation for rental and making houses available for purchase on low depotit Large families of five or more children receive priority for houses vacated and are allocated these homes on a tenancy basis; currently a wait of between 18 months and two years is usual. For tenancy of a two bedroom flat the waiting time is currently about six months and for a three bedroom flat between 12 and 15 months.

In country centres, as far as practicable homes are made available on the basis of 50% for sale and 50% for rental. The waiting time in the country varies from almost immediate bousing to quite lengthy delays, due to factors such as employment opportunities, availability of private homes and migration intake,

A means test is imposed to determine eligibility for rental accommodation or for purchase of a Housing Commission home. The means test

Queensland - Tenancies of StateRental houses are allotted on a points priority system which takes into account family circumstances such as facing ejectment from present accommodation, living in premises condemned by local authorities, separation owing to lack of accommodation, living under overcrowded conditions or sharing with other people, and number of children in the family. Statistics are not maintained of waiting time which depends not only on the priority category of the application but also on the circumstances in the town where accommodation is required. It has not been considered necessary to apply a specific means test as it has been found in practice that applications to the Housing Commission for State Rental accommodation come from the low and middle income sections of the community and that persons of higher income obtain accommodation from other sources.

South Australia - Waiting time is affected by locality and the vacancy rate fromexisting rental houses in certain localities. The approximate waiting time for rental housing in the Adelaide metropolitan area over the past 10 years has been as follows:

The Housing Trust does not apply a means test but under the Housing Improvement Act itis required to let houses to persons of limited means.

Western Australia - The waiting times for a three bedroom rental home in the Perth, Fremantle and Midland Junction areas over the past 10 years are listed below:

The means test is fixed according to the area of the State. Currently an applicant’s income ii’ not to exceed the amount shown below plus $100 for each dependant child under 21 yean of age:

Metropolitan area- $2800 per annum

Country areas South of 26th parallel- $3312 perannum

Country areas North of 26th parallel - $4379 per annum

Tasmania - Waiting periods for allocation of a home on a rental-purchase basis for the year ended 30 June 1969 were as follows:

Hob art . . 15-18 months

Launceston . . 6-9 months

North West Coast . . 12-15 months

From 1 July 1969 to date the only variation from the above is a lengthening of the period for Launceston to 9-12 months.

Details of waiting periods between 1961 and 1968 are not available but approximately they were 6-12 months throughout the four major centres of Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie.

No means test is applied provided an applicant is eligible for Government housing assistance within the terms of the State Homes Act, which defines an eligible person as one who (a) is married; (b) is about to be married; or (c) has dependants for whom it is necessary for him to provide a home.

Surveying (Question No. 670)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been spent in each Commonwealth Department in each of the past 10 years on survey work carried out by private practising surveyors.
  2. Have any private surveyors been employed at daily rates or scale of fees in any of those years.
  3. Is it anticipated that there will be an increase in the amount spent by the Commonwealth on survey work carried out by private surveyors in the current year; if so, what is the amount.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Information relating to Departments which have employed private practising surveyors during the last 10 years is set out as follows:
  1. Department of External Affairs
  2. Department of Works

It is understood that these Departments have employed private practising surveyors in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, but details are not yet available. When further information is available it will be conveyed to the honourable member.

  1. (a) Department of (he Interior-

Yes. The daily rates or scales of the Institution of Surveyors of Australia have been applied with the exception of aerial photography and photo grammetric work for which charges have been negotiated. This now applies also in the Northern Territory, although prior to the current fipnancial year private surveyors were engaged by contract

  1. Department of National DevelopmentDivision of National Mapping

No All private surveyors have been engaged by contract.

  1. Postmaster-General’s Department-

Yes. The scales of fees of the Institution of Surveyors of Australia are applied

  1. (a) Department of the Interior-

Yes. The estimated expenditure for the current financial year is $485,106.

  1. Department of National DevelopmentDivision of National Mapping-
Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) primary and (b) secondary pupils have attended government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in 1963 and subsequent years.
  2. Can he give a prediction of the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary pupils likely to attend government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in each year up to and including 1975.

page 3659

No

page 3659

No

Education: Australian Capital Territory Pupil Statistics (Question. No. 743)

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

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

  1. (a) and (b)-

Education: Australian Capital Territory

Teacher Statistics (Question No. 744)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers have been employed in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in 1963 and subsequent years.
  2. Can he give a prediction of the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers likely to be available in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory in each year up to and including 1973, as his predecessor gave for South Australia and Western Australia on 26 November 1968 (Hansard, page 3284) and for other States on 26 September 1969 (Hansard, page 2109).
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. (a) and (b)-

Note: (P) - Preliminary.

Numbers of primary and secondary teachers were not recorded separately for 1967 and earlier years.

  1. (a) and (b) Primary and secondary teachers have been supplied for government schools in the Australian Capital Territory by the New South Wales Education Department in accordance with New South Wales standards for the number of pupils enrolled. While present arrangements with New South Wales continue it is expected that New South Wales will continue to supply leaching staff on the same basis in future years. If current trends continue it is likely that the number of full-time teachers who will need to be employed will be as follows -

Australian National University: School of General Studies (Question No. 824)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What was the average amount paid in fees by students at the School of General Studies in the Australian National University in each year since the school was established.

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

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

The average amounts paid in fees by a student at the School of General Studies in the Australian

Australian National University:

Degree Courses (Question No. 747)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. On what date was each degree course at the Australian National University introduced, and what fees were payable in that year.
  2. On what dates and by what amount and percentage have the fees for each course been subsequently increased.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

International Comparisons of Educational Expenditure (Question No. 933)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Since his Department was asked by his predecessor to look into international comparisons of educational expenditure, have sufficient data become available to permit comparisons of expenditure on pre-school education to be made between Australia and overseas countries (Hansard 22 April 1970, page 1510).
  2. If. not, when does his Department expect that such data will becme available.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. lt is not possible at present to say when these data will become available.

Education: Pre-schools (Question No. 1026)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to give the total number of children in Australia who attend pre-school centres which meet the full requirements of the appropriate authority of the State or Federal Governments for the supervision of pre-school centre standards.
  2. Is he able to give figures for each State and Territory of the Commonwealth.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) Pre-school centres in Australia may be divided into the following categories:

    1. Government pre-school centres. (ji) Non-government pre-school centres -
    2. ‘Affiliated’ centres which receive grants from State Governments through organisations such as the Kindergarten Union, all of which are affiliated to and accept the standards laid down by the Australian Pre-school Association.
    3. ‘Unaffiliated’ centres, most of which do not receive financial assistance.

Pre-schools in category (i) are maintained and supervised by State Governments and by the Commonwealth Government in the Federal Territories in accordance with their own standards. Affiliated’ pre-schools in category (ii) (a) are all members of organisations, affiliated to the Australian Pre-school Association, which lay down standards for buildings, equipment and staff to which member centres must conform. The operations of these centres are supervised and inspected by these organisations in accordance with these standards. The affiliated organisations receive grants from Stale Governments to assist in building and the running of the pre-school centres of their members and in some States periodic inspections of these centres are made by Slate Government officers, lt can be assumed therefore that this category of pre-school is supervised and run in accordance with standards acceptable to State Governments.

Unaffiliated’ non-government centres in category (ii) (b), a large proportion of which provide mainly child care facilities and cater for children under 3 years of age, do not normally receive financial assistance from governments. In most cases this category of centre is required lo register wilh State welfare authorities, who exercise some measure of supervision over the physical but not necessarily the educational standards of these centres.

The numbers of children enrolled in Government and ‘affiliated’ pre-school centres (categories (i) and (ii) (a) ) in each State and Territory to 1969 are shown in the following table.

Plain-Clothes Police (Question No. 1051)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many plain-clothes police are employed in Commonwealth offices in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Do plain-clothes officers enter Parliament House without the permission of the Presiding Officers.
  3. Are any private security organisations employed to protect Commonwealth property in the A.C.T.
  4. What is the cost to the Commonwealth of any private security organisations employed on these duties.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. No members of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force are employed in Commonwealth Offices.
  2. Plain-clothes members of die Australian Capital Territory Police Force do not enter Parliament House without the knowledge of the Presiding Officers or without the authority of senior and responsible officers of the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the Joint House Department.
  3. Yes, four contracts are currently held by private security organisations to protect Commonwealth buildings and property in the A.C.T.
  4. The total cost to the Commonwealth for these services in the A.C.T. is $13,193.84 per annum.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 1085)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Did the Commonwealth support or vote for any of the following International Labour Organisation Conventions, namely, Nos. 3, 4, 41, 89 and 103.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Australia was not represented at the Session of the International Labour Conference at which Conventions No. 3 and No. 4 were adopted.

The Australian Government delegates voted for the adoption of Conventions Nos. 41 and 89, and abstained on Convention No. 103.

Air Transport for Member of Parliament (Question No. 1117)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that an aircraft was made available to transport the Honourable Member for Ballaarat to Canberra on 15 May 1970.

  2. If so, what was the -

    1. type of aircraft used;
    2. name of the owner;
    3. cost of the flight.
    4. name of each passenger;
    5. number in the crew;
    6. purpose of the flight, and
    7. name of the person who authorised the flight.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) Flight Survey Fokker F.27 aircraft.

    1. The Commonwealth Government.
    2. Calculated on an ‘extra cost’ basis, the cost of the flight from Ballarat to Canberra was approximately $250. The calculation used was, for all practical purposes, the same as that agreed by the Treasury and the Department of Air for R.A.AJ7. V.I.P. flight costs and advice of this procedure was given to the House of Representatives by the then Prime Minister on 24 October 1967.

As indicated in the answer to question (2) (a) above, this aircraft is a flight survey aircraft, especially equipped to carry out the testing and calibration of air navigation and communication aids vital to the air safety of this country. The carriage of passengers in it at any time is incidental to the function for which it is equipped and for which it is flown. In point of fact, this aircraft had only four passenger seats in it.

As with all flights carried out by this type of D.C.A. aircraft, other sectors of this flight were used to evaluate and monitor the performance of navigational aids, ground to air and air to ground radio transmission in the areas covered by the flight as well as other operational procedures of airline and other aircraft.

  1. Mr G. D. Erwin, M.H.R.
  2. Two pilots and a flight engineer.
  3. To transport the Honourable Member for Ballaarat to Canberra.
  4. Right Honourable the Prime Minister.

Air Pollution (Question No. 1134)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Did the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution recommend that a Division of Air Pollution be established within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to implement this recommendation.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes. The Committee recommended the establishment of a Division of Air Pollution Research within CSIRO, bringing into one unit all the Organization’s research relevant to sir pollution.
  2. The Executive of CSIRO has made a preliminary report to me, outlining serious practical drawbacks it sees in this proposal of the Committee. The Executive’s view is that the establishment of a large single Division of Air Pollution within CSIRO would not be as effective a means of working on this, or on other environmental problems, as would continuation of the present practice under which each individual project is tackled in the laboratory in which the relevant expertise is most highly developed. For example, some problems on air pollution an essentially problems in the study of air movement and in the dissemination of polluted air masses into the general atmosphere; additional CSIRO research on this topic would be most effectively carried out in die Division of Meteorological Physics, where the relevant expertise and a range of related research is being studied. Similarly, since Australian coal presents special difficulties in the control and reduction of fly ash emission from power stations, research on this problem is being conducted as part of the fuel research programme of the CSIRO Division of Mineral Chemistry at Ryde. The Executive is examining the whole matter in further detail and will report again to mc in due course.

