House of Representatives
28 August 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE TAPPING
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- DRIED VINE FRUITS
QUESTION
- SUGAR
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- EDUCATION
QUESTION
- OIL POLLUTION
QUESTION
- MIRAGE AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD: NOONGAH’ INQUIRY
QUESTION
- DROUGHT RELIEF
QUESTION
- BANKRUPTCY
QUESTION
- CAMBODIA
QUESTION
- ASTHMA
ENGINEERING SERVICES, ALICE SPRINGS
- Report of Public Works Committee
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1970-71
- Second Reading (Budget Debate)
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

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

page 695

PETITIONS

Censorship

Mr TURNER presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Bradfield respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned al what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; anc) partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being part and parcel of the law of the land” (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution’, Page 951): and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November. 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased1 -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received and read.

Censorship

Mr FOX presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Henty respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lower extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution’, Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November, 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr SCHOLES presented the following peition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Corio respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned al what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly becau.se obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being ‘part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November. 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community. And your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Censorship

Sir JOHN CRAMER presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Bennelong respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being ‘part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution.’ Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November, 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr GRASSBY presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ot the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Riverina respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee. have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of

Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution’, page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr ERWIN presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Ballaarat respectfully showeth

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes:

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay, and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being ‘part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr LUCHETTI presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Macquarie respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and. to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact chat historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being ‘part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australias Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards’ in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr JARMAN presented the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Deakin respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of

Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than S0% of Australians, besides being part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14 November, 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

And your petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr IRWIN presented the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of electors of Mitchell respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises pardy from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14 November, 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr JAMES presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The Humble Petition of electors of Hunter respectfully showeth:

That they are gravely concerned at what they consider to be the adverse effect on moral standards in the Australian community of the increasing portrayal and description of obscenity, sexual licence, promiscuity and violence in films, books, magazines, plays and, to a lesser extent, television and radio programmes;

That their concern arises partly from the fact that historians, such as J. D. Unwin and Arnold Toynbee, have shown that nearly all nations which have perished have done so because of internal moral decay; and partly because obscenity and indecency are contrary to the teachings of Christianity which is the acknowledged religion of more than 80% of Australians, besides being ‘part and parcel of the law of the land’ (Quick and Garran in ‘Commentaries on the Australian Constitution,’ Page 951); and

That, in accordance with the findings of the Australian Gallup Poll, published in the Melbourne Herald on 14th November 1969, the majority of Australian citizens want censorship either maintained or increased -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on censorship of films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr DOBIE presented the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The Humble Petition of electors of the suburb of Caringbah in the Division of Cook respectfully showeth:

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

Petition received.

Censorship

Mr KING presented the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of certain citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr LES JOHNSON presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas

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 inequalities.

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.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision 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, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.

The provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Or JENKINS presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ot the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The bumble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas

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.

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.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision 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, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.

The provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr SCHOLES presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas

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.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for:

The allowance of personal educational expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr LES JOHNSON presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled :

The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas

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.

200.000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary

I Institutions, and their parents suffer severe I penalty inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honorable House make legal provision for:

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expense.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr MARTIN presented the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon (he Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with ACTU 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.

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

And your petitioners as in duly bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr COHEN presented the following petition:

To Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We 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 ACTU 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.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition so that our citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr BIRRELL presented the following petition:

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

That due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions, are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We 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 ACTU 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.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition; so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr LES JOHNSON presented the following petition:

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

That due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions, are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We 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 ACTU 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.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition; so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr SCHOLES presented the following petition:

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

That due to the higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of the average weekly male earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowance in accordance with ACTU policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 701

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral a question. The honourable gentleman will have been disturbed that so senior an official as the Director of Posts and Telegraphs in South Australia should have misunderstood the telephone tapping legislation, and that so senior a Minister as the Postmaster-General should have admitted that the provisions of the Act and possibly the regulations are ambiguous. What steps is the Attorney-General taking to tighten up this legislation in order to preserve the rights of citizens using telephones which, under the Constitution, are a Commonwealth monopoly?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have already had preliminary consultations with one of my officers concerning the provisions of section 4 (2.) of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act in particular. I have undertaken this investigation with a view to considering whether it would be useful or appropriate to amend the legislation so as to put in clear perspective the situation which we want the legislation to achieve.

page 701

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it correct that landing charges for international flights into and out of Australia are now 3i times the world average? If we are encouraging tourist trade, as are most countries, what is the reason for these high charges? Will the Government reassess the long term results of these charges and review their total impact on Australia?

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

– I can appreciate the concern of the honourable member in relation to this matter. Some reference was made to it yesterday by my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation in another place. It is a matter that is causing some concern to airline operators. The facts are that Australia has an enormous rate of expenditure on a large number of airports so as to provide facilities over a very large area, and although the domestic traffic is high by world standards the international traffic is still low by world standards. The land mass - the sheer geography of the country - creates problems in this regard. It has always been a policy here and in other countries to recover as much as possible from the people who use the services. The increase on this occasion is in accordance with that policy. Although some objections to the increases have been raised by airlines, the total amount to be gained from the increase this year will be $1.8m which will be only about 21% of the total expended during the year on the maintenance and operation of airport facilities. This amount represents about 50c a head, on average, for all passengers travelling by air to and from Australia. So 1 doubt whether this would really have the impact on tourism that has been indicated by overseas airline operators. However, 1 will ensure that the points raised by the honourable member are drawn to the attention of my colleague in another place.

page 702

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS

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

– The honourable member for Darling referred to the predicament facing the Australian dried vine fruits industry and asked whether the Government intended to give a lead in the matter. Last year T had lengthy negotiations with representatives of the dried vine fruits industry about extending the industry stabilisation scheme for a further 5 years. We reached agreement on this scheme, which had a heavy Government subvention to it. but when it was put to a poll of growers there was lack of support for it. So at the moment there is no stabilisation scheme for the dried vine fruits industry, which covers currants, sultanas and raisins. However, I believe that the Dried Vine Fruits Association will submit another request to me to see whether another poll of growers might be taken on the proposal that they rejected last year, but as yet no formal application has been made to me. As to the planting of a certain variety of grape, I am sorry J am not up to date on this aspect, but 1 will be happy to ascertain the position and let the honourable member know.

page 702

QUESTION

SUGAR

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. I refer to what has been called the stirring speech of the Prime Minister yesterday at the conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in which the Prime Minister appealed to developed nations to help feed the millions of hungry people still existing throughout the world - an admirable concept and one which, I am sure, is applauded. Will the Prime Minister put his words into practice by ensuring that his Government will not tolerate the deliberate and wasteful destruction of a proportion of this year’s sugar crop following a fortuitous season because, if carried out, this destruction would be an act of folly which would earn Australia nothing but ridicule and contempt throughout the nations of the world. Finally, will the Prime Minister confer on this subject wilh the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry, to see at least that the storage opportunities available to Australia under the International Sugar Agreement in the event of fortuitous and periodic circumstances are availed of?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am very pleased to have the unsolicited testimony from the honourable member regarding the address I made yesterday morning. I did point out in the course of that address the great problems and tasks that were before the countries of the world in trying to make sure that there was sufficient food to overcome hunger, and I directed some attention towards the paradox of the production which was able to come from so many countries - not Australia alone, but so many countries - but side by side with that the incapacity to sell this on world markets. I think that we would all be agreed that anything that we can do in conjunction with other countries to assist the hungry of the world must attract our attention and our support, and I think that the best thing I can do in this field is to provide a copy of the speech to the honourable member so that he need not go on newspaper reports but he can read all that was in it.

page 703

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board has stated that 2 substantial sales of wheat have been made to the United Arab Republic. Will the Minister tell the House the terms on which these sales were made? What effect will these shipments have on carry-over stocks? Will the same terms and conditions apply to shipments against the 3-year agreement with the United Arab Republic?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– We commenced negotiations with the United Arab Republic about two to three months ago and were fortunate to make a sale of 500,000 tons of f.a.q. wheat. We then managed to negotiate a further sale of another 250,000 tons of wheat, which made a total sale of 750,000 tons, a very substantial sale to that country I am pleased to say that, at the conclusion of those negotiations, senior representatives of the United Arab Republic came to Australia. We were able to negotiate a 3-year contract for 1 million tons of wheat a year, which is a very substantial sale. The terms of the sale of the 750,000 tons of wheat that we have arranged for this year are 10% at the time of shipment with the balance being paid in equal yearly instalments over a 3-year period.

I mention also that the price of wheat has been showing increasing activity on the London market. Since 13 th August, the price has gone up $3.75 a ton on that market. Apparently, the reason for this substantial increase is the flooding and bad seasonal conditions in eastern Europe, the very heavy curtailment of production in North America and also the effects of leaf blight which is hitting the maize crop in the United States. Information has just come through on this topic. Apparently there is a very serious disease problem in the southern States of the United States. It appears that the very large quantities of maize which those States produce each year could be cut back substantially because of this leaf blight. As a result there is increasing price activity on the London market. But I hope that wheat growers will not become too optimistic.

Although the drought conditions in Australia are curbing delivery estimates this year - the latest estimate being about 225 million bushels - there will still be a substantial carryover, estimated at about 280 million bushels at the start of next year’s harvest. So with a crop of 225 million bushels it means we will have a total amount of over 500 million bushels on hand. If we manage to dispose of the same quantity as we disposed of this year - and it is a record of 347 million bushels - we still have a carryover of 1 55 million bushels. This is a much more attractive and healthy position than we were in last year but it is still a large carryover. It costs the industry a lot of money to hold this wheat but the overall position is much better now than it has been in the last 2 years.

page 703

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr ENDERBY:

– In the absence of the Minister for Education and Science I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House what stage has been reached in making public the results of the surveys by the States of their educational needs? Does he agree that full details of the original surveys and their results should be made public as soon as possible?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I cannot tell the honourable member what stage has been reached other than that I understand that the State Ministers concerned have been meeting. They have met, they have been discussing the publication of this survey. But I cannot tell the honourable member any more than that.

page 703

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport will be aware of the serious concern I have frequently expressed to him at the possibility of a serious oil spillage in Botany Bay. Is the Minister aware that in the last 2 days a spillage has occurred in that area? If he is aware, is he in a position to tell the House precisely what did happen on this occasion? Furthermore, will he say what can be done to ensure that there will not be a repetition of the event which has caused serious and well justified concern to the residents of Kurnell, a small township which, honourable members will recall, was so recently the national focal point of the Captain Cook bi-centenary celebrations?

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

– It is true that the honourable member has on many occasions expressed to me his concern at the effect of any oil spillage occurring in the Botany Bay area. Unfortunately in this instance it was a result of human error. I understand that somewhere between SO to 200 gallons of high viscosity oil was washed ashore in the vicinity of Kurnell during the afternoon of Monday, 24th August. Apparently the discharge occurred as a result of human error in transfer operations on board a ship called the ‘Caltex Port Kembla’. Honourable members might be interested to know some of the details of the difficulties experienced in removing the oil which, in fact, involved some 40 to SO men with spray emulsifiers. It was shovelled into 44-gallon drums and taken away in trucks. There were some 10 truck loads. The operation took approximately 3 days. I think this effectively demonstrates something of the difficulties which occur for residents in areas where oil seepage is likely to occur.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And the oil farmers.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– And the oil farmers, as the honourable member has suggested. As far as action against the owners of the vessel is concerned, as the spillage took place within the enclosed waters of Botany Bay the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales, as the authority responsible for taking action both in cleaning the foreshores and against the owners of the vessel, I understand is at this stage examining the question of prosecution of the ship concerned.

On the broader aspect which the honourable member also mentioned there have been discussions over a period of time between port authorities, State governments and the Commonwealth Government to determine what measures should be adopted to ensure that throughout Australia there is a national plan capable of being implemented in the event of oil spillage. There have been quite a considerable number of discussions in this field. A further discussion on a national basis will take place next month in Canberra, and I am hoping that as a result an effective plan will be formulated.

I might add that as a result of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ grounding last year in Torres Strait it has been found that there are some deficiencies in the implementation of a programme for the cleaning up of spillage, although in general the very effec tive operation of that campaign is a tribute to the men who work in the Commonwealth and State departments concerned. The final result, as honourable members know, was that no serious damage was occasioned in spite of the apparent very serious threat. Similarly in this instance at Kurnell I believe that, although residents in the area were put to some disadvantage, as a result of the efficient and rapid way in which the cleaning up operations were conducted no immediate or long term damage has been or will be done to the foreshores.

page 704

QUESTION

MIRAGE AIRCRAFT

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. I ask: What stage has been reached in the Royal Australian Air Force’s assessment of a replacement for the Mirage III-O aircraft? Has the Minister seen a report in the technical journal ‘Flight International’ of 18th June which claims that the assessment is concentrating on the Mirage FI? fs this report correct? If not, what other aircraft are being considered by the RAAF?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is too early yet for any firm recommendation to be made by the RAAF to me or by me to the Government on the replacement of the Mirage, which is still a front line aircraft of world reputation. It still has several years of very useful life ahead of it. To obtain maximum Australian production of whatever the replacement might be we probably need to make a decision 5 or 6 years before we begin to phase out the Mirage. The end of the current life expectancy of the present Mirage aircraft is 1977 or 1978, although experience gained over the next year or two could well extend the life of the current aircraft to some extent. But 1977 or 1978 is the date at which I believe we might need to begin replacement of the present Mirage. Therefore we have 2 years or perhaps a little longer before the Air Force should make a firm recommendation to mc. ft may not be quite as long as that but I think it will probably be about 2 years. This would govern the timing of my recommendation to the Government.

The Mirage FI is one of the aircraft which the RAAF has looked at generally as a possible replacement. Other aircraft are being developed in the United States of

America; I am not quite sure of all the types. At present the Air Force is taking a general look at all the developments in this area and over the next period it will obviously intensify its evaluation of aircraft which would most closely meet Australia’s requirements. The real point here is that a decision is not imminent and a recommendation to me is not imminent, but we will be wanting to make a decison in sufficient time to get maximum Australian production when we reach that point.

page 705

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affiars. Has the Minister seen a translation of a major policy statement by Le Duan Secretary-General of the Communist Party of North Vietnam? Does this report destroy forever the fondly held illusion that there has been a civil war in South Vietnam? Finally, does Le Duan make it abundantly clear that from the beginning North Vietnam has manipulated and controlled the entire situation in South Vietnam from Hanoi?

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

– I have read part of the various statements and declarations that have been made by Le Duan, who is the First Secretary of the North Vietnamese Communist Party. They are revealing documents. First I should mention to the House some of the principles that Le Duan has put in these documents and statements. He states that there are some inviolable principles which govern the actions of the North Vietnamese Communist Party. The first one is that its objectives must be achieved by revolutionary force . and by violence. Consequently, once this is recognised, and if his views can be given their literal value, there is little prospect of any kind of settlement around a negotiating table. Secondly - this is important and goes to the heart of the question asked by the honourable gentleman - he makes it clear also that it is the Communist Party itself which will determine the future of North and South Vietnam and that it is the Communist Party alone and not the peasantry which will determine the composition of the government.