Air Pollution (Question No. 1135)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution recommend that the Bureau of Meteorology establish a national network of monitoring stations lo collect data specifically for air pollution needs.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to implement this recommendation.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth Bureau of Meterorology, which at present gives information or advice on the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants, is currently co-operating with several Authorities in pollution control problems in particular areas of Australia. The scope of activities of the Bureau is at present under review and consideration is being given lo an increase in manpower and finance to enable an expansion of the Bureau’s activities.

Pensioner Fare Concessions (Question No. 1143)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

In view of the grant of a fare concession of 50 per cent to age pensioners for travel on Commonwealth Railways, will he consider granting a similar concession to retired superannuated Commonwealth Railway employees who are not in possession of a pensioner entitlement card, in addition to the one free pass per year to which they are now entitled.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

A retired Commonwealth Railways employee may be granted one pass annually for any return journey on either the Trans Australian or Central Australian Railway. Additionally that employee may annually be granted two passes for return journeys between Port Augusta and1 Port Pirie or between Port Augusta and Quorn. The wife of a retired employee may be included on any pass issued to her husband. The present grant of free rail travel to retired superannuated employees of Commonwealth Railways represents a reasonable concession. I would not consider the granting of additional concessions to them to be justified.

War Service Homes (Question No. 1197)

Dr Klugman:

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

Will the Minister give consideration to extending the benefits of the War Service Homes Act to British ex-servicemen who took their discharge in Australia.

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Any proposal to extend the War Service Homes Act to extend the benefits to British ex-servicemen who took their discharge hi Australia involves a question of future Government policy and it is not the practice to provide an answer to a question of this nature.

Marine Surveyors (Question 1209)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. ls there an acute shortage of qualified marine surveyors, particularly those with marine engineering qualifications, in his Department.
  2. Have recruiting campaigns in Australia and overseas failed almost completely to attract suitable officers.
  3. How many marine surveyor positions are occupied by officers not fully qualified.
  4. From which British Commonwealth countries has the Department recruited marine surveyors.
  5. What has been done to attract young Australians to seek a career in maritime safety so essential to the well-being of an expanding shipping industry.
  6. Is it a fact that, whereas salary increases of 30% have been granted to Second Division officers of the Public Service in the last 3 years, marine surveyors have received no increase since December 1966.
  7. If so, is this a major reason for failure to recruit satisfactory staff.
  8. Have repeated approaches for a measure of salary justice been made to the Department and the Public Service Board by the officers concerned. If so, with what result.
  9. Will he take action to restore the salaries of marine surveyors to their former relativity with the maritime industry from which they are recruited.
  10. Will he introduce an assisted training scheme to enable young officers to obtain the highest maritime qualifications so necessary for the proper performance of their duties and safety of life at sea and so assist the Department to observe properly the elementary principles of good management and forward planning in this most vital safety matter.
  11. Is there a great and growing concern amongst maritime unions for the safety of their members and for the safety of the public who travel by sea.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. No. The approved establishment in my Department provides for 39 marine surveyors, and at present there are 3 vacancies, 2 of which require marine engineering qualifications, and 1 nautical qualifications.
  2. No. During the past 2 years a total of 18 surveyors has been recruited, of which 8 have been recruited in Australia and 10 from the United Kingdom.
  3. Nil. All surveyors (marine) employed by the Department have the prescribed qualifications.
  4. Australia and the United Kingdom.
  5. The positions of surveyor (marine) are not usually filled by young persons seeking to embark upon a career in maritime safety. The Department seek to fill these positions with qualified and experienced people who have had a number of years’ practical experience at sea and who possess the required qualifications.
  6. Marine surveyors have received the following salary increases since December 1966.
  7. See answers to questions 1, 2, 3 and 6.
  8. . No. Claims for salary increases for marine surveyors were received from their staff associations in March and April 1970. The claims were the subject of explanatory discussions between representatives of these associations, the Public Service Board and my Department on 28th May 1970. The comprehensive material submitted with the claims and elaborated on at the discussion is currently under examination by officers of my Department and the Public Service Board, and it is expected that a decision on the claims will be reached in the near future.
  9. This is one of the many grounds advanced by the Associations in support of their claims and it will no doubt be given appropriate consideration.
  10. The question of appropriate training in Australia for nautical and engineer officers is receiving active consideration in my Department.
  11. I have not been made aware of any great or growing concern among maritime unions in relation to safety.

Freight Costs (Question No. 1210)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: ls he able to say, what were the annual freight charges for the past 10 years on goods carried within Australia by (a) sea, (b) road, (c) rail and (d) air.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Annual freight charges attributable to the carriage of goods within Australia by Government railways and by air during the past 10 years are as follows:

Figures are not available for the carriage of goods by sea and road.

Arbitration (Question No. 1229)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Who made the application which resulted in the Public Service Arbitrator granting the various rates of salary outlined in his answer to question No. 1091 (Hansard, 2 June 1970).
  2. Were the rates sought in the application the rates which, in fact, were approved by the Public Service Arbitrator.
  3. Did the Railways Commissioner or the Public Service Board justify the rates thus determined in accordance with comparable rates outside the Commonwealth Public Service.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Salaries currently prescribed in determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator resulted from applications to the Arbitrator by the Administrative and Clerical Officer’s Association (Commonwenlth Public Service) and the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, for the purpose of extending to officers the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the National Wage Case 1969.
  2. Salaries sought in the applications were granted by the Public Service Arbitrator in the absence of any objection to the applications from other parties to the relevant parent determinations of the Arbitrator.

It is also advised that salaries had been previously varied by consent determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator, with effect from 22nd September, 1969, following applications by the Commonwealth Railways Commissionerto extend senior administrative positions of Secretary, Chief Mechanical Engineer. Chief Civil Engineer, Chief Traffic Manager, Comptroller of Stores and Superintending Engineer (Special Works). Salary increases similar to those prescribed by amended Public Service Regulation 104 (1), approved 20th September. 1969, for second division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

  1. The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner did not justify the rates thus determined in accordance with comparable rates outside the Commonwealth Public Service. The Policy followed by the Public Service Board in its review of rates of pay was described in the Board’s Annual Reports of 1967-68 and 1968-69.

Castlemaine Senior Technical College (Question No. 1244)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What is the value of the Commonwealth technical training grant made to the Victorian Education Department for the Castlemaine Senior Technical College in the 1967-69 triennium.
  2. Has this money been allocated to the State Government.
  3. If so. can he say if the grant has yet been allocated to the Technical College by the Victorian Education Department.
  4. If the College has received the grant, can hesay why it has not yet been spent.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Technical training grants are apportioned to the States on a population basis. Broadly, the States determine the priority of projects and the amount to be spent on each project. The program is (hen submitted to me for approval. In the Victorian program for the present triennium (1968-71) an amount of $350,000 has been provided for new workshops at Castlemaine Technical College. This proposal has been approved by the Commonwealth.
  2. Victoria has received all the money it has requested for expenditure on approved projects up to date.
  3. and (4) I do not have the information the Honourable Member seeks and can only suggest that he take the question up with the Victorian Education Department authorities.

Australian National Line (Question No. 1264)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Were all Australian National Line ships operating at maximum capacity during 1968 and 1969.
  2. If not, did any of these ships at any lime operate at less than half their capacity.
  3. If any ship operated at less than half its capacity, what was (a) the name of the ship and (b) the ports between which it operated.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. No. The following vessels were temporarily withdrawn from service for the periods indicated:

S.S. ‘Yanderra’- 19th July 1968 to 22nd July 1968.

S.S. ‘Yarrunga’- 16th August 1968 to 28th August 1968.

S.S. ‘Yarrunga’- 26th December 1968 to 11th January 1969.

S.S. ‘Yanderra’- 27th December 1968to 13th

March 1969.

M.V. ‘Nilpena’- 31st December 1968 to 23rd January 1969.

M.V. ‘North Esk’- 27th June 1969 to 15th August 1969.

In relation to the passenger service operated by the Australian National Line, there have been occasions when the vessels have carried less than half their passenger capacity. These occasions occurred in the normal seasonal off-peak periods.

  1. and (3) No Australian National Line vessel engaged in the carriage of cargo has operated at less than half its capacity during the period.

Some vessels, however, are engaged in trades where the flow of cargo is essentially 1 way. Consequently, on 1 leg of the voyage, the vessels have at times operated in an empty or near empty condition in the course of returning to the port of loading or discharge.

At times of course, it has also been necessary to ballast vessels into position for spot fixtures.

Western Australian State Shipping Service (Question No. 1336)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What advice has his Department given the Government of Western Australia regarding the purchase of vessels for the State shipping service.
  2. Will assistance be given to purchase Lash ships: if not, why not.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. None.
  2. The Government of Western Australia has made a request to the Commonwealth for financial assistance in the re-equipment of the State Shipping Service fleet. This matter is under active consideration. 1969-70 Housing Agreements (Question No. 1350)
Mr Whitlam:

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

Will the Minister before the Budget Debate give me information on the Housing Agreements for 1969-70 corresponding to the information the Minister gave me on 1 1 September 1969 (Hansard, page 1262).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

As the honourable gentleman knows a substantial part of the information required to provide the answer is obtained from the States. I have arranged to seek it from them andI shall do all that I can to meet his request.

Aboriginal Affairs: Wave Hill (Question No. 1359)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Was his Department approached by the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs with a requestto excise land from the Vestey lease at Wave Hill.
  2. If so. when was the request made and what area of land did it cover.
  3. Has the request been refused; if so, why.
Mr Nixon:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) It is not practice to disclose interdepartmental activities.

Nuclear Power Station (Question No. 603)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Was a cost-benefit analysis made of the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay; if so, will be table the report in Parliament.
  2. Will the project require public subsidy; if so. at what level and over what period.
  3. What is the optimum level of electric power output proposed from the project.
  4. Will plutonium isotope 239 or 240 be produced in the fuel from the reactor if so, can he give any details.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. (2) Beforea decision was taken, the Government considered an analysis of the likely costs and benefits arising from the construction of a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. however, it will be necessary to revise this analysis when tenders for the Nuclear Steam Supply System have been received and assessed by the Atomic Energy Commission and its consultants. The initial analysis was prepared by the Commission on the basis of a continuing study of the developing costs of nuclear power throughout the world and the translation of this data to Australian conditions.

The costs of electric power, conventional or nuclear depend upon many factors such as the type of station, its location, its capital cost, whether it will meet base load or peak demands, whether it is a single or multi unit station; upon its fuel costs, interest rates, penalties to be met for the avoidance of pollution and other factors. The impact of these factors is different for conventional and for nuclear stations and therefore a simple comparison of the Jervis Bay Station with a conventional station is not possible.

The Commission’s general conclusion was that a first nuclear station, which would have great value in establishing this new technology in Australia and the opportunities for training and experience which this would provide, would deliver power at an acceptable cost. Initially on a straight generation costs basis, the Jervis Bay Station is not expected to be competitive with a contemporary, coal-fired station of similar size, both operating on base load and with present day fuel and other costs. The difference is expected to be small but will not be known until tenders have been assessed. However any cost disadvantage could be more than offset by other benefits, depending on the relative movement of certain costs, a nuclear stationshould show an economic advantage over a conventional station.

  1. 500 MV.
  2. Yes. Nuclear power stations using natural or enriched uranium produce isotopes of plutonium during their operation. The quantity and isotopic composition produced will be dependant upon the reactor type selected and the fuel management programme adopted. The plutonium produced will ultimately be recovered for use in a fast breeder reactor programme which is likely to produce the lowest costs of power.

Nuclear Power Station: Comparison of Costs (Question No. 916)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. How will the cost of electricity generated at the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay compare with the cost of electricity from conventional power stations.
  2. When will the generation of electricity by nuclear power be an economical proposition for Australia.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. A simple answer in quantitative terms is not practicable but in broad terms it can be stated that the estimated cost of electricity, from the Jervis Bay Station is expected to be somewhat higher than the large very favourably placed coal fired units at present being erected in New South Wales: it will, however, likely be lower than those of many stations which have been operating in the other States for some time.
  2. Given that no major changes occur in the trends of costs of both conventional and nuclear stations the short answer is that nuclear stations will be economical when the electricity systems in the respective States are large enough to absorb larger units; this is likely to be the case in some States in the mid-1980’s but will vary from State to State.

I should perhaps explain that electricity costs decrease with increasing plant size but the decreases are far more rapid with nuclear stations. It is not, however, feasible to integrate in the State systems at present, nuclear plants whose size would otherwise make them economic, as, for technical reasons, it is inadvisable for any unit to be larger than about 10% of the size of the total system.

Nuclear Power Station: Choice of Site (Question No. 917)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. What are the main reasons for the decision to build a nuclear power station in Australia.
  2. Why was Jervis Bay chosen as the site.
  3. Does South Australia have the need and a suitable site for a nuclear reactor.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. While the Commonwealth is providing the initiative in this work, all States will be invited to participate and accordingly the benefits will be Australia-wide The main reasons for the work are:

    1. To gain experience in contracting for, constructing commissioning and operating nuclear stations.
    2. To assist in establishing a nuclear industrial potential which will be at the exacting standards required in the nuclear industry.
    3. To enable Australia to take earlier advantage of the prospective major cost savings from fast breeder reactors when they become available.

The Commonwealth’s initiative at this stage, will also enable early consideration to be given to problems involving international, interstate and Commonwealth/State relationships which will require legislative action. These problems need to be resolved in advance of the time when States become actively engaged in nuclear developments of their own.

  1. The station is to be owned and controlled by the Commonwealth (although operated in conjunction with the Electricity Commission of New South Wales). For this and for Constitutional reasons it was preferable that it should be sited in Commonwealth Territory. Fortunately it was found that the Jervis Bay site was very suitable in that it met requirements for availability of cooling water, proximity to present and future load centres and favourable construction cost factors in relation to topography, geology, transport and access.
  2. As South Australia prospectively has relatively high fuel costs, it will no doubt be attracted to nuclear power in due course. However, the States electrical system is at present too small to accept the size of a unit at which nuclear costs are competitive; thus it has no present need for a reactor. No doubt when the need arises a suitable site will be found.

International Affairs: Supranational Sovereignty (Question No. 983)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What reasons have been made known to him for the refusal of nations to surrender their sovereignty to an agreed supranational authority to an extent necessary to make redunant the arms race and the balance of terror as the existing unstable basis for world peace (Hansard, 5 May 1970, page 1648).
  2. Can he say (a) what nations besides Denmark have declared their intention of joining such an authority and of taking steps through the United Nations towards such an agreement and (b) what national leaders have declared their attitude to these principles.
  3. Has he a reason for not yet declaring his support for such moves towards a world rule of law other than the reason indicated in his reply to my question No. 702, namely, that other nations are not yet prepared to accept a supranational sovereignty.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

Parliamentary questions are not a suitable vehicle for the exchange of views on abstract issues in the conduct and organisation of international relations, such as those to which the honourable members questions are directed,I have nothing to add to my answer of 5 May 1970 to question No. 702 (Hansard, page 1648).

Issuing of Passports to Rhodesian Citizens (Question No. 1031)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Was it in accordance with the Government’s policy to issue Australian passports after the Southern Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (a) on 23 June 1967 to Mr Stan O’Donnell, described by the Southern Rhodesian regime as its Secretary of External Affairs, (b) on 6 December 1967 to Lieutenant-Colonel William M.Knox, appointed by the regime as its diplomatic representative in Portugal and (c) on 13 August 1968 to Air Vice-Marshal Hawkins, serving as commander of the Southern Rhodesian Air Force.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

The passports in question were issued in accordance with Government policy.

National Library: Female Employees (Question No. 1130)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Do female reference librarians employed in the National Library receive less pay than their male counterparts.
  2. If so, will be take steps to ensure that these females are granted equal pay immediately.
  3. If be is prepared to have this increase implemented, will he correspond with the Speaker and President and suggest that similar adjustments might be made to the pay of the female reference librarians in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The Public Service Board has informed me that female staff employed as Librarians in the Commonwealth Public Service, including the National Library, presently receive not less than 90% of the appropriate rate received by male Librarians. This basis of payment is by agreement with the relevant staff association and is in accord with the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Equal Pay Cases 1969. The Consent Determination of the Public Service Arbitrator which implemented this agreement between the parties also provides that female Librarians will receive not less than 95% of the appropriate male rate from the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 1.1.1971 and the same rates as males from the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 1.1.1972.
  2. No, as in accordance with Government policy, the implementation of equal pay should conform with the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as referred to in (1) above.
  3. I understand that female Librarians employed by the Parliamentary Library are to receive equal pay on the same basis as comparable staff in the National Library.

Pollution in Sydney (Question No. 1136)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Has his Department made any estimate of the cost of overcoming the problem of pollution in the Sydney area, in particular, in the Parramatta River-Duck Creek complex, the Lane Cove River, the Georges River and Cooks River areas, and also in the industrial areas of Camellia, Silverwater, Clyde and Ermington affected by air pollution.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

No. I would add, however, that State Authorities have the primary responsibility for such studies.

National Art Gallery (Question No. 1161)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery recommend that the Australian National Art Gallery should be opened in 1970 as a fitting means of recognising in the National Capital the 200th Anniversary of the discovery of eastern Australia by Captain James Cook.
  2. If so, what prospects are there of fulfilling these expectations on the part of the Committee.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No; it recorded the view of the Committee that the opening of the Australian National Gallery in 1970 could provide the Government not only with a desirable national work, but also with a fitting means of recognising in the National Capital an anniversary of great national importance.
  2. See answer to part (2) of Question No. 1162.

Industrial Nuclear Power (Question No. 1236)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

In view of some recent apparently incorrect public statements, will he indicate the number of public references or displays which have been made or arranged during recent times in Australia on the subject of industrial nuclear power.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has always been active in seeking to promote a better public understanding of atomic energy. Recently the emphasis has mainly been on nuclear power, and a large exhibition explaining power reactor systems, engineering and economic aspects of nuclear power, and fuel development, is being shown at the Sydney Town Hall. It was shown in Canberra last September.

The Commission endeavours to meet all requests for speakers; in the past year over 30 addresses dealing with nuclear power have been given to community organisations, clubs and professional groups, and others are scheduled.

Detailed records are not kept of all information given out, but the following, while not exhaustive, will indicate the extent of the Commission’s efforts.

The Commission has held four exhibitions dealing with nuclear power in NSW, Canberra and Victoria, and it has equipped a mobile caravan dealing with Jervis Bay, which will shortly be making a tour of the Nowra area. In September it will visit Adelaide and several towns in NSW, and will later be shown in other metropolitan and country centres. A public Information Centre has been built at the Lucas Heights Research Establishment and will be open in July, and next year an Information Centre will be built at Jervis Bay.

The Commission has published two booklets for general distribution, and the last three issues of its quarterly journal have contained progress reports on Jervis Bay.

Three articles by Commissioners or Commission staff have been published in leading newspapers and periodicals, and four others have been promised in the next few months. Fourteen Press statements have been issued.

On 3 occasions the Chairman and officers of the Commission gave extensive breifings of Jervis Bay to groups of visitors to the Commission’s Research Establishment, including Press.

Two Press visits have been arranged to the Jervis Bay site and many Press, radio and T.V. interviews given. From time to time individual correspondents have called at the Commission’s Head Office on nuclear power, and telephone enquiries are answered every day.

In March 1971, the Commission is organising a major symposium dealing with the type of reactor selected for Australia. It will be attended by experts from Commission staff, universities, and from other leading countries.

Equal Pay: Female Data Processing Operators (Question No. 1241)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice:

Why are female data processing operators employed bythe Public Service Board not eligible for equal pay within the terms of the decision of 19 June 1969 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Equal Pay Case.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer which I gave to his Question No. 882. The Public Service Board has informed me that female staff in the Data Processing Operator group are not eligible for equal pay because of the Commission’s ninth principle which reads:

notwithstanding the above, equal pay should not be provided by application of the above principles where the work in question is essentially or usually performed by females but is work upon which male employees may also be employed.

Commonwealth Government: Art Possession (Question No. 1186)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has consideration been given to tabling, as on 21 July 1926, a list of works of art belonging to the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

A list of works of art dated 1 August 1946 was issued and a copy is held in the Library.The question of tabling a further list will be examined.

Cancellation of South African Cricket Tour (Question No. 1230)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the present controversy raging in England over the cancellation of the proposed tour of the South African cricket team.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to proposed visits to Australia by the South African rugby union team in 1971 and the South African cricket team in 1971-72.
  3. In view of the possibility that controversy, similar to that in England, could break out in Australia with the consequent threat of unpleasant incidents at sporting fixtures which might necessitate Government involvement, will he use his influence to arrange meetings between those with differing views on Australia’s sporting relations with South Africa with the object of averting such incidents.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to a reply I gave on 2nd June 1970 to a question without notice (Hansard Page 2711).

National Art Gallery: Square Footage (Question No. 1163)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the square footage proposed for the National Art Gallery in Canberra.
  2. Can he say what is the proposed footage available for the new Art Gallery in Melbourne and has he any information that the footage available is not excessive for the needs of that Gallery.
  3. If the footage available for the Melbourne Art Gallery is markedly greater than that proposed for the National Art Gallery at Canberra, will he arrange for a reconsideration of the footage proposed for the National Gallery.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The National Art Gallery Committee of

Enquiry recommended that an appropriate scale of building was of the order of 125,000 square feet. The Interim Council believes that a greater area will be needed and is at present considering the matter.

  1. I understand that the proposed area is of the order of 240,000 square feet.
  2. See answerto (1).

National Art Gallery: Interim Council (Question No. 1164)

Mr Hayden:

askedthe Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When was the Interim Council of the

National Art Gallery appointed following the recommendations of the 1966 Report ofthe Committee of inquiry into a National Art Gallery.

  1. Who are the members appointed to the

Council, and have there been any changes in membership since the original appointment.

  1. On which occasions has the Council met.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the honour able members question is as follows:

  1. 26 July 1968.
  2. SirDaryl Lindsay (Chairman).