As these policies and principles are determined by force and by revolutionary warfare, it is implicit in everything he says that the method of conquest of South Vietnam will be by aggression. He goes further and says that this aggression is instigated, controlled and assisted by the Communist regime in Hanoi. If this is accepted then those who have previously argued that this is civil war in South Vietnam no longer have any grounds on which they can base their argument, particularly if they take great notice of what is said by the Communist Party in Hanoi.

page 705

QUESTION

MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD: NOONGAH’ INQUIRY

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Have members of the Merchant Service Guild of Australia withdrawn their services because the Guild’s assets have been garnisheed for legal costs arising from its representation before the ‘Noongah’ Court of Marine Inquiry? Did Mr Justice Spicer find no wrongdoing on the part of the Guild members and, whilst making no order for costs, did the judge say that he was sure that an application for payment of the Guild’s costs would be sympathetically considered by the Government? Has the Guild applied 4 times to the Department of Shipping and Transport for the payment of its costs and has the Department so far neither granted nor refused the application? Is the delay in making a decision in the Merchant Service Guild case due to the Minister’s Department or, as the case of the defence services, is it in the Treasury?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– As I understand the position it is true that action has been taken to garnishee the account of the Merchant Service Guild and that consequently members of the Guild have intimated that they intend to withdraw their services from the operation of vessels around the Australian coast. It is true also that at the time of the ‘Noongah’ inquiry the Merchant Service Guild and the Seamen’s Union of Australia each briefed counsel to appear before the inquiry to act on behalf of members of the Guild and the Seamen’s Union respectively. It is true also that the Merchant Service Guild had in the past taken out an insurance policy which it believed covered legal costs which it would incur in briefing counsel before such an inquiry. I believe that there has been some breakdown in the understanding between the Guild and the insurance company, as a result of which the insurance company has not met the legal fees which the Guild incurred. In the result, the Guild is now being called on to meet counsel’s fees.

The judgment handed down by his honour Mr Justice Spicer was in the form to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred and in consequence both the Guild and the Seamen’s Union have made application to the Government for a consideration of whether there should be a reimbursement of the costs incurred by both the Guild and the Seamen’s Union. Not unnaturally, considering that this application had been made, I am disappointed that action has been taken by those who act on behalf of counsel to garnishee the account of the Merchant Service Guild. As an application was before the Government, f would have thought that they would have waited until a decision had been made by the Government before taking action against the Guild’s account. It is true that an application has been made to the Government and is receiving consideration at present.

Mr Whitlam:

– Was there anything before that?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There have been discussions. It is also true that there was an insurance policy. Because there was an insurance policy and because the Guild was under the firm impression that it covered the fees payable to counsel for appearances before such an inquiry there are complications which are not ordinary ones. It is also true that I believe and the Government believes it is highly desirable that the parties to such a maritime inquiry should be adequately represented in any action. It is for these reasons that the Government is giving urgent consideration to the application which was made by the Guild and the Union. When I am in a position to make an announcement in reply to both the Guild and the Union I will do so.

page 706

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the Commonwealth has rejected an application by the Western Australian Government for drought assistance? If so, will he indicate the reasons for refusing the request of the Western Australian Government, in view of the large amounts which have been made available jj) recent years to other areas pf Australia which have been so affected? What criteria are adopted by the Government in reaching decisions on the applications of State governments for drought assistance? Is the Prime Minister aware that areas within the State of Western Australia are experiencing very dry conditions again this year? Finally, will he review the situation with a view to making assistance available to that State?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the question is yes. It has always been the policy of the Government to expect the States to meet the costs of drought or other damage which can be held to be reasonably within their competence and capacity to meet. In other instances, in States where drought assistance has been given by the Commonwealth that has been done only after it has been believed that the cost involved was much more than the State itself could be expected to meet from its own resources. In the case of Western Australia, from memory the total cost involved was under $2m. That is a cost which could reasonably be expected to be met by the Government of Western Australia which, if I recollect correctly, and I believe I do, stated not so long ago that it was ceasing all drought assistance because of an improvement in conditions.

page 706

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. 1 ask: In view of the Government’s announced intention to stay bankruptcy proceedings against primary producers in drought areas, will the Prime Minister inform the House what action the Government intends to take to protect the position of the business people and creditors in country towns who are bearing the financial load of providing what are in effect compulsory, non-interest bearing, long term loans which could result in their bankruptcy?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– As announced by the Attorney-General, the Government proposes to amend the Federal Bankruptcy Act in a way which will enable creditors m fact to be protected rather than mulcted. I do not think we can go into a discussion of which particular persons in which particular category and which particular trade or whatever it might be are going to be affected, i think the best thing is to discuss the proposed amendments to the Act when they come before the House.

page 707

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affairs. In view of the admitted aggression by North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia and South Vietnam, why is it that the Australian Government appears to be pursuing a different policy with respect to the 2 countries? In particular, why is it that Australian combat troops have not been assigned to Cambodia?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I am glad that the honourable gentleman has stated again in this House that there has been naked aggression by the North Vietnamese in both Cambodia and South Vietnam. As to why there has not been comparable treatment, particularly in the provision of combat forces, the simple answer is that the Cambodians have not asked for the provision of manpower. They have stated on several occasions that they have sufficient manpower themselves. What they do need is every other kind of aid. whether it happens to be military or civil. As I have already announced in the House, in this year’s Budget we have provided for civil aid of the order of SI. 100,000, and our options are still open if we choose to do more.

page 707

QUESTION

ASTHMA

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I presume that he has received correspondence from the Asthma Action Society and is aware that there are more than 600,000 asthmatics in Australia and that deaths from asthma double every 6 years. Will he give favourable consideration to a grant of S600,000 to establish clinics to advise the medical profession of the method used by Dr James of Wollongong, who has proved that his method of treatment without drugs is successful on patients suffering from asthma? I have proof of this in my own family.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have received a considerable number of representations on this subject, both from members of this Parlia ment and from members of the public, mainly initiated by the Asthma Action Society. The position on this matter is that Dr James and many of his patients have made claims in respect of this particular method of treating asthma. On the initiative of the New South Wales health authorities, this was considered by the committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council which exists for the specific purpose of evaluating methods of medical treatment. The Council advises the State and Commonwealth Governments.

The committee made an evaluation on the basis of information given to it by Dr James and, although it formed the view that this method does produce satisfactory results, it felt that there was nothing sufficiently unusual in the method to justify the sort of action suggested by the honourable gentlemen. Now Dr James has disputed that and has since said that the committee of the National Health unci Medical Research Council did not have the full information in relation to this matter before it. To that, one might reply that the reason why the committee did not have the full information before it is that Dr James did not give it to the committee. But since Dr James has made this claim he has been asked to provide this further information and the committee will be considering that and making a judgment on it. In respect of the specific matter of whether the Commonwealth Government will make available a grant to set up clinics, I make the point to the honourable gentlemen that the provision of health services is a matter for the States and that any particular request along those lines should be directed to the State governments.

page 707

ENGINEERING SERVICES, ALICE SPRINGS

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Engineering Services to Sub-Divisions of Racecourse West, Morris Soak and Bradshaw Drive at Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 708

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1970-71

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 27 August (vide page 679), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Whitlam had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: This House condemns this deceptive and negative Budget because it fails to meet the real needs of the Australian people, especially with respect to (a) standards of social service and war pensioners, (b) assistance to school, hospital and urban authorities and (c) restructuring of stricken primary industries and because it introduces and increases taxes and charges of a regressive and inequitable nature’.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– Before referring to the Budget, I should like to pay a tribute to the late honourable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes). This is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I believe that no man did more for Australia than did the late Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes, in the sporting field, in war time and in civic affairs. He was a true statesman. He certainly will be missed not only in this House but also throughout Australia and, no doubt, throughout the world. I pay a tribute to him.

Referring to the Budget, I commence by quoting from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in reply to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury). The Leader of the Opposition said:

Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses. If the motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.

A statement such as that coming from the Leader of the Opposition needs a lot of consideration both inside and outside this House. Repeatedly we have heard members of the Opposition say that they want to go to the people. I think it was the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) who pointed out yesterday that it is only a few months since the last election. Recently a lot has been said about law and order. I believe that if we did go to the people the question of law and order would be the first thing put to them. I am sure that the people fully realise the nature of the alternative Government. If we did go to the people on that issue I am sure that the Liberal and Country Parties would be returned to office with more numbers than we have at present. In recent times we have heard and read of many incidents that the Australian people are not prepared to accept. In this chamber we have seen honourable members defying Mr Speaker. We have read of and seen certain honourable members organising moratoriums and similar demonstrations against the wishes of the people.

One of the most serious statements of all came from the only Labor Premier in Australia, Mr Dunstan of South Australia. He said that if he was of the age he would not register for national service. I think we should analyse his statement. He is the Premier of a State and yet he is inciting people to break the law. I have no doubt that at some time in the future he will be responsible as Premier for passing legislation which he will expect South Australians to accept and to obey. His attitude to national service is, in effect: ‘We make the laws. If you do not agree with them, you can break them.’ How long would a country last under those conditions? The first essential in any country is to abide by law and order and I object very strongly to Mr Dunstan’s statement. I am sure that my view is shared by the people of Australia.

As is the case with all Budgets, people say that it is this or that. In my time here I have not heard of a good or popular Budget. They are all said to be bad, but some are said to be worse than others. However, when it comes to election time the people recognise whether they are good or bad, or worse than others. They have for many years now put the responsibility of office back on the shoulders of the existing Government. Undoubtedly this proves what people really think of the budgets that have been presented by this Government over the years.

Australia’s economy is going through a tough time at present, one reason being the drop in world prices for our goods. Another important factor is that over the last 3 years droughts have occurred in every mainland State. Yet another factor is the increase in costs caused by a greater demand for higher living standards and shorter working hours. I believe those to be the 3 main influences on the economy. During the election campaign last year the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) promised a reduction in income tax. People who are fortunate enough to have a reasonable income will receive in this Budget the benefit of thai reduction, but this will not help the people who have little or no income. You cannot have less than nothing and this is the unfortunate position of people in many of out primary industries today.

The Budget also provides for increased revenue from higher excise and sales tax amounting to about $240m. lt is estimated that the reduction in income tax will cost in a full year between $289m and $290m. The Budget also provides for considerable extra grants. Our national welfare expenditure is to be increased by $148m and expenditure on capital works by $78m. The biggest beneficaries are the States because they are to receive increases of about $291 m. About $77m is to be paid to rural industries.

Probably the Stale Premiers would nol be prepared to agree but 1 am sure that the increased allocation to the States of $29 1m will assist them greatly. T am sometimes annoyed to hear people say: ‘The State Government can do something. Why cannot you fellows do something?’ As the Commonwealth gives the money to the States, it is up to the States to do what these people require. You cannot have it in both places. lt is very easy for the Opposition to be critical on various aspects of the Budget. I could also be critical because 1 would like to see greater handouts and reductions in excise, taxation and other charges. Certain sections of the community would agree with me, but if our costs are to be kept within reason and inflation kept as low as possible we must limit our expenses. That is the first fundamental.

Perhaps I am obliged now to say that the very worst facet of the Budget is the increase in execise on petroleum products. 1 am pleased that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), is at the table at the moment. The extra revenue to be gained from increased excise on petroleum products is estimated at about S77m This increase in cost will have a big influence on transport costs. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr

Calder) has informed me that little rail transport is available in the Northern Territory. Consequently people there are dependent on road transport for the bulk of their goods.

Primary industries generally will be very adversely affected by the increased cost of petroleum products. They will find an extra fuel cost of 3c a gallon difficult to carry. Although the Leader of the Opposition spoke for over an hour he did not mention that point. 1 urge the Treasurer in consultation with other Ministers to endeavour to remove this increase in excise as early as possible. I want also to refer to social service and repatriation benefits. They are to be increased slightly. The real question is whether the increases are sufficient, but bearing in mind general increases in costs an increase of 50c in the base pension is perhaps not as bad as it would first appear. I think it was the Postmaster-General who said yesterday that when today’s base rate pension is compared with that of 20 years ago, when we came into office, it will be seen that the present pension is worth a lot more than the pension of that time. I believe it is a sound principle to keep a close association between the base rate pension and the minimum wage, but I do not suggest for one moment that every time there is a rise in wages in one section of the community the pension rate should be increased. That method would become completely unworkable.

Many people are dissatisfied with the pension increase of SOc. If times are reasonably good I believe a larger increase is possible. 1 turn now to deal with repatriation benefits, and appropriately the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) is now in the chamber. The increase in the rate of pension for totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners is $2, and that is certainly appreciated. The increase of $1.50 in the intermediate rate is also good. However, I am disappointed that there has still not been an increase in the base rate of pension for repatriation pensions although a slight increase has been granted in the special compensation allowance. I could go into a lot more detail but time will not permit me to do so. Social service and repatriation benefits have improved and an attempt has been made to rectify some of the anomalies. The double orphan payment has been increased by $1.85 and payments in respect of long term sickness in some instances have been doubled.

I wish now to deal briefly with our rural industries. Although the Leader of the Opposition spoke for an hour, as I said earlier, and did refer to the rural industries, it did not take him very long. In fact he devoted 69 words to the rural industries.

Mr Pettitt:

– It took him about 30 seconds.

Mr KING:

– That is so. I do not have time now to read that section of the honourable gentleman’s speech, but it is worth studying. Most of those 69 words covered what the Government is doing and hardly a word was devoted to what the Opposition would try to do for rural industries. I was also interested to note that although this is the fourth day of this debate only 1 member of the Opposition - the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) - has bothered to go into any detail in respect of primary industries. Having listened to the honourable member last night I think members of the Opposition would be much better off if they kept him off primary industry subjects because he appears to me to know very little about this field.

Perhaps some honourable members may have read a report in a Sydney newspaper of 19th August to the effect that the Australian Labor Party’s move to delay a debate on drought was deadlocked. Maybe there is some truth in this. After listeneing to the various contributions to this debate from the other side of the House I can see that honourable members opposite have little interest in primary industries. I am glad to see that the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) is in the chamber. I hope that before this debate is over we will hear more from the honourable member on primary industry. Perhaps I should deal with the atitudes of the Australian Labor Party towards primary industry a little later because there are a few points which I would now like to draw to the attention of the House.

I would like to quote a passage from the report in the Sydney newspaper that I have mentioned. Referring to a statement by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) the report stated:

He also said he feared the party was becoming identified with those who thought subsidies to inefficient farmers were a solution to the rural crisis.

Today’s debate in the party room was the latest in a series of clashes in which younger members, mainly from the cities, have opposed proposals put forward particularly by Dr R. F. Patterson and Mr A. Grassby.

It appears to me that these people are not cutting any ice any longer. I do not have time to go into details and I must push along. I fully appreciate the attitude of the members referred to in that newspaper report because since coming to the House the honourable member for Riverina has made some fantastic statements, as some of my colleagues in the Country Party have just reminded me by way of interjection. The honourable member for Riverina is reported in Hansard of 5th March 1970 as saying that the Government had made about $51m available to the fertiliser companies. He went on to say that this money was going to the manufacturers and not finding its way to the consumers of superphosphate. I ask the honourable member for Riverina: How does he account for the fact that the price of superphosphate today is ever so much cheaper than it was in 1961? The actual price in Victoria in 1961 was $21.20. In 1963 the price was reduced to $12.45 by way a a bounty of $6 which was originally introduced by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) who was Minister for Primary Industry at the time. I admit that there was a slight increase in the price of superphosphate in 1966. But why was there an increase? The increase was caused by an increase in the world price of sulphur and of Nauruan rock. In 1968 the bounty was further increased, again bringing down the price. Earlier this year the bounty was increased again by $4 and the price for superphosphate is $14.80. How can the honourable member for Riverina say that the money made available by the Government is going to the manufacturers and not finding its way to the primary producers? This of course, is not so.