Dame Zara Bate, D.B.E.

Dame Mabel Miller, D.B.E.

Sir Henry Basten, C.M.G.

Professor J. Burke. O.B.E.

Mr W. A. Dargie, C.B.E.

Mr J. O. Fairfax.

Mr L. W. French, O.B.E.

Mr K. B. Myer, D.S.C.

Sir James Plimsoll, C.B.E.

Professor C. F. . Presley.

Professor Bernard Smith.

There have been no changes in membership since the original appointment.

  1. 23 August 1968 4 September 1968 21 October 1968 21 February 1969 26 March 1969 10 June 1969 25july 1969 13 April 1970

In addition the Joint Working Group ofthe

Council and the National Capital Development Commission have met on 8 separate occasions.

National Art Gallery: Situation of Portraits of Historic Interest (Question No. 1172)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of

Inquiry into a National Art Gallery suggest that national portraits of historic interest should be situated in Parliament House or in an archival building of their own.

  1. If so, has any decision been made on this suggestion.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No; the Committee recorded its expectation that national portraits of historic interest would be situated either in Parliament House or in an archival building of their own.
  2. National portraits of historic interest are situated in Parliament House.

National Art Gallery: Staffing (Question No. 1167)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What recommendations as to staffing were made in section 4 of the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National An Gallery.
  2. What appointments have been made follow ing these recommendations, and when werethe appointments made.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The Report was tabled in the House on 1

November 1967 and copies are available in the Library.

  1. An Exhibitions Officer was appointed on 11

November 1968 to supervise the work of cataloguing the collection, arrange exhibitions etc.

A trainee Conservator was appointed on 18 November 1968 and is being trained at the Art Gallery of New South Wales.

The appointment of a Director who will assist the Interim Council in the design, planning and construction of the National Gallery is under consideration. Negotiations are also taking place with the Public Service Board regarding the appointment of a Curator.

National Art Gallery: Prominence of Asian Exhibit (Question No. 1171)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery recommend that prominence be given to the art of southern and eastern Asia and the Pacific islands in the formation of the Gallery’s collection.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken following this recommendation, and when were they taken.
  3. What results have been achieved in developing collections of art from these areas.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) Over the past two years the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board has been vigorously pursuing the acquisition of a collection of Melanesian Art. Recently the Board sought the services of an Australian authority in the field of Melanesian culture who has reported to the Board on his assessment of the collection of Papua, New Guinea and Pacific Islands are now in the possession of the Commonwealth and has recommended courses of action for enriching these collections. The report indicates that, while there are still gaps to be filled, the Commonwealth now has an impressive collection.

A valuable collection of ancient Indian Khymer and Indonesian art has also been acquired.

Port Development (Question No. 1335)

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What moneys have been provided by the Commonwealth in the form of (a) loans and (b) grants for port development or improvement since 1950.
  2. To whom and when were these loans made or grants given.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Cockatoo Island Dockyard: Firefighting (Question No. 1364)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Commonwealth Fire Board’s recommendations of 2 April 1970 that firefighting at the Cockatoo Island (N.S.W.) Dockyard should be entrusted to professional firemen on a 24-hour a day basis (Hansard, 3 June 1970, page 2887).
  2. Has this recommendation been brought to the notice of shipyards receiving Commonwealth subsidies; if so, when.
  3. Will he arrange with each shipyard receiving subsidy for (he Commonwealth Fire Board to inspect the yard to recommend procedures and assist with firefighting equipment.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Primary responsibility ‘for the care and efficient protection of the vessels and any components’ in accordance with the standard contractual form lies with the shipbuilder. However, the General Manager of the Australian Shipbuilding Board, who is a senior officer of my Department, has had discussions with the Acting Chairman of the Fire Board in relation to fire prevention, detection and fighting. Detailed reports have been sought from the principal shipbuilders and these will be examined in the light of advice from the Fire Board.

Senate Select Committees: Action on Recommendations (Question No. 34)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What action have successive governments taken on the recommendations of the Senate Select Committees on (a) Road Safety (which reported on 21 September 1960), (b) Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television (29 October 1963), (c) Container Method of Handling Cargoes (11 June 1968), (d) Metric System of Weights and Measures (29 May 1968), (e) Air Pollution (10 September 1969). and (f) Medical and Hospital Costs (25 September 1969).
  2. What was the date of action in each case.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Road Safety- The Committee made forty-six recommendations. Ten of these recommendations related to Commonwealth responsibilities or functions or action at the national level. The remaining thirty-six are of such a nature that their effective implementation must be regarded as the responsibility of the respective States. In five instances commercial and community support is involved with that of the States and the Commonwealth. So far as the recommendations which are of direct concern to the Commonwealth or which require action to be taken at the national level the following action has been taken:

    1. $18 million is being provided for planning and research including research into road safety.
    1. A national road traffic code has been endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council and is used by the States and Territories as a model for legislation.
    2. A limited range of national accident Statistics is compiled from the accident report forms used in the States and Territories.
    3. Annual pedestrian education campaigns are conducted on a national basis through the mass media.
    4. The Australian Design Rules require the compulsory fitting of seat belts to the front seats of all passenger vehicles manufactured on or after 1 January 1970 and rear seats by 1 January 1971. The Australian Road Safety Council advertises continuously through the mass media to encourage the fastening of seat belts.
    5. A number of Australian Design Rules have been produced covering safety features for incorporation into motor vehicles. State Governments are taking the appropriate legislative action for the rules to be applied. Similar action is being taken in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
    6. In I960 the Australian Road Safety Counwas reconstituted to simplify membership on the basis of I representative for each Slate and Territory, 3 Commonwealth representatives and 4 representatives of national non-governmental organisations. In 1965 6 specialist members in such fields as road and traffic engineering research, law enforcement and medical research were appointed.
    7. An independent Chairman of the Council has been appointed since I960.
    8. The Commonwealth provides $350,000 per annum for the promotion of road safety practices.
    9. Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television - Action relevant to the Committee’s recommendations has been:
    10. In August 1966 the Australian Broadcasting Control Board promulgated revised requirements for Australian content in television programmes, effective from 3 July 1967, including specific requirements in respect of the televising of Australian drama and the televising of Australian programmes in peak viewing times. As a result, more Australian made programmes, including drama, are being used. The Control Board is also encouraging the production of worthwhile Australian children’s programmes.
    11. In August 1969 the Government announced the establishment of an Interim Council to Investigate and Report on a Proposal for a National Film and Television Training School.
    12. An amount of $200,000 has been provided in the current financial year for the establishment and operation of an Experimental Film Fund to encourage and assist the production of short experimental films and for the purchase of television programme time so that the films can be exhibited.
    13. A Bill was introduced into this Parliament on 5 March 1970 for the establishment of an Australian Film Development Corporation to assist the Australian Film Industry. The proposed Corporation will administer a fund with an initial capital of $1,000,000.

    14. In November 1967 a decision was made to establish the Australian Council for the Arts to be the Government’s financial agent and adviser on the performing arts and other activities in connection with the arts in general. In 1968-1969 $1,666,349 was provided to the Council and an amount of $2,850,000 was included in the Budget for the current financial year.

    15. Container Method of Handling Cargoes -
    16. The Commonwealth and States have agreed that transport problems inside Australia relating to the introduction of container shipping necessitating consultation and joint action, should be submitted to the Australian Transport Advisory Council.
    1. Container ships and ships capable of carrying containers have been introduced into the Australian trades with the United Kingdom and Europe, Japan and New Zealand. Plans are also in hand for this service to be extended into trade wi North America. The Government is participating in these developments by decisions made for the A.N.L. to enter the Japanese trade, the United Kingdom/European trade and, in the future, the trades with North America.
    2. A special study has been made of Tasmanian fruit handling and shipping and proposals are being developed for the unitisation of fruit which will not be lifted by the cellular container vessels.
    3. The Government is keeping a close watch on the operation of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
    4. Ports at present being served by feeder services are receiving services at the same rates which apply to terminal ports.
    5. A 24-hour clearance (pratique) is available to vessels carrying container cargo on arrival at ports which have been designated as first ports of entry for these vessels. At the present time these ports are Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Fremantle. There is now available a 24-hour clearance to all sea vessels arriving at capital city sea ports as their first port of entry.
    6. The studies are continuing on the standardisation of package units as appropriate to meat, wool and dairy exports.
    7. The forms of documentation introduced by the container consortia operating in the Australia to Europe trade were only introduced after consultation with the shipper interests, and reflect the wishes of the parties involved.
    8. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has agreed to the establishment of a Committee to advise on all aspects of the on road standards of motor vehicles and their loads.
    9. The Council has also endorsed a set oi draft regulations relating to vehicle construction and equipment and performance standards. Many of the draft regulations have been incorporated in State legislation and include those matters mentioned in the Senate Committee’s recommendations.

    10. The Department of Shipping and Transport published a paper on 27 October 1967 which detailed requirements for the testing, inspection and certification of containers. Provisions covering the carriage of dangerous goods were specified in the Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations made under the Navigation Act 1912-1970 as notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette dated 20th March 1968.

    11. Metric System of Weights and Measures - The Government accepted in general terms the recommendations of the Committee after it had made a full and careful enquiry into the many implications of conversion to the metric system.

I announced on 19th January 1970 that Australia would convert to the metric system of weights and measures. On 19th March 1970, legislation, the object of which is to bring about progressively the use oi the metric system in Australia as the sole system of measurements of physical quantities, was introduced into the House of Representatives

  1. Air Pollution - The recommendations of the Committee and the technical implications of effectively combating air pollution are being investigated.
  2. Medical and Hospital Costs- The Committee tabled an interim report in the Senate on 25th September 1969. Following the 1969 Elections the Senate re-appointed a Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs and the Committee is required to produce its full report on or before 30th June 1970. The recommendations of the interim report follow, in the areas of voluntary health insurance, to some degree the recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee of Enquiry into Health Insurance (the Nimmo Committee). The Minister for Health in a Statement to the House on 4th March 1970 set out the Government’s considerations of the Nimmo Committee recommendations and an examination of the relationship between the recommendations in the 2 reports will indicate the Government’s views on those of the Senate Committee’s recommendations in the health insurance field. Th- remaining recommendations in theSenate Committee’s report will receive consideration after the full report has been tabled

Permanent Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 36)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. For what subjects have permanent interdepartmental committees been established.
  2. Why was he unable in the last Parliament to answer the similar question 1 put on the Notice Paper for him on 25th February 1969.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Agriculture and agricultural research.

Automatic data processing.

Commonwealth office construction and other matters, including contracts, relating to building and civil engineering.

Communications and broadcasting.

Civil defence programmes and planning proposals.

Defence.

Development projects other than projects in Northern Australia.

Disbursement of monies under the Temple Society Trust Fund.

Drugs and therapeutic substances.

Employee food services in Commonwealth establishments.

Export controls.

Export payments and investment insurance matters.

External aid programmes.

F.A.O and World health.

Facilitation of the entry and clearance of passengers, cargo, etc., of vessels and of international aircraft.

Implementation and operation of the National Service Training Scheme.

International conferences in Australia.

Joint civil/military air space and operating procedures.

Mapping, surveys and oceanography.

Matters affecting the administration and development of Canberra and the A.C.T.

Matters affecting the development of Papua and New Guinea.

Matters affecting individual private overseas students.

Medical fees and health insurance.

Meteorological services, navigational aids and other services for civil aviation and shipping.

Natural resources.

Northern Development.

Overseas visits of officers.

Participation in the Commonwealth Cooperation in Education Scheme.

Preservation and restoration of historic buildings.

Provision and operation of flats as transitory accommodation for migrant families.

Public health and medical planning.

Publicity and information in Australia and overseas.

Purchase and disposal of stores and equipment for Commonwealth departments.

Recruitment and conditions of service of Commonwealth employees.

Research programmes for various primary products.

Resettlement in civilian life of members of the permanent Forces.

Road safety, road traffic laws, driver improvement and standards of motor vehicle construction.

Search and rescue services and other safety matters.

Transport and storage of dangerous goods.

Transport policy and development.

Tariffs.

Trade Statistics.

U.N.C.T.A.D. matters.

Welfare policy.

  1. 1 refer the honourable member to the answer I gave to a question without notice asked by the honourable member for Evans on 14th May 1970 (Hansard pp 2128-2129).

Crown Privilege (Question No. 822)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has he referred to the letter which the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee received in November 1953 on the question of Crown privilege from Sir Robert Menzies, who relied on the decision by the House of Lords in 1942 in Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co.
  2. Has his government reconsidered the question in view of the fact that in 1968 in Conway v. Rimmer the House of Lords did not follow Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. If the same question were to arise again, it would need to be looked at in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Conway v. Rimmer. It needs to be borne in mind that that decision dealt with the power of judicial bodies to inspect documents for the purpose of considering whether a claim of non-disclosure based on the public interest was justified. Any question whether the decision has any application to Parliamentary Committees is another matter and may raise different considerations.

Local Government: Financial Resources (Question No. 855)

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice:

  1. Has he stated on behalf of the Government that it is the responsibility of State governments to determine the extent to which the financial resources available to local government should be supplemented and by what means.
  2. How is this reconcilable with the attitude taken by the Government in the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969.
  3. Is the Prime Minister’s statement correct that under this legislation $380.4 million is being mtde available to the State of New South Wales, an increase of $171.3 million, or 82% over the previous period.
  4. Is it also correct that under this same Act the Government legislated to ensure that local government would receive only a 5% cumulative increase each year in money for rural roads, an amount barely sufficient, if at all, to meet rising inflationary costs.
  5. If the Government can legislate in this way to the detriment of local government, why can it not legislate to the benefit of local government in this or other fields.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There is no conflict between this attitude and the provisions of the Commonwealth Aid

Roads Act 1969. That Act provides for grants to State Governments, not local authorities, for expenditure on roadworks.

  1. Yes.
  2. No. There is no provision in the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 for the payment of grants to local authorities. However, subject to broad limitations arising from the requirement that the major portion of the roads grants have lo be expended on certain prescribed categories of roads or on planning and research, State governments may, at their discretion, allocate any portion of their grants to local authorities. Further, the Commonwealth Act does not prevent Slate governments from allocating their own funds to local authorities for expenditure on rural roads.

The honourable member may be referring to the Commonwealth grant for expenditure on rural roads, other than rural arterial roads’. The 1969-70 grant for these roads was determined by increasing by 5% the amount which each State government was required to spend on secondary rural roads from the Commonwealth grant provided under the previous Act in 1968-69. The grant for rural roads other than arterial roads for the remaining years of the current legislation increases by 5% per annum. However, this is not the only Commonwealth grant for rural roads under the new legislation. For the first time the Commonwealth is also making a grant specifically for rural arterial roads and, over the five years ending. June 1974, this grant will total almost $187 million. This means that, including the grant for rural roads other than arterial roads, Commonwealth grants specifically for expenditure on roads in rural areas for the five years will be over $581 million. In thi five years ‘ ending June 1.969 the total of Commonwealth grants specifically allocated for rural roads-that is, for secondary rural roads only - was $300 million. In the case of New South Wales, in the current five years Commonwealth grants for rural arterial roads will total almost $64 million and for other iwa! roads almost $110 million: in the previous quinquennium the Commonwealth grant to New South Wales for secondary rural roads was less than $84 million.

  1. See answers to (1), (2) and (4).

Public Service Board: Backlog of Claims (Question No. 887)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice:

What is the backlog of unheard and/or unfinished claims now before the (a) Public Service Board and (b) Public Service Arbitrator and his deputies.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The Public Service Arbitrator has advised that as at 22 May 1970 there were 114 matters either unheard or unfinished, and that in no case has an applicant sought a conference or a public hearing and been refused. The Public Service Board has informed me that in addition to a number of these 114 matters to which the

Board is a Respondnet, there were at the same date, 19 outstanding pay claims lodged directly by staff associations with the Board. If pay claims by several staff associations covering the same group are taken into account, the number of outstanding pay claims is 15 as at 22 May 1970.

Fire Brigades: Turn out Times (Question No. 972)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice

Can he say what is the turnout time in South Australia of:

  1. a fire station manned by volunteer firemen and
  2. a full brigade station.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

I understand the turnout lime for a permanent brigade in South Australia is well under one minute. Naturally for a volunteer fire brigade the turnout time is longer and depends on the lime it takes volunteers to reach the Station. In the case of the ‘Amanda Miller’ fire the time from the sounding of the city alarm to turning out was about four to five minutes.

Accountants (Question No. 1043)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. ls there a shortage of qualified accountants in some Commonwealth departments.
  2. If so, why has the Public Service Board failed to offer more cadetships and to make time off for study freely available.
  3. Has the Board sought to encourage the recruitment of accountancy staff by the payment of a minimum level of remuneration to diplomates from technical colleges in the same way as that paid to university graduates.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– I am advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. A recent examination conducted by the Commonwealth Public Service Board indicated that whilst there are some localised shortages, there is no general shortage in Commonwealth departments of staff qualified to occupy positions for which the Board has prescribed training in accountancy.
  2. In the Auditor-General’s Office there are some positions to which an officer cannot be transferred or promoted unless he has satisfied the examination requirements of an approved Institute of Accountants and in respect of these positions a cadetship scheme has been established.

Officers undertaking part-time studies in accountancy may avail themselves of the provisions of the fees reimbursement scheme. Under this scheme an officer who is approved as a student is eligible for reimbursement of all compulsory fees for courses successfully completed and within the limits prescribed by the Regulations, and subject to departmental convenience, time off to attend lectures, tutorials and examinations.

  1. At present, there is no provision similar to that applying to university graduates for the payment of a minimum level of remuneration to officers who bold diplomas in accountancy. The Public Service Board is closely following recent developments in accountancy courses conducted by Institutes of Technology and Colleges of Advanced Education and will give close attention to the recruitment conditions which might be necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth Public Service attracts a reasonable proportion of the output from the Colleges.

National Art Gallery: Inadequate Housing of Exhibits (Question No. 1162)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery stale that the present collection held for the proposed National Art Gallery is inadequately housed and cannot be put on permanent display, its further development is not practicable without an assured prospect on housing and that the need for an approval to begin building is urgent.
  2. If so, when is it expected that building of this Gallery will commence.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Minister for the Interior announced on 13th May 1970 the Government’s decision to site the National Gallery between the Administrative Building and LakeBurley Griffin. He indicated that design studies would now be put in hand for the National Gallery and that the timing of the actual construction of the building would be considered by the Government at a later stage.

National Art Gallery: Statutory Authority (Question No. 1165)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government given any consideration to the drafting of legislation for a statutory authority for the proposed National Art Gallery.
  2. If so, what stage has the drafting reached.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No. It is not expected that legislation will be required until the work of the Interim Council, which was appointed to advise the Government on the design, planning and construction of the Gallery, is nearing completion.
  2. See answer to (1).

National Art Gallery: Controlling Body (Question No. 1166)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government made any decision with regard to the National Art Gallery on the term to describe the Government’s controlling body and the number of members who will sit on that controlling body.
  2. If so, when will an announcement be made with respect to the recommendations in the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery in relation to this matter.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) See answer to Question No. 1165.

National Art Gallery: Friends of the Gallery Society (Question No. 1168)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery recommend the formation of a Friends of the National Art Gallery Society or similar body.
  2. If so, has any decision been made on this recommendation by either the Interim Council or the Government.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The Committee recommended that every encouragement and assistance should be extended to the formation of a Friends of the Gallery Society or similar body.
  2. No moves towards the formation of such a body have yet come to the notice of the Interim Council or the Government.

Australian National Gallery: Trust Fund (Question No. 1169)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery recommend the early establishment of an Australian National Gallery Trust Fund.
  2. Has the Interim Council made any recommendation to the Government on this proposal; if so, when.
  3. If a recommendation has been made by the Council, what action has the Government taken on it.
  4. If no recommendation has been made, what steps does the Government propose to encourage the Interim Council to consider this matter.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The Committee recommended that the Interim Council should ‘consider, among other possibilities, the early establishment of an Australian National Gallery Trust Fund’.
  2. No; the matter does not fall within its functions.
  3. See answer to (2).
  4. The matter is being examined de partmen tally.

National Art Gallery: Technological Museum (Question No. 1173)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the 1966 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a National Art Gallery recommend that provision should be made at Canberra for the exhibition of examples of industrial design, for a technological museum, for museums of Aboriginal and archaeological materials and for other educational services which, although linked with the Gallery, should not be duplicated by the National An Gallery.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to implement these recommendations.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. No; the Committee recorded its expectation that as Canberra develops provision win be made for the exhibition of examples of industrial design, for a technological museum, for museums of Aboriginal and archaelogical materials and for art education services which will be linked with the Gallery and which the Gallery should notseek to duplicate.
  2. These matters will be considered as the need arises.

Answers to Questions (Question No.1246)

Mr Daly:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

When may 1 expect an answer to my questions Nos 539 and 879 which were placed on the Notice Paper on 19 March and 23 April respectively.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

I do not know. Action has been proceeding as rapidly as practicable towards compilation of answers to the questions, both of which require the extraction of data by all Commonwealth Departments. 1 draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer I gave to a question without notice by the honourable member for Evans in the House of Representatives on 14 May 1970 (Hansard pages 2128 and 2129).

Vietnam (Question No. 844)

Dr Jenkins:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the signed letter on page 4 of National U, published by the

National Union of Australian University Students on 23 April 1970, in which it Ls stated that instructors at Canungra revealed incidents where troops drewlots to determine who would have the pleasure of disposing of 2 wounded Viet Cong discovered after battle, an officer paid his men a dollar for every enemy killed, and other associated attitudes were mentioned.

  1. If so, has he had the matters investigated.
  2. If not, will he do so and report the results to Parliament.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

This matter has been investigated at the Jungle Training Centre and the writer of the letter has also been interviewed by a member of my Department.

According to the author the experiences were allegedly in the nature of reminiscences on the part of the Centre’s instructional stall and not included in any formal lectures. He was unable to recall the names of the instructors concerned or to produce any evidence which would assist in identifying them.

All instruction on the handling of prisoners is based on the Geneva Conventions and programmed periods are set aside at the Jungle Training Centre for this purpose.