The honourable member for Riverina also said on one occasion that the Australian wheat industry is in difficulty not because of overproduction but because of underselling.

Mr Grassby:

– That is right.

Mr KING:

– It sounds all right until we start to look at a few facts and figures. We find that last year the Australian Wheat Board sold more wheat than in any other year with the exception of 1 or 2 years.

The actual sales in the last wheat year were made up of 56m bushels sold within Australia and 242m bushels sold outside Australia. This year the estimate for home consumption is again 56m bushels and the estimate for overseas sales is 290m bushels. This will be a record.

Mr Grassby:

– lt is a good effort.

Mr KING:

– It is a very good effort and I am glad to hear the honourable member say this. But why does he turn around and say that wheat producers are in difficulty because of underselling? The honourable member is confusing the people, and particularly the wheat growers, on this issue.

The honourable member for Riverina has made many statements; indeed, Mr Chairman, I cannot keep up with his statements. He preaches them in the House and he goes outside and preaches them to various organisations. They are confusing the wheat growers and the taxpayers throughout Australia. The honourable member has referred to what he calls black marketing. He is reported in one newspaper as saying that black market sales of wheat have been estimated over the 1969-70 season to have reached 50 million bushels. The most wheat we have ever sold for stock feed purposes in Australia is about 30 million bushels - J think, to be precise, that the figure was 28 million bushels. Together with many other members of the Australian Country Party 1 have been concerned about this statement because I know and my colleagues know that these figures of 50 million bushels sold by way of over-border trading are very much exaggerated. Secondly, of course, this trade is not. black marketing; it is quite legitimate under section 92 of the Constitution. 1 have made a lot of inquiries about this matter. Living very close to the South Australian border I can keep a very watchful eye on what is taking place. I have checked with a number of buyers, sellers, agents and other people and have come to the conclusion that the estimate made by the Australian Wheat Board is pretty factual and that a total amount of approximately $ million bushels of wheat is being traded between South Australia and Victoria. I think I can see the honourable member for Riverina nodding his head either in agreement or disagreement - I am not quite sure which.

Mr Grassby:

– J do not query your South Australian figures.

Mr KING:

– All right, the honourable member does not query those figures. My calculation of i million bushels coincides with the estimate made by the Australian Wheat Board. Let us now consider the situation as between New South Wales and Victoria. Last year stock feed sales in New South Wales amounted to some 2 million bushels, according to the Australian Wheat Board figures. Despite all the black marketing referred to by the honourable member for Riverina sales this year are expected to bc 31 million bushels, lt is also agreed that because of the dry conditions the consumption of wheat for stock feed purposes has increased substantially. I do not have time to quote all of the figures but they show that there will be a maximum increase of 2 J million bushels into New South Wales. In Victoria last year, or the year before the present wheat season, we sold 1 million bushels for stock feed purposes. This year sales for stock feed purposes are practically nil. It is also suggested that we are consuming a lot more wheat for stock feed purposes. It is said that the amount has doubled or even trebled. But even if it has trebled we find that perhaps 2 million bushels of wheat ure necessary for Victoria. If we add up all these amounts what sort of figure do we come up with? The amount of wheal sold over the border is between 5i million bushels and 6i million bushels. I believe that the statements of the honourable member for Riverina are very misleading to the growers and to the people of Australia. I also suggest that they are doing a very great disservice not only to the wheat industry but also to the Australian Wheat Board.

I have only a few minutes of my speech left so 1 will push on to another subject. I agree that the rural industry is in trouble. There is no disputing this. The situation in the wool industry represents one of the biggest problems we are faced with at present, and that problem is reflected in other sections of rural industry. For 100 years wool has been Australia’s greatest export earner and despite the reduction in price it is still our greatest single export commodity. But right now we are facing the biggest challenge that has confronted us in the last 100 years. Increased costs fad low wool prices have resulted in a reduction of growers’ profits which are now at a record low level. The actual price is the lowest it has been since the early 1930s, and the price is still receding. Wool growers are in financial difficulties, and many of t hem have lost all their equity.

To date, as I said previously, little has been said from the Opposition benches in the way of suggestions to improve the position. Honourable members opposite say that the Government should do something. Of course, it is very easy to say that the Government should do something. I want to point out to honourable members opposite that this Government is not prepared to do just the first thing that is suggested to it. The all important point is that the Government, through the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) and the Department of Primary Industry, in conjunction with many honourable members on this side of the House, is working solidly in an endeavour to find a solution to the problems facing the wool industry. But as I said, we are not prepared just to accept the first suggestion that is made to us. We have always adopted the principle of working in co-operation with the industry, and this is, of course, what we will do in the future. But the Government, the Party that I represent, and all my colleagues are very conscious of the necessity to try to find a solution to the problems facing the wool industry.

We have made the first move by making a grant of $30m to the industry. This is not the total answer to the problem. This grant virtually is to assist only those wool growers in the drought stricken areas who are in real financial difficulties. It certainly will be of little assistance to wool growers in Victoria. I believe that the ultimate answer is something of a more long term nature, such as improving our marketing principles. This is something we have to do. I believe that when we do introduce some new scheme it will be one which will be of great advantage to the industry as a whole.

If I were to make a recommendation to the Government, this is what I would suggest: Firstly, in consultation with the industry we have to expedite the establishment of a statutory marketing authority, and in establishing this statutory marketing authority we have to supply the best brains possible to run it. Even if it means sacking every member of the present Australian Wool Board, we must have the best brains possible. Secondly, we should place more emphasis on the importance of research into the presale core testing with a view ultimately to disposing of the Australian clip by sale on a sample principle. I hope that we would even get to the stage where we would be able almost to sell our wool over the telephone, instead of selling it under the old fashioned system that is in operation today. I am informed that this alone can save approximately $15 a bale in handling charges. Thirdly, we should examine further the indebtedness of the industry with a view to providing some financial assistance on an interest subsidy basis. These are some suggestions that I would like to put before the Government at the present time.

My time has nearly expired. 1 did want to refer to the latest move by the Government to upgrade all country telephone services. No doubt a Bill will shortly be introduced into this House and I will have an opportunity then to speak on this question. But I did want to give special thanks to the Postmaster-General, because whilst we have had many battles with him and he has been very definite in his views, I must say that he has been very co-operative and he has assisted all those who have placed their problems before him. On behalf of my constituents and, I am sure, on behalf of many constituents throughout the length and breadth of Australia, I can say that the principle of deleting the old formula of unit system and substituting the system of allowing every new line to extend for a radius of 15 miles will certainly be of great assistance to people in country areas.

After all, there have been some unfortunate instances where people in country areas have had to spend a lot of money on providing telephone services. I will speak about this matter in detail at some future date but, in the meantime, I can assure these subscribers that if they have erected their lines since 1st January 1969 they will be compensated, to some degree. Details of that matter will be given later. But I must say to those people who erected their lines under the old scheme prior to 1st January 1969 that it is the Department’s desire eventually to take over the maintenance of their lines. However, I remind these subscribers that there are many thousand of such lines and this work cannot be done overnight. It is only natural that those people who have lines that do not meet the specifications of the Department will have to wait perhaps up to 8 to 10 years before the Department does something about these lines. 1 want to reiterate my attitude to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and his statement that the Opposition will oppose this Appropriation Bill. When I am convinced that the Opposition can implement some of the promises which it makes, then I believe the Australian people will listen to it. Last night the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), I think, made great play on the fact that at the last general elections the Australian Labor Party received a greater number of votes than did any other party. It is true that the Labor Party may have received a greater number of votes, but it did not receive anything like 50% of the total number of Australian votes. This is the important point. We must remember that 3 other parties were opposed to the Labor Party.

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

Order! The honourable members time has expired. [Quorum formed.]

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party I desire to oppose the Budget measures and to support the amendment. This Budget is inadequate, unimaginative and irresponsible. It is a typical product of Liberal Party deception and of the Australian Country Party’s confusion and obvious calamity. The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) said that he was conscious of the problems facing rural industries. All I can say to that is that he must be speaking from the subconscious area of his mind, and I should imagine that if it were exposed to a psychiatrist it could only be described as a head shrinker’s nightmare.

The Budget could be referred to as a Budget of ambush. The Parliament which was elected at the general election met last November at some considerable waste of money to the Commonwealth, because it quickly and swiftly went into recess to lick its wounds until 3rd March of this year. During the course of the submis sions from many honourable members on the Government side the term ‘in accordance with the Prime Minister’s policy speech’ was used. We on this side of the House have heard that term used in connection with taxation. We have waited somewhat patiently for some form of real taxation reform, lt is obvious from public agitation since the bringing down of the Budget that the public, after examining the Budget, does not consider that the Government has introduced any great reforms on this occasion. I refer to the Budget as a Budget of ambush because the Treasurer (Mr Bury), early in his speech, started to inform the House and the people of Australia what taxation relief they would find in the Budget. Then he waylaid them with talk about indirect forms of taxation, which 1 will deal with more specifically later on. Therefore I coined the phrase ‘a Budget of ambush’, lt is the product of Mr Bury, the costive Treasurer, who is unable to budget.

It is obvious that the word has gone around to members of the Government parties that if they dare stand in this chamber and speak on the measures contained in the Budget they will be out of step with their colleagues and what the Cabinet might think. Honourable members opposite have made an attempt to turn this debate into a debate on law ;md order. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) has gone on record as saying that his Party must become a party of can kickers, can carriers and can pushers. I suggest to the Minister that he might kick the bucket while he is kicking the can. The contribution of Government supporters to this debate is nothing more than a gigantic smoke screen to fool the people of this country. The Government has been fooling them for many years. We remember that in the early 1950s it was said that we would be slaughtered in 3 years time and taxation had to be raised. We remember the fu t ce of the Petrov issue. This was all deception on the part of the Government which sought to get itself re-elected on subterfuge, a tissue of lies and untruths.

Honourable members on this side of (he House remember, as do many members of the community, the year 1963 when the purchase of the Fill was raised. I have referred to this in previous debates in this chamber. Today there is still an extremely high wastage of the taxpayers’ money - not government money. I abhor the term government money’. It is the people’s money, the taxpayers’ money. The Government is the custodian of that money in the public interest. On that point the Government has failed dismally.

In this chamber from time to time we hear a great deal said about water conservation and other developmental projects generally and the cost benefit analyses that must be applied to them. This matter has been argued in relation to the Ord River scheme, the Chowilla Dam, the Burdekin River scheme and others of which there are almost too many to mention. Some thought ought to be given to a tax benefit analysis because of the extremely high rate of taxation in this country. What ought to be questioned are the benefits which flow to the people of Australia after the spending and squandering of the revenue collected. I have sat here patiently and have waited for over a week for some sign of understanding on the part of anybody on the Government benches in regard to many of the real issues - not cows, sheep and whathaveyou - that ought to concern people. After all, people are important in this community. I do not for one moment deny the rights of the rural community in the predicament in which the Government has placed it, but I point out that the rural community by and large has seen fit to support the Government.

I have not heard one word from honourable members opposite that leads me to believe that the Government has any semblance of idea about bold planning for the rural industries. In spite of the criticism levelled at Bob Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I would most certainly say that he would be a much more competent person to cure the ills of the rural community. The wool growers and farmers generally would be in a much bet er position today if he were at the helm of the rural industries instead of the Country Party which constantly cries about need. Its need, of course, is for thought and bold planning for the rural industries. Country Party members have maintained their interest in rural matters by saying that nobody from this side of the House has said anything on that subject.

I recall a speech that I made in this chamber not very long ago when I said that a considerably higher return for the grower could be obtained if the problem were merely glanced at, let alone submitted to a thorough and proper examination. I referred to the part that the shipping industry plays in the handling of wool, but not one thing has been done about it. I will end my reference to this matter on this note: The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) trotted off overseas with $40m to give the Australian shippers a voice in the Conference line. We have no voice there. We are still haggling and our efforts to relieve the tremendous burden of increases which are being proposed by people who are outside the control of the Government are being sabotaged by Sir William Gunn. I have made this observation before and I will continue to make it until someone on the Government benches - in the short time that the Government will occupy those benches - is prepared to do something about it. The shipowners are holding this country to ransom. They commenced as pirates and they continue to be pirates. I ask: What became of our $40m? Is it in a Swiss Bank? It has not given us any voice in the Conference lines. It is $40m of the taxpayers’ money.

Some analysis ought to be made of the value we get for high taxation. Let me mention another example. Although the Australian National Line has a container ship trading between here and Japan, that Conference line vessel owned by Australia exceeded the 15% of cargo it was entitled to and has to pay to the Conference millions of dollars of the Australian taxpayers’ money. That is an absolute scandal. I ask: Where is the cut in freight rates? Where is the relief of this burden? What voice have we in protecting the interests of Australian shippers and in turn protecting the interests of rural industry, the interests of those who live in cities and urban areas, and the interests of secondary industry? Much has been said in this chamber about what the rural industries ought to do by way of diversification. It is a crying shame that a country such as Australia, which is one of the most - if not the most - arid continents in the world has to restrict its food production when we are surrounded by millions of people who are starving.

Last night the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) said in this chamber - I want it on the record that a Liberal Party member has said this in this debate - that as far as he is concerned poverty does not exist in Australia and that he would regard any state of affairs as being poverty only if it was judged by Asiatic standards. In other words, pensioners in this country, according to that Liberal Party member, have to be in the gutters like the unfortunates in Asiatic countries, before he recognises them as being poverty stricken. What sort of mind has this intellectal got when he starts to express that type of thinking in this chamber. It is a disgrace to the Liberal Party that it ever selected a person of the calibre of the honourable member for Denison. What is more disgraceful and disgusting is that his colleagues on that side of the House did not condemn him for the utterances he made here yesterday. I remind the honourable member for Denison of what poverty by Australian standards is. If he were prepared to elevate his thinking from the concrete jungle environment in which he has found himself he would perhaps be of some service to the Australian community.

I have heard from very few members on the other side of the House as to what the Budget contains for the aged and for those on social services. I would throw the Budget at honourable members opposite if such action were not unparliamentary. At page 71 the Budget contains 48 categories of social welfare. Alterations and increases in thoses categories number only 8. I invite honourable members opposite to examine those increases. If honourable members opposite think that the 12 wise men in the Cabinet paid proper and due regard to the need in the social services sector, I am amazed. To sit there and to back a Treasurer who makes provision for an increase of a little over 3% in age pensions is disgraceful. What did the Budget provide for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to take photographs of aged people here last week? Those people were refused entry here - and indeed shelter - last week. The Budget provided for an increase of 13% for ASIO to enable it, among other things, to take photographs of the pensioners, at over 50c a pop, which is the increase that the Budget gave them. If that is not a disgrace, I would like to know what is. Into whichever field the Government has gone it has introduced discrimination and double standards.