In the absence of any evidence, either from the author himself or from investigations at the Centre, which would support the allegations, it is nol considered necessary to try to pursue the matter any further.

Relocation of Survey Regiment (Question No. 487)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

What administrative, technical and logistic economies does he expect to result from relocating at Bonegilla the AHQ Survey Regiment which is now situated at Fortuna, Bendigo.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

It is necessary to say, as background that the Army Headquarters Survey Regiment al present occupies an old mansion in Bendigo, built some 100 years ago. It is forced to use converted stables, an ore-crushing battery, attics and galvanised iron huts, supplemented by some modern buildings to meet essential accommodation and working needs. It has been the intention for several years to move the unit and since 1961 expenditure for the area has been confirmed to essential new buildings which could be amortised over the expected period of occupation.

The re-location of this Regiment at Bonegilla would allow common facilities to be shared wilh the School of Survey and the Army Headquarters Survey Depot. Economics which would follow are:

Administrative

The pay. personnel records, claims, rations, transport, quartermaster services, technical and accommodation stores, messes, canteens and recreational areas for these units would be combined, with consequent savings in the number of staff required to carry out these functions. The colocation of the units would bring some 60% of the total Corps strength together with a consequent reduction in postings and movement, an important consideration of family welfare.

Technical lite appropriate place for lithographic training is the School of Survey. At present the high cost of lithographic equipment forces the Corps to train personnel at the Regiment. To set up a small yet satisfactory lithographic training wing at the School of Military Survey, when divorced from the AHQ Survey Regiment, would cost in the vicinity of $350,000. This expenditure is unnecessary when the units are in the same location. Additionally co-location will permit the School to undertake full-time theoretical courses and use the Regiment’s equipment for practical training.

The School is also responsible for Corps research and development but the expensive equipment needed for this purpose is used on production at the Regiment. This equipment would become available to the School on co-location. The responsibility of research and development covers the whole field of mapping from survey to lithography.

The cost of duplication of the first order photogrammetric equipment, would be approximately $500,000. This expenditure cannot be justified on equipment to be used on research and development, yet without access to this equipment through co-location research and development will be seriously retarded.

Over the past 5 years, and in conjunction with Commonwealth and State Authorities a photogrammetric test range has been established at Bonegilla for testing and calibrating survey equipment. Additionally a complex of accurate surveys has been established to test students’ results. These facilities would - be available to the Regiment al Bonegilla but could not be duplicated at Bendigo even if suitable terrain existed without duplication of the 5 year joint effort that has gone into the establishment of the present range.

Airborne measuring equipment, technical records and reproduction material would be centrally stored.

Logistic

There is sufficient Army-owned land at Bonegilla to accommodate the Survey Regiment, the School of Survey and the AHQ Survey Depot.

Bandiana nearby, has a major army complex with facilities, particularly workshops and a supply depot, which would be used by Bonegilla units.

The movement of bulk printing paper to the Regiment on the one hand and printed maps to the Survey Depot on the other would be eliminated.

Bonegilla has direct rail, road and air communication with capital cities leading to savings in time in the movement of personnel and stores.

AHQ Survey Regiment: Housing (Question No. 488)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many houses are rented from the Victorian Housing Commission by officers and men of the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo.
  2. How many permanent married quarters are occupied by personnel of the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo.
  3. How many officers and men own homes or are purchasing homes in the Bendigo area.
  4. How many personnel of the AHQ Regiment are housed in barracks at Fortuna and in the Bendigo area.
  5. What accommodation in barracks. Housing Commission homes, permanent married quarters and other accommodation is available at present at Bonegilla . for those at AHQ, Bendigo, whom the Army wishes to transfer within the ‘next 5 years.
  6. If the present facilities for residential accommodation at Bonegilla are not adequate to cope with the number of personnel whom the Army intends to transfer from Bendigo over the next 5 years, what additional accommodation will the Army have to provide at Bonegilla and what will it cost.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Of the 39 houses provided for the Army at Bendigo under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement (CSHA), 37 are occupied by members of the AHQ Survey Regiment. The other 2 houses are occupied by ARA members of CMP units.
  2. Twenty-five.
  3. Thirty-five.
  4. Eighty-one male all ranks are accommodated in barracks at ‘Fortuna’. Twelve WRAAC are accommodated in barracks at Carpenter Street, about 2 miles from ‘Fortuna’.
  5. Barrack accommodation is available at Bonegilla for 400 all ranks. This accommodation is currently occupied by the School of Military Survey (119) and the Catering Wing, RAASC Centre (106) which in due course will be located with the RAASC Centre at Puckapunyal. The remainder is currently unoccupied. Married quarters associated with Bonegilla are located in the adjacent Bandiana Military Area and in Wodonga, about 1 mile from Bandiana. Currently there are 68 permanent married quarters, 14 temporary quarters and 277 houses provided under the

CSHA. Five permanent married quarters and 14 CSHA- houses are being planned for early construction. Additional houses will be required in the area to meet the planned transfer of married1 Survey personnel.

  1. There is sufficient hutted barrack accommodation available to house the members of the unit whom it is proposed to transfer. Initially, there may be a short term deficiency of married quarters in the general Bandiana- Wodonga area but suitable private furnished accommodation, for which members would receive the appropriate allowances, would be utilised until the shortfall was overtaken. It will be necessary lo provide living and working accommodation to correspond wilh the proposed significant increases in the strength and scope of the Regiment. This would bc an essential requirement even if the unit remained at Bendigo.

Fortuna: Facilities and Accommodation (Question No. 489)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. What was the original price which the Department of Interior paid for Fortuna, Bendigo.
  2. What new buildings have been constructed at Fortuna and in the Bendigo area since the Army first occupied Fortuna in 1942.
  3. What extensions and improvements have been made to existing buildings since 1942.
  4. What has been the cost of buildings, extensions and improvements provided since 1942.
  5. Does a master plan exist for Fortuna; if so, when was it drawn up.
  6. If a master plan exists, are there any buildings, extensions to existing buildings, or other works which are included in the master plan, which have nol been constructed; if so, which are they.
  7. Has the Army given consideration to expanding the facilities or accommodation presently existing in Fortuna.
  8. Has the Army considered that there is a need for additional space to supplement the space available at Fortuna.
  9. If so, has the Army investigated the availability of additional land in the Bendigo area.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Fortuna was acquired in 2 stages in I9S1 and I9SS at a cost of some $30,000.
  2. Records prior to 19S1 give no detail of constructions and extensions between 1942-51. However, it is known that during this period modifications were made to the original building and some temporary buildings were erected, most of which have since been removed. Since 1951, 8 buildings have been constructed consisting of 3 barrack blocks (which can accommodate 1 19 all ranks), I technical store. I technical building, 1 kitchen, I ration store and an administrative records building. (With 1 exception (a corrugated iron building) all were constructed of brick.) A 330 square feet barrack block has been constructed at WRAAC barracks. Carpenter Street.
  3. In addition to (2) above it has been necessary to make minor modifications over the period lo allow expansions, changes in equipments and operating techniques.
  4. The total cost of all works since occupation is approximately $560,000 plus an additional $115,000 for repairs and maintenance during the period 1962-69. Repair and maintenance records prior to 1962 are no longer held.
  5. and (6) A master plan for the development of Fortuna was drawn up in 1961 in the knowledge of the proposed future movement of the unit from Bendigo. The plan has been followed except for the construction of recreational and canteen facilities. The plan called for replacement of a records building, workshop, graining building and Q stores, all currently housed in inadequate or old buildings, and extensions to the lithographic and topographic buildings to meet 1961 requirements. These replacement buildings and extensions have not been built.
  6. A committee to examine the overall requirements for the Royal Australian Army Survey Corps was convened in 1967. Bonegilla area was chosen as the site of the Army Survey Centre by the Review Committee for the following main reasons: ft is current Army policy to combine Corps static units into centres with the Corps School.

The school of Military Survey is located at Bonegilla and this area is the only readily available site which meets all the requirements of the School and the Regiment.

There is suffiient land already owned by the Army to accommodate all the units recommended for co-location.

The stores used by the Regiment and the School and the large output of maps necessitate ready access to standard gauge rail links, commercial air routes and major trunk roads to Melbourne and Sydney. These are readily available and easily accessible at Bonegilla.

Bandiana is a major Army centre with established facilities than can be shared by Bonegilla.

Co-location of the 3 Royal Australian Survey Units provides significant economy in new building space and costs e.g. combined messes, canteens, recreation areas, Q stores and some work areas.

  1. Yes.
  2. Irrespective of the amount or availability of any additional land Bendigo is not as suitable for training of topographical surveys as is the Bonegilla area. The latter area has a variety of training areas ranging from relatively high mountains to undulating valleys and major rivers. Additionally 5 years have been spent in establishing a Photo grammetric Test Range in conjunction with Commonwealth and State Departments at Bonegilla. Furthermore comprehensive survey observations for student training and testing have been built up. This has taken approximately 5 years and will be available to personnel of the Regiment. Further information on this point is contained in the answer to question No. 487.

AHQ Survey Regiment: Relocation at Bonegilla (Question No. 490)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. In which sections of the work being done by the AHQ Survey Regiment atFortuna, Bendigo, is there overcrowding, and what new buildings or extensions or improvements to existing buildings would be necessary to overcome it.
  2. What buildings are at present available at Bonegilla for the cartographic, typographic, printing and administrative work now being done by the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo.
  3. If the full AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo is transferred to Bonegilla withinthenext 5 years, will any new buildings or extensions or improvements to existing buildings have to be provided at Bonegilla for working accommodation; if so, what is the estimated cost.
  4. Do any plans exist for the provision of facilities and accommodation at Bonegilla for the AHQ Survey Regiment.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. There is overcrowding in the Cartographic Squadron and parts of the Lithographic Squadron. No section has sufficient space for the proposed increased strengths and functions of the Regiment.

To overcome this situation new buildings would be required for the Cartographic Squadron and WRAAC Barracks with subsequent major extentions to all Squadron buildings and replacement of all substandard buildings.

Messes will need extensions as strength increases. The only practicable solution would be a major rebuilding programme to avoid makeshifts involving uneconomical expenditure.

  1. A Cartographic building is available at Bonegilla capable of accommodating the draughtsmen currently on establishment including the recently approved increment of draughtsmen to AHQ Survey Regiment.
  2. It will be necessary to provide living and working accommodation to correspond with the proposed significant increases in the strength and scope of the Regiment. This would be an essential requirement even if the unit remained at Bendigo.

In the interests of efficiency and economic operation, the long term plan is to completely rebuild the accommodation in permanent modern construction.

  1. Yes.

Relocation of Army Units to Bonegilla (Question No. 491)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. What units, other than the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo and the School of Military Survey at Bonegilla, comprise the Royal Australian Survey Corps.
  2. Is it intended that these other units will also be co-located at Bonegilla within the next 5 years.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. In addition to the AHQ Survey Regiment and the School of Military Survey, the following units comprise the Royal Australian Survey Corps:

AHQ Field Survey Depot

Northern Command Field Survey Unit

Eastern Command Field Survey Unit 9 Topographic Survey Squadron (CMF) 1 Divisional Topographic Survey Troop

Central Command Field Survey Unit

Western Command Field Survey Unit

  1. It is intended to co-locate the AHQ Field Survey Depot at Bonegilla. The remaining units, by their nature, have either Command or CMF functions and are required to remain in their present location.

Employment in the Aircraft Industry (Question No. 1211)

Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

Is he able to say how many people are employed directly or indirectly in the aircraft industry.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My Department uses a current figure of approximately 8,000 for direct employment in the defence aircraft industry. This is made up of approximately 2,100 at the Government Aircraft Factories, 2,700 at Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd, 2,100 at Hawker de Havilland Aust. Pty Ltd, with about another 1,000 persons employed on defence aircraft work in such contractors as the Aviation Division of Dunlop Rubber, A.N.I. National Forges, Bendix Corporation, N.I.C. Instrument Company and Lucas-Rotax.

Papua and New Guinea: Fishing Industry (Question No. 1067)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. In what districts and through what ventures has the fishing industry been promoted in the Ter ritory of Papua and New Guinea in the last 5 years.

    1. In what aspects and to what extent do indigenes participate in these ventures.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

(1)

  1. The Kiwai Fishermen’s Association, Daru, hasbeen formed by about 100 self-employed indigenous fishermen who net thebarramundi during the season which runs from November to April.The indigenous fishermen use small boats powered by outboard motors and sell their catch to processing boats or shorebased freezers operated by expatriate firms. Indigenous people are also employed by the expatriate firms in cleaning and packing the fish and us crew members on processing boats. Thebarramundi resources of the area have been reserved by the Administration for exploitation by indigenous people and licences issued to other fishermen exclude them from operating in the Daru area.

Yule Lobster Enterprises is a joint venture between an indigenous co-operative and a local company and employs several hundred indigenous people in catching crayfish and in operating a freezing and processing factory on Yule Island.

Gulf Fisheries (NG) Pty Ltd has 8 prawn vessels, Territory Fisheries (NG) Ply Ltd and Gulf Enterprises (NG) Pty Ltd each has 2 prawn vessels and Torres Shipping Co. Pty Ltd has 1 prawn vessel, operating from Territory bases. Each of these companies employs indigenous people as deck hands and in processing and packing of prawns and fish.

Golling Kyokuyo Fishing Co. Ply Ltd has 1tuna processing vessel and 3 tuna catchers based on Kavieng. Some indigenous people are employed on the processing vessel. The Company plans to train indigenous people to crew the tuna catchers and in methods of catching live bait required for the tuna fishingoperations. If the survey of tuna resources is successful, the Company proposes to establish ashore-based processing plant which will employ indigenous people.

Both South Seas Fishing Co. Pty Ltd and Carbir Fishing Co. Pty Ltd employed indigenous people as deck hands during their unsuccessful surveys in Territory waters.

Pre-School Education: Expenditure by States (Question No. 101)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did his predecessor tell me on 24th September (Hansard, page 1922) that significant differences betweenthe States in the method of providing pre-school education have added to the problem of separating out figures of expenditure on pre-school education.
  2. What are these differences between the States.
  3. Which States have been unable to supply the further details of expenditure on education which the Commonwealth Grants Commission has sought.
  4. On what date did the Commonwealth seek the details from each State.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. The 2 most important differences between the States in the method of providing pre-school education are as follows:

    1. There are differences between the States in the extent to which children of 5 years and less are admitted to government primary schools. To some extent, such children would be receiving what could be regarded as the equivalent of pre-school education.
    2. In Tasmania, pre-schools are conducted by the Education Department while in all other States they are staffed and administered by a Kindergarten Union or Association or, to varying extents, by local government authorities.

There are also different types of centres catering to the needs of young children and it is difficult in some cases to determine which should be classified as ‘Pre-schools’ and which as other centres. For example, in Victoria there is a significant number of ‘play centres’ conducted by pre-school play leaders who have less training than kindergarten teachers and are permitted to care for no more than 15 children at the one time. By contrast the nursery schools and child-minding centres which have been set up in a number of Slates do not normally offer a recognised educational programme, and the children are normally left in the care of nurses rather than teachers.

  1. and (4) Boththe Commonwealth Statistician and the Commonwealth Grants Commission, as part of their normal work, regularly seek further details of education and other social services expenditure from State authorities. In June 1969 the Grants Commission sought information from the Slate Education Departments on education expenditure by the Stales on non-government schools. At the lime of my predecessor’s answer, some States had not supplied full details of such expenditure but 1 am informed that the Commission has now obtained sufficient data on this matter. Some Slates have not supplied details of their expenditure on pre-schools, but the Commission does not require these for its purposes. However, the Commonwealth Statistician has given some attention to this matter since the dale of my predecessor’s answer and, from a limited investigation, has been ableto compile approximate figures of expenditure by the State Governments on preschools defined so as to exclude expenditure on day nurseries and child minding centres, but including expenditure on play centres. Figures for the last 5 years, based mainly on published information, but in one or two cases on information especially provided by State authorities, are set out in the table below.

These figures do not include expenditure incurred by State education departments in respect of children attending government schools, with the special exception of expenditure on government pre-schools in Tasmania - see answer to (2). The expenditure shown, again with the exception of Tasmania, is mostly in the form of grants by Slate Governmentsto Kindergarten Unions or Associations. In interpreting these figures, it should be borne in mind that some Stale Governments might be said to be indirectly supporting pre-school educationto the extent that general purpose grants by them to local authorities would be availableto help finance expenditure by those authorities on pre-school education.

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation (Question No. 1018)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commissioner for Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation refuses to grant legal costs in respect of appeals from workmen’s compensation claims except on the basis of an agreement which exists between most solicitors and insurance companies that the assessment of cost shall be on the basis of one-half of the Supreme Court scale.
  2. Can he say whether some legalfirms specialising in workmen’s compensation have refused to act for this scale of charges.
  3. Can he state the number of occasions on which costs in respect of employees’ compensation claims have been taxed by the Registrar of a Supreme Court.
  4. Is it a fact that injured employees are finding difficulty in securing legal firms to act on their behalf; if so, will he consider altering the relevant rules so as to bring costs in respect of Commonwealth employees’ compensation proceedings in line withcosts awarded in other proceedings.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. No. The matter of the costs of an appeal under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930-1969 is outside the Authority of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation. Regulation 11 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Regulations provides that a Court may award costs in respect of an appeal under the Act, and in default of agreement between the parties as to the amount of thecosts, thecosts are taxed in accordance with the appropriate Court scale or are fixed by the Court. Neither the Commissioner nor the Commonwealth is a party to any agreement that the assessment of the costs shall be on the basis of one-half of the Supreme Court scale.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. The records for the last 10 years indicate that in that period there have been no cases where the costs in respect of appeals under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act have been taxed by the Registrar of a Supreme Court. In the States an appeal from a Determination of the Commissioner may be made to a County Court or similar Court and any further appeal lies to the High Court. In the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory appeals may be made from a Court of Petty Sessions or a Local Court to the Supreme Court of the Territory and thence to the High Court.
  4. Neither I nor the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation has received any representation from an employee that difficulty has been found in securing a legal firm to act on his behalf in an appeal under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act

Ship to Shore Communications (Question No. 1337)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. At what ports in Western Australia are there facilities for ship-to-shore communications.
  2. How many of these potts have facilities for use only within their own harbours.
  3. What plans are in hand for extending shiptoshore communications on the coast of Western Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. There are overseas telecommunications stations at Esperance, Perth, Geraldton and Broome in Western Australia.
  2. All ports including the above 4 have facilities within the port limits for contact between harbour master’s office and pilots, pilot launches and any vessel equipped with VHF radio equipment.
  3. I understand O.T.C. Sydney have plans for a station at Port Hedland.

Housing: Mortgages (Question No. 1202)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many persons are at present repaying a housing mortgage.

  2. if so,

    1. what was the average amount for which the mortgages were taken out,
    2. what is the total amount outstanding at the present time in respect of these mortgages and
    3. how are these mortgages distributed amongst the various lending authorities or institutions.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Information is not available to answer these questions.
  2. (b) and (c) The table below shows the estimated value of home loans outstanding in March 1970 of the major institutional lenders for housing, and the percentage distribution of outstandings among these lenders. Housing loans are also made by other institutions and lending groups but details of their home loans outstanding are not available.

Replacement Aircraft for Mirage Fighter (Question No. 1277)

Mr Keating:

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

  1. What performance requirements have been laid down by the Royal Australian Air Force for the aircraft to replace the current Mirage fighters.
  2. ls the RAAF considering a dual role intercept and attack aircraft for the Mirage replacement or 2 separate single role aircraft, 1 with an intercept capacity and 1 with an attack capacity.
  3. When does the RAAF intend to phase out the current Mirage fighters.
  4. Will the RAAF seek to have the replacement aircraft designed and manufactured in Australia or, alternatively, seek to have the aircraft designed and manufactured on a collaborative basis between the Australian aircraft industry and an acceptable overseas aircraft manufacturing corporation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. This subject is currently under intensive study. However, in general terms, any replacement aircraft would need to exceed the performance of the Mirage in all its roles.
  2. See (I). A decision as to whether 2 separate single role aircraft will be required will be made when the study has been completed.
  3. The Mirage fatigue life, based on forecast utilisation, is assessed as December 1980. Taking into account production lead time and assessed rates of attrition it is considered that the replacement aircraft should enter service in the midseventies with full re-equipment probably by December 1980.
  4. Until the RAAF requirements have been thoroughly assessed against aircraft developments both in Australia and overseas it is not possible to state under what arrangements the replacement aircraft will be designed and manufactured, lt is the policy of the Government that every consideration be given to Australian design and production of Service aircraft where practicable. However, it should be borne in mind that for the more complex and sophisticated equipments the limited requirements of the RAAF reduce the possibility of total Australian development and manufacture. Consideration will also be given to design and manufacture on a collaborative basis between the Australian aircraft industry and an overseas manufacturer.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 1118)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many ViP aircraft were used 10tranport Ministers and Members from Canberra after the conclusion of the censure debate on 15th May 1970.
  2. What was the (a) name of the Minister carried, (a) name of each passenger, (c) destination, (d) passenger capacity, (e) cost of the trip and (f) purpose of the trip in respect of each aircraft.
  3. Were any Members of the Opposition invited to travel on the aircraft; if not, why not.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 3 RAAF VIP Aircraft.

(2)

Army Headquarters Survey Regiment: Military Personnel (Question No. 492)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many officers, men, and members of the Womens Royal Auxiliary Army Corps are employed at the AHQ Survey Regiment at Fortuna, Bendigo.
  2. How many of these are national servicemen.
  3. How many of the total military personnel at Fortuna are married.
  4. What is the total military personnel engaged at the School of Military Survey al Bonegilla. Victoria.
  5. How many of these are permanent staff.
  6. What is the total number of personnel undergoing training at the School of Military Survey, Bonegilla.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

As at 23 March there were:

17 officers, 184 other ranks and 17 Womens Royal Auxiliary Army Corps.

26 of these are national servicemen.

115 military personnel at Fortuna are married.

119 military personnel are engaged at the School of Military Survey, Bonegilla.

33 of these are permanent staff.

There are 72 members undergoing training al the School of Military Survey, Bonegilla. A further 14, shortly to commence courses at the School or to be reposted, are engaged on localised training.