Many honourable members on the Government side have said that increased costs have been the result of wage increases, but the Government has budgeted for further wage increases in the next 12 months. Perhaps those increases will not be sufficient. But honourable members opposite have not said one word about the increased prices charged by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. Four men sat around a board table in Australia, on this occasion, under some overseas influence and perhaps dominance for that matter, and decided to increase the cost of their products, which will increase the costs of this country. Rural industries must bear the brunt of that increase. I notice that the number of Country Party members has depleted since I rose. I do not know why they make their pleas when increased cost is never recognised by the Government parties. Honourable members opposite cannot tell me that the provisions in the Budget will not increase the cost of living. I refer particularly to the increase in the price of petrol. Anyone with any sense, if there is any sense or reasoning on the other side, would realise that a 3c a gallon increase in the price of petrol would hurt the small taxpayer. The Government extracts the most by taxing the smaller pleasures of the battlers. An increase in the price of petrol will mean a rise in the cost of services generally. The increase will have a bearing on the cost of transportation generally. Railways, local government, etc. will be affected. The increase will be reflected in the higher cost of living.

The increase of 50c a week in pensions will be gone in no time. In my electorate in South Australia increased rents will more than take care of the 50c. People living in cottage homes, which are subsidised by the Government, will have to pay more. Other organisations in South Australia and no doubt throughout the Commonwealth will be affected because of the shortsightedness and the stupidity of the Government over the years in not making proper and adequate provisions in this area of social services. These organisations have sought to provide homes for the aged. The Government should have had the good sense to maintain a controlling interest in those homes, in the interests of the occupants of the homes. The organisations - irrespective of whether they are church organisations, charitable organisations, organisations run by local government or similar organisations - are faced with increasing costs.

The price of land rises, rates go up. I suppose there are more land sharks in this Government than in any other government in Australia. They are a cause of part of the trouble. The Government should have maintained a continuing interest in this area. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is in the House, must be a disappointed man and a dejected soul today because of his failure, as one of the 1 2 wise men, to influence the others. There is no doubt in my mind - and I have not been reliably informed - that he did have some proposals to put before the Cabinet for increases over and above the SOc a week that was granted to the pensioners. Unfortunately, he could not find any listeners. We are a nation of 12.5 million people. Of that number there is a high percentage of adults. It was a terrible thing that the Minister could not use sufficient persuasion to convince 7 men out of 12 that something ought to be done in regard to the matters to which I have referred. lt seems to me that after waiting, listening and almost becoming bored while waiting, something about the wine excise imposed by the Government would have been said. Not one word has been said. The only reference to that excise was in a question asked of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) yesterday. The wine industry is one of the few rural industries that have not joined the long queue waiting for handouts or subsidies. The Liberal member for Denison, to whom I referred earlier, yesterday referred to workers and others as being bludgers. I would hate to apply that term to those rural industries that are in the long queue because I think that would be offensive. I hesitate to use that word. I merely mention it to draw to the attention of the House and of whoever may be listening that that is the thinking of the Liberal Party. The honourable member said that the workers were bludgers. Similarly, in this debate the other night, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) said that pensioners were bums. He endeavoured to wriggle out of that statement later in the evening but as far as I am concerned he referred in this chamber to pensioners as bums.

Mr Giles:

– I take a point of order. If the honourable member checks Hansard he will find that that remark is untrue.

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

Mr FOSTER:

– 1 remind the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) that the honourable member for Boothby, the honourable member for Angas and I have the same privileges. The honourable member for Boothby is absent from the chamber at the moment. We can check our green carbon copies of our speeches and certain alterations - I say with due respect to the Hansard staff - are possible. The honourable member for Boothby did make that statement in this chamber.

Mr Peacock:

– I raise a point of order. I have read the Hansard. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member for Boothby said nothing of the kind. The proceedings are being broadcast. The honourable member has made an allegation which has been heard by thousands of people. It is untrue. I put this to you: Is that fair?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr FOSTER:

– It was said in this chamber by the honourable member to whom I referred. Honourable members may check Hansard and they will find the words are so written. They can put their own interpretation upon the words, if they wish. The words were said. The Budget provisions have imposed a tremendous burden on those in the community least able to pay, because of the double standards and the double dealings of the Government. The Budget provisions make no reference to any easing of the means test. Yet the day before yesterday in this chamber the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), in answer to a question I raised on the tremendously high pensions that were being paid to extremely wealthy people, said that they had ably served the country. I never questioned their service to the country. I questioned the pensions that they were granted, in the light of the attitude of the Government to other pensioners. The Prime Minister tried to make some joke and mockery out of my question. He made some suggestions to me about my position in relation to getting a pension through being a member of this place. Because of his office, he will receive an extraordinarily high pension. So he is entitled to it. I do not quarrel with that. But for God’s sake, he should not continue to use a double standard and apply some other measure to the people who are entitled to relief.

The Budget gave no answer to the letters that were sent to the Treasurer during the last few months to consider workers, particularly shift workers, who involve themselves in considerable expense travelling to and from work when public transport is not available. Attention was drawn to the privileges that exist for those in the high executive scale who probably have a company car, for which they do not have to pay, who probably go to a company bowser for petrol and who probably get all kinds of fringe benefits, as the term is today. But the poor old battler who has to go to work - the fitter, turner, tradesman and others in the automobile industry and other industries - does not get any consideration whatsoever. The young people, the kids for whom this Government has no regard and whom it wants to kick and gaol in accordance with its law and order concept, love their music, but the Government is going to tax their records and their tape recorders. The Government’ taxes almost anything that is of any benefit to the younger people in the community. The Government wants to get on the revenue bandwaggon. I hope that these young people will remember this when they have the right to vote at 18 years or 21 years - those, of course, that the Government has not sent to prison, to Vietnam or on some other money wasting venture under the guise of some form of protection for the Commonwealth.

The females in the community are, of course, still faced with high taxation on their cosmetics and other articles. The cockies can get all manner of powders for their dogs and do not have to pay tax on them. Flea powder is absolutely free of duty, but not so those things that are of some benefit to people. Would any honourable member on the Government side regard cosmetics for women as not being a benefit to those in the community who use them? Tax on cosmetics is just another example of the discriminatory way in which the Government thinks. It is time that this Government examined systems applying overseas. What is wrong with throwing open to the public some of the thinking of the Cabinet before the Budget is brought in, instead of members of the Cabinet locking themselves in vaults of black thinking and intrigue? In other countries - perhaps not Great Britain - financial proposals become public. They do in Sweden and Japan. The Press is invited in, and as a result such proposals become public. In other countries the ramifications of particular departments are made known to the public, but in Australia the Government digs itself into a great foxhole somewhere and in an artificial secrecy.

Mr Martin:

– It is secret.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is not so much secret as sabotage because the Government touches the people of the Commonwealth through unjust taxation and that, to my way of thinking, is sabotage no less than was Sir William Gunn’s jaunt overseas recently to sabotage the efforts of the Government by seeking a difference in wool sales and a decrease in shipping. He shot off overseas and was close, no doubt, to the Swiss banks. He probably has made a cool couple of million in the last few years and he ought to be under investigation. He is no good to the wool industry or to Australia. The honourable member for Angas interjects. He has been looking a bit worried as honourable members may have observed in the last few days, because in his area in South Australia a vast quantity of wine is produced and the wine growers are not very happy - in fact they are hopping mad - over the fact that he has not raised the matter on their behalf in this chamber. I sent letters to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) from whom I did not receive a reply, so I was forced to send the member for Angas a telegram. I sent it from the parliamentary office block 3 doors down from his office to raise him off his you-know-what and get him to do something about the wine industry. He came to my office a few moments later somewhat incensed that I had had the cheek to send him a telegram drawing his attention to the fact that he had some responsibility to the people in the industry. The fact is that the Government has, in this Budget exercise, denied the wine industry the freedom it has enjoyed for a number of years. The Government has taken from the wine growers, by excise, as much as they get for producing the product. If there had to be any increased costs on wine over the counter it should have been given to the grower who is a damn sight better able to look: after the affairs of his industry than are honourable members on the other side of the House who have ruined everything they have touched, particularly industries like this. With the concurrence of honour able members I incorporate in Hansard tables relating to age and invalid pensions and various other social service payments, and their proportion of average weekly earnings.

In addition to the matters I have raised already I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the South Australian Government - the only responsible State government from Cairns to Carnarvon today - has carried a resolution of condemnation of the Budget. On 19th-20th August it passed the following motion:

That this House calls on the members of the Federal Parliament representing South Australia -

This includes the honourable member for Angas, the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) and others, though not many of course - to take action in the Federal Parliament to protect employment and development in South Australia from the impost on the sale of wine of SOc per gallon and from an increase of 2i% in sales tax on motor vehicles and electrical goods which are proposed in the Federal Budget and which will adversely affect South Australia far more than any other Stale.

Surely members of the Government parties realise that South Australia produces a high percentage of durables for sale to the eastern States. The Government has kicked us in the teeth in regard to petrol; it is going further by imposing these additional taxes. The Government has not learned the lessons of previous years when it depressed South Australia through actions like this. The Government has not done anything like this since 1964 so why is it doing it this year? Is it attempting to discredit the Dunstan Government in South Australia? Even the Liberal Party Opposition in South Australia was not happy with the Budget. It proposed an amendment to the motion that was carried and that amendment read:

This House inform the Prime Minister that the interests of the wine industry and the manufacturing industries in South Australia will bc beneficially served if the increased taxes on the sale of wines and consumer goods be removed as soon as possible.

This is the call that I make from this side of the House. The Government should do something. It should take some form of initiative that perhaps has never been taken in Australia before. It should have a look at the Budget from a number of angles and perhaps come back to the House to do it. Not one real developmental programme is provided for in the Budget and not much is provided for in the Estimates.

In 1910-11 the Commonwealth took from South Australia, by agreement, the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth was going to construct a railway line from north to south. Imagine the position if that line were there now. Think of the amount of trade which could be done with those Asiatic countries that are on our doorstep. We could have almost a daily bread delivery into those densely populated areas. But the Government does not like pursuing those markets because it is unimaginative. I hope I have, in some small way, been able to penetrate the depths of muddled thinking that prevails in the Government parties. I forlornly hope that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) will follow me, although I have made some reflections to the effect that he may have been a land shark. Perhaps he can suggest something constructive, as a member of the Government side, in this debate. All that honourable members opposite have done is talk about the Budget, refer to certain inequalities, and mention law and order.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

) -

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– Mr Deputy Speaker, 1 wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr SOLOMON:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). I have been accused of having, from the concrete jungles of Tasmania, wished upon the Australian people a standard of poverty of Asiatic, I think the word was, dimensions. May I indicate what I had to say on this matter last night? I said: . . there will never be one-twelfth of our people below the poverty line. We know that everything is relative, but at the same lime there are absolutes and I regard something like poverty as absolute. Anybody who has been to India or South America and seen the Favellas outside the major cities in those areas, the G or by ls of Glasgow and the back streets of Dublin is talking nonsense when he talks of poverty in the absolute sense.

I was accused of running out of the chamber - I left it to get a definition of poverty. There are many definitions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Denison has explained how he was misrepresented by the honourable member for Sturt. I suggest that he does not enter into a debate on the matter.

Dr Solomon:

– The point simply is that a poverty line, which is the general context of this matter, is a level of poverty implying destitution.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Denison that he has explained his claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– 1 take up the final point that was mentioned by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) on the question of development because one matter that I feel should be referred to during this debate is the exciting prospect of Australia’s natural resource development, which is contingent in part on the economic climate engendered by this Budget, f must also condemn the Opposition for its irresponsible criticism of the Budget by advocating massive spending under what it terms a responsible economic policy. Here we have a budget providing for a large increase in essential expenditures, especially on payments to the States, welfare, development and assistance to rural industry, including emergency relief for wool growers who have been hard hit by drought and low prices. We have a budget conferring personal income tax reductions worth S289m in a full year and increasing defence spending to Si, 1 37m. We have a budget anticipating an expenditure in the interests of the nation of $7, 883m, yet one that is shaped responsibly to the requirements of the economy.

The people of this nation, I am sure, given the facts, will compare the responsible attitude of this Government in a period of world wide inflation with what can be termed the ‘glad handing’ of the Opposition, which has, I believe, total disregard for sound economic practice, and its proposals could only result in the greatest inflationary spiral that, this country has ever known. This policy propounded by the Opposition of spending far more than our revenue would have the effect of slowing down the growth rate particularly in the fields of rapid development, such as the minerals industry, but it could have a disastrous effect on the rural sector of the economy which is suffering from the effects of low world prices and demand, particularly in Queensland where the most serious drought in history is having a most serious effect in many areas. The Budget continues substantial drought relief and other direct and indirect assistance to the rural industries, but above all it is designed to maintain stability and contain inflation, which is of the greatest importance to all people in the community.

I would now like to give the House an outline of part of the story of Australia’s natural resource development, because it is only by making Australia great and strong in these fields as well that economic prosperity and a high standard of living for a rising population can be achieved and guidelines to economic progress can be laid down with confidence. Australia is assessing and developing natural resources at a greater rate than ever before, giving fresh impetus lo national growth and building a sound foundation for the future. Development is a national aim, but in a federal system of Government such as Australia’s the administrative responsibilities are divided between Commonwealth and State governments. There has been, on the past of Australian governments, a conscious effort pursued with vigour to seek out, evaluate, and, with the co-operation of private enterprise, develop the nation’s natural resources in minerals, forests, water and the land itself.

There are 4 principal aspects to the development of Australia’s natural wealth: The rapid expansion of minerals output, the building up and diversification of energy resources to meet the needs of an expanding and increasingly industrialised nation, the enlargement of water storage capacity for industry and domestic needs and for irrigation, and the planting of new forests of softwoods. The large minerals expansion that has taken place in the last decade has been in the vanguard of the development of our natural resources, and particularly in the impact of those resources on our national economy, lt has been estimated that investment in the Australian minerals industry in the last decade has exceeded $2, 300m - mainly on iron ore, coal, bauxite, oil and natural gas. As a result, Australia has become well known throughout the world as a reliable supplier of basic and manufactured products.

Australia is self sufficient in all but a few minerals and earns some 25% of export income through the sale of mineral commodities to other countries. In brief, Australia is one of the world’s principal suppliers and producers of lead, zinc, and silver; it has deposits of iron ore estimated to exceed 15,000 million tons; it holds a third of the non-Communist world’s total bauxite reserves; it is an important and growing source of nickel and manganese; and is well endowed with black coal and there are very extensive deposits of brown coal in Victoria. The total ex-mine value of Australian minerals could reach $2,000m by 1975, of which about 80% will be exported, and we expect that a year or so after that the export income from minerals alone will rise to about $2,000m.

As a result of developments of such magnitude in the minerals industry, together with increasing industrialisation and general growth and prosperity in these fields, the demand for primary energy in Australia will almost double during the next decade. The main sources of this energy will remain petroleum products and coal, but with the introduction of nuclear power as a supplement, discoveries of crude oil and extensive deposits of low-cost coal, Australia is better equipped than ever to face the challenges presented by this demand. An outstanding feature of the energy industry has been the spectacular increase in electricity generation to meet industrial and domestic requirements. There has, in fact, been a doubling of electricity production every 8 years, and to achieve this Australia is currently spending about $400m a year to provide new electricity generation capacity.

I now wish to refer briefly to the importance of water in what is the world’s driest continent. Commonwealth and State governments alike have stressed the importance of water resources as an essential element in national growth. Even though the estimated total run-off from streams, which is some 280 million acre feet a year, and average rainfall are low compared with other continents, Australia’s water resources are substantial in relation to its small population.

But a steady rise in the amount of water needed for industry, irrigation and urban domestic purposes has given a sense of urgency to the need for greater storage capacity and more efficient utilisation of our water. Expenditure by public authori ties on water works such as water supply, sewerage and irrigation has increased markedly over the past 10 years and now approaches $300m a year.

Irrigation has been an important factor in helping to utilise Australia’s water resources and in opening up new areas to settlement. With the completion of projects now- under construction or planned, the area of land irrigated will reach about 4 million acres by 1975. Through an expansion of stream gauging and the use of a series of representative river basins as models for the whole of the continent, the various governments concerned are building up a more detailed assessment of water resources as a basis for future planning.

The same story of Commonwealth-State co-operation and forward looking policy applies to forests. The last few years have seen the development of new attitudes towards the utilisation of forest resources and a greater awareness of the value of trees and forests in the life of the nation. Australian timber producers have nearly doubled their production over the past 20 years, and though output is running in excess of 400 million cubic feet a year, this represents only about three-quarters of the total demand in Australia. As the productive forests are predominantly eucalypt hardwoods, the nation’s deficiency is quite clearly in softwoods. To help overcome this deficiency, Australian governments and private enterprise have now planted one million acres of pine trees to meet our increasing future needs and the area of softwood plantation is expected to reach three million acres by the year 2000. The creation of these new forests will help reduce an import bill currently running at about $200m a year.

Some developments in natural resources are inter-related. Rapid growth in mineral processing and metallurgical industries, for instance, will be a major factor in almost doubling Australia’s demand for primary fuels in the next decade. In turn, the minerals industry will help meet the nation’s basic energy requirements.

By the end of 1971, Australia will be supplying about 65% of its requirements for crude oil from its own resources. In addition, natural gas, a comparatively new energy source for Australia, is expected to satisfy about 9% of the total primary energy market by 19S0. An important feature of many of these programmes is the way they have contributed to the development of northern Australia, an immense area through which population is spread very thinly. Some of Australia’s most spectacular mining developments have occured there, leading to the construction of new towns, ports, railways and roads. Indeed, the north which was once considered the harsh half of the continent has come to play an important part in our national growth. But this has come about, to a large extent, because this Government and the governments of the States, have prosecuted in a most determined fashion, policies of encouragement and investigation ranging the whole spectrum of subsidies, surveys, mapping, geophysical investigation and so on.

This Budget appropriates almost S38.5m this year to further the work of the Department, of National Development in Australia’s interest and I feel certain the quite remarkable rate of growth we have made in the last decade will continue. For hand in hand with Government aid and encouragement will go the confidence of industry and the expertise of our own work force.

It has become obvious to all in recent years that while our country has drawn on much overseas know how, it has become more and more integrated with the mainstream of world achievement. We have achieved a greater sophistication in technology and, above all, we have brought to the development and processing of our natural resources, those skills and techniques that will assure Australia’s place in the comity of economically strong and progressive nations. But much of this would come virtually to nought if investigation, development, processing and marketing did not have the backing of sound economic policy.

This Budget reflects just this, that in a time of disruptive inflation and despite large commitments, the Government nevertheless has been able to bring down a budget shaped to the requirements of an economy that is, as the Treasurer (Mr Bury) said, in the overall picture, dynamic and fast growing. This is a tremendous tribute to this nation’s strength and to the fiscal guidelines that will stand it so much in good stead in the future. The Opposition’s amendment and attack on the Budget lacks credibility mainly because its policies can survive and thrive only in economic and industrial disaster, and in the socialisation of human rights and aspiration.

Finally, I wish to refer to the Jervis Bay project, and to some references made in this House to the matter.

Sirring suspended from 12.45 to 2.1.5 p.m.

Mr SWARTZ:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, before the sitting was suspended, I mentioned that 1 matter remained to which I wished to refer in this debate. That is the question of the development of the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. I speak on this matter principally because of the interest that has been shown by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and by some other honourable members in this House and because of the number of questions that have been raised in relation to it.

The Government, through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, has kept a close watch on the world development of nuclear power. This new source of energy is providing a significant and increasing portion of the energy needs of countries such as Great Britain, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and Germany and also, in our own area, India, Japan and other countries. In 1975 it is expected that 1 28,000 mega watts of nuclear power will be derived from 283 reactors in 21 countries. Australia has come late to the use of nuclear power, mainly because we have substantial resources of low cost coal, and also because the small size of our generation systems did not allow us to take advantage of the low cost of nuclear power produced in large units. This situation is, however, changing and studies made in 1969 suggested that nuclear power could be an important and economical supplement to our other sources of power in the later 1970’s and thereafter.

The break into such a new technology is not easy and the Government felt that, since Australian expertise in nuclear energy was largely confined to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, there might be a case for the first step to be taken by the

Commonwealth in association with those States which were contemplating the use of this energy source before long. Early in 1969 the Commonwealth consulted the States on their plans for the introduction of nuclear power and as a result concluded that it should co-operate with New South Wales in constructing a large power station with an output comparable to the needs of Canberra in the late seventies. A station of about SOO megawatts was envisaged because the cost of electricity from a nuclear station decreases sharply as size increases. Choice of a site has been governed by 2 main considerations. One is the suitability of the site itself having regard to such matters as cooling water supplied, foundations and the environment. The other is the ability of the State gen.erating system to accept the size of nuclear station selected.

For the economical size of 500 to 600 megawatts, New South Wales has the only network meeting these conditions. Seven sites in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were surveyed and Jervis Bay was found to be the best on all counts. In fact, as 1 have said before, it is close to ideal. Other States, although not able to accept such large units now, may anticipate being able to do so, by the early 1980s, lt has been suggested that Australia’s first nuclear power station should have been coupled to a large desalination plant located in an area of water scarcity, such as South Australia. Unfortunately, no such large desalination plants have yet been built, although they are expected before the end of the century and the Government, while appreciating the attraction of the idea, could not undertake such a project at this stage.

The Government has received extensive and valuable co-operation from the Electricity Commission of New South Wales. The Electricity Commission has worked in close association with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in all phases of the planning for Jervis Bay. The Electricity Commission took part in the initial survey of possible sites within New South Wales and has also been involved in the environmental studies for the area. The ‘Invitation to Tender’ documents were prepared by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and its consultants in co-operation with the Electricity Commission. The experience of the Electricity Commission has proved invaluable and will contue to contribute throughout the later stages of planing and will play a. major role in the opertation of the station.

In deciding to introduce nuclear power the Government has been aware of the outstanding safety record of the nuclear power industry in other countries. Indeed, it is one of the safest, if not the safest, industries of today. From years of experience, authorities overseas have established criteria for the siting and safe operation of nuclear power stations and the best of these have been adopted for Jervis Bay. The most stringent safety requirements for the nuclear steam supply system have been detailed in the tender documents. These requirements are designed to protect the health and safety of the community in. all circumstances Safety criteria have been established to ensure the effectiveness of the reactor containment and other protection systems even in the event of the maximum credible accident.

I must emphasise that the reactor design and operating criteria are so chosen as to make the chance of a serious malfunction extremely remote, but nevertheless, the specifications require that the integrity of the containment shall be maintained even should the maximum credible accident occur - that is, the worst combination of events which it is possible to imagine. Tenderers have been required to provide information to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to assess the safety of their submitted designs. This information must suffice to show that the design, manufacture, erection and operation of the plant will meet the standards required by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Compliance will be enforced by inspections during construction and commissioning of the reactor. In addition, the radiation release criteria are to be reviewed independently by the National Radiation Advisory Committee which will advise the Government on their adequacy to protect the public.

It is our policy to keep the House and the genera] public informed about the progress and purposes of the Jervis Bay project. When the final choice is made, as I have indicated before and to the honourable member for Lang, I intend to make in this House a detailed statement which, of course, will be a public statement. At that tune I shall be able to supply the figures which were asked for by the honourable member because at that point in dme we will know the type of station and the type of reactor that have been selected. In the meantime, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is expanding its programme of public information. Typical of its activities was a public meeting held in Nowra on 19th August last. This meeting was sponsored by the Shoalhaven Combined Progress Associations and was attended by the Chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and senior members of the Commission staff. There was a full and free discussion and many questions were answered to the satisfaction of local residents.

Commissioners and staff members give frequent talks and lectures to professional bodies, university groups, Rotary clubs and others. So far, 1 1 such talks have been scheduled for the month of September alone. The Commission has recently had a display caravan touring the Nowra area. A large exhibition dealing with nuclear power was presented at the Sydney Town Hall in June 1970 and in Canberra in September 1969. Sixteen press statements have been issued dealing with Jervis Bay and the Commission gives information to the Press day by day. Several booklets have been prepared and widely distributed and others containing greater detail will be issued when the design of the power station has been fixed.

A number of questions have been asked about possible environmental pollution, especially as regards the discharge of radioactive wastes and warm cooling water.

Tt can be stated quite positively that the problem of radioactive pollution will not arise at Jervis Bay since the amount of radioactivity contained in the discharge from the station will be strictly controlled and will be only a fraction of the limits prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which is the internationally recognised expert body on this matter. In the unlikely event of a serious reactor malfunction as I remarked previously, the reactor containment would remain intact and would limit the spread of any radioactivity to below levels which are internationally agreed. In this situation there would be no danger at all to inhabitants in areas around Jervis Bay As regards thermal effects, the temperature of the water discharged from the cooling condensers is expected to be approximately 10 degrees higher than that of the temperature of the ocean water. This difference will disappear within less than 100 yards of the outfall, depending upon the extent of the turbulence of the water in the area. It is considered that no harmful ecological effects will result from the discharge of this water into the Pacific Ocean.

Finally. I would like to refer to the maintenance of the area. The site is in an attractive part of the Commonwealth Territory which is administered by the Department of the Interior. In order to preserve the natural flora and fauna to the greatest possible extent, that Department has been consulted on all aspects of site development. Construction activities are being restricted to the minimum practicable area and on the completion of construction, full restoration will be carried out wherever required. We anticipate that the power station will attract a large number of visitors and the Atomic Energy Commission is making special arrangements so that this unique development in Australia can be seen by as many citizens of Australia as possible, under conditions which will be safe, informative and comfortable.

As I indicated earlier when the selection of the reactor to be included in this power unit has been made a full and detailed statement will be made to the House. This statement will answer a number of the other questions which have already been raised. I conclude on the note on which I started. I regard this Budget - and I am sure responsible people in the community do - as one which is designed to maintain stability in the economy and to deal in a responsible way with the enormous expenditures which are involved and which substantially cover large increases of revenue to the States. I feel that the Opposition’s amendment is an irresponsible one. I am sure it will be rejected by the House.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– In the brief few minutes I have available I wish to deal with the question of sovereignty which not only bears on this Budget and, I suppose, on every Budget but is the warp and woof and the stuff of governments everywhere at all levels. It is the basis of law and order which seems to be emerging as the main topic of the Budget debate. Sovereignty is applicable at many levels in our community and elsewhere. There is personal sovereignty which is traditionally disrupted, destroyed and impaired by other levels of sovereignty such as government. For example, it is my personal view that a woman should have sovereignty over her own body in matters concerning the birth of a child. To this end I want to draw attention to the draft Criminal Code for the Australian Territories which will make this much more difficult. Section 1 16 reads:

Subject to the provisions of Section 40 of this Code:

Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, uses any means whatever, is guilty of an indictable offence.

Any woman who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means whatever, is guilty of an indictable offence.

Section 40 provides:

A person is not criminally responsible if he gives, in good faith, and with reasonable care and skill, surgical or medical treatment to any person for his benefit or performs a surgical operation upon or gives medical treatment to an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the treatment is reasonable, having regard to (he patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.

In other words such operations are to be limited to means to preserve the mother’s life. This is a retrogressive step. Section 82 of the Crimes Act 1900 states:

Whoever, being a woman with child, unlawfully administers to herself any drug or noxious thing; or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means; with intent in any such case to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years.

Section 83 provides:

Whosoever unlawfully administers to, or causes to be taken by, any woman, whether with child or not, any drug or noxious thing; or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means, with intent in any such case to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years.

The key word is ‘unlawfully’. When I was attending lectures in medical jurisprudence I was taught and it was the general opinion among the practicing gynaecologists in the teaching hospitals in the British Commonwealth at that time that it was lawful to perform such an operation to terminate a pregnancy not only where there was a risk to the mother’s life but where failure to do so would render her a mental and physical wreck. That was the position about 25 years ago. I think we should have progressed a little in this time. I place on record the main provisions of the United Kingdom Abortion Act of 1967. This provides that a doctor may terminate a pregnancy where he and another doctor are of the opinion, formed in good faith:

that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family greater than if the pregnancy were terminated (and in determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such a risk of injury to health, account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment); or
that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

This last point has been accepted widely by gynaecologists and obstretricians. Many of them, in the absence of any more sensible, sane and humane directive from the law, have performed abortions in cases where the child may reasonably be presumed to be abnormal, deformed or affected, for example, by rubella or german measles.

Not only in the medical field has personal sovereignty been invaded by governments. This is the reason why moves have been made at all levels - in this Government, in State governments and at international level - to preserve some of the rights of the citizen. I shall list some of these rights. One is the right of peaceful assembly, which we have seen threatened in this country. The term ‘forum* is a Roman one which refers to a city square or the streets. This was the place where political differences were thrashed out. But when people take to the streets for a political reason, for political persuasion, in this country it is looked on as backward, retrogressive and undemocratic. We are told: Take your argument to the ballot box’. There are several issues on which people may wish to go to a public forum. One of them could be the plight of the farmers in Victoria. They have taken to the streets on this issue. Another one may be to demonstrate their loyalty to the Queen. They have taken to the streets on this issue, lt may be that the pensioners or the nurses of Canberra feel they are not receiving a good hearing from this Parliament. They have taken to the streets on this issue and have held their banners outside this building. Whenever this is done certain people see a sinister motive and a disintegration of democracy when all that is happening is the preservation of the age old right of peaceful assembly in the ancient tradition of democracy. This right should be written into the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and every other charter of rights. It should be written into a Bill of rights in this country.

Another personal sovereignty relates to the right of petition for redress of grievances. We know how little this applies in this country. In Switzerland petitions are not just presented, received and read as they are in this Parliament. If there is enough of them the electorate can recall a member with whom it is not satisfied. A referendum can be demanded on an item of legislation. There is no mechanism through the ballot box for this to be done in this country. There is no forum in the ballot box. I know it is fashionable on the other side of the House to say that we have a public forum in the Press and in other public media. That is all very well for those who have it. We are very pleased with the gentlemen of the Press and television who invite us to take our chance to speak to a wider audience than we could ever hope to get in this chamber, even on broadcasting days. We are very thankful for this, but democracy should not hinge on an invitation by those who control our public media.

There are some people who cannot afford a half an hour a week on television. I know that there are honourable members in this House who can but there are very few of them and I do not think that there are any left on this side of the House. There are very few in this House who can afford to run the sort of advertising campaign that some firms, in which honourable members opposite have a very lively interest, are able to conduct. It is very largely the advertisers in the Press who decide what editorial policy will not be. I do not say they dictate the editorial policy but to a large extent they dictate what editorial policy will not be. For example there has been no real effort in this country to stamp out cigarette smoking because this is a very lucrative source of advertising to the mass media. We should not believe that we have free speech and that we have a free forum in this country for everybody. It is free for those who can afford to have it. Freedom of speech in publicity is something that is not good enough and it should be extended.

Another freedom of the individual is due process before deprivation of liberty or property. We had stated last night in the debate on the motton for the adjournment an example of the false specification of charges. Tn this case the court had dallied in an unjust way in deciding a question of contempt of court. The matter of access to legal counsel was raised. These things were referred to by the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) last night. Another item is that of prompt trial by jury and citizens. This is a right that has not been very much impaired in this country. However, it is something that ought to be spelt out in international conventions so that it applies universally. The right of appeal to a higher court after original jurisdiction was also mentioned. There are also the following matters: No excessive bail and no cruel, unusual or capital punishment - we still have capital punishment in our federal law and also in one State; and freedom of creed and conscience, free nomination and secret ballot in United Nations elections amongst others. We should have personal sovereignly at that level as well as everywhere else.

Families have their own rights. Again, wherever rights and sovereignty exist, there will also be duties. We have to be prepared to curtail these rights. I am not arguing against law and order at one level just because I am asking for rights at another level. The rights of the head of a family to decide what his child shall eat. what sort of medical attention he shall have, what sort of education he shall have and so on are curtailed - and rightfully so - by the laws which safeguard the rights of the child. These laws are deficient, as has been made evident in medical circles recently by the incidence of the battered child syndrome. Occasionally these cases get into the papers when a child dies. There is a need for the community at large to be more concerned about the rights within the family group without trespassing on the sovereignty of the family.

One of these cases can be dealt with now by bringing in laws to provide for the taking over of the economy of a family when the person in charge is irresponsible. This is a cause of much hardship, suffering, sickness and social disabilities of all kinds where for example a breadwinner in a family is an alcoholic thereby causing extreme suffering to his dependents. This has largely been corrected in Holland by the appointment of a trustee to safeguard the income and assets of such a family to see that they are properly applied. It does not have to be at the hand of bureaucracy. It does not have to be a government official or, if you like, creeping socialism. It needs human concern. Very often the trustee appointed in Holland is a near relative. As some of the families just do not have the facilities to do this themselves the community should take an interest in their position and assist them.

Another unit of sovereignty concerns the tribe. This goes back to the old stone age which we still have in this country for some of our citizens from whom we have taken away tribal sovereignties. A tribe has no right any more to make laws or to decide issues. There is no such thing as -the rights of a tribe. Perhaps this is all very very well. I am one who is inclined to say that only people have rights and that government and state rights are just cloaks or devices to deprive people of rights. Surely the people who live in a tribal setting, who depend on the tribe for their personal selfrespect and self-esteem, for their future outlook, and for their security and harmony in the world, are entitled to the bare minimum of environment which the tribal arrangement can so secure. They are entitled to a bit of land.

The Aboriginal people are very peaceful people and one of the least warlike on earth. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that wars are always centered around territories. Australia was the one continent on earth where the problem of overpopulation was solved before it had begun. There was no shortage of territory. The tribes in Australia very rarely went to war. They had well defined territories. Within these territories the elders met together and decided on the extent of their initiation operations which produced relative infertility at the time of puberty. These initiation operations varied in their extent according to the number of children being born in a tribe, the state of the climate and the food production. These primitive stone age people without a civilisation had solved the problems that we have growing bigger and bigger today and are at present unsolved. They did not have unwanted old people. They had no juvenile delinquency. They knew exactly their place in the universe. Their folklore had passed on to them the stories in terms of the spirits and so on, of what belonged to the different kinds of food, and the different types of products which they used to make weapons, clothing, and so on. We have disrupted all that and we have given nothing back to them. We have not given them even the self-respect of being able to bring themselves into the white man’s culture and raise a few goats on their own land.

I have not sufficient time in this debate to go into the difference between regional and State and national sovereignty. 1 want to speak briefly on supranational sovereignty because this is the twenty-fifth year of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations which was drawn up to prevent war became obsolete in the same year in which it was approved. In those matters which cause disputes between nations we must transfer sovereignty to the supranational level. I have mentioned this before in this House. I urge all members of this House and all honourable senators to be present at a meeting, to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday next, of the group of world parliamentarians for a federal world which has been formed in this Parliament. This is something which has to be pushed all around the world. More than 9S% of the members of Parliament in Denmark belong to this group and many of the large nations have big groups for this purpose. It is time that Australia’s voice was heard in this connection, as it was in the formation of the United Nations when Dr Evatt gave the lead to the nations, small and large.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I find it rather difficult to follow the speech of the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) because he discussed so many matters on which I do not claim to be an authority. I found it difficult to understand whether he supported the Opposition’s amendment or was against it. I cannot say that I found his plea for world government impressive in today’s circumstances.

Indeed, in what he said he left me with practically nothing on which to comment. However, he did say one thing that impressed me. lt is all very well to say it but it is difficult to know what to do about it. I refer to his suggestion that we require and should introduce secret ballots. I thought that this was a rather tender issue in the Australian Labor Party and in many of the unions. If the honourable member’s suggestion were adopted, perhaps we would have less of the industrial turmoil that we have at the moment. So in this suggestion I give him full support. I am sure that in this respect other honourable members on this side of the Parliament give him full support and that most unionists would give him full support. We hope to hear more on this issue of a secret ballot 1 wish to say a few words about the Budget, which is the subject under discussion at the moment. [ make it quite clear that some of what i say will be critical. I expect that, as usual, I will get from the other side the catcall ‘Are you going to vote against it?’. So I should like to make it clear right at the beginning that I do not intend to vote against it. I shall not vote for the amendment proposed by the Labor Party because in my opinion the amendment is ridiculous, lt is couched in terms which are those of an ambitious man who wishes to take control of this country in any circumstances. An analysis of the things he said, and more particularly of the things he did not say, reveals that to accept the amendment would lead to a situation that would be chaotic and dangerous. I, for one, would not follow his banner. Therefore 1 make it clear that whilst I may have some criticisms of the Budget, there is no possibility whatever of my following the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). It seems to me as well to make the point that the people of Australia should occasionally look at what has happened in other parts of the world. Most of the theories that are put up by the Opposition in respect of the economy have been tried by the United Kingdom Labour Government.

If we look back over the last year or two we find that members of the Labour Cabinet in the United Kingdom were saying that unless their Party rethought some of its basic ideas it had no possibility of taking the United Kingdom out of the problems in which it was involved. Yet here in Australia we are having the same theories advanced - theories which have been disproved in the United Kingdom and which resulted in the people of that country throwing out the Labour Government. I suppose in all fairness it can be said that many of our young people have never lived under a Labor government. It might be fair and necessary at some stage for the good of the country that they should be given an opportunity for a short term to live under a Labor government It might be as well for them to consider the value of a stable economy and stable government and what that has meant to them in respect of employment, prosperity and all the other things that we enjoy in this country. Although sometimes I am dissatisfied with my boat, I am not likely to throw it aside in exchange for a leaky old craft with holes way below the Plimsoll, just because it represents something new to me. I do not think the people of Australia would do this either.

When a Budget comes up everybody begins to think that it is Christmas all over again. Few seem to take into account the legislation which has been passed before the presentation of a Budget. Everybody expects the Christmas stocking to be filled again. Everybody expects to be given something for nothing. Everybody expects to pay less but get more. There is no thought of stability and of what might happen if industrial unrest gets beyond a certain stage. If overseas enterprise refused to come to Australia because of the instability of this country, would fewer subsidiary industries be created? Would it mean less employment for those whom honourable gentlemen opposite claim to represent? These are things that people must think of. When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition I often wonder, as was said to me on one occasion, whether the Opposition realises that its supporters can read and write, that they can see a situation and can see what the values are.

When the Budget is presented everybody tells the Government what it must do. They say that we must have more schools, more hospitals, more social services, more defence, more subsidies, higher tariffs but less income tax, no sales tax, no payroll tax, tax exemption on this and tax exemption on that. As the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) said this morning, it is not the Government that is giving all these things; the money has to come from the taxpayer. If there is one thing that I resent it is members of Parliament or Ministers who say: ‘We gave you that.’ The clear fact is that they might have made the decision, but they had to find the money from the taxpayer. It is right that they should do so. There is nothing in this world and nothing in this country that we get free. We have to pay for it the same as anybody else. Nobody when making suggestions such as have come from honourable members opposite and from various pressure groups, however just their cause and however just may be the basis of their suggestions, will ever say where the money is to come from. If they say that this must be given or more must be given or less must be taken and we then say 1 agree, but tell me now where the money is alternatively to come from’, they cannot think of anything. In that case they suggest something else, or there is another pressure group with a suggestion about the need for something else being increased. It becomes a matter of balancing the Budget.

I agree that, in relation to the present economic situation, the Budget is a good one; but if I am asked whether I think it is a good Budget politically 1 must reply that I am not particularly impressed with some sections of it. I should like to refer to those parts of the Budget; but in doing so I am not being cynical, I am not expressing depression or showing disappointment as my friends in the Press gallery report or as some honourable members opposite make out. If one is a member of Parliament I presume one is supposed to use what little brain one has; I presume that one is supposed to use the little honesty that one may have; and I presume that one is supposed to make the suggestions which he believes are required to help the people in his electorate and the people of Australia. After having been a member of this House for 10 years, I wonder whether this is in fact really so and whether we are wasting our time here and should go back home and look after the chooks.

Mr Foster:

– Hear, hear!

Mr JESS:

– The honourable member for Sturt has been a member of the House for only a short time, but I do rut think it will be very long before be is “back with his chooks. In respect to the deductions, I do not think that any honourable member, even on this side of the House, expected the Government to give the across the board deductions which it has given in the first year of the 3-year period promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). 1 question whether it was necessary or wise to do so. Although I appreciate that the Prime Minister has honoured the promise which he made, I feel it would have been of greater benefit to those people who need assistance - the young married couples in the lower income group and those people with children at school who are buying a house - if the taxation schedule had been reformed in another way. I would prefer to see a greater deduction allowable for dependants, education expenses and many of the other items of expenditure which the breadwinner incurs. I think the Government made a mistake. I hope it will not be long before it readjusts the taxation schedule in favour of these people, because they are the ones who require assistance the most. Indeed, I think they require it urgently.

I am not particularly impressed by the way in which the taxation scale has been adjusted. I would not have adjusted it to give a benefit to people who earn over $16,000 a year. Although a case could be made out for them, I think a better case can be made out for the people in the lower income group. This is where I would like to see the assistance given on this occasion. I believe that if the Government had not adjusted the scale this year in respect of the people who fall within the $16,000 to $32,000 income group it could have increased the age pension without upsetting the economy. I am disappointed that a larger increase was not granted in the age pension. I think an increase of 50c a week is too little. I have no doubt that most people in the community agree that a large increase in the age pension should have been granted in this Budget.

I hope that the Government will in the near future grant a further increase in the age pension because, regardless of whether one may think that pensioners deserve to be kept by the taxpayers or they should have been more frugal in their working lives, many of them are in necessitous circumstances. I think we have a responsibility - and when I say ‘we’ I mean the taxpayers and not the Government - to tide them over the difficult years which they are now going through. In respect to social service benefits, I feel it is time that we went to the base root of the matter and had a look at the problems which are confronting us instead of increasing benefits by SOc or $1 each year. Both sides of the House try to use social service benefits as a means of gaining political capital.

As I see it, there are 3 problem areas. Firstly, there are the elderly people who went through the economic depression who, because of bad luck in those very stern years, were not able to save money; there are the people who have been hit by sickness; and there are the people who have been hit by misfortune. They are now in their sixties, seventies and eighties and are receiving a pension. The taxpayers have a responsibility to maintain these people in at least a reasonable condition during the time in which they live. Secondly, there are those people in their forties and fifties who have not been able to afford insurance who, perhaps through misfortune, have fallen into hardship and who will be, within another 10 or IS years, in the older age groups without adequate means of support in their non-earning years.

Mr Cope:

– I am one of them.

Mr JESS:

– You look it. I believe that the Government has to subsidise these people and encourage them and enable them to take out insurance which, in addition to a reduced means test, will allow them to receive some portion of the pension in their later life.

But the most essential point is to make provision for the generations which are coming on and which are not yet in this condition. We should never again allow people to get into this condition. I believe that it is not beyond the possibilities and potentialities of this country to work out a scheme under which young people, when they first take up their job, are encouraged to take out an insurance policy, are subsidised by the Government perhaps and are enabled to make provision for the time when they will be 60 or 65 years of age, so that never again will we have people who have nothing, who have to depend on handouts from governments and who become tools of political parties.

The Budget provision for payments to the States is good. It represents an increased amount, and I hope that many of the things that are required in the States in the fields of education and hospitals can be carried out. I oft-times think that too many of us want to be big fish in little ponds. In respect of education and hospitals we have to go back to the grass roots and look at the faults and the problems from the beginning. I contend that, particularly in respect of schools in the more closely settled areas - where there are no trees, there is no green grass, the schools are dilapidated and there is an increasing population of newcomers to Australia - the Federal Government, as a matter of priority, should give some moneys to the State governments to enable them to treat this as a matter of priority. This applies to improvements in my electorate, and in everybody else’s electorate, in the field of education. But this cannot be done overnight because there are many other requirements and, as I have said, the money has to be found from the taxpayers.

The next matter to which I wish to refer is industrial unrest. This is a matter that concerns me at this moment particularly, as it does every other Australian. I believe that in certain circumstances there are justifications for unions and workers to receive a better deal than they are receiving. But that is not so in all cases, and that fact should not be used as an excuse by one or some, who may wish to take over political control and who may wish to reduce the stability of this country, to bring down the prosperity of the country - in other words, to bring about a situation of chaos which may float him or them into office but may not necessarily be for the betterment of the people and workers of Australia.

If I make a criticism of the Government it is that, when there is a realistic controller of a union who realises the arguments both for and against industrial action, who is prepared to discuss the problems of his workers or unionists and who suggests that on the penal clauses, for example, or some other issue something needs to be done, there is a tendency in government to say: ‘After all, that is a conservative union; therefore we do not need to worry much about it’. It is not until a left wing or militant union comes into the picture and creates a general strike or a stoppage that the Government or the employers find that they can meet the demands or do meet the demands. This amounts to only one thing: The conservative unionist receives no support from the rank and file because his workers or his mates say to him: ‘You did not gain it for us; it took the pro-Com, the militant, or whatever it may be, to bring about the desired result’.

A matter involving the Merchant Service Guild was mentioned today. I do not think the members of the Guild had any desire to go on strike or to leave the ships. It appears to me that the Government was tardy in meeting what seem to be legitimate expenses in relation to the inquiry, although there may be good reasons for this which I do not know. The Seamens’ Union said: ‘Right, we will support you; let us go out on strike’. So we face a situation which in my opinion should never have occurred.

The honourable member for Capricornia mentioned the Press. Perhaps this has nothing to do with the Budget but one of the things required in Australia at the moment is a fairer and more impartial Press which reports issues on the merits rather than from a political point of view. After being a member of this House for 10 years it is my opinion that there is too much political benevolence and political patronage: I will be friends with you as you are friends with me. It is to the disadvantage of this country. I did speak in this House last night. It was mentioned that the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) was to make a speech which might be replied to by an honourable member on this side of the House. I agree with the member of the Opposition who made the point that if it had not been mentioned not many members of the Press would have been in the gallery. There are now 6 pressmen in the gallery from whom will go forward reports of what is happening in the Parliament. Perhaps I wrong them but I wonder how many of them write shorthand. Reports of some of the issues raised and speeches made by honourable members on both side of the House amaze me at times. Members of the Press have come to me after I have made a speech and said: ‘I understand you made a speech. Have you a copy of it?’ I do not write speeches. Some honourable members do and they give out copies. Therefore members of the Press do not have to listen. I wonder what form of reporting the public gets from public meetings. Reporters come to me after meetings and say: ‘Mr Jess, have you a copy of your speech? I did not take it down.’ When I tell them that I have not a copy they ask: “Will you give me an idea of what you said?’ That is what I read in the newspapers.

I refer now to the editorials which have appeared in the Press in recent days and weeks since the Prime Minister announced that perhaps legislation would be enacted in respect of demonstrations and such happenings. One editorial said that this was to be a law and order Budget. One of the headlines read: ‘Hard line on demonstrations’. The Press has not yet heard what this legislation is to contain. It does not have an idea of what is intended. Yet if one looked through editorials and other newspaper reports one would think there was need for fair amendment of the law in order to ensure that loopholes are covered so that people clearly know what their entitlements are. But to make out, as is being made out by sections of the Press and by the Opposition - I do not blame honourable members opposite because they have political motives - that these are to be oppressive laws is wrong.

A law must be judged when it is introduced or enacted. It is then that people can come to an opinion. There is no suggestion that this proposed law is to stop people from holding legitimate demonstrations or taking part in legitimate protests. I for one would not support such a law. However, there is a requirement in this country - and I am sure the people agree - for clarification as to how far people can break or abuse the law and abuse the rights of other people by preventing them from going about their affairs or by creating incidents so that industry and business or private matters cannot be conducted. When private homes are being assailed in certain circumstances and when people, as I said last night, throw fire bombs into buildings so that a building could catch alight causing loss of life, or even cause a city block to be set alight, I feel we should be concerned. There are some who say that we should not be concerned. I think that perhaps a more reasonable judgment by members of the Press would be a good thing.

I remember that some time ago 1 had a small part to play in a certain incident. At the time a member of the Press wrote an article about those who would oppose the Government or who had made themselves unpopular. The article said that so-and-so had done this in1941 and so-and-so had done that in 1949, and that they had since retired and left the Parliament. I oft times wonder after reading such articles in the Press whether pressmen expect a member of Parliament to act as he thinks he should act; whether one is required as a member of Parliament to raise the things he considers to be important, not for his ego or bis benefit, but because they require action in this country.

It appears to me that when a member of Parliament acts in that way he is assailed in sections of the Press as a rebel, as a ginger grouper, as somebody moving against stable government, or whatever may be the Press description. After the Voyager’ incident the Press article to which 1 have referred speculated on how long I would last in the Parliament, on how long I would be prepared to stay. Last night 1 made a speech. It may be considered by some members of the Opposition or of the Press that I have a tendency to become emotional. Perhaps that is true, but there is one thing to be remembered. I say what I say because I believe it. I do not attempt to curry favour with the Press or anybody else. Sometimes I question whether it is worthwhile. I have come to wonder whether it is not better, and if one is not expected as a member of Parliament, to just say yes or just say no, and never to think.

I am led to that belief by a reading of Press articles and the lack of encouragement they contain for other members of this Parliament who are trying, as they see it, genuinely to improve the Parliament They may be wrong, but they get little encouragement and a lot of criticism. It seems to me sometimes that the safest way to act and to become one of the best members of Parliament is never to say anything, because the member who does not say anything does not say anything wrong. and the member who does nothing does nothing wrong. 1 was thrilled the other night to find that 2 members of the Opposition voted as they did on an issue which concerned the Public Works Committee and the Melbourne Airport runway. They had on the Committee, on a non-partisan viewpoint, decided that certain things would be done. Although their Party voted against the motion before the House they decided to stand by their word and to vote with this side of the House. I thought that was hopeful and I give them full marks for their action. But too rarely does it happen in this House.

I will conclude by giving an example of what I mean about the Press. I am not criticising all members of the Press, but I do say that it is my belief that there is political patronage which, frankly, concerns me very much. I wonder sometimes how much that is printed is true, and how much the people are occasionally being fooled. A pressman writes an article which may be published throughout Australia. Everybody says: ‘It must be true because I read it in the Press’. I will not name the newspaper or the pressman I wish to quote in this instance. The article with which I am concerned is headed: ‘Who will lead the rebels?’. It goes on with the usual verbiage which it seems must come out when pressmen have nothing else to write about. Then it states:

Not that Kent Hughes was even a threat to Gorton as such, but he represented the right wing point of view, an abrasive restless ginger group of malcontents.

I suppose some of us are occasionally malcontents; it is hard to tell in this place - who constitute a threat to stable government. In other words we are against stable government. Therefore, I presume we should never open our mouths. The article goes on: and party room harmony -

Well, I guess I have been responsible for some of that. The report goes on: with some aspects of Government policy and a leaning to extreme right wing policies in foreign affairs.

That may be so but itis not general to all of us. But we are all typed in that category. I do not think I am of the right - I think frequently I am of the left. The article labels me and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) as rebels.

That may be legitimate, but in rather offensive terms it refers to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) as potentially a rebel leader. Although 1 regard the honourable member as a magnificent leader 1 do not regard him as a rebel. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) also is mentioned. Any honourable member or anybody who knows anything about this House would regard that article as the product of somebody’s wildest dreams. But this view is conveyed to the public and accepted as the truth. I give this as an example. I hope that the Press in future will realise that it has a responsibility to all members of this House. Until reporting is fairer we will get nowhere.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– One or two prominent people both inside and outside this Parliament have gone on record lately as saying in effect that the annual Budget and the debate which follows it are overrated. They say that both are given more prominence than they deserve. In spite of some of the speeches that we have heard from honourable members on the Government side of the House, I do not subscribe to that point of view. I believe that this is a very important time of stocktaking for the nation. Firstly we receive the necessary information to assess the performance of the nation and thus of the Government in the previous financial year. Secondly, we are given the Government’s picture of what it hopes the nation will achieve in the current financial year. The plans are made. Those plans are so significant that they affect the level of economic activity of the country and the social welfare of each of its citizens, and thus the lives of each one of us who lives here.

On either of these counts, whether we are looking at the performance of the past year or studying the plans for this financial year, the Government in my view stands condemned. It is now 10 days since the Treasurer (Mr Bury) delivered his Budget Speech, together with many of the accounts and statistics in the form of the numerous and various Budget papers. No oratory or attempted oratory is required from me to persuade the people that this is a Budget of injustice and inequity, compounding and perpetuating the injustices and inequities which already exist in this so-called lucky country. The people already know this as we, their representatives on this side of the House, sensed in our visits home last week-end. Our journalists know it and this has been their message beamed to us by means of the various media in the intervening period. I am not one of those who agrees with the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) that the Press does not normally give a pretty fair picture of what is going on in this country. Even Government back bench members - the honourable member for La Trobe is one of them - and some Ministers believe that this has been a bad Budget. They are showing their feelings in their actions and speeches.

So we return, if ever we had an absence from it, to a period of childish LiberalCountry Party reactions or over reactions on the theme of law and order - a variance on the theme of: ‘We can’t beat them on sound arguments about this Budget so let us kick the Communist can and put fear into the minds of the people’. This has been the Government’s despicable retort to the people’s reaction to this Budget. Honourable members opposite say that they cannot defend the Budget. They say: ‘We have made another shocking error, bringing unnecessary hardship to many of the residents of this country. Let us create even more divisiveness than we have at the present time’ - heaven knows we have plenty of it - ‘as a smokescreen from the troubles we are in’. This is the background at this Budget time 1970 - this occasion when it is my first opportunity to participate in a Budget debate in this chamber.

Three days ago my Leader (Mr Whitlam) opened for the Opposition by moving an amendment. I would like once more to draw attention to the amendment because I do not think we have had it before us for some time. The amendment reads as follows:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House condemns this deceptive and negative Budget because it fails to meet the real needs of the Australian people, especially with respect to (a) standards of social service and war pensioners, (b) assistance to school, hospital and urban authorities and (c) restructuring of stricken primary industries and because it introduces and increases taxes and charges of a regressive and inequitable nature’.

I wholeheartedly support that amendment and the stated intention of my Party to vote against the Appropriation Bills if the amendment is defeated. I cannot hope to examine the wide spectrum of matters covered by the Leader of the Opposition in his masterful speech which has been very well received. I want to emphasise and enlarge on some of the matters he raised and, I hope, break some new ground. All the time it is essential to commit to our minds that the purpose of our work is to improve the well being of our people - to lift their material standards and, we hope, to create the proper society for the benefit of intellectual, spiritual and other pursuits.

The Budget is, of course, mainly concerned with material standards. In this context, the principles upon which it should be based are, firstly, planning in order to maximise the growth of our gross national product - our national cake as it is sometimes called - and, secondly, a fair, equitable and just distribution of that national cake. On both these counts this Budget fails miserably. This was a time to announce measures at least to give the Government the tools to carry out the essential planning. We have a shockingly poor growth performance in this country. The most recent figures available displaying the annual increase in real gross national product per head of population over a 10-year period show that in Japan it was 10.1%, in Italy 5.3%, in West Germany 4.7%, in the Netherlands 4.1%, in Austria 3.9%, in France 3.9%, in Belgium 3.8%, in the United States of America 3.2%, in Australia 2.8% and in the United Kingdom 2.7%. Australia is ninth out of those 10 countries. Our country’s growth per head was 28% of Japan’s growth per head.

This is a time for bold action. We need bold planning to answer the challenge for Japan and of the other countries which have a greater growth rate than Australia. We should at the very least have a ministry of economic planning to apply longterm, flexible plans to our economy, as they have been applied, for instance, to Japan’s. Unquestionably, the stupendous expansion of the Japanese economy would not have been possible without their national plans. But their experience, apparently, evokes no interest with this Government. It seems to remain the exclusive domain for occasional forays by Australian academics on sabbatical leave. Incidentally, in case there are terrible satanic concepts of Socialism being built up in the ignorant and emotional attitudes of some, may I point out that the success of Japanese planning is probably best borne out by its influence on private business, on the decisions of private business men. Whereas in the early 1960s about 60% of large companies were using the Japanese Government’s plans as guidelines for their long range plans, by the late 1960s more than 80% were using them.

But there is another successful byproduct of this policy of economic planning which must be mentioned - and one that without doubt has relevance in Australia - and that is that these long range plans have been responsible for forcing the widely divergent views of the key policy ministries into consistent national aims. Australia is not. apparently, unique in having powerful policy making departments pulling in different directions, frequently at the expense of overall national consideration. Here is one way of overcoming the problem in the interests of growth and a better standard of living for us all.

Let me quote from an article Mr Walter Kommer, a former Managing Editor of the Australian’, wrote shortly after returning from Japan, admittedly a couple of years ago.

The longer we defer action to set up our own scale of long-term national objectives the more traumatic will be the impact of Japan on our lives. . . . Since the Government does not understand the full implications of the new Japan it shows - not unexpectedly, little concern - so we will continue to fritter away our resources instead of concentrating our national effort in these areas where we enjoy obvious comparative advantages. Treasury will continue to draft short-term economic policies. The States will continue to make investment decisions that run completely counter to national economic efficiency, and our policy of protection will continue to be generally directed to the least efficient areas in our economy instead of where we have a chance of making a show.

These thoughts are as relevant today as they were 2 years ago, and perhaps more so. We do not have to look only to Japan for an example of a more successful approach to these affairs. We can look to

Sweden, France, and even our Anzac partner, New Zealand. With the shocking waste that is going on in our community today, with the inadequate and inept attempts to control inflation that we are experiencing under this Liberal-Country Party rule, with the tragic hardships being caused by the rise in costs to so many people who derive their incomes from primary industry, from pensions or from other fixed incomes, is it not time for us to institute a new approach such as I have outlined - a Labor solution?

This is one of the things the Leader of the Opposition was saying when he talked about the basic misallocation of resources and the futility of the present blunt instruments of monetary policies, of high interest rates, of stop and go. We know how much these things mean to housing and the cost of mortgages. To follow the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday night, the Government resurrected, temporarily any way, from his position of political oblivion, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). He is the man who said that he would not under any circumstances serve in a Gorton government. Yet he was their trump card - for whatever reason, most of us merely have to guess. In a very poor performance he led off by attacking Canada in general and the principles of Professor Galbraith in particular. His ignorance of this subject - or was it expediency for political ends - would have been laughable if it did not have serious implications.

The matter is serious, because Galbraith is one person who puts forward a credible theory which should be followed in today’s situation and pursued vigorously in order to break the present vicious circle of rises in prices, followed by rises in costs, followed by rises in prices, and so on. If John Maynard Keynes had written his general theory by the late 1920’s instead of the late 1930’s a Treasurer like Theodore would have been allowed to pursue the policies that he was prevented from pursuing. If these policies of deficit financing had been initiated around the world then the great depression, the tragic underemployment of men and resources, would not have been experienced - at least with the same intensity as was experienced in the 1930s.

Today we have a theory, which is a Galbraithian theory, to break the present economic inflationary malaise. Unfortunately, we do not have a Labor Treasurer - at the present time, anyway - to put these policies into effect. I should like to give a brief outline of these theories because they are extremely important. Keynesian economic philosophy in the areas of economic policy rests on the dependence of monetary and fiscal, or budgetery, policies to reduce aggregate demand in order to stop inflation, and activate demand in order to pull the economy out of a recessionary phase. Monetary policy operates on the availability of credit while fiscal policy operates firstly on disposable incomes - incomes which are left in people’s pockets to spend - and secondly on the relative role of government expenditures. More recently, Galbraith and some others have contended that monetary policy has contributed to rather than modified postwar economic problems. The new school of thought points out that monetary policy is not selective in its impact and causes market distortions and even social inequities. I mentioned earlier the effect of interest rates on housing as an example of this. The monetary authorities’ role is reduced to very short-term financial manipulations which ensure orderly securities markets and an adequate growth in the money supply.

Galbraith argues that Budget policies are similarly non-selective - at least as they are practised. Surely we are seeing an example of that in this Budget. They are capable of selection, but in the areas of resource allocation and the setting of appropriate social and welfare priorities these budgetary policies have been remiss. However, it is true that budgetry policies have more relevance to inflationary control than do monetary policies. It would not be correct to say that Keynes’s principles are being discarded for Galbraith’s. At certain stages of the business cycle, under certain conditions, in terms of community problems, balance of payment situations and so on, one mixture might work better than another. The best that can be said at this stage is that Galbraith adds another tool to the kit of economic policy makers. I contend that that tool is necessary in Australia now.

I want to have a further look, for the record, at Galbraith’s arguments. His first point, which he made quite clear, is close to the hearts of all of us. He said that high employment is necessary for sustained economic growth since low output and idle capacity are a disincentive to investment. He said also that no policy of price stabilisation has any chance of permanent success if it argues that there must be deliberately manufactured and continuing unemployment. Professor Galbraith argues that in the United States and in Australia, at high employment, prices are unstable - and we have seen this - because of a defect in the economic machine, particularly in one sector. This sector is the one in which firms are very large and control by them over prices is substantial; there is opportunity for large discretionary increases in prices whenever demand is favourable. Is not this our situation with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd? That company increases the price of its steel without, any restraint or leadership from the Government.

Galbraith said that there is, furthermore, a powerful incentive to exploit this price discretion when wages are raised, particularly when we have a monopoly situation. So long as demand is at or near full employment limits, prices and wages will react on each other in a steady upward spiral in industries characterised by strong firms and strong unions. Inflation has been characterised by increases, particularly in the prices of steel, steel products, machinery, cars, paper, rubber and so on in this country. The budgetary and monetary policies do not deal with these problems of inflation appropriately because their impact is too general, because they attempt to reduce aggregate demand and depend on a reduction of employment levels to achieve an easing of aggregate demand. Consequently, they are quite unacceptable to honourable members on this side of the House. Although inflationary tendencies tend to find their outlet in concentrated industries, the solution does not lie in breaking up such industries because of structural and political problems that such action would raise.

So the one course of action is for some form of public intervention in that part of the economy where full employment or an approach to full employment means inflationary price and wage increases. Among the principles governing this intervention should be that it should be limited to the concentrated sector; the machinery for intervention should be simple and its aim should be restraint, not rigid price and wage fixing; the effort to achieve stability should, if at all possible, be carried out in a conciliatory spirit. Almost any useful procedure will require an official finding each year of the wage advance that would be generally consistent with stable prices. This does not presuppose that the starting point does give a fair breakdown between labour and capital of the rewards of their enterprise. The whole of the Galbrathian theory rests on a partnership between labour, industry and government, in these concentrated sectors in particular, promoted by government.

I believe that is entirely consistent with what is being suggested by Mr Bob Hawke and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as witnessed by Mr Hawke’s statesmanlike message to the National Productivity Council reported in today’s newspapers. Here we have something positive being offered to help our country break out of the present straitjacket of ever increasing costs, yet wc find it being vilified by the honourable member for Lilley and his friends. The policy only recently has been applied in Canada and yet we find him quoting Canada’s unemployment figure and that country’s standard of social services in a worthless attempt to debunk the Galbraithian theory. Concerning unemployment, he did not mention the particular regional problems of Canada which distort the picture. For instance, there is Canada’s climate and the nature of some of its industries which create much seasonal unemployment. There is a lack of mobility of labour. Thousands of French speaking people in Quebec refuse to move from their province even though the unemployment problem is particularly acute there. The honourable member for Lilley did not tell us that in the field of social services we cannot compare the performance of our Federal Government with that of the Canadian Government because Canada’s provincial governments have much more responsibility in this field than do our State governments.

Concerning poverty, his argument falls down when note is taken of the quite marked difference in the definition of poverty between Canada and Australia. The Australian definition, in Professor

Henderson’s survey in Melbourne, is based on an income insufficient for a quite frugal existence whereas the Canadian definition is based on an income which is insufficient for something more than a frugal existence. Indeed, this point illustrates something of the difference in attitudes to poverty in the 2 countries. Canadian thinking on poverty is in terms of a relative lack of affluence rather than a lack of the necessaries for a quite frugal existence. The further point that can be made on this is that the relatively generous definition of poverty in Canada has been made by a public body, a public body, moreover, which has argued also for a programme to raise the poor in Canada to the relatively generous basic income level contained in its poverty definition, or rather to its cut-off point. It should be noted also that a committee of the Canadian Senate is currently holding an inquiry into the problem of poverty. This situation compares with the Australian situation in which there is no apparent specific interest in poverty on the part of public bodies and in which there has been no public inquiry into the poverty problem. So much for the attempted debunking of Canada, of Galbraithian theory and of the masterful speech of the Leader of the Opposition in this Budget debate by the Liberal-Country Party’s trump card, the honourable member for Lilley. 1 am particularly concerned to see the end of inflation and the end to the use of the present blunt instruments being applied in vain to cure it - and this is not only because of the general effect on pensioners, on those on fixed income, on the lower income groups, and particularly on the young, newly married where there are the expenses of buying a home and of raising a family with only one income coming into the household. May I, while we are discussing the question of raising a family, bring to the attention of the House the fact that item No. 3 on page 13 of the Budget Speech documents, under the heading ‘Payment to National Welfare Fund’, discloses a drop of $20,143,000 in the amount expected to be spent on child endowment during the current year - from an actual expenditure of $220,143,000 in 1969- 70 to an estimated $200m in 1970- 71. Although this is given as an aside, it is an extremely important point which should be bought out in the debate on the Estimates.

I am especially concerned about the blunt policies of high interest rates, of a 50c increase on a gallon of wine and of a 21/2% increase in sales tax on motor cars and other consumer durables because of the particular effects on my own State of South Australia. My State manufactures many goods, especially vehicles and home appliances, for the national market and any downturn caused by Commonwealth policies has a greater effect in South Australia than in the rest of Australia. Therefore, if economic policy is based on overall trends and we are to rely only on blunt stop and go policies, as is the policy of the present Liberal-Country Party Government, South Australia will be particularly hard hit. I protest most strongly that we are subjected to this. I have shown that alternative policies are available. If the present policies are to be persisted with for heaven’s sake let us have some special Commonwealth Government measures in South Australia to see that once again a tragic waste of men and resources does not take place there. The policies are designed for the rest of Australia, not for us. Why on earth should we suffer? As I asked earlier in my speech in this debate, why should anybody suffer?

Indeed, instead of having these special measures in recent years, instead of placing more Commonwealth investment in South Australia to offset the generally restrictive Commonwealth policies, the Commonwealth Government has slowed down its capital expenditure in that State. The overall consequence has been that when viewing a table of percentage annual population rises by State it becomes apparent that my State has gone from the top position of 2.86 for the year ended 31st March 1966 to bottom position of 1.76 for the year ended 31st March 1970. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), I know, received a letter from South Australia’s Premier, Don Duns tan, at least 6 weeks ago on these matters. Since then our troubles have been compounded by this Budget. We have heard nothing from the Prime Minister. Already Chrysler Australia Ltd has cut its production and General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd is not replacing men who leave it - to mention just two of our large Adelaide employers.

I have said nothing so far about the shabby treatment my State has received at the Premiers Conference and the Australian Loan Council meeting. In spite of the Treasurer’s denial in the answer to a question I put to him last Wednesday on the subject, it is quite clear that the Treasury recommended a far larger figure than my State received. It is now general knowledge that, forced to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, my State will probably fare better than was originally intended. That Grants Commission meeting was on 3rd August, 25 days ago. It is high time that this Government made the extra amount available to ease the State budgetary position in South Australia.

I did hope to include in my speech the topics of Commonwealth-State financial relations, programme budgeting, a national superannuation scheme and taxation reform. I point out that for 10 years 1 was a taxation consultant andI know that one can shoot holes through the present taxation legislation. I did hope to include all these things in my contribution this afternoon, but recently we have indicated that we will cut down on the time of our speeches. I want to stay true to the spirit of that decision.I do not have long to go, so in conclusion I repeat that this Government must be condemned for its wasteful management of our resources and for the imposts and unnecessary hardships it has imposed on our people. I shall be supporting the Opposition amendment and voting against all the Budget appropriation Bills with a great deal of heart and with the hope that the Australian Labor Party will soon be governing Australia.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I rise to support the Budget in principle, although I disagree with one or two factors that are mentioned in it. I want to make some comments in regard to the general presentation of the Budget. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Bury) said that he was presenting a balanced Budget, and in this regard one who is considering the fiscal policy of the Government takes into consideration the general principles of economics that govern the presentation and the fulfilment of a Budget and of a policy. It is easy enough for any group or section in the community, or for the Opposition in a Parliament to say that it is not satisfied, that this should be done, that that should be done or that additional finance should be made available in the Budget. This is something that can be said very easily by people or a group who have no responsibility for the financial aspect and the final financial achievement. In considering this Budget, whilst there may be certain sections in it and certain factors which may be criticised, to my mind what must be looked at is an overall picture of ultimate achievement for the economic security of the country. When we look at this Budget, covering as it does all the aspects related to Government policy, we can see that it is directed to balancing demands and receipts. One honourable member opposite passed a remark today thatI thought was most appropriate and should be considered by all honourable members. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) said: ‘It is the people’s money that the Government is using.’ I think this is something that should be given very careful consideration because when from any or all quarters there are requests for financial assistance these requests should be considered in the light of the fact that the only money a government has available to use is money taken from the people of the community by some form of taxation. So I say that there is not an unlimited supply as far as any government is concerned. One other comment that the honourable member for Sturt made was that people are important. I think this should also be given consideration. People are important, and in presenting this Budget the Treasurer has given consideration to people and to the effects that this Budget will have on all sections of the community. So, as I said when I was opening my remarks in support of the Budget, those are considerations that must be in the back of our minds when we give either commendation or criticism of this Budget. It is my intention to make further comment when this House reassembles and to go into detail in regard to some of the criticism that I have of this Budget. I also intend to make some comments in regard to the factor of law and order that has been mentioned previously in this House. I now ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 3.48 p.m.

page 742

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Answer to Questions (Question No. 1247)

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer tomy questions Nos 540 and 724 which were placed on the Notice Paper on 19th March and15th April respectively.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The replies to these questions were published in Hansard on June 9th, 1970, pages 3197 and 3198.

Colleges of Advanced Education (Question No. 1330)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Has his attention been drawn to the severe shortage of recurrent funds in colleges of advanced education.
Have any (a) State Ministers for Education, (b) administrations of colleges, (c) staff associations of colleges or (d) other bodies made any requests to him for additional grants of recurrent funds by the Comomnwealth; if so, who made the requests.

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

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

The recurrent budget for colleges has risen from $57.4m in the 1967-69 triennium to a figure of $128.3m in the 1970-72 triennium. The latter figure does not include adjustments which may result from implementation of the recommendations made last year by Mr Justice Sweeney in the report of the Inquiry into Salaries of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in Colleges of Advanced Education; nor does it take account of the effects of recommendations in respect of academic salaries made this year by Mr Justice Eggleston.
No official approach has been made for an overall increase in the recurrent programmes agreed to for this triennium by Commonwealth and State governments. The Staff Association of the Colleges has raised this and a number of other questions with me and they no doubt have also approached the State authorities. I have also received a number of personal representations on behalf of the Staff Association of the Colleges in this matter.

Semi-governmental Interest Rates (Question No. 1385)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Teasurer, upon notice:

What has been the date and the amount of alterations in the maximum interest rate which the Loan Council has authorised for semigovernmental borrowings la the last 20 years.

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

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

The proceedings of the Australian Loan Council are confidential and I am therefore unable to provide the information requested by the honourable member.

Transport Advisory Council: Meetings of Standing Committee (Question No. 1440)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

On what dates have there been meetings of the interdepartmental committee established to consider transport policy and development.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The committee to which the honourable member refers is the Standing Committee of Advisers to the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Since its formation on 23 February 1970 it has met on 9 April 1970, 23 June 1970 and 8 July 1970.

Transport Advisory Council: Proposals (Question No. 1442)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made by the Transport Advisory Council at its meeting in Port Moresby in July 1970 for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth (b) the Territories and (c) the States.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

As I have advised on previous occasions, the Australian Transport Advisory Council is a forum at which Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with transport discuss matters of common interest. Consideration is given to many detailed recommendations of specialist committees of the Council which, if endorsed, may result in legislative and/or administrative action. The following is a list of the more important items considered at the last meeting of Council on which administrative or legislative action was proposed:

Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety.

Modifications to motor vehicles.

Mechanical inspection of long distance passenger buses.

Third party insurance - reciprocity between jurisdictions.

Drugs of dependence - transport and storage.

Road safety - reconstitution of Australian Road Safety Council.

Air pollution.

Pollution of the sea by oil.

Air cushion vehicles.

Interstate railway operations.

Proceedings are of a private nature. However, press announcements concerning decisions of Council are made at the end of Council sessions. Press statements were released from the July 1970 meeting of Council on the following:

Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety.

Modifications to Motor Vehicles.

Mechanical inspection of long distance buses.

Transport of drugs of dependence.

State reciprocity of third party insurance.

Motor vehicle air pollution.

In addition, I made a press statement on 13th

August 1970 concerning the new Commonwealth expert road safety group. This statement referred to decisions taken at the July 1970 Council meeting regarding the reconstitution of the Australian Road Safety Council.

Shipping (Question No. 1443)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Which Australian National Line and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd ships made overseas voyages in the last financial year.
When did they sail.
What was the principal commodity carried.
Where was that commodity loaded and discharged.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Electoral Enrolments: Census (Question No. 1455)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What has been the increase or decrease in enrolment in each electoral division since the 1968 redistribution.
What is the present enrolment in each division.
What is the average enrolment for the divisions in each State.
How soon after the census to be taken in June 1971 will statistics be available to show the number of the people of each State, Territory and division.

Mr Nixon:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

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

and (2)-

The average enrolment for the divisions in each State as at 31 July 1970 was:

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that preliminary totals of population from the 1971 Census based on field counts will become available for States, Territories and Electoral Divisions during October 1971. Final edited totals will become available progressively by States from early 1972 following an extensive clerical and automatic data processing operation. In both cases totals for Electoral Divisions will be only close approximations due to Census boundaries not coinciding exactly with Electoral boundaries.

Perth: Alternative Airport (Question No. 1513)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Have any airline companies expressed a preference for a particular airport in Western Australia as an alternative to Perth.
If so, which airport was preferred by each company.
When does the Minister expect a conclusion to be reached and an announcement to be made on this matter.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1 and 2) The two major domestic airlines have expressed a preference for Kalgoorlie. The international airlines accept Adelaide but would prefer a closer alternate for economic reasons in the longer term.

Other airports additional to Kalgoorlie may need to be considered bearing in mind the developing pattern of domestic and international jet operations. For that reason and with proper regard to what could prove to be a multi-million dollar requirement it is not expected that we will be iti a position to reach a firm conclusion until late in 1971.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 August 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700828_reps_27_hor69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives28 August 1970

PETITIONS

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Censorship

Education

Education

Education

Education

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr WHITTORN:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS

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

QUESTION

SUGAR

Dr PATTERSON:DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr GORTON:Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr ENGLAND:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:CP

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr ENDERBY:

Mr GORTON:LP

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Mr DOBIE:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Les Johnson:HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SINCLAIR:

QUESTION

MIRAGE AIRCRAFT

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr Malcolm Fraser:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr Kevin Cairns:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

QUESTION

MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD: NOONGAH’ INQUIRY

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr SINCLAIR:CP

Mr Whitlam:

Mr SINCLAIR:

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr HALLETT:CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr GORTON:LP

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Mr SCHOLES:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:LP

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr MacKELLAR:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:LP

QUESTION

ASTHMA

House of Representatives
28 August 1970

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

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

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

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

Mr KING:
Wimmera

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

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr Forbes:
LP

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

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

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

Mr Sinclair:
CP

Mr Sinclair:
CP

Mr Sinclair:
CP

Mr Nixon:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr Swartz:
LP