National Disaster Fund (Question No. 58)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he yet make available the results of the examination of natural disaster relief schemes operated in the United States, Canada and New Zealand (Hansard 26th September 1969, page 2133).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

In view of the wide range of natural disasters that have been experienced in Canada and the United States, the relief schemes operating in those countries involve a number of complex arrangements. This has necessitated rather more information to be acquired and more research to be undertaken than was envisaged when the project was first commenced in response to an earlier question by the Honourable Member. Partly because of this and partly because of staff shortages, the examination of the relief schemes operating in these two countries and New Zealand has not yet been completed.

Maunsell and Partners: Advice to Government (Question No. 70)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. On what dates, for what fee and for what projects have Maunsell and Partners been engaged to advise a Commonwealth department or contractor.
  2. On what dates and for what fees have Maunsell and Partners been engaged to advise a State government on a project for which the Commonwealth has been or may be asked to make a grant in advance.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Maunsell and Partners was formed as an Australian firm on 1 July 196S. The responsible Ministers have provided the following information in regard to projects for which Maunsell and Partners have been engaged since that date to advise Commonwealth Departments. The information covers the last four complete financial years since 1 July 1965- that is, 1965-66 to 1968-69:

It is not known whether contractors to the Departments have engaged Maunsell and Partners.

  1. lt is a matter for the States whom they may engage as consultants in assessing particular projects.

Housing Loans (Question No, 1235)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) interest rate and (b) maximum sum available for a housing loan obtained from the Commonwealth Savings .Bank as at 1 July 1949.
  2. What are the relevant figures at the present time.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Credit foncier housing loans to individuals were provided by the Commonwealth Bank of

Australia under Part XI of the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945-1948 from 1946 until 1952 when the Commonwealth Savings Bank assumed that business. The interest rate on such loans for new houses from the Commonwealth Bank as at 1st July 1949 was 3.875 per cent per annum and the maximum loan specified in the Act was $3,500. (The Bank did not provide credit foncier loans for existing houses until 1956.)

  1. Credit foncier housing loans to individuals are now made by the Commonwealth Savings Bank: the maximum loan for this form of lending for housing is $8,000 and the current interest rates are:

Commonwealth Bond Interest Rate (Question No. 1208)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Whatwas the (a) longest and (b) short-term Commonwealth Bond interest rate on1 January 1950.
  2. On what dates since1 January 1 950 were these rates increased, and by how much.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The long-term Commonwealth bond interest rate as at1 January 1950 was 3.125 per cent and the short-term rate was 2.0 per cent.
  2. The following tables give details of changes in the interest rate for (a) the longest-term and (b) the shortest-term securities offered in Commonwealth public loans raised since1 January 1950. These securities were issued for varying terms, and on a number of occasions they were issued at a discount. The first column shows the coupon interest rate and the second column the redemption yield after allowing forthe period of the loan andthe discount (if any) in the issue price.

Cannes International Festival (Question No. 1240)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. is it a fact that the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board recently refused to pay $70 transport costs of an Australian entry to the Cannes International Festival of Painting held on the French Riviera.
  2. Will he consider whether it would be an advantage to have Australian modern art sponsored abroad to this extent by assisting entries to the Cannes Festival of 1970.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Australia was represented at the First International Festival at Cagnes-Sur-Mer in 1969 by paintings selected by the Art Adivsory Board and sent from Australia. In view of other commitments in 1970, including a major exhibition of modern Australian painting in South East Asia, the Board recommended that the invitation to participate in the Second International Festival should be declined.

Subsequently, 10 days prior to the closing date for entries, the Australian Embassy in Paris conveyed an inquiry by the Festival organisers whether Australia could arrange participation by Australian artists in France. The Board was of the opinion that Australia should not be represented at an International festival by an artist or artists simply because they happen to be in the region at’ the time; any Australian representation had to be carefully considered and only the best representation should be sent The Board decided that it should not alter its original recommendation.

Gold Requirements (Question No. 1295)

Mr Collard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What amount of gold (in ounces) is required annually in Australia to satisfy local demand.
  2. What would be the annual cost to Australia of importing these requirements.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The net industrial consumption of gold in Australia in 1969, including gold sold for fabrication in Australia before subsequent export, was 435,482 fine ounces. Figures are not available of the amount used within Australia.
  2. The free market price of gold quoted in London on 5 June was SUS35.20 an ounce. It should be noted that the gold content of bullion imported for refining in Australia, namely 181,292 ounces in 1969, is included in figures of the total supply of gold in Australia.

Increase in Interest Rates: Undue Burden (Question No. 1306)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the recent adVice forwarded by the New South Wales Department of Local Government to local government authorities in New South Wales, following the announced increase in the Commonwealth Bond rate, of an increase in the maximum interest rates which the Loan Council is prepared to approve in respect of loan raisings by councils and other semi-governmental bodies.
  2. If so, does this increase in interest rates place an undue burden upon local government authorities a’nd. consequently, the ratepayers at a time when these local government authorities are struggling to meet the demands of development in their areas, particularly in the outer, perimeter areas of the great cities.
  3. ls it a fact that there is a need to increase public investment in these local government areas, particularly in the outer, perimeter areas.
  4. Will this increase in interest rates act as a deterrent to such public investment.
  5. If so, will he review the whole question of loan raisings with the object of relieving local government bodies of this increase in interest rates.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3), (4) and (5)

The recent increases in the maximum rates of interest which the Loan Council will approve for semi-government and local authority borrowings followed the increased rates applicable to the Commonwealth cash loan which closed on 14 May last. Rates for both Commonwealth and semigovernment and local authorities arc fixed by the Loan Council, of which the Commonwealth is a member.

The matter of interest rates is one of concern to the Loa’n Council and the recent increase in the long-term bond rate and in the rates payable by local authorities was made by the Council only aftercareful consideration of all relevant facts. It was considered, however, that interest rates payabb on public securities must be fixed competitively if significant amounts of money are to be raised on the market. It cannot therefore be said without qualification that the increase in interest rates would act as a deterrent to public investment.

State semi-government and local authorities are within the control and responsibility of the respective State Governments. All States are represented on the Loan Council and the Council is therefore most conscious of the needs of government authorities and the difficulties they face from increasing costs.

Increase in Housing Loan (Question No. 1308)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Savings Bank has increased its maximum housing loan from $8,000 to $12,000
  2. If so, when and why was this decision made.
  3. What is the prevailing interest rate on this type of loan.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following information:

The Commonwealth Savings Bank’s maximum loan under its credit foncier housing scheme is $8,000- (see also the answer given today to

Question No. 1235). However, the Bank is making mortgage loans in excess of $8,000 available in a limited number of selected cases. It is expected that such loans will generally be in the $8,000- $12,000 bracket.

The mortgage loans were introduced in April 1970 to match facilities provided by other savings banks.

The interest rale on mortgage loans ranges between 7.5 and 8% per annum.

Commonwealth Public Service: Clerical Classes (Question No. 1299)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the number of clerical classes or levels within the Commonwealth Public Service.

Mr Gorton:
LP

– I am advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. In the Third Division of the Commonwealth Services here are the following clerical/administrative classes: -
  1. In the Fourth Division of the Commonwealth Service there are the following clerical assistant grades: -

Papua and New Guinea: Patrol Officers (Question No. 1033)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What was the (a) age and (b) experience of (i) Patrol Officer Scott-Bloxam at the time of the incident on 24th September 1969 (Hansard,18th March 1970, page 564, 8th April 1970, page 886 and 7th May 1970, page 1879), (ii) Patrol Officer Lapthorne at the time of the incidents on 7th and 30th October 1969 (Hansard 6th May 1970, page 1769), (iii) Resident Magistrate Walters at the time of the Kereku cases in December 1969 (Hansard, 5th May 1970, page 1667), (iv) the Superintendent of the Kerevat Corrective Institution at the time of the leg iron cases between

December 1969 and March 1970 (Mansard, 8th May 1970, page 1941), (v) each of the police subinspectors charged in connection with the incidents near Rabaul on 4th April and (vi) the District Commissioners for these areas at these dates.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. and (b) (i) The patrol officer Mr ScottBloxam was 23 years of age. He had served in the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea for 4½ years, including 2 years as an Assistant Patrol Officer at 3 locations, and2½ years as a Patrol Officer at 3 locations,.
  2. The patrol officer Mr Lapthorne was 26 years of age. He had served in the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea for 5 years, including about 2 years as an Assistant Patrol Officer at 4 locations and the remainder as a Patrol Officer.
  3. Mr Walters was 43 years of age. He had served in Papua and New Guinea for 194 years, including 16 years as a District Administration Officer, and 3½ years as a full time Resident Magistrate. Prior to his appointment as a Resident Magistrate, Mr Walters had been a Magistrate for Hi years, including nearly 6 years in District Courts.
  4. Mr B. K. Smith was 39 years of age. He had served inPapua and New Guinea for 1 1 years, including 10 years as anofficer of the Corrective Institutions Branch. He was first appointed officer in charge of the Kerevat Corrective Institution early in 1962, but later in that year was promoted Superintendent Grade 2 at Bomana Corrective Institution, a position he held until appointed to his present position as Superintendent Grade 3 at Kerevat Corrective Institution in October 1967.
  5. Sub-Inspector Fitzgibbon is 25 years of age. He had served as a Sub-Inspector in Papua and New Guinea for 3 years. Prior to his Papua and New Guinea appointment he had served as a police cadet and constable with the Queensland Police Force for about 6 years.

Sub-Inspector Davis is 30 years of age. He had served as a Sub-Inspector in Papua and New Guinea for nearly 4 years at 4 locations. Prior to his Papua and New Guinea appointment he had served as a police cadet and constable with the New South Wales Police Force for about 9 years.

Sub-Inspector Trebilcock is 36 years of age. He had served as a Sub-Inspector inPapua and New Guinea for 4 years at 4 locations. Prior to his Papua and New Guinea appointment he had served as a police cadet and constable with the Victorian Police Force for about 9 years.

Sub-Inspector Dodd is about 35 years of age. He had served as a Sub-Inspector in Papua and New Guinea for 9 months at 3 locations. Prior to his Papua and New Guinea appointment he had served as a constable with the Victorian Police Force for 13 years.

  1. Mr Harry West, the District Commissioner East New Britain District, was 47 years of age. He has served in Papua and New Guinea for 24 years. His experience includes service as a Patrol Officer for 8 years, Assistant District Officer for 4 years, District Inspector for 3 years, Deputy

District Commissioner for 3 years and since 1965 as a District Commissioner. For a period of 6 months from June 1958 Mr West served as the Administrator’s liaison officer with the Dutch Administration in Hollandia. In May and June 1967 he was special representative for New Guinea on the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Trusteeship Council.

Mr Errol John Emanuel who acted as District Commissioner East New Britain for part of this time was 51 years of age and has served in Papua and New Guinea for 24 years. His experience includes 8 years as a patrol officer, 8 years as an Assistant District Officer, 1 year as a District Officer, 6 years as an Acting District Commissioner. On a number of occasions since 1963 Mr Emanuel has served as an acting District Commissioner at Rabaul, Samarai and Mendi. Since January 1970 he has been Deputy District Commissioner on special duty in Rabaul.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 June 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700612_reps_27_hor68/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant