House of Representatives
4 September 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 1033

PETITIONS

Interest Rates

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That the recent increase in the interest rate on Government Bonds has caused hardship to the thousands of home buyers throughout this state due to the subsequent increase in interest rates on mortgage contracts by home lending institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the residents of the Stale of New South Wales showeth:

  1. The red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.
  2. None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.
  3. It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that: The export of all kangaroos products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the Kangaroo. And, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled. The humble petition of the residents of the State of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

  1. The red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.
  2. None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.
  3. It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

That export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo. And, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition.

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

That because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species, is now so low, that they may become extinct;

There are not sufficient wardens in any State of Australia to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws in existence;

As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to Australia.

It is an indisputable fact, that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future. We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that;

The export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth take the necessary steps to bring all wildlife throughout Australia, under its jurisdiction.

Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes, can save surviving kangaroos. And your petitioners, therefore as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That, due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are rinding 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 per cent of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance m accordance with A.C.T.U. 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 and read.

Education

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I present 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 cone 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 pro grammes 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

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present 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 the 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 lor 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 REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-] present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for 78 per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty ‘bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Censorship

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of Bendigo 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 per cent 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 adminstered. 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 LYNCH:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of Flinders 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 per cent 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 adminstered as to preserve sound moral standards in the community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 1035

QUESTION

BROADCASTING STATIONS

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that the use of Australian gramophone recordings by commercial broadcasting stations is at present inhibited by a copyright dispute? Why are difficulties being experienced by the commercial stations and not by the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Why does the dispute extend to recordings from the United Kingdom and not to those from the United States of America?

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

– There is a dispute concerning the use by commercial broadcasting stations of records which are produced in Australia. The arrangement that existed for many years was that these recordings were played on the commercial broadcasting stations on the basis that the advertising which was given by the announcement of the record, who actually composed it and what company manufactured it was regarded as the equivalent to the copyright fee or to the fee paid for its use. When the Copyright Act was amended some 12 months or 2 years ago, there was included in it reference to international arrangements or understandings. There is a reciprocal arrangement in this area between Australia and the United Kingdom, but the United States has not entered into the agreement.

The arrangement between the United Kingdom and Australia is that if records from either country are played in the other country, a fee is payable. America is not a party to the agreement and therefore the arrangement does not apply as between America and Australia. I might say that the Copyright Act merely leaves to the manufacturing companies the right as a matter of business judgment to ask for a fee or refrain from doing so. But some of the broadcasting stations or networks are in fact contemplating developing their own company for the purpose of manufacturing records. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is not involved in this dispute because, under the Broadcasting and Television Act, it is not allowed to advertise. Therefore, the ABC does not announce the name of a record, who is responsible for it or who manufactured it. But the ABC does pay a substantial fee to record manufacturers in Australia.

page 1036

QUESTION

ATTACKS ON COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Army give the House information concerning the attack on the Queensland University drill hall? Will he advise what action is intended against those who broke into this military property? Can the Minister assure the House that every safeguard is being taken to see that arms are properly secured in all drill halls so that weapons are not available to such people?

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

– Honourable members will be aware from Press reports in the last couple of days that an incident occurred at the Queensland University Regiment training depot on 2nd September when a group of persons barricaded themselves on the first floor of that depot and damaged some furniture and other property. They left when ordered to do so by the police. Although some threats have been reported in the Press, so far no further incidents have occurred. If any threat does develop, appropriate action will be taken to protect Commonwealth property. I have set in motion procedures, on the lines mentioned by the honourable member in his question, in regard to armouries and other aspects of military depots. Naturally, we view with concern any illegal occupation of Commonwealth property. The Commonwealth police are investigating the matter to see whether prosecutions should be launched against those who were involved in the incident mentioned. I will say no more at this juncture.

page 1036

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Secretary of the Government Members Wool Committee absented himself from the House on Wednesday to fly to Sydney to accompany the representatives of the International-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member is referring to a committee whose deliberations have not been completed in relation to a matter, he would be distinctly out of order.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I can continue with my question, which is related to matters within the province of the Prime Minister, on this important subject. If I am not permitted to refer to the absence of the Secretary of the Wool Committee, I will not do so. I will continue on the other matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The other point I would make to the honourable member is this: If he is making a charge against an honourable member or is reflecting in any way on the motives of an honourable member, he would be out of order again.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I make no reflection. It might be Government policy. I am seeking information. Perhaps I might proceed. 1 ask: Is it a fact that the Secretary of the Government Members Wool Committee absented himself from the House on Wednesday to fly to Sydney to accompany the representatives of the International Wool Textile Organisation, the declared opponents of the Australian wool industry, to Canberra? Did the Prime Minister authorise this mission? Was the Government’s representative given any instructions to follow in joining a group which has come to Australia with the announced intention of destroying any significant wool marketing reform in the interests of growers? Is it further a fact that some Federal Government members have given public and private assurances that they will not support any significant wool marketing reformation? Has the New South Wales Premier asked the Prime Minister, on behalf of the New South Wales Liberal Party and Country Party members, to arrange for the Commonwealth to acquire the clip? Will the Prime Minister put an end to the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is asking a very long and involved question-

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am finishing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question appears to be more suited to the notice paper. I asked the honourable member to end his question or I will direct him to put it on notice.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am just finishing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member finish briefly.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he will put an end to the speculation and the intrigue and announce his support for significant wool marketing reform?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Without in any way, I hope, suggesting, Mr Speaker, that perhaps you should have taken action on this matter, I suggest that the entire question is out of order since the question of the travelling of private members of Parliament does not come within my administration.

page 1037

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Services. The Minister will remember describing this year as one of consolidation for social benefits at a high level. In view of the increasing inflationary pressures which affect people on fixed incomes before all others, particularly the aged and widows with dependent children, will the Minister give consideration to an urgent re-examination of, the pension levels which must otherwise be severely eroded if we wait for next year’s budget?

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– The Government is very conscious that a rise in prices and inflation will affect all people on fixed incomes - pensioners and others. Pensioners as much as or perhaps more than others have something to gain from action by the Government which is aimed at restraining inflation and price rises. If the honourable member will do me the honour of looking at the table which I placed before the House yesterday he will see that over the years the Government has given a rise in pensions at budget time in anticipation of further price rises because the real value of the base pension has been increased above what it would have been if we had taken account only of past price rises. This year the Government has held at peak level. In all years price rises in the months following the budget have reduced the real value of pension increases. This has been allowed for by the Government over many years by increasing the base rate above what it would have been had we followed movements in the price index; by increasing the pension, in effect, in advance. I can hold out no immediate prospect of a change in Government policy but I can hold out a prospect that as soon as opportunity offers the Government will resume, whether by increases in the base rate or in other ways, an improvement in the real value of the benefits which pensioners receive. This may not be done immediately but certainly it will be done in the future, as this Government has consistently done it in the 21 years it has been in office.

page 1037

QUESTION

CALL-UP NOTICES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service: How many summonses have been issued in the past week for failure to obey call-up notices? What priorities are being followed in issuing these notices? Have student leaders, in particular members of Students For a Democratic Society, been singled out for discriminatory treatment in issuing the notices? Finally, why has the Government found it necessary to continue the persecution of John Zarb by billing him for heavy Commonwealth legal costs?

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

– The honourable member will permit me to remind him that I announced some time ago that the National Service Act was under review. At the time there was a great deal of discussion on the matter. Following that I issued a statement that the Government had failed to find a civilian alternative to national service which met the necessary requirements and that consequently action under the National Service Act would proceed. At the same time it was announced that the regulations would be amended to allow me to refer to courts the issue of conscientious objection by those people who claimed it but were unwilling to make application for it. If my memory serves me correctly those regulations were amended about 10 days ago. When those regulations were amended 6 cases were immediately referred for determination of the status of conscientious objectors. There will be more such referrals. At the same time I authorised my Department to give instructions to the appropriate persons for the conduct of prosecutions against those persons who had refused to render service. Those prosecutions will firstly proceed against those persons who have over a long period of time refused to undertake service. I have seen a report - I do not know whether it is accurate or not - in which one of the persons who will receive a summons stated that the Government was picking him out because he was an activist in the anti-conscription campaign. That is not a fact. That person is being proceeded against along with the others in the ordinary way. Over the next few weeks the prosecutions will proceed.

The honourable gentleman added to his question some rather colourful words relating to Mr Zarb. I think he asked why the Government is continuing the persecution of Mr Zarb. I should like to remind the honourable gentleman and the House of a few salient facts. Mr Zarb made application to the magistrate to be declared a conscientious objector. The magistrate refused to so declare him. I should point out that at that procedure there is no provision for costs at all. Mr Zarb then took action under the normal legal procedures. If my recollection serves me, it was by way of a prerogative writ and went to the High Court. At that time a very great deal of publicity was given to the fact that campaigns would be held to raise funds in order to pay Mr Zarb’s costs. In November 1969 a direct appeal for funds was held. It appeared in the ‘Catholic Worker’ and stated that any donations should be sent to the Conscientious Objectors Non-Pacifist Advisory Committee, which is an organisation known to have assisted other protesters with financial aid.

In August 1969 a demonstration outside Pentridge Gaol was reported to have raised $800 to fight Zarb’s case. It was reported in the Melbourne Press that local branches of the Australian Labor Party had been asked to contribute to the cost of Zarb’s appeal. When the matter went before the High Court and was dismissed the Chief Justice made some comments. I think it is worth reminding the House of them. When dismissing Zarb’s appeal the Chief Justice, when speaking on one of the main grounds - that is, that Zarb had an honest belief that he had been granted exemption - said that the assertion that Zarb had this belief was ‘markedly dishonest’ and that the submission was ‘not merely unmeritorious but without any foundation’. Each of the other main grounds was firmly rejected.

A bill of costs was taxed. An order for costs was made against Zarb. If my recollection serves me, the bill of costs was presented to Mr Zarb about December of last year. At the time he was informed that the Government would appreciate any information he could provide as to the distribution of the funds which were collected specifically for that purpose. The letter which was written by my colleague, the Attorney-General, to Mr Zarb has not been reported accurately in the Press. I do not say that as a criticism of the Press. I think it is a criticism which must be made of an inaccuracy of communication, perhaps by Mr Zarb. The letter which my colleague wrote in December 1969 said:

You may remember that when I was first approached by Dr Cairns on Zarb’s behalf I informed you about the matter. We both agreed that this is a case in which it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth to enforce its claims for costs. As I understand the position, it will be necessary if the claim is not to be pursued for your Department to make an application.

The next thing that happened was that a letter went to Mr Zarb asking for full details. So far we have not received those details. When the details are provided we will be able to determine the matter. But let me say that, if funds have been contributed for this purpose, I feel that the funds ought to be used and that Consolidated Revenue ought not to be the source of payment.

page 1038

QUESTION

PORT OF DARWIN

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Is the Minister for Labour and National Service aware of the very serious situation on the Darwin waterfront, where 5 ships have been held up and one departed partly unloaded owing to the irresponsible go-slow tactics adopted by the wharf labourers which are causing great concern and hardship to Northern Territory citizens and the steady strangulation of the port of Darwin and business generally? Can he advise what action can be taken to speed up the turnround of these ships before the port is brought to a standstill?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– There has been an attempt to achieve a permanency situation in the port of Darwin. Because of the size of the port and some other circumstances it has been difficult to find a resolution of this question through the National Stevedoring Industry Council. The stevedoring branch of the North Australian Workers Union has, over a period of time, proceeded with go-slow tactics, limitations on work and, at times, strikes. This is a very great tragedy because it will, I am sure, prejudice the development of Darwin as a port, as a harbour and as a channel of commerce. However, the situation at this moment is that on Wednesday last the employers made an application to Mr Justice Gallagher for a bans clause and he deferred that application until Monday, 7th September, in Sydney and in the meantime ordered a return to work. My understanding is that that return to work order has been complied with. The matter will come on before Mr Justice Gallagher again on Monday. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything further.

page 1039

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Did he receive a couple of months ago a letter from the Local Government Association and the Shires Association of New South Wales asking that the sources of local government revenue should be included in the survey which he has commissioned Treasury officials to make of the sources of finance for Commonwealth and State governments? Did the associations offer their fullest co-operation in any such inquiry? Has the right honourable gentleman replied to the associations? If so, did he agree to their request? If not, when does he expect to reply?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The Leader of the Opposition is asking me about a letter received some months ago, the details of which are clearly not in my mind; nor the action taken on those matters. I do think 1 can assure him that I have not replied in terms to any such letter. But what other action has been taken as far as sending it to the Treasury or things of that kind, I cannot recollect at this period of time.

page 1039

QUESTION

POSTAL CHARGES

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware that the paper known as the ‘Open Road’ is of great educational value to motorists and is an effective deterrent to traffic offences which cause so much loss of life in this country? Is he aware that the recently announced postal rates will increase the costs to the National Roads and Motorists Association, in posting this paper to motorists, from $100,000 to $275,000 per annum? As it will not be possible for the NRMA to meet all of this cost in 1 year, will the Minister consider the application of a special rate or a graduated increase in the charge to this worthy organisation?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I do know that the proposed increase in postal charges will be at great cost to many of these organisations. On Tuesday last I received a deputation from the automobile clubs of Australia which presented certain facts to me in relation to their problem. I had to explain to them, as I did to the House in my second reading speech, that this area of postal charges has been causing a loss of approximately $9m a year. I do not just say that in relation to automobile clubs but about this total area of publications. The Government believes that we should receive a reasonable contribution for services which are carried out by the Post Office. I informed the clubs, as I have informed members of the public and members of the House, that we will still in this area be making a substantial loss notwithstanding the increases in charges. They pointed out to me that there has been little rise in their fees over a considerable period, but it does seem to me that as the Post Office is called upon to meet an additional wages bill of $58m this year, making necessary increased charges which have to be passed on, it may be necessary for these organisations also to increase their charges to enable them to meet a reasonable postage charge which the Government imposes.

page 1040

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister in a position to say when legislation will be presented to Parliament to give effect to the recommendations of the Australian Wool Industry Conference for a single authority to administer the marketing and distribution of the Australian wool clip? Will the Minister make it clear now that wool will not be sold below the cost of production but so as to provide a fair profit margin for the growers?

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

– I think I am probably more responsible in this area than the Minister for Trade and Industry. The Government has received a report from the Wool Board Advisory Committee containing certain recommendations. The Government has already acted on some of these recommendations, such action including an announcement that there will be emergency financial assistance to wool growers amounting to a maximum of $30m. The Committee also submitted other requests that we look into the questions of the indebtedness of wool properties and farm reconstruction and adjustment. One of the aspects of the report was on marketing, as the honourable member mentions. This was a preliminary document on a single marketing authority. However, there were many areas about which it did not spell out details. Deeper investigation and consideration were needed to clarify a number of points relating to the operation of a reserve price scheme, the charter, the responsibility of private buyers, the actual financing of the arrangements and so on. At the moment my Department, in conjunction with the industry, is preparing a submission which will be circulated to the industry and the Government for consideration, and until that is done I do not think any of us are in a position to express an opinion one way or the other about a marketing authority.

page 1040

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service and relates to the inquiry being conducted by Mr Justice Smithers into the conscientious beliefs of Mr Brian Ross which apparently commenced with a private meeting between the judge and Ross on 24th August. Did Mr Justice Smithers have a further private talk with Ross in

Melbourne yesterday and issue a statement after that meeting to the effect that he is now in a position to make the report requested by the Minister and that he would report promptly? Was Mr Justice Smithers appointed by the Government to hold an open judicial inquiry into Ross’s beliefs, or a series of private talks with Ross? Will the Minister give an undertaking that before any decision is reached in this matter Ross will be obliged to give his evidence on oath in open court, and subject to cross-examination in the same way as conscientious objectors have been obliged to do in the past?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– In reply to an earlier question I referred to an amendment of the regulations which enables matters to be referred to a court for determination whether a person in a conscientious objector even though he fails or refuses to make an application to be declared a conscientious objector. Had Mr Ross not been in prison, according to the advice given to me by my officers his case was one which would have been so regarded. But because he was in prison the act of conviction and imprisonment removed him from the statutory requirement to render service so that the changes in the regulations could not apply to him. I therefore decided that we ought to do what we possibly could to make the position equivalent. In order to do that I thought it best to appoint a judge for the purpose, because that would take care of the appeal provisions at the same time.

Mr Justice Smithers was appointed to inquire into the conscientious beliefs of Mr Ross and to report. It was not a judicial procedure. I had no power to order the way in which the inquiry should be conducted. That was entirely a matter for the person appointed to conduct the inquiry. After reading the Press report, I expect to receive a report from Mr Justice Smithers very shortly. When I receive that report I will examine it with my colleague, the Attorney-General. I give no undertakings of the kind asked for by the honourable gentleman for I cannot anticipate what will be contained in the report.

page 1040

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In the absence overseas of the Minister for External Affairs I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that I am not trying to score a political point and I hope that the Prime Minister will reply similarly. Is the Prime Minister aware that at least some of the countries opposed to Australia’s involvement in Vietnam tend to portray the war as one between Asian nationalists and white imperialists? Will he so inform the Minister for Immigration in connection with his refusal to grant a visa to Mr Gregory? Does the Prime Minister agree that that refusal is likely to upset many of Australia’s friends in the United States of America and delegates to the conference of Afro-Asian neutralists? Does he agree that one of the essential features of Australia’s foreign policy must be not to be identified in the United States, Africa and Asia with what I would call the South African position?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– 1 do know that numbers of people have been seeking to portray the situation in Vietnam as a struggle between Asian nationalists and white imperialists. Indeed, those who are opposed and have always been opposed to the war have been using this as an argument to support their opposition. They have also been attempting to suggest that it is a civil war which, I think was answered quite clearly in this House by the Minister for External Affairs. Both these attempts to show what is happening in Vietnam are in my opinion completely wrong and completely unfounded. Nevertheless, as the honourable member has said, they have been sought to be put out by, I believe, propagandists. 1 do not think that the question of the entry of Mr Gregory into Australia has anything whatever to do with the question of Vietnam. I mean the question of Vietnam in the sense in which the honourable member suggested it had - that it would lend support to those who were saying that in Vietnam the matter was a struggle between Asian nationalists and white imperialists. I do not believe that the refusal of entry of Mr Gregory can have any effect on that situation whatsoever.

The only way in which the honourable member could even pretend that it could have would be if he were seeking to show, or others sought to show, that Mr Gregory was refused admission to Australia because of his colour. That is inherent in the honourable member’s question. Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, this has nothing to do with it. There were 2 individuals who have not been allowed into Australia. One is a negro and one is a white man. So there is no question of colour in that. Nor could I go along with any implication that becouse a person is coloured therefore for that reason he ought to be allowed in when he would not be allowed in if he were white. I certainly could not go along with that suggestion either. I do not think this matter has anything to do with the one first raised by the honourable member.

We will recall, Mr Speaker, that at one stage it was suggested by a leading member of the Opposition front bench that for the purposes of the Moratorium campaign people should be brought here from the Vietcong or from North Vietnam. We would not for one moment have allowed that to happen and I do not see why we should allow other aliens to come here for the purpose of interfering in political matters in Australia, particularly those who have a long record of agitation in these affairs. So I do not believe that this has anything to do with the original matter raised by the honourable member.

page 1041

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry tell me when wool growers, who are suffering the effects of drought and low wool prices can begin applying for grants under the Government’s $30m emergency assistance scheme which is provided for in the Budget?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The Government announced in the Budget that $30m would be made available to meet the emergency needs of wool growers whose incomes had dropped substantially in 1969-70 as against the previous year. The main criterion that I have been working on is to get this money distributed as quickly as possible. Therefore my Department has been working at full speed to prepare application forms and to have them printed. This has been done. The forms are being distributed now to post offices. Copies should start reaching post offices by about the middle of next week and will be available at all post offices in wool growing areas by the middle of the following week. I hope that wool growers who can meet the criteria will fill in the application form and return it as quickly as possible. They will have a period of 2 months in which to do this. I wish to have all forms in by 30th November. As soon as the individual forms have been processed there will be an interim payment which, I believe, will be

SO per cent initially.

page 1042

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the credit requirements of the meat exports diversification scheme. Are meat works companies in the Kimberleys and the Northern Territory finding it difficult to establish their own credits? Is this due to a local shortage of beef suitable for export to markets other than the United States of America? Has this in turn produced a situation where meat works companies in the north are obliged to buy American export credits from meat works in the south, and has the cost of purchasing credits in the south brought about a reduction in the price paid to cattlemen for beef killed for export in the north by northern meat works? Finally, if this is so, will the Minister, in the interests of those directly concerned and also in the interests of decentralisation and northern development, use his influence or authority to grant relief from the diversification scheme to meat works in the regions to which I referred?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The purpose of the meat industry diversification plan is to try to regulate the supply of meat to the American market. That is the most attractive market in the world and, of course, those concerned would like to supply meat to it because it is there that they can obtain the maximum return. Northern meat works have been placed at some disadvantage because of the kind of meat that they produce. Their meat is the most attractive on the United States market but probably suffers a disadvantage on other markets. As a result, they have been making a number of protests about the operation of the scheme and the proportions which apply to them compared with those which apply to southern meat works.

There have been numerous discussions. I have had their requests put before the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Meat Exporters Council to see whether some alterations can be made. In fact, alterations have been made which are of substantial financial benefit to the meatworks in the north. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept that they should be excluded completely from the diversification scheme for their advantage and for the disadvantage of other meat works in Australia. At present they receive consideration. It is necessary for them to buy up some of the credits that southern meat works have, but that is the only way in which a scheme, based on the voluntary agreement of the industry and by which everyone is treated equitably and fairly, can work.

page 1042

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. I was misrepresented by certain remarks recorded in Hansard and for it I place no blame upon the Hansard staff. During my speech in the Budget debate on Wednesday, 2nd September, when I was replying to remarks made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) about the stoppage called by the Australian Council of Trade Unions previously I said: 1 pay tribute to the parliamentary staff. For the first time in history as far as I know and certainly for the first time since 1 have been here, the parliamentary staff stopped work.

What I should have said was:

I pay tribute to the parliamentary dining room staff.

They were the ones who stopped work. I understand that none of the official parliamentary staff, in the sense in which we use the term here for people who sit in the House and so on, stopped work. I still pay my tribute to the parliamentary dining room staff and give an undertaking that when any other members of the staff of this House stop work for the benefit of the working people of Australia, I will pay tribute to them too.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is going beyond the bounds of a personal explanation.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr STREET:

– Yes. A moment ago in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) alleged that the Secretary of the Government Members Wool Committee, as I understood him, had travelled to Sydney on Wednesday to meet the International Wool Textile Organisation delegation. I am Secretary of that Committee. I did not go to Sydney on that occasion to meet the delegation.

page 1043

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 September, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1043

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I present the 120th and 121st reports of the Committee. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DOBIE:

– Honourable members will recall that when I tabled your Committee’s 116th report which related to a Treasury minute I reminded the House of the basis of the Treasury minute arrangements which have operated since 1953. I also emphasised that these arrangements have proved their value over the years as an important element in ensuring that through your Committee, the Parliament maintains an important and significant role in the financial administration of the Commonwealth. The 120th report, which relates to the Treasury minute on your Committee’s report on expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the financial year 1967-68, affords further evidence in support of that view.

The 121st report relates to your Committee’s inquiry into the financial administration of the Department of Shipping and Transport. During the course of our inquiry in mid-1969 a major re-organisation took place in the central office of the Department located in Melbourne. This involved a transfer of some senior officers to Canberra, a regrouping of some of the Department’s main functions, a strengthening of its top structure and the establishment of a policy group of 50 positions in

Canberra. The transfer of the remainder of the Department is not envisaged before 1973-74. Regarding the transfer of positions to Canberra in 1969-70, we note the admission made in evidence that difficulties could arise in communication between the Canberra and Melbourne based sections of the branches of the administration concerned. On the basis of its experience, your Committee recognises the difficulties that could arise in this area. Every effort must be made to ensure that the efficiency of the Department is not impaired due to the geographical division of the central office between Canberra and Melbourne. Your Committee is concerned that such a physical division of central control could result in a series of duplications of positions at many levels, a heavy cost arising from necessary departmental executive travel and added expenses arising from the need for constant communication between the 2 sections of the central office, all of which potential costs and expenses could have been avoided had it been decided to transfer the central office to Canberra in a single move.

The evidence taken in your Committee’s inquiry shows that penalties imposed under the Navigation Act have remained virtually unchanged for many years and in some cases relate to matters that are no longer appropriate. Moreover, the manner in which some of the regulations made under that Act have been framed and the way in which cases have been presented by the Department and the Deputy Crown Solicitor have raised difficulties for the courts in deciding some cases where prosecutions have been launched. In these circumstances your Committee believes that the Navigation Act and regulations require urgent revision and that the regulations require continuous review. It also appears to your Committee that, particularly in the years prior to 1965 when the Department established an organisation and methods unit, widespread inadequacies existed in the Department’s administration. This was particularly evident in the important areas of internal audit and stores management. We commend the Department for the action it has taken more recently to revise its arrangements and procedures in these areas. However, in view of the Department’s history in these areas of administration, we expect it to make certain that its assurances of improved operations in the future are realised fully and that the staffing of these units is brought to full strength without further delay. Your Committee also believes that the Department should take steps to ensure the adequacy of its storage arrangements for microfilm, which in recent years has become an important repository for departmental records. As the improper use of telephones can prove costly, your Committee also considers that the Department should issue a staff instruction covering the use of these facilities in all circumstances.

Your Committee commends the Department for its efforts, through the provision of training facilities, to solve its recruitment problems. However, the evidence indicates that the facilities available in Australia for formal training of nautical and marine engineering officers, particularly for those requiring higher qualifications, are inadequate. The Department has considered the question of whether a nautical academy should be established in Australia or, alternatively, whether greater opportunities should be provided in universities. Any delays in solving these questions can only aggravate existing difficulties. Your Committee believes, therefore, that these unresolved questions should be examined promptly by all of the parties concerned, including tertiary education institutions. In relation to the Department’s revenue collections, your Committee believes that the Department should re-examine the principle adopted for the identification of specific Miscellaneous items. In the area of Departmental expenditure we consider that the department should continue to remind the State authorities concerned with expenditure under the railway agreements of the availability of additional estimates within the Commonwealth financial framework.

Your Committee believes that, in view of the new organisation accorded the Department of Shipping and Transport in mid- 1969, which implies a strong policy connotation, the Department of Shipping and Transport should move to a greater extent into the field of co-ordination of transport and transport developments and should provide greater assistance than it has been able to offer in the past in the development of policies to ensure maximum efficiency of transport at a minimum cost. Your Committee also believes that, as part of that development, the Department of Shipping and Transport could now assume direct responsibility for some functions which in recent years have been undertaken by the Exports Transportation Branch of the Department of Trade and Industry. At the same time your Committee is mindful of the need for both of these departments and other departments concerned with aspects of transport and trade promotion to continue to work closely together in areas on mutual interest. Your Committee believes that if these objectives are realised a considerable saving could be achieved in the public interest. I commend the reports to honourable members.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 1044

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I present the second report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1044

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The involvement of political and industrial bodies in the aims, organisation, and plans of the imminent Moratorium campaign.

Mr Whitlam:

– What was the date of the letter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-It was dated 28th August. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I was delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) rise to support the discussion of this matter. I would hope that he would remain in the House because I intend to make 4 charges with respect to his own personal administration in the Australian Labor Party. It is quite clear that the complete and total surrender of the Australian Labor Party to left wing forces in Australian politics occurred 3 weeks ago at Broken Hill. It is perfectly clear that for the first time this surrender occurred not at intermediate or lower levels of the Party but at the highest level of the Party with the Leader of the Opposition himself personally involved. When a charge of this nature is made I would hope that he would take the opportunity to reply to it, as he can do if he likes. Why does one make such a charge? When one looks at the resolution which was passed by the Federal Executive of the Labor Party and at the third paragraph of that resolution concerning the Moratorium campaign, one sees that it reads thus: lt is further requested that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party approach the ACTU with a view to securing joint support for the September Moratorium and that the Federal Secretary discuss with the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party Leader, Mr Whitlam, and the President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke,-

Old friends - the arranging of some suitable joint activity by the ALP and ACTU during the September Moratorium in support of ALP and ACTU foreign policy.

There are 3 ingredients in that resolution which are new so far as the Party opposite is concerned and which are appropriate to our considerations this morning. In the first place it is a clear instruction. In the second place there is an instruction to combine with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Mr Hawke personally. In the third place there is the discovery that there is a joint foreign policy between the Labor Party and the ACTU. When one remembers that the ACTU exists not only at the interstate Executive level but at the level of the State Trades and Labour Councils, some of which are under very strong Communist influence, one can imagine what sort of joint foreign policy can be perpetrated between 2 such bodies. But this is a new attitude for the Leader of a Labor Party.

The first question we have to ask is simply this: What are the aims of this Moratorium for which the Leader of the Opposition has been instructed to work? The aims have been set out by a number of people. They have been set out by the President of the Moratorium, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). They have been set out by committees in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and other .States. A short summary of the aims is simply this: The immediate and total withdrawal of Australian, American and all other foreign troops, no longer from Vietnam, but from Indo China. They have widened the field. The aim is also the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all military and material support - not just military support, material support - for the present Saigon Government, and the immediate abolition of conscription in any form. So the aims of this body are very wide. They have been widened significantly since May. They have been widened significantly to embrace, at the highest level, the leader of the alternative government in this country.

We would be recreant to our duties if we did not point out the significance of this popular front that has now been developed. But before we look at the popular front, let me make this charge: It is irrefutable that the Moratorium is a body which exists on 3 supports. It exists on support at various levels from the Communist Party of Australia. That cannot be refuted. It exists on support from the various peace movements which previously have been banned by the Party opposite. It exists on support from the Australian Labor Party. They are intertwined at every level in the movement at the various State campaign committees, and this cannot be refuted. The Leader of the Opposition involved himself with Communists at the Brisbane Trades Hall earlier this year in giving support to the campaign. So when there is a body such as this and an alternative government adopting the popular front technique not only to develop its policy but to formulate its policy and to organise around this policy, it would be recreant for any government or any parliamentarian to seek to hide these facts from the Australian people.

But there is a certain sadness in this type of approach, and the sadness is that after nearly 40 years of opposition to the popular front technique the Party opposite has at last succumbed to this combination. I remind members opposite that as far back as 1928 it devolved upon members of the Labor Party not to combine in meetings pursuing Communist Party policy. There have been subsequent resolutions concerning particulars, but the philosophy of that resolution at the Executive level over 40 years ago is still supposed to be appropriate, and it is being ignored at organisational levels these days. It is important for Australia to know this also for the reason that we know from experience that the popular front techniques, whether they have been through the old councils against Fascism for peace, whether they have been through the peace movements, whether they have been through the peace campaigns or whether they now come through the Moratorium Campaign, have been used in various countries in the world - certainly in Europe - to bring those countries to the very brink of disaster.

If one thinks this is something new or something that does not mean much, let me remind the House that the influence of the popular front technique left France a prey to invasion during the Second World War. It was the principal reason why the French body politic could not respond. That very same technique is being pursued in Australia by the Party opposite, the alternative government, at the present day.

How do I illustrate this? How can it be illustrated simply? I would illustrate it in this way: We know the aims of this body. They apply to Indo-China, and that inevitably and ultimately involves Malaysia. I challenge the Party opposite to examine this question. Recently an amount of publicity has been given to a document put out by the Secretary-General of the North Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan. In that document the SecretaryGeneral acknowledged 2 things: Firstly, that the policy of the North Vietnamese Communists involved all Indo-China; and secondly, that they were responsible for the confrontation and the conflict from over a decade ago to the present day - they initiated it and they continue it. That cannot be disputed. That is his strategy.

I would ask honourable members opposite to answer this question: Can they demonstrate any way in which the aims of this Campaign on which they are now embarking are at variance with the aims and the strategy of Le Duan? They cannot indicate in any way in which these policies are at variance with the strategy and the tactics of Le Duan and the North Vietnamese Communist Party. That strategy applies to the whole of Indo-China; it applies far wider than Vietnam. It is embraced by the Moratorium and the Australian Labor Party. These things have to be brought out.

There are already 2 charges on the books against the Leader of the Opposition, but there is another one. Why is he combining with an outside body for which he is not responsible? For some years he has attempted to evade this charge. He let the honourable members for Oxley (Mr Hayden), Capricornia (Dr Everingham), Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), before he became a right winger, become the avant-garde. They were the avant-garde and he appeared to be dragged reluctantly along. He used to write letters to Mr Chamberlain saying that the policy determinations of the Labor Party are not to be determined by outside bodies and demonstrations. I refer to his letter of December 1969. I also refer to his comments earlier this year in a debate in this House when he said he would not combine with a body which was not totally under ALP control. He said:

I will not sponsor organisations created for internal political activity where those organisations are ones to which I am not responsible or for which I am not responsible.

That statement appears in Hansard of 14th April. In a letter to Mr Chamberlain at a later date he had this to say:

Members of the Party in matters of foreign defence policy should not give the false and damaging impressions that under a Labor Government foreign policy would be determined at mass meetings or by public petitions.

Both of those positions have been eroded, and I would say that in the erosion of those positions the one who has suffered most in terms of his own personal ambition is the Leader of the Opposition. He has to be mentioned personally because he remains the figurehead of the Australian Labor Party. He is the figurehead that will be torn down as people realise the significance of the figure and the significance of those behind him. He rather reminds me of the prehistoric animal the brontosaurus. The brontosaurus had a very poor means of internal communication, and it was well known that an enemy could attack the brontosaurus and eat its way right up the tail to the head before the brontosaurus realised what was happening. Needless to say the animal went out of existence.

I have merely made some reference to the traditional attitudes of the Party opposite. If these combinations are no longer outside the pale so far as the Party is concerned, that is its business. If it says that these associations are to be desired in determinations and actions concerning the highest policy, that is its business. But it can also be the business of a member of this Parliament to indicate where double standards are involved. Double and even triple standards are involved in this matter. Members of the Oposition know that what I say happens to be correct.

We are not against protesters. I have never been against protests; I have never been against dissension. But the attitude to protests and the attitude to dissension ought to be the attitude to these matters of responsible union secretaries such as exist, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh knows, in the Australian Workers Union, for example, in certain States. The attitude to strikers by responsible union secretaries consists of several parts. A strike must have aims that can be pursued without harm to members; it must have some proportion to the aim to be achieved; and they must have exhausted all reasonable methods of obtaining their aims. That is the tradition of the Australian Labor Party but that is not the tradition being observed today. The Party opposite today has thrown that tradition overboard because it is throwing so many of its old principles overboard.

Let me make a further comment that 1 think is appropriate. We have said that in the past there was an avant-garde in the Labor Party and that it was dragging the Leader of the Opposition along reluctantly. It consisted of the members that I have nominated. But these days we look at the Labor Party and we wonder who, in racing terminology, is the pacer and who has been set to win, because all members of the Party are racing together towards the post. This clearly is the aim of the Moratorium and clearly is a total surrender to the popular front technique of organisation and of policy administration in the Labor Party. I challenge honourable members opposite to refute that.

My fourth charge against the Leader of the Opposition is that he has surrendered his own position to the left wing of his Party at the price of preserving a seeming unity. He has officially adopted and will continue officially to adopt the popular front technique in his own administration in the Party and outside the Party. I challenge him to indicate in which way the aims of this Moratorium Campaign, in which so many members of the Opposition will demonstrate, are in conflict with the aims of the Secretary-General of the North Vietnamese Communist Party concerning all Indo-China.

Mr Keating:

– Who wrote that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member who is interjecting would parade himself as a right winger from time to time but let him answer the question I have asked. The Moratorium Campaign depends for its existence on 3 props: Members of the Communist Party at every level, members of the peace movements and members of the Australian Labor Party. Having made 4 charges, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to refute them because their refutation is significant to this country. If the Leader of the Opposition is ever to achieve what he hope to achieve he has to face up to these matters and not completely abandon the traditions of the Labor Party, of which he was so ignorant until he became a member of Parliament.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition or a member deputed by him speaking for a period not exceeding IS minutes.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– Although the Standing Orders do not provide for it, it is customary for an honourable member who intends to raise a matter of definite public importance to inform you, Mr Speaker, of his intention and to advise also the Leader of the Opposition or the Government. That practice is always followed by members of the Australian Labor Party when matters of definite public importance are submitted to the House for discussion. But today, Mr Speaker, you announced that the letter indicating that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) desired to raise a matter of definite public importance was dated 28th August, and not until less than an hour before this House met today was any honourable member on this side of the chamber aware that the matter was to be raised today - for the very simple reason that the honourable member for Lilley knew that it had no substance. He wanted to hide it from the light of day and reveal it in the nature of a surprise. Having listened to his speech, I think he would have done better not to write the letter.

Are not members of the Liberal Party slipping on this issue of the Vietnam Moratorium? On the last occasion the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Hughes) raised it. We were on the highest level of right wing politics in the Liberal Party on that occasion; but as we on this side of the House completely demolished his arguments, he has gone underground in the Liberal Party. The honourable member who is the most extreme member and at the furthest point of the Liberal Party politically, and who is on the back benches, has raised this matter in the Parliament today. Who raised it? The honourable member for Lilley - the disinherited Deputy Government Whip. He himself said that not even in that lowly position would he bother to serve the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) or the Government. Yet the honourable member for Lilley talks about our Leader and others in our Party. He cannot say in public what he thinks of his own Leader because even the Liberals would expel him. It is interesting also to note that this matter has been raised today by an honourable member who is said to be a member of the National Civic Council, an undercover member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and to be whiteanting the Liberal Party ranks in the interests of another organisation. That is why we see him in Parliament - today as the protagonist of law and order.

I will never forget the honourable member for Lilley when he was speaking on the off-shore oil leases legislation. He was a man of principle. He said that he would not serve under the Prime Minister in the lowly position of Deputy Government Whip. However, when he had to take the jump he found that supporting one’s principles had consequences. So in speaking to the off-shore legislation he sacrificed his principles, apologised to the House and is now allowed to raise the matter that we are discussing today, because I believe that he is the only honourable member opposite who believes in it. The honourable member questioned the aims and ideals of those who support the Moratorium. I remind him that 40 United States senators support the aims and ideals of the Moratorium. Are they Communists? Let the honourable member get up and say whether they are. Let us have a look at some of the sponsors of the Moratorium. I think a couple of Liberals will go underground when I mention a few of the names. There are thousands of them. In the list of academics who have sponsored the Moratorium are Professor Charles Birch, Professor Max Deutscher and Professor Makinson of Sydney. There is Dr F. V. Newman, a member of the executive of the North Sydney Branch of the Liberal Party. I have been told that he is the campaign director for the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) who sits behind the honourable member who raised this matter today. Does the honourable member for Lilley dare list a member of the executive of the North Sydney Branch of the Liberal Party as a Communist or Communist sympathiser?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I would suggest to honourable members sitting behind the honourable member for Grayndler that he does not need much assistance. I suggest that all interjections cease.

Mr DALY:

– As I look through the list of names I see that it includes Harry Seidler, who is an architect, and another man named Milo Dunphy. These are only a few. Then among the names in the literature section of the list I see Mr R. D. Fitzgerald who is no less than the uncle of the Attorney-General. Is he a Communist sympathiser?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If I can detect the honourable member who has been continually making an unparliamentary noise in this House this morning I will deal with him.

Mr DALY:

– The uncle of the AttorneyGeneral is a sponsor of the Moratorium. I wonder whether the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will investigate him at the suggestion of the Attorney-General? Does the honourable member for Lilley really suggest seriously that these men are not men of note and are affiliated in any way with Communism? Then there are Cyril Pearl and Elizabeth Riddell who is, I understand, a writer for the ‘Daily Telegraph’. Heavens above, Sir Frank Packer surely would not have a Communist on his staff. Then when I look at the theatrical section of those sponsoring the Moratorium I see that it includes Lyndell Barbour, Peter 0’Shaughnessy and Max Meldrum who are well known and prominent. In the music section I see names such as Ian Farr who played at a reception of Her Majesty the Queen. No Communist could be so close to Her Majesty! Every Liberal should shudder at the rot which the honourable member for Lilley has talked about these people who have sponsored the Moratorium.

The honourable member for Lilley went back to the Popular Front days. They were the days of Hitler. Today I want to quote from the writings of the man who evidently impressed the honourable member who raised this matter today. I shall quote a few extracts from ‘Mein Kampf by Hitler. I ask the honourable member for Lilley not to leave the chamber because this will bring him right up to date. Hitler wrote:

The Government must carry through such measures as it recognises to be necessary for the State and the people, even if unreason takes the place which reason should occupy and predetermined opposition and even hatred take the place of ready co-operation.

That is an extract from a book by Adolf Hitler. It could have been taken from the speech today by the honourable member for Lilley. I refer to these extracts because I think that the very basis of the speech which has been delivered by the honourable member today is the policy which Hitler introduced and which thrust war upon the world. On 19th September 1933 Hitler said:

In the parliamentary system we do not recognise any true expression of the will of the people, but we see in it a perversion, if not a violation of that will.

He also said:

The watch word of democratic freedom led only to insecurity, undiscipline, and at length to the downfall and destruction of all authority.

That is a quotation from his Nazi Party proclamation at Nuremberg on 1st September 1933. This is the type of policy that will be introduced into this country if matters of the kind which the honourable member for Lilley has raised today receive support. This is another quotation of Hitler:

It is important that the leaders of Government should be able to make decisions with an untroubled confidence about criticism from those whom they govern.

That quotation would have been taken from the gospel of the honourable member for Lilley. Let us have a look at what the kind of policy which Hitler introduced brought to Germany and to the world. He used repressive laws to outlaw the Communist Party and then used the same repressive laws to destroy all other political parties, including the Social Democrats. He used repressive laws to persecute and to wipe out the Jewish faith. Then he used the same laws to oppress and intimidate leaders of the Lutheran and other churches. I ask the honourable member for Lilley whether he subscribes to this kind of policy in this day and age. Hitler burnt the Reichstag and used the incident to justify the introduction of laws that violated all human freedom and rights in the name of law and order.

The honourable member for Lilley knows that the Liberals are trying to stir up dissent in the ranks of the Moratorium supporters and then to blame the sponsors of the Moratorium for anything that happens, when underground men may be responsible for it. In the name of law and order Hitler established the Gestapo, destroyed the free trade unions and sent millions of Jews to the gas ovens. He confiscated property, he imprisoned and murdered his political critics and he trampled on the basic and fundamental civil liberties of the German people. That is what the honourable member for Lilley and some of those who sit with him in this Parliament today would do if they could. Above all else - and I say this to the young Fascist, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) - Hitler destroyed freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. The honourable member for Boothby knows that that is the position in Rhodesia today, and he wants to introduce similar legislation into this Parliament. So honourable members opposite should not say that there is not a danger of this happening in Australia.

Then Hitler plunged the whole world into the bloodiest of human conflicts ever recorded in the history of the human race. The honourable member for Lilley, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), the honourable member for Boothby, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and the other young Turks of the Liberal Party are the present-day vanguard of the movement towards Nazism in Australia, unless they are checked. I well know that their mentor is Eric Butler, who is well known for his Nazi anti-Semitism. These things cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. We all know the attitude which the Liberal Party adopted in this Parliament recently when we raised the question of stopping the Vietnam war by pulling out all Australian troops. The 3 Ministers who spoke in that debate - the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) - never even expressed an opinion on the issue. We know that the Liberal Party wants to suppress everything. It is opposed to people like the Attorney-General’s uncle who has sponsored the Moratorium and the member of the executive of the North Sydney Branch of the Liberal Party.

Honourable members opposite should not forget that the kind of laws suggested by the honourable member for Lilley knows no barriers. Let us have a look at what happened at the time of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. I have a pamphlet here which is headed ‘Menzies SS-Men Manhandle Liberal Senator’s Daughter’. It shows a Liberal senator’s daughter being bundled out of the Sydney Town Hall because she was protesting about the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Legislation which the honourable members opposite suggest should be introduced in Australia is a threat to the security of every Australian. Is it not funny? The Liberal Party talks about the aims and objectives of the Moratorium. But the aims and objectives of the Moratorium are to save the lives of thousands of people in Vietnam and to bring peace to that war torn country. Is it not amazing when we remember that the Government sells wheat to China. It loves the Communists’ gold but it hates their politics. This is the theory of the Liberal Party. Not once have I heard the honourable member for Lilley in this House oppose the selling of Australian wheat to Communist China or our trading with the enemies of our people, as he says the Communist Chinese are.

We all know what Mr Askin, the Premier of New South Wales, thinks ought to be done with demonstrators. I hope you will excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the Premier of New South Wales did not muck about when, in the presence of the President of the United States of America, demonstrators showed their displeasure at what is happening in Vietnam. He said: ‘Run over the bastards!’. What can we expect? This is what Mr Askin said about the way in which these people should be treated. It was a shocking remark but it shows how the Liberal mind works. In the New South Wales Legislative Assembly the other day, the Minister for Health, Mr Jago, said that the wearing of the Moratorium badge was disloyal and treasonable. Yet, he strutted around, done up like a pakapu ticket, with badges of every type from the Returned Services League down to his local Rotary Club. But he sought to deny to a man who stood for freedom the right to exhibit his belief on his lapel. This is the type of mentality which we see coming from the honourable member for Lilley, sitting on the Government side, who raised this matter for discussion today.

The Liberal Party needs to wake up on this question. I have here a newspaper report on a statement by Mr Winnel. He is a 22 year old branch president of the Liberal Party. The newspaper report states:

People like Jess (Mr J. D. Jess, the Victorian MHR) can rave on about the red bogey, but young people won’t swallow it,’ said Mr Winnel.

The report continues:

It was all right for the Liberal Party to rely on the red peril in the time of Stalin, but people who have grown up in the 60s are too wise to swallow it,’ Mr Winnel said.

Honourable members opposite ought to take this home and read it carefully because it illustrates the present situation.

This discussion has been introduced today at the lowest level of the Liberal Party. The Government could not find anybody in the Ministry to propose it for discussion as a matter of public importance. It could not get anybody near the Ministry to raise it. So, it was brought foward by the honourable member for Lilley, the displaced Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party, a terribly lowly position. He said that it is a lowly position. He is trying to rehabilitate himself. He is on the long march up the ladder again. He is stepping up again. I suppose that, if we live to the year 2,000 or so, we might see the honourable member for Lilley allowed to raise a similar matter for discussion. We have watched the climb to power again of this young Hitler of the Liberal Party, in a most menial way-

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

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Grayndler restrain himself in referring to a member of this House. I think that it would be wise for the honourable member to withdraw his last remark.

Mr DALY:

– If the honourable member for Lilley is offended, I certainly withdraw it. I did not know that one who could propose for discussion a matter like this could be so highly sensitive. I mention again that the honourable member for Lilley proposed this matter for discussion. He is the lowliest placed member in the Government ranks and the only Government member prepared to do so. The honourable member talks about law and order and all that goes with them. We all remember that he was a party to pinching the election signs of a Labor Party candidate in Queensland. The police caught 2 of the 3 offenders. His brothers-in-law were caught. One man disappeared. It was said that the honourable member for Lilley was the third man. If the truth is known, instead of being on his way to the Ministry, the honourable member for Lilley is a wanted man. That is what he is; yet this man is talking about law and order. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) brought before the Parliament the matter that I have just mentioned. We see there the position of the honourable member for Lilley.

Let me conclude on this note: The substance of the matter introduced by the honourable member for Lilley in this discussion today is dangerous in the extreme. It has the fundamentals of Hitler’s policy. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not agree with that. As a churchman, you could not afford to be on the banned list under Hitler or anybody else. But this is the substance to be found in the matter raised for discussion. A great rally organised by the Australian Labor Party will be held in the Sydney Town Hall on 20th September 1970 in support of the aims, ideals and objectives of the Moratorium Campaign. At that rally will be men whose opposition to Communism is known from one end of Australia to the other. It will be supported by thousands including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I ask this House today to debate this issue that the honourable member for Lilley has raised, to place the facts before the Australian people and to let them know that these smearing and innuendo tactics have no place in our public life and that the type of legislation and restrictions that the Liberal Party would seek to force on the Australian people must be rejected and opposed by every democrat in the nation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will cease applauding.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was carried away.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh has been a member of this House long enough to be past the stage of being overcome.

Mr Uren:

– I rise to take a point of order. The honourable member for Hindmarsh had not been overcome. We shall overcome!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, we have known the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) for a considerable period. We have known that the tactic of the Parliamentary Labor Party when it is in difficulties is to call upon the honourable member for Grayndler to be funny. The fact is that he has tried to be funny on an occasion like this and then finished with the ringing peroration: ‘Let us debate the issue’. The honourable member for Grayndler did not devote one minute of his time to this issue. He ran away from it. He is not a man whom one usually expects to run away from things. He is so sensitive about this issue. He is, as we all know, an honourable man. But in order to serve the interests of his Party he is prepared to stand up and divert attention from the issue by one of his funny speeches. I think that the time has come when he should cease to be the jester for the Australian Labor Party and should fight within the ALP for the things which we know he believes.

The honourable member came in here and accused the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), who raised this matter, of being - and I quote him, for it must be remembered by the honourable member that he said this in his exuberance to find humour - a young Hitler. This is the man who is saying that the Vietnam Moratorium should be supported. He is prepared in order to gain support, to gain privilege and to provide a smokescreen for it to attack bitterly a man who, he knows, is activated by the highest motives and who on all occasions has acted with the greatest of concern for the national interests of this country.

The honourable member for Lilley, in opening this debate, put 3 challenges to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The first was: Did the Leader of the Opposition surrender his position at the meeting of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party at Broken Hill? Secondly, did the ALP Executive officially adopt the popular front technique? He challenged him, thirdly, to refute that the Moratorium movement is composed of 3 groups: The Communist Party of Australia, the peace groups and now the Australian Labor Party; and that the ALP is trying to bring the Australian Council of Trade Unions formally into it. These are the 3 challenges that were put by the honourable gentleman. They were not even mentioned by the honourable member for Grayndler. I am not surprised for I believe that the honourable member for Grayndler does not support the Moratorium Campaign. Out of a misguided sense of loyalty, the honourable member for Grayndler has done what his Party has put him up to do, that is, make a speech full of attempted humour.

As for the time that the honourable member took to read extracts from ‘Mein Kampf to the House, I would say that we can all remember what happened in the past. We do not need to be reminded how a country can be taken over insidiously by forces which are destructive to that country. This is the reason why the honourable member for Lilley proposed this matter for discussion. He wants the Australian people to be given the opportunity to see the insidious nature of the movement which is around us at all times. It is a direct descendant of the peace groups. The peace groups come in different forms at different times. When exposed, they must collapse because they cannot stand up to scrutiny. The Vietnam Moratorium movement is a direct descendant of peace groups.

It is imperative for members on this side of the House to raise the matter so that it can be exposed just as it is imperative for members on the Opposition side of the House to submit it to the scrutiny that it deserves; for, unless it is committed to that scrutiny, it may achieve its objectives. If it achieves its objectives, this country will not be the democratic country which we are all determined it should be. I do not accuse the Opposition, and nobody ought to accuse the Opposition, of attempting, or willingly or recklessly being willing, to submit the country to this sort of undermining influence. Today Opposition members need to examine their actions and those of the movement to see whether or not the real purpose of the movement is being kept from their view and whether they are not being fed false propaganda about it in order to give it respectability.

The Australian Labor Party has officially associated itself with this Vietnam Moratorium. By a unanimous resolution which was adopted at Broken Hill - it is too important to take this point now; it is a throw away point - the Leader of the Opposition was directed at the Federal Executive meeting what to do. It directed the Leader of the Opposition and the Federal Secretary of the Party in combination to meet Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’, to plan some form of action. That was on 6th August. It is very important to note the date. On 6th August the Federal Executive gave that direction. In that resolution the Leader of the Opposition and the Federal Secretary were directed to talk to Mr Hawke to plan a course of action. In May there had been a national consultation of the Vietnam Moratorium organisers; perhaps the best description of this body is the federal executive, although I do not know that that is necessarily the term because it is a rather loose group. People come from various sources, from different representational groups. They are from a wide range of what one might call the far left. Everybody knows that on the far left at the moment there is extreme competition in militancy. Maoists, the Trotskyites, the

Muscovites and the Peking people are in competition in militancy. They came together and they reached certain conclusions. They passed on their recommendations to the State branches of the Vietnam Moratorium committee.

The Victorian State committee went further than the Federal body. The Victorian body made amendments to the recommendations. The Federal body had recommended that anti-conscription and anti-Vietnam should be the main issues. When that recommendation got down to Victoria that body adopted it with amendments and in the Richmond Town Hall on 19th July recommendations were circulated which were directed to the disruption of the execution of the law of the Commonwealth. They stated that while major attention should be given to draft resistance certain other things ought to be done. They recommended that an agent be appointed for every group to give advice as to how to avoid the draft and on how to avoid the law. They went further than that. They said that the National Service Act should be obstructed in every way possible so that it would not work.

They said this should be done by filling in false forms.

The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) got up here the other day and asked a question of the Prime Minister in my temporary absence. He said: ‘Please do not send me to gaol’ - raising a laugh, wanting to raise publicity. Why did the organisers do it? It was to have him do exactly that thing to give publicity. It appeals to them to get that publicity. That is their purpose. I do not say this in any condescending way, but the honourable member for Leichhardt is recognised by everybody in this House as a fine member of the Parliament. But he unwittingly got up and did exactly what was expected of him, just as the ALP members on their benches are doing what is expected of them by the organisers of this Moratorium. They are all unfortunately duped into doing what is wanted of them. People are urged to provide false forms, false birth dates and other sorts of things which I will not refer to so as not to give the organisers the publicity they want me to give them. Persons ring up, ask a person in the Department to answer the phone and then walk off without hanging up the phone, for the purpose of tying up the phones in the Department. Is this the sort of thing that the ALP endorses? Trying to bring to a standstill a Department of State? Honourable members opposite cannot say: We are in support of the philosophy of Vietnam but not these other things on the side’ because these other things were decided on 19th July and the unanimous endorsement of the Vietnam Moratorium by the Victorian executive was on 6th August. The same situation can be followed through.

The Federal Executive had no confidence in the Parliamentary Labor Party to mount an opposition campaign against our policies. Instead of that it resorts to these other things as an alternative government prepared to ignore centuries of tradition, to ignore the interests of the public servants whose duty it is to carry out the law, to frustrate them and to frustrate the processes of government, and then say that this is democracy. The other thing which the Federal Executive did was to ask the Leader of the Opposition to talk with the ACTU. This was before the protest rallies on the Budget, lt has echoes but it is one of these curious things of which the echoes are before the event. Why would the ALP want to talk with Mr Hawke, President of the ACTU, if it were not to achieve industrial action to serve a political purpose? If that is the attitude of the ALP it stands condemned. The philosophy of the Vietnam Moratorium is to ignore the fact that in this Parliament are members who are elected to come here to debate, put issues, resist issues and vote on them. Every range of opinion in our country is represented here but the philosophy of the Moratorium is to take decisions out of this House and put them in the streets where the vocal minority is supreme, not in the ballot box and not in this chamber.

The crowning joke of the whole thing is that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) is declared black. Have honourable members ever heard such nonsense? This group, which describes itself as defenders of liberty, defenders of each differing view, has at times decided that it is a coaltion of opposition opinion. Ah, but let anybody say something that the authoritarianism of the driving force does not agree with. These people say: ‘Our campaign is only against authoritianism by others, not by us’. In consequence the honourable member for Wills has to attempt to defend himself, with the support of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and, I am sure, others in this place. The final point which must be made is that those people in this country who oppose our policies on Vietnam will find ways of expressing their opinion. No matter how genuine they are in their opposition they ought not to be deceived into believing that the way to express that opposition is, by their physical presence, providing support for the organisers of this Vietnam Moratorium who claim to represent people who indeed are totally opposed to the way in which those organisers would conduct their affairs if they ever came to power, ft is a tragic thing that some people who support the campaign do so with the best of motive. The honourable member for Grayndler said that the purpose of the Moratorium is to stop lives being lost in Vietnam. That is how it is put to decent people. But that is not its purpose at all. The purpose of the Vietnam Moratorium is to take decision making out of the ballot boxes, out of this Parliament, out of the debates, and put it in the streets where the vocal minority can be supreme. But it cannot be supreme here. This is the democracy that we ought to defend.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JESS:

– Yes, I do indeed. Over the air I heard the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) refer to certain young Turks and he named certain members of Parliament. He said they were the forerunners of the Nazi party. All 1 can say to the honourable member is that my father died in a military hospital having fought against the Germans, my brother lost his life in Tobruk fighting against the Germans, I was in the Army, and I wonder where the honourable member was when they were fighting against the Nazis.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I must confess, having listened to the speech of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr

Kevin Cairns), that he convinced me of one thing and that is that we have something in common. Neither he nor I understood what he was talking about. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), with mock gravity and phony indignation which are the hallmarks of his performance in this House, contributed a speech of similar quality in support of the one made by the honourable member for Lilley. One of the great ironies in political practice in this country is the way in which the Liberal Party proclaims itself as a party of freedom, of liberty and of standing for the rights and the dignity of man. Its objectives state that that Party stands for ‘freedom of speech, religion and association*. Yet everything which has been said this morning by Government spokesmen has been designed clearly to intimidate those who seek freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement.

The rather remarkable feature of the whole performance is that it would seem to a stranger that Government spokesmen had just discovered that members of the Australian Labor Party and members of the industrial movement support the Moratorium movement. This is a scratchy recording. It is catching again. The speech of the Minister for Labour and National Service, who so far has given the country such undistinguished service, was full of phony indignation and mock gravity, lt was a re-play of the performance he went through earlier in the year when the Moratorium Campaign was being organised in Australia.

People have a right to protest. They have a right to assemble and to express themselves freely. It is entirely wrong that responsible, elected bodies charged with preserving democracy should take steps which are designed clearly to intimidate and to prevent the expression of those rights within the community! One appreciates that the Government would want to create an atmosphere of hysteria. After all, a Senate election is approaching, and the Conservatives have found that it is a bad practice to fight an election on issues. When one goes back over the Government’s records one finds that a carefully contrived hysterical situation has always developed just prior to an election. It is quickly forgotten after the election, but nevertheless lt is necessary to divert people’s attention away from the real issues which should be discussed.

In 1950 we had the great Red scourge, when the country was about to be gorged up by the threat of Communism. The people soundly rejected the Government. The common sense of the people has been vindicated. The Communist Party in Australia has never been more debilitated nor less relevant to Australian society than it is at the present time. In 1961 amendments to the Crimes Act were dramatically rushed through the Parliament to save this country from the peril of existing subversion and treason. The amendments were never used after the election. In 1967, with similar drama and frenetic performance by the Government, the Defence Forces Protection Act was introduced into this Parliament. That Act has never been applied in any single instance. Its purpose was to root out subversion within the community and to protect the security of the country.

Just how phony and cynical is the Government when it tries to manipulate the public by creating an atmosphere of irrationality so that it can divert the public’s attention away from the real issues in the community. Of course, we know why the Government does not want to speak about the real issues such as the poverty in the community, the slums that exist in our system of State education, the imminent collapse of many sectors of our public hospital services, the complete failure of the Budget to give any guidelines for the future growth of this country and the overall failure of the Government. Of course, the Government is wise in not wanting to fight an election on its record.

Let me refer to the irrational behaviour of the Government in banning a negro comedian from this country. One can understand the thoughts behind this action. After all, the man deals in jokes, and inevitably sooner or later he would have to deal with the Government, which is Australia’s biggest joke, because of the way in which it tries to handle the affairs of this country and avoids the real issues. What the Government has not told the Australian public is that this carefully contrived situation of banning the American comedian was brought about solely to create an atmosphere for the forthcoming election. One would have been more impressed had the Government told the public why, not having allowed Mr Gregory into this country, it allowed Mr Andrew Pulley into the country only about a month or 6 weeks ago. Mr Pulley is an American negro, but he is not a comedian. He is certainly not a pacifist. He is a trotskyite. He publicly endorses and recommends revolution in the streets. The only way to change society, according to Mr Pulley, is to tear it down and then resurrect it. But the Government allowed Mr Pulley into the country and prevented Mr Gregory, who is well known as a pacifist, from coming here.

In the course of the discussion this morning the Government tried to apply the principle of guilt by association to members of the Labor Party. They said that there will be Communists present at the Moratorium demonstration. As far as I am concerned, they are perfectly entitled to be present. The point has been made many times before; the Communist Party is not a prohibited party in this country. I would be happy to appear on a platform with a Communist - even with the honourable member for Lilley. Where I held similar views to his, I would support them and. where I disagreed I would express my disagreement. Surely to goodness this is a mature society in which we live. It is not some sort of childish environment.

We have rights. We are not frightened or intimidated. We are not afraid that we will be affected by other ideas. The Government has never apprehended that it cannot crush an idea by force or legislation. Ideas are totally different, and they feed upon ideas. In most instances the idea of reform feeds upon repression and martyrdom. The Government’s attitude can only serve to consolidate the grave disgust which so many young people have for our society today. If I were the Government I would be greatly concerned, not because young people are demonstrating, but because so many of them are totally alienated from the established structures in our society. They owe allegiance to no ism’. They owe no allegiance to capitalism, to democracy, to Socialism or to Communism. They regard all of these as being too conservative, too rigid and too inequitable. They want some sort of new society.

From speaking with them it is fairly clear that, while they are prepared to destroy this society, they do not have any precise ideas about how they will create a new one. The correct and constructive approach to the problems of the young people in our society is not to try to hammer them down with force of authority but to understand their problems and try to respond constructively and responsibly to the great challenge that they are presenting. It is undeniable that the structure and relationships within our society are quite inequitable. Twenty years of Conservative government have only consolidated the inequity that exists.

The Minister for Labour and National Service raised the point of guilt by association. T have here a copy of the ‘Canberra Times’ which covers an interview with the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) in Rhodesia. He was asked:

How similar do you think Australia and southern Africa are both in climate and outlook and so on?

He made a number of points during which he said:

You’re much more advanced in some ways than we are. At the moment we’re almost a Communist stale. Sounds incredible doesn’t it?

There was an unintelligible question. It is appropriate to put such a question to the honourable member. He answered:

Oh, I deplore it. And it’s interesting to come and see the way that you’ve got on top of this problem. In fact, I’m taking home some of your pieces of legislation, and I aim to introduce them as Private Members’ Bills to see if we can do something about this. We’ve got three Communist parties in Australia and they’ve subverted the trade union movement, churches, universities and, I’m afraid, some of the Press.

I shall not join in the invitation extended by honourable members on the Government side to accuse other people of guilt by association. I frankly believe that most members of the Liberal Party are responsible people and would not endorse the extreme, irresponsible and irrational view which has been put forward by the honourable member for Boothby. Indeed, 1 am prepared to believe that most honourable members on the Government side do not appreciate the performance which we have seen this morning and in which the Minister for Labour and National Service has joined with such great enthusiasm.

At stake in Australia today are the people’s freedoms, which are being challenged by the way in which the Government is behaving. The challenge is to the people’s right of assembly, their right to express themselves and their right to speak. The Government does not believe in freedom. It wants a great mass of mindless people who can be programmed for manipulation through the simplest devices. If it believes that that can be done, it is gravely out of step with trends in society today. Young people do, in fact, have us on trial. They are challenging us to improve the society we have created. This conservative Government is failing to respond to these challenges, and this presents a very sad outlook for the future of this country.

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

– I must confess that when I heard the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) speaking I wondered where this young disciple of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) was leading us. 1 was rather intrigued to hear his comments about the Communist Party. The honourable member for Lalor, when speaking in this chamber on the last occasion on which the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign was before us, commented:

In a given situation Communists can be right. If they are right I will never say that they ure wrong. If a Communist stands for something that is right and if that thing concerns me I will stand wilh him for that thing.

This morning we heard from the honourable member for Oxley very similar sentiments. He said that if a Communist stands on a platform and expresses a point of view with which he agrees he has no hesitation in supporting that point of view.

There is no question in my mind that in what the honourable member for Oxley said this morning and in what the honourable member for Lalor said previously there is a direct contradiction of what I understand to be the continuing policy of the Australian Labor Party, namely, that there should be no unity of aim and purpose with members of the Communist Party. Indeed, 1 am told that since 1928 there has been a complete ban on the adoption of uniform policy with the Communist Party. Yet in the decision that was taken at Broken Hill - namely, that the Australian Labor Party would join with those associated with the Moratorium - in what the honourable member for Oxley has said this morning and in what other members of the Labor Party have said, we see effectively demonstrated the very close rapport which, in spite of so-called policy bans of the Labor Party, obviously brings the 2 parties - the Communist Party and Labor Party - very close together in ways which supposedly are not to be.

But we are really talking about facts. We are not talking about ideas alone. In the last 10 minutes I, frankly, was not really sure whether the honourable member for Oxley was aware of the matter that is before us, namely, the involvement of political and industrial bodies in the aims, organisation and plans of the imminent Moratorium campaign. In this House and in public in recent months we have had a great deal of argument about the quality of Australian life. The quality of Australian life does not mean just physical things; it does not mean just pollution; it does not mean just living conditions.

It also means the preservation of the opportunity for the expression of ideas; it means the preservation of the opportunity to express dissent, and to express it in a peaceful way; it means something of the British traditions that we have inherited, such as the preservation of the rule of law and of democracy and not mobocracy; it means an appreciation that maturity in the individual means the recognition of the right of another to have and to express a point of view that is different from one’s own; and it means the preservation of the British parliamentary system. In regard to the preservation of the rule of law and the development of responsibility by those who enact the rule of law, we have seen and are seeing demonstrated in the support for this Moratorium campaign expressed by members of the Opposition, who together with members of the Government parties are members of the legislature of this country, a preparedness to dismiss all responsibility for maintenance of the rule of law.

The stated purposes of the Moratorium are in an area in which, without doubt, there is a reason and justification for peaceful disagreement. But the fact that Australia’s security is at stake and there is necessarily a need for Australians to recognise that they are very much alone in a world with which traditionally they have been associated means that, if we in this part of the world do not recognise that there are many thousands of people living in lesser developed countries very close to our shores and do not adopt a responsible attitude towards defence against the insurgence of Communism in that part of the world, we ourselves may ultimately be put at risk. But, be that as it may, it is an area within which there can be peaceful expression of discontent.

However, what concerns me is the whole concept that has developed through the participation of members of the Opposition and those who have been associated with them in the Congress for International Cooperation and Disarmament, for example, and again in these Moratorium campaigns. In their participation in organisations which are the known creatures of international Communist front organisations, there has grown up a preparedness on the part of members of the Labor Party on the other side of this Parliament to create a climate which I believe is denying that basic freedom of dissent which is essential if we in Australia are to continue to develop under the concept of the rule of law and the concept of maturity which I believe any thinking Australian would espouse.

There is one other point, and that is that the concepts that are put forward by those who support the Moratorium, including members of the Labor Party, are not things that have originated in their own minds. They are things that have descended from an idea created many miles away from Australia. They arise from the violence that has been expressed in the physical conflicts in the United States. Unfortunately, in Australia they are leading towards support of mob violence.

Not so very many weeks ago I had occasion to hear an expression of the personal philosophy of some of those who belong to Students for a Democratic Society. I was somewhat surprised to hear the way in which one of the leaders of SDS spoke to a group of university undergraduates. He said that when they were looking for a cause around which they could disrupt responsibility within the university they did not particularly choose national service as a cause in which they believed; they chose it predominantly because it was a cause on which they could rally support from those who were in the age group involved. Obviously national service is something that affects university students; it is a cause that is of predominant interest to those who will serve or are expected to serve. So, rather than seek support for pensions or something else that was outside their particular sphere, they sought - not because of its intrinsic demerits or otherwise, but because they thought it had more emotive content - some sort of campaign mounted against national service.

In explaining the objectives of SDS, this leader suggested that it was no use just rising and expressing dissent in a -peaceful way; rather it was better, if one wanted to attract the support of the Press - 1 notice that members of the Press are not here in great numbers for this debate this morning

Mr Daly:

– L do not blame them.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As the honourable member participated in this debate, I can quite understand their tendency to leave the gallery, lt is interesting to note that this leader suggested that the only way in which the supporters of SDS could get any space at all would be by participating to the maximum extent in violent demonstrations to the point where the forces of law and order were called on to exercise restraint.

I believe that it is in this area and in this tactic that the Moratorium campaign itself - supported as it is by the Labor Party and supported as it is by the Communist Party - is leading Australia away from the preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of all those things that we hold dear. Without doubt there is a field within which legitimate industrial action must be preserved and I am concerned that there is an increasing tendency away from legitimate industrial action into political industrial action. This political industrial action sponsored substantially by the left and by the Communist Party is ensuring that the Labor Party and the Communist Party together are derogating from the maintenance of the rights of the individual worker. I believe that the individual worker is being prejudiced in the same way as the rule of law and the maintenance of the legitimate opportunity to dissent to the point where I hesitate not to foreshadow that those rights to dissent will be curtailed by the very actions of those who seek to express dissent. In this morning’s ‘Financial Review’ the following quotation seemed to me to be pertinent. lt reads:

As any official in a Communist country can testify, the indiscriminate adoption of systems and administrative details designed for another national environment is as good a way as any of preparing the way for a total takeover by those for whom the system was originally designed.

That is the objective of the Moratorium Campaign and of the Labor Party.

Mr UREN (Reid [12.21]-! rise to speak in this debate with some sorrow because in the 12 years that I have spent in this Parliament I have found, whether it be on the eve of the 1959 Melbourne Peace Conference when the Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, who is now the Chief Justice of Australia spoke, or on the occasion of the conference in Sydney in 1964 when Sir Robert Menzies spoke, that on each occasion a statement has been made in an attempt to smear certain citizens who stand up for their inalienable rights. This action has continued right through to today where we have a discredited Government backbencher with very firm political and ideological views, bringing this matter up. 1 hope I can restrain myself because this is an emotional question. We must remember that we are talking about injustice and if there is a threat to justice anywhere it is a threat to justice everywhere. The question of Vietnam, where there have been millions of people killed over the years, is an emotional one.

The United States, the most powerful nation in the world, continues to bomb Vietnam indiscriminately. It continues to drop more explosive bombs on that little nation of Vietnam that were dropped on the whole of the Axis powers during the Second World War. So it is an emotional question and I will strive for restraint. I place my sins on the alter. For the whole 12 years of my parliamentary career I have been a proud member of the peace movement and I am also a proud member of the Australian Labor Party. These 2 movements are dear to my heart and I have struggled to uphold their policies. I sometimes disagree with the policies of the peace movement because it is a broad movement covering a very wide spectrum of beliefs. We try to bring restraint and to give leadership so that some people on some occasions do not go too far and make statements or act in a way that would probably be injurious to the peace cause and possibly to my Party which supports the peace cause. I want to answer the question asked by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair). He asked whether we wanted democracy or mobocracy. To answer the question I will quote an editorial from a conservative journal, the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 9th May 1970. It said in part:

It was, without doubt, the most impressive demonstration seen in Melbourne. The sheer weight of numbers alone was staggering: at least 70,000 people packed in close close marching rows across Bourke Street and stretching from Elizabeth to Spring Streets. More significantly the demonstration was non-violent.

The Sydney ‘Bulletin’, of all papers, reporting on that demonstration said:

Had it been Anzac Day it would have been at least 150,000, but seeing that it was the Moratorium in Melbourne it was 70,000.

The editorial of the Melbourne ‘Age’ made this statement:

The demonstration was a forceful reply to those MPs who described intending marchers as ‘bikies who are pack raping democracy’.

Mr Daly:

– Who said that?

Mr UREN:

– Who did say that? It was said by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) who spoke earlier in this debate. So let us stop these comments and get back to sanity. Let us examine the question of what we really have to do. Why do those who support the Moratorium demonstrate? Why do people with such diverse of political beliefs demonstrate? For instance, in the United States, as my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) pointed out, about 40 United States Senators have just voted to stop all aid to Vietnam by the end of 1971. Forty United States Senators, or to be exact, 39, voted to stop all financial aid to the United States forces in South East Asia. That mean that they want all troops out by that date. 1 give great credit to America even though I condemn its bombing of Vietnam. Today America has the greatest spirit of freedom in the world. The American people are struggling against their own government for the right to be heard. The American nation is split. This struggle has torn the heart out of their society. It has defeated a President and has proved that the American people have a conscience. In the United States we find Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives speaking out against this vile, immoral war in Vietnam, this inhuman, bottomless pit of human suffering. But not one present supporter of the Government has ever shown any doubt about the Government’s attitude to Vietnam. Only one Government supporter resigned from the Liberal Party because his conscience was killing him. God bless him. He is now dead. He was Senator Hannaford from South Australia.

As far as I am concerned, this is a great moral question. We must look at it in this way because the Government says that we are fighting for freedom in Vietnam. Everybody who studies the history of the struggle in Vietnam knows that the United States placed pressure on the 17 nations which make up NATO to make military forces available for Vietnam. Every one of those 17 nations refused. Where are our SEATO allies? Where is France, Britain and Pakistan? Even the Philippines, which had 2,000 men in Vietnam on construction work, has withdrawn its forces. It has now been stated that Thailand is going to withdraw her forces. So we stand alone, the lonely few Australians, like ‘a lonely petunia in an onion patch’. It is this Government which has betrayed our young men. The Government is responsible for the deaths of more than 400 young men who have perished in Vietnam and over 2,000 who will carry injuries for the rest of their days. I have been to Vietnam. I was there in 1965. I saw first hand the conditions under which they lived and fought. I am sorry for every young Australian there. My Leader when speaking at the Sydney Town Hall during the last general election campaign said that if Labor were elected, by the end of June 1970 every Australian serviceman would be out of Vietnam. I was indeed proud of that statement, as I have been proud of the record of my colleagues who have struggled for peace and freedom in Vietnam. We believe that we must stop this immoral war. We do not say that all the rights are on one side and all the wrongs are on the other side. Over and over again we have called for a compromise and a negotiated peace because that is the only way that peace and sanity can be brought to Vietnam. The spurious motion that has been moved this morning by a lowly back, bencher opposite is a disgrace to his Party and to this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The discussion is now concluded. The Chair will be resumed at 2.15.

Sitting suspended from 12.52 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1060

QUESTION

CALL-UP NOTICES

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

– Mr Speaker, I ask for the indulgence of the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) asked me a question this morning during question time. In my answer to him I read from a rather bad photostat copy of a letter. While reading it I realised that I was reading the wrong part. In reading the Hansard greens I find that what I thought at the time was the fact. Therefore I ask for the indulgence of the House to read that part of the letter which I ought to have read rather than what I did read. This will then make the Hansard report more understandable.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The 2 paragraphs which I should have read are in a letter dated 19th August from my colleague the Attorney-General (M.r Hughes) to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). They read:

The matter has been discussed with my colleague, the Minis:cr for Labour and National Service, and, as you may be aware, no action has yet been taken in respect of the costs.

On a review of all the circumstances, however, my colleague is not. at present, disposed to recommend that the costs should be written off. While the financial situation of the Zarb family was a matter considered in connection with Zarb;. release, nevertheless considerable publicity was given to the raising of funds on John Zarb’s behalf, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting with his legal costs.

page 1060

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

-The times and the number of speakers for a debate on a matter of public importance are usually fixed by arrangement. I understand that just prior to the luncheon adjournment the Deputy Speaker stated to the House that discussion on that matter had concluded.

Mr Hurford:

– Speaking to the point of order, I rose when the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) resumed his seat and the Deputy Speaker said that it was time for the House to rise for lunch, whatever the appropriate words are. When speaking to him afterwards he explained that the House had gone 5 minutes over time and had sat until 12.50. I do not recall him closing the debate.

Mr Lucock:

– 1 would like to amplify what was said by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). Realising that the lime allotted for the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) would take us after 12.45 p.m., with the tacit consent of those concerned with the administration and running of the House the honourable member for Reid finished his remarks at approximately 12.50 p.m. The honourable member for Adelaide rose on the understanding that arrangements had been made and agreement had been entered into and that the list of speakers had been given to the Chair. At that stage 1 said: ‘The discussion is now concluded. The Chair will be resumed at 2.15 p.m.’ I then left the chair and met the honourable member for Adelaide. I asked him: ‘Was it your thought that we conclude at 1 o’clock?’ He said: “ls there not a longer period of time given to a matter of public importance?’ I said to him: ‘It is usually a tacit understanding between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to have a certain number of speakers. We went over time to enable the honourable member for Reid to finish his remarks instead of having to resume after lunch and break off 5 minutes later.’ That is the position relating to the luncheon adjournment.

Mr Whitlam:

– Speaking to the point of order, there has been some reference to some tacit understanding. I want to take the opportunity of saying publicly in this Chamber that there was no tacit understanding. The facts are of course entirely consistent with that having been the case. As honourable members would know and as they were informed earlier, the subject matter of the urgency discussion was first conveyed to any members of the Opposition a quarter of an hour before the House sat and when the Whip, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition received their copies of their blue programme. Other members of the Opposition would not have heard of it until they came into the House and examined the blue programmes on their desks. Sir, it was for that reason that, when you rose to read the subject matter of the letter which you had received from the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), I asked you when you had received it. You said you received it last Friday - a week ago. No information was given by the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) who. of course, intended to speak on this matter, let alone by the honourable member for Lilley, to my Deputy, to the Whip of my Party or to myself, let alone to any other honourable members. Accordingly, there could be no question of any tacit understanding in this matter. The Leader of the House and my Deputy never spoke on this matter before the House met.

On other occasions there have been what may be called tacit understandings. While the Standing Orders do not require it, members of my Party in fact always follow the practice of notifying the Leader of the House of any urgency motion about which they have written to the Speaker. They have to write to the Speaker an hour before the House sits. At the same time they always give the text to the Leader of the House. On some of those occasions there may be tacit understandings but on this occasion there was not: there could not be. Perhaps I should add, as an additional earnest of that, yon will remember, Sir, that after the debate started it was I who gave you the list of those honourable members on my side of the House that I expected to be rising as well as on the Government side.

Mr Giles:

– Speaking briefly to the point of order, if 1 may I would like to correct one or two matters that have arisen. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) last night, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on this occasion, have suggested that because of the provision to notify the Speaker at least an hour before the sitting of the House -

Mr Whitlam:

– The honourable member for Grayndler did it this morning in his speech.

Mr Giles:

– Very well. The point was made by the honourable member for Grayndler and the Leader of the Opposition. But once the Speaker had been notified that was ipso facto notification to the other side in Parliament that a matter of public importance would bc brought forward in certain terms. Sir, I regret it if only a quarter of an hours notice was given before the sitting of the House today. My understanding was that it was considerably longer, but in justice and sincerity I point out that as Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party T have been in precisely the same position on about 8 times this session. My next point is something which the Opposition might well remember. We cannot get any information from you. Mr Speaker, or from the Clerk about the terms of a matter of public importance once it is lodged with the Speaker. That is to protect the rights of the Opposition. From that point of view, the time of notification to you. Mr Speaker, or to the Deputy Speaker makes no difference. But it does make a difference to the Whip because after all he is the man with whom we have to deal in terms of the wording of the matter of public importance. I would regret it if either side ever had only 25 minutes notification - 1 understand that that is the more accurate time regarding today’s events - and if there is a lesson to be learned in this I hope that each s;de will learn to show a little more consider:” tion for the other. That is the principal point T want to make. T think it is valid. 1 hope that we can achieve some benefit from this difference of opinion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! r should like to make the position clear. When notification of a matter of public importance is given to the Clerk or to me there is. tinder Standing Orders, no obligation on the part of the Clerk or of the Speaker to notify any person or persons in this House in relation to the communication that has been received.

Mr Stewart:

– It just depends on the good manners of the person who proposes the discussion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is another matter outside my control.

Mr Barnard:

– Speaking to the point of order, the Opposition concedes that it is correct that you, Mr Speaker, have never been expected, nor would the Opposition expect you, to inform the Opposition of the terms of any matter of public importance which is to be raised in the House. But I think the House should clearly understand, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has pointed out, that on all occasions when the Opposition has proposed a matter of definite public importance we have notified you at least 1 hour before the House has met. Secondly, as a matter of courtesy the Opposition always notifies the Ministers concerned. Thirdly, I have always undertaken to inform the Leader of the House or his assistant that the Opposition would be proposing for discussion a matter of definite public importance. I think that that is a reasonable attitude and one that I have always accepted as being the proper one to adopt. The Standing Orders require that the terms of the motion should be available to the Speaker only, 1 hour before the debate, but we have gone further than that, and I do not think that the Leader of the House could dispute that he has always been advised.

I, as the member responsible for the Opposition in these matters to consult with the Leader of the House on the order the debate and those who will take part in it, was not consulted in any way by any Government member. I was not notified by the Whip. I certainly was not notified by the Leader of the House. One would hardly expect the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) to notify me or anyone on this side of the House. I think this is a responsibility that one could have expected to be carried out as a matter of courtesy in view of the attitude that I have always adopted in these matters. Either the Leader of the House or at least some responsible Government member, including the honourable member for Lilley, should have advised the Opposition of the matter of public importance.

The point of order raised by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is that under the Standing Orders the time for the debate is 2 hours. The 2 hours had not expired and, as the honourable member was listed to speak, he believes that he is entitled to do so and he rose to speak. In view not only of the Standing Orders but also of the lack of courtesy which has been shown by the Government on this issue, I submit that the honourable member for Adelaide should be allowed to continue the debate.

Mr Wentworth:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have heard sufficient to rule on the point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– May I speak to the point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– -No. I have heard sufficient to rule on the point of order. I call the honourable member for Adelaide.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

- Mr Speaker, this is an extraordinary situation.

Motion (by Mr Sneddon) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 39

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1063

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962-1970 to provide for the payment of an export bounty of $3,379,000 on skim milk powder, buttermilk powder and casein produced and exported in 1970-71. The decision to pay the bounty on non-fat milk products formed part of the arrangements agreed to by the Government for the Australian dairy industry for 1970-71 in response to undertakings by the industry to voluntarily restrain butter and cheese production during the year to 220,000 tons and 70,000 tons respectively. The returns from the sale of non-fat milk products represent an important part of producers’ returns and the bounty provisions will help to maintain the allowances made to producers by butter factories for solids-not-fat in milk at the 1969-70 level, which reflected the receipt of devaluation compensation payments. However, the bounty provisions will rule out any devaluation compensation being paid on the products in question ex 1970-71 production.

The Bill provides for an appropriation of $1,804,000 for the payment of bounty on skim milk powder and buttermilk powder and $1,575,000 on casein. As with the existing bounty on exports of processed milk products containing butterfat the bounty will be paid to the producer of the product. There will be .provision for interim rates of bounty to be fixed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Australian Dairy Industry Council. The final rates of bounty will be automatically determined by the quantity of product exported. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1063

ENGINEERING SERVICES, ALICE SPRINGS, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposed work involves the construction of sealed roads, footpaths, stormwater drainage, water supply and sewerage systems to provide 920 residential lots and 31 special sites. In addition to the services within the sub-divisions, the proposal includes construction of main stormwater and sewerage works. The estimated cost is $5.25m. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee concluded that more serviced land than previously made available should be auctioned for private housing purposes. The Government recognises that there is an increasing demand for private housing lots and intends to make more of these available in future releases of serviced land. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to commend the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for the speed with which it carried out the inspection and inquiry and reported on this proposal. I wish also to compliment the Government on its forward planning in relation to the needs of Alice Springs and its expenditure of this amount of money on these essential services. I think my colleagues in the Australian Country Party in the Alice Springs area who fought very hard, as I did, for these essential services should also be congratulated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1064

CONSTRUCTION OF POINT PERONGARDEN ISLAND CAUSEWAY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

Thai, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of Point PeronGarden Island Causeway, naval support facility (Cockburn Sound), Western Australia.

The proposal involves construction of a causeway approximately 13,500 feet in length to provide access from the mainland near Point Peron to Garden Island to facilitate the construction and operation of naval support facilities on the Island. The causeway will provide for: A 24-foot wide dual lane roadway; a 5-foot wide footway; water, power and communications services; and road lighting. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $9m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1064

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (QUORUM OF MEMBERS) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 September (vide page 787), on motion by Mr Snedden;

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to raise again those questions which were before the House when we discussed the general principle of this matter and which

I believe escaped the consideration of many members of the Parliament It is proposed that the quorum of the House be reduced from 42 or 43 to 25. This is probably fanenough to constitute a meeting of the House and to enable a sitting to proceed but it is not good enough, in my view, when matters of national moment are being considered. If this Bill is carried will it mean that 25 members will be able to suspend a member from the House? Will 25 members be able to amend the Electoral Act? Will 25 members be able to alter the fundamental provisions of the Defence Ad? I do not believe that the Bill ought to pass this House. It means, in effect, that 14 out of 26 members would constitute a majority.

In conversations that 1 have had people have said to me: ‘But that is not going to happen’. These have been the famous last words of other democracies: ‘It cannot happen here’. It is our duty to see that it cannot happen and the only way we can do that is to preserve the quorum at a sufficiently high level. It is not good enough to say that it will inconvenience members if they have to be called into the House for quorums which are incidental to the work of the Parliament. The question is how many of us will be involved in making decisions for the nation. My view is that it should be a rare occurrence for a member not to be in his place when divisions are called on matters of national moment, so I oppose the Bill. I may vote for the amendment requiring that at least half the members of the House be present when a division is being recorded. I asked one honourable member: ‘What is a quorum for a jury?’ He said: ‘You cannot have a quorum for a jury’. I asked: ‘Why not?’ He said: ‘Because a jury has to make a decision. Each member of a jury has to make up his own mind. It may be a matter of some importance. The jury may be sending a man to gaol, to his death, or imposing a fine or some other penalty. A jury is considering fundamental matters.’ In my view the considerations of the Parliament are of the same order.

There may be a lot of matters which do not require the presence of a large number of members. Some are machinery questions, but I believe that honourable members are abdicating their duties and deserting their post if they consider reducing the quorum of this House to 25 out of 125 members. The argument has been advanced that honourable members are often engaged on committee meetings or on other matters, but when national issues are at stake in this chamber no other matters are more important. It could be that the House is considering a proclamation of war or the expulsion of a member from the House. Of course, some people say: ‘It cannot happen here’. Why cannot it happen here? Of the 120 or so governments in the world that have attempted parliamentary democracy how many are still flourishing in full flight as parliamentary democracies? How many of those governments said: ‘There is no need to worry about that: it cannot happen here’?

No argument has been advanced to persuade me that the quorum of this House ought to be reduced. I hope that if this House abdicates its position the Senate will protect us from ourselves. I hope that this House will give this Bill serious consideration and reject it. No parliament of a nation like Australia should consider allowing 25 of its membership - 14 constituting a majority - to make decisions of national moment. What surprises me is that throughout Australia little note has been taken of this proposal. As far as I can see there has been not one word in the Press about it - no leading article and so forth. What is wrong with the Parliament itself that it should even consider this proposal? It is not a question of inconvenience for afternoon tea or committee meetings. This matter concerns the number of members required to establish national policies. No-one can tell me that 25 is enough.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

The question before the chair is, That the Bill be now read a second time’. For the question say aye, against no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Bryant:

– The noes have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is a division required?

Mr Bryant:

– Yes.

Mr Uren:

– Yes.

Mr Snedden:

– No. The House has approved of this in principle and a division would only delay the House.

Mr Bryant:

– I said no and I am demanding a division, and so is my friend, the honourable member for Reid.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel that I should show courtesy to my backbench friend who is being brow beaten. If he calls for a division I will support him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The House will divide.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr Lucock)

AYES: 45

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 18

Bill read a second time.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I refer to clause 3, which reads:

  1. The presence of at least one-fifth of the whole number of members of the House of Representatives is necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers.

I move:

At the end of the clause add the following proviso:

Providing that if it appears on the report by the tellers of a division of the House that onethird of the whole number of members is not present, no decision of the House shall be considered to have been arrived at by such division.’

The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) had circulated a proposed amendment but unfortunately he has had to leave. My objections to a reduction in the quorum during debates are not so intense as those which I hold towards reducing the number of members required to pass legislation. I have a firm belief that the Parliament ought not to reduce its authority by requiring only one-fifth of members to be present to pass legislation. The Opposition Whip tells me that rarely have fewer than one-third of members passed legislation; rarely have fewer than one-third been present for a division. Therefore I do not think it would involve the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) in any hardship if he were to accept the proposal that one-third of all members should be present for a division. If my proposal is not accepted, at some time in the future circumstances may arise where a small minority of members will make a vital decision about the nation. I believe it is important that the House exercise its authority and require the presence of no fewer than one-third of members be present when a vote is being taken on legislation, as distinct from the ordinary sitting of the House. Originally the honourable member for Capricornia intended to move that one-half of all members be required to be present, but I have reduced that percentage in my motion to one-third

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Although I can understand the motives and sincerity behind the amendment which the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has moved on behalf of his colleague, which requires that one-third of the number of members of the House be present before legislation can be passed in a valid fashion, if I might put it that way, nevertheless, in all logic there is a different principle involved here. Normally there are 2 sides of politics in a Parliament, and one side has to keep the quorum and have a quorum available before legislation is passed.

One could imagine the situation, for instance, in which the Opposition for some reason or other decided virtually not to be present at all. The amendment does not cope with that situation. It has not been indicated how asinine that situation could be. The amendment really does nothing in terms of assuring balanced representation of Parliament at a time when a Bill is passed. Therefore I submit to the Committee that the important thing is the quorum, and it will remain so. The balance of the House is of no account. This is all that I can see in the amendment of the honourable member.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I support sincerely the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). I think it is a matter of rather scathing indictment of the Parliament itself that in the division which was recently counted only 72 members were present. Fifty-three members are away. Some of them might have the best of reasons for being absent. They might have protected the relative strength of their parties by securing pairs. But the point should be made, and made very clearly, that we have just had rammed down our throats, by weight of numbers, the proposition that we should sit for 4 days a week.

Here are the hard realities of the matter. Already there has been moaning by honourable members on both sides of the House who supported the 4-day week to the effect that it is too much for them and that they have special reasons for not being here today. Here are the realities. Fifty-three members are away today. In fact, if the amendment which we are considering had been embodied in a standing order and a question were put to a vote right at the moment, we would not be competent to pass a valid vote of the House.

Mr Snedden:

– That is not so.

Mr CONNOR:

– It would be so if the amendment had been incorporated in a standing order at the present time. Parliament is the Parliament and honourable members have to accept it as the Parliament and discharge their duties here or alter the Standing Orders to suit their own requirements. We sit on a Friday from 10.30 a.m. until 4 p.m. It is a broken backed half-day at the best. If a 4-day sitting week is wanted, the proper thing to do is to sit from Monday to Thursday inclusive, I have no doubt that honourable members who are absent today have the best of reasons for not being present. I also have the best of reasons for not being present today, but I consider it my duty to stay here on behalf of my constituents, and every sober and responsible member of this House will do the same.

Parliament is being progressively downgraded. The best thing that could happen to Parliament - and I have changed my opinion on this score after many years - is that it should be televised so that people can see the paucity of general attendance here.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - I remind the honourable member that he is getting a little wide of the amendment before the Committee.

Mr CONNOR:

– 1 am not, Sir. lt could be televised even on occasions such as that of the recent vote. That is a very valid point The whole concept of Parliament is being progressively down-graded. It suits the Executive to have fewer and fewer members in the House. It is the responsibility of the Government to keep a sufficient number of members in the House to pass legislation. Tt is the responsibility of the Government to have its members here to do so, but they are not here. It is our responsibility to be here to oppose legislation. But primarily it is the function of the elected government to keep the House. Government supporters are not here in sufficient numbers to do that at the present time. This situation is a standing disgrace. Either we as a Parliament knuckle down to our business on Friday or get back to the 3-day week. The sooner we do that the better. I strongly commend the honourable member for Wills for moving this amendment.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) because I believe that if a fixed figure is decided on for a quorum then the House is entitled to rely on that figure as being the quorum. We should not vary it just to suit the whims of Opposition members, because they want to play hanky-panky or politics, or because they want to go home or frus trate the business of the Government. If we decide on the figure of 25 as a quorum we are entitled to say that that is the figure. Pairs are arranged so that people from distant electorates, such as those in Western Australia, can get away. This applies to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and some honourable members from Queensland.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order. Has not this matter been resolved, unfortunately in a manner about which I was not happy? Is not the matter before us now an amendment which relates to the number of honourable members that ought to be present when Bills are put through this House? We are not dealing with the question of the quorum.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr JARMAN:

– The point I am making, and I make it very briefly, is that if we set on a figure as being a quorum, that should be the absolute quorum. As members of the Parliament we are entitled to rely on that number as being the quorum and to plan our business accordingly. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said that the Government has a responsibility to keep up the numbers in the House. I say that the Opposition also has a responsibility to be here. If it is necessary for honourable members to be paired so that they may go off on a day such as today then we as a government and honourable members generally are entitled to rely on the number which has been set by this House as being a positive quorum and a quorum for all time. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a certain number for a quorum one day and a different number another day because that suits the Opposition. I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wilis (Mr Bryant) which requires that at least onethird of the total number of members shall be present when a decision is being arrived at. I have bad a look at the amendment which was circulated by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham), and I was tempted to move it myself. But if we were to move that half the number of honourable members should be present at all times, it could well mean that the House would become unworkable, because all that the Opposition would have to do would be to send one honourable member in to take a division while the remainder stayed outside. As the matter stands at the present time, the Government would need to have only about 3 members away and no business could be put through the House. We are not dealing with this matter as Government and Opposition; we are dealing with it as individuals. It is not my desire as an individual to place this House in a position where it would be impracticable or impossible to put the business through. If the Government has the numbers in the House it has the right to bring legislation forward and accept responsibility for it. It is our responsibility as an Opposition to oppose legislation whenever we think it should be opposed and to amend it whenever we think it should be amended, if we have the numbers to do so. So I feel that the proposition that has been put forward by the honourable member for Wills is a sound and logical one.

I suggest that we should have a look at the numbers in the House. I am not talking about the honourable members who are in this chamber at the moment; I am talking about those members who are available to vote. On the last vote that was taken the numbers were 43 to 27. It was not a vote of Government and Opposition; it was an individual vote. The facts are that out of 125 members only 72 voted in a division a few moments ago. We sat in this place a few weeks ago and debated for some hours the question of whether the House should continue to operate on the 3-day week - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - or whether we should introduce a 4-day week. I ask: What is the result of the introduction of a 4-day week? I was severely castigated by one honourable member because of my attitude in voting for the 3-day week. I attended on 38 days in the last session of Parliament; the man who criticised me attended on 23 days. That honourable member voted for a 4-day sitting week. He has not been sighted in this place all this week.

Mr Stewart:

– Who was it?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I will not tell the House who it was. Honourable members can look that up in Hansard. I have been waiting. I do not forget, or forgive. Let us look at the attendance of honourable members in this place. If honourable members want a 4-day sitting week, let them spend the 4 days here. When the House rises - as it will this afternoon in 50 minutes time - that is the time for honourable members to leave. If honourable members believe that we should have a sitting week of 3 days, that is what we should have.

I did not vote for the reduction of the size of the quorum from one-third to onefifth of the total number of members. I think that one-third is a reasonable number to have in this place at all times. I remind honourable members of the situation on 12th June 1970, the last day on which the House sat before the winter recess. The House rose for that recess, having concluded its business, at 7.27 p.m. At that stage, I could quite easily have called for a division on 2 measures before the House. My Party was in opposition to 2 Bills that were introduced. On behalf of the Opposition I was in charge of the debate on 1 of those Bills. I did not call for a division at that time for the simple reason that 1 knew that a quorum of members was not present and I was not prepared to have the provisions of the legislation deferred for 2 months and run the risk of depriving the dependants of persons who might have been killed in any air fatality during that period of an additional compensation payment of $15,000. The situation was that not even one-third of the number of members of this House was present and I did not call for a vote on the measures under discussion.

I do not think that it is too much to ask honourable members to stay here while the Parliament is in session. All that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills requests is that one-third of our membership- 42 members - remain here to vote on a Bill.

Mr Reynolds:

– That is 42 members out of 125 members.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes, 42 members out of 125 members. I thank the honourable member for Barton for his interjection. Is this too much to ask?

Mr Jarman:

– I take a point of order. Has not the size of the quorum been decided? Are we not talking now only about whether or not the size of the quorum should be varied for the purposes of a division?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - We are in the Committee stage of the consideration of the House of Representatives (Quorum of Members) Bill.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– For the benefit of the honourable member for Deakin, I point out that, whilst the House has decided that a quorum shall be one-fifth of the total membership of this House, the honourable member for Wills is asking that no measure be carried unless one-third of the membership of this House is present to vote. I think that is a reasonable safeguard. As I said in my earlier remarks, I think that a quorum requirement of onehalf could create a situation in which, because of the action of whichever party was in opposition, the business of the House could not be proceeded with. I think that the proposition from the honourable member for Wills is a fair and reasonable one. I hope that honourable members will carry it. They will if they are fair dinkum and believe that members are attending to their duties here.

Mr Hurford:

– Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your ruling on the interpretation of the wording of the amendment as it has been given to us. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) when moving his amendment altered ‘one-half’ to ‘one-third’. He has assumed in his argument that this means that one-third of the whole number of members needs to be present for a division. Yet, the amendment, as moved, reads:

At the end of the clause add the following proviso:

Provided thai if it appears on the report by the tellers of a division of the House that onethird of the whole number of Members is not present, no decision of the House shall be considered to have been arrived at by such division.’.

Does this mean that two-thirds of the whole number of members must be present? If so, I feel that the honourable member for Wills will be seeking leave to alter the amendment moved by him.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! I point out to the honourable member for Adelaide that it is not for the

Chair to interpret the meaning of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills.

Mr Hurford:

– May I indicate a further amendment? I seek your ruling, because I am not conversant with the rules of the House. I intend to move an amendment which would do what the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) was arguing in favour of, namely, that when we have a division of this House one-third of the whole number of members shall be present. As I understand the wording of this amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills, and as it has been given to me. it would require twothirds of the whole number of members to be present.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - It appears to me that the wording is clear enough. As T understand the amendment of the honourable member for Wills onethird, 42 of the total number, have to be present.

Mr Hurford:

– It does not read that way.

Mr Bryant:

– I think there is a complicated or half-baked double negative there.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It simply means that if 42 members are not present there can be no decision of the House.

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The intention of the honourable member for Wills was that 42 members should be present before a decision of the House could be arrived at.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- That is the way I read it and the way I understood the honourable member for Wills to present it.

Mr Hurford:

– I understand the honourable member for Wills does seek that. Can I move that he be given leave to change the words ‘two-thirds* to ‘one-third’?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The honourable member for Wills has already moved that the provision be amended from one-half to one-third. I think he made himself quite clear to the Committee.

Mr HURFORD:

– I am sorry to delay the House but the amendment as I read it is as follows:

Provided that if it appears on the report by the tellers of a division of the House that one-third of the whole number of members is not present . . .

If one-third is not present it seems to me that two-thirds must be present. This is not the intention of the honourable member for Wills nor is it my intention. 1 want to arrive at wording which will ensure that at least one-third of the members are present when it comes to voting on a measure.

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

– The point made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) had escaped me. I would like honourable members to express a view on this so that the matter can be put in positive language. Let me tell the Committee the way I see the matter. There is provision in the Constitution for a quorum of one-third. There is provision in the Standing Orders that if on the counting of a division fewer than one-third of the members vote then it is declared not to be a decision taken on the division of the House and the House is adjourned until the next day of sitting. If the terms of the Bill are passed without any amendment the quorum would be reduced to one-fifth and by necessary implication, with the quorum reduced to one-fifth, the provision under the Standing Orders would be reduced to one-fifth. My recollection is that in the history of the Parliament there have been only 3 occasions on which there was not a quorum present on a division. On each of those occasions a division was called on the question that the House do now adjourn. What happened was that the adjournment debate was proceeding and honourable members got tired of it and went home. When the question was put that the House do now adjourn there was a division and there were not enough members to record the result of the division. The debate was adjourned to the next day anyway. They are the only occasions, to my recollection, on which it has happened.

The reality is that in the past there have never been fewer than one-third of members present on a division, except for those rare occasions the last of which was 2 or 3 decades ago. I do not see any difficulty about this amendment because this has never been an issue. I remind honourable members that on 12th June at the end of the last session, members of this House wanting to catch aeroplanes departed from the House leaving the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the

Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) having a heated debate about a statement on the sinking of a ship. That is as I understand it. There were very few people here.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Only about S6m was involved - a peanut job.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am not being critical. I am stating the facts. On that occasion if I had been required to keep one-third of honourable members here many honourable members could not have gone home. As I understand it, this is exactly the argument being put by those honourable members in favour of the proposition. As against that, the other side of the argument is that when the House decides to adopt a quorum the quorum should be the quorum for all purposes. I do not think honourable members are going to be persuaded by arguments one way or the other on this matter. Mr Deputy Chairman, what I wish to do is to state the facts clearly. If the Bill is passed, on a division only one-fifth of the members of the House will need to vote. That is a quorum. If the amendment is accepted on a division one-third of the members would be required to vote. The issues are very clear. All honourable members know the issues and we should vote on the matter as soon as possible.

Mr Jarman:

– 1 rise to a point of order which is in line with what the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) stated. I think that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) - which I do not support - is ambiguous. Perhaps he could be allowed to re-word it so that everyone in the House will be clear. I suggest that it could be worded in this way:

That for a division to be declared carried onethird of the whole number of members must be present or no decision of the ‘House shall be considered to have been arrived at by such division.

Would it clear up the point raised by the honourable member for Adelaide if the honourable member for Wills were prepared to put his amendment in that form?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Dmr)’) - Is the honourable member for Wills prepared to accept that proposal?

Mr Bryant:

– I accept that wording. That is really what I mean.

Amendment - by leave - amended.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). Honourable members have been deliberating in this chamber off and on for a couple of weeks on some form of improvement or reform. I hold the very strong view that little can be done about reform in this House until one starts to look at these 2 almost infamous documents. However, do honourable members who are debating this question realise that if they do not support the amendment 25 members will suffice for the taking of a division. Let honourable members get out on the hustings at election time and tell the people from whom they expect support that of a total of 125 elected members if 25 members vote in a division a simple majority of those who vote will suffice for an affirmative decision. One half of the Ministry could be missing. How serious would that be? I shall never give my support to such a measure as long as I sit here. I consider, in fact, that more serious matters which come before this House are dealt with in a most cavalier and casual manner indeed.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - I ask the honourable member not to get too wide of the amendment.

Mr FOSTER:

– Perhaps at the risk of being required by the Chair to come to the point I do no more than reiterate that if one-fifth of the members were sufficient for a division, half of the Ministry could be missing. In view of some of the things they do all the Ministers ought to be missing. Honourable members opposite should go out and tell the public what they intend to do. The public will not in any circumstances agree with them. Yet we had a situation in thu House this morning in which all sorts of subterfuges were adopted by honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns).

We have before us a very serious matter. Under the terms of the Bill now before us, decisions of this Parliament can be made and Bills can be passed with only a very small minority of the elected members of this Parliament being present and at the same time this Government is attempting te give such decisions an air of legality. Bills could be passed with only a few honourable members here. If this is not a minority form of government then I would like someone to inform me what is.

Dr Gun:

– It is a stacked meeting.

Mr FOSTER:

– My colleague, the honourable member for Kingston, interjects and says thai it is a stacked meeting. Honourable members opposite stand up in this place and attack the trade union movement.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member is getting very wide of the matter which is before this Committee.

Mr FOSTER:

– Honourable members opposite would attack trade unions if they had some of those rules and provisions in their constitutions. I deplore the proposal now before the Committee. We should at least grab some straw in an attempt to save the situation. We should support unanimously the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills and thereby save face.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I will oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) or I shall seek a ruling as to whether the amendment is out of order in terms of the Bill. This Bill relates to a quorum of members of the House of Representatives. As I understand the position the Bill had to be passed because previously the quorum was fixed under the provisions of the Constitution with a proviso that it would remain at that figure until such time as Parliament decided otherwise. This Parliament is now deciding whether the quorum shall be onefifth of the members instead of one-third. But the number of members that will constitute a valid division is an entirely different question. As I understand it these matters should be laid down in the Standing Orders of this Parliament. We already have one provision which states that the Standing Orders cannot be suspended unless there is what is known as a statutory majority. A statutory majority is 1 more than half of the total members. That is the only provision which sets a minimum number of members for a division. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills should, in my view, be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for further investigation.

I want to ask you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to rule whether this amendment is consonant with the Bill before us which is a Bill relating, as the title says, to a quorum of the members of the House of Representatives. How can we tag on to a Bill dealing with a quorum of this House a provision as to the valid numbers in any division? To my mind this amendment is not relevant to the Bill. If any honourable member wishes to have this sort of proviso the way to do it is to have the Standing Orders amended. But of course that is not the matter now before the Committee. The subject which is before this Committee is a Bill dealing with a quorum of the House of Representatives. I ask for a ruling on this. If the ruling is against my view I propose to vote against the amendment, in any case.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - I rule that the amendment is relevant to the Bill. I rule that the amendment simply fixes another quorum number required for a division. Therefore I rule that the amendment is in order.

Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– Mr Chairman, as you have ruled that the amendment is in order I would like to say that I support it. I do so because I believe that it is quite wrong to require that only one-fifth of the members should be present when an important piece of legislation is passed by this Parliament. A minimum of one-third is few enough. I would support an even greater proportion than that. This Parliament makes decisions of tremendous importance year in, year out. I therefore believe that a substantial number of members should be required to be present when a decision is made. I do not want to make a long speech in regard to this matter. I merely indicate to the Committee where I stand.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I, too, support the amendment. I agree entirely with the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) on this. Some members of the Opposition are opposed to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), but I appeal to honourable members on this side of the chamber as well as to honourable members on the other side not to make an irrevocable decision now which will stay on the statute book and will be binding on all future governments in all circumstances. I have just asked a question of the assistant Clerk. Perhaps it was not fair to ask him to answer it off the cuff. As far as he ls able to answer the question off the cuff, he knows of no requirement in the Standing Orders that stipulates that a special or urgent sitting of the Parliament will require a given amount of notice to honourable members. Assuming that his impromptu reply is correct, one can easily visualise a very serious situation arising - I hope it will never arise in our time. We are interfering with an institution that has stood the test of time for about 600 years and which, I hope, will stand the test of time while man lives in this country.

If we make the fatal decision today which will allow the Parliament to function with no more than 25 people present out of 125, of which 13 would be a majority, those 13 people could be responsible for putting onto the statute book laws binding on the 13 million people who have sent us here. Those laws could range from penal provisions in the Arbitration Act to amendments to the Crimes Act, imposts upon property or intrusions into the civil liberties of our people. It is a very serious thing. I realise that governments like to have small quorums. I do not condemn them for that, but we are not at this moment thinking in terms of governments and oppositions. This is a free, non-party vote to be taken by members of the Parliament who not only want to sec the Parliament work efficiently but also want the Parliament to be a permanent safeguard for the people of Australia against tyranny, despotism and the kind of abuse of power which governments sometimes take upon themselves.

For these reasons I believe that we ought to insist upon having no fewer than one-third of the members present. That is small enough. It is only 42 out of 125 who are required to be present. I cannot really visualise the situation in which this would impose a hardship upon a government, whether it is a Liberal government or a Labor government. Surely it will never be a hardship upon any government not to be able to pass legislation unless there is a mere 42 out of 125 present. Therefore, I would earnestly plead to members on both sides of the Parliament to realise that this is a very serious step we are taking; it is a step that perhaps will be with us for all time. We are doing something now to Parliament. Our decision will affect not only the Parliament of today but the Parliament as it will be in 100 years time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– Although I do not consider this to be a matter of such seriousness as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), I propose to support the amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I wish to say just a brief work to indicate also my support for the amendment. 1 hope honourable members will realise what an important step they are taking - not so much with regard to the running of Parliament but with regard to the respect that the community outside of this place will have for Parliament. If we are prepared to allow 25 people to make up the mind of Parliament on legislation - if we are prepared to quit our jobs and leave it to them to do that - then I do not think we deserve the respect of the public. As has already been pointed out, a handful of people - a mere 13 - could make national decisions here in this national Parliament.

Mr Giles:

– That is quite wrong.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– It is not wrong. Out of a quorum of 25 members 13 could represent a majority. Therefore I earnestly appeal to my colleagues to make sure that the respect of this Parliament will not be frittered away on something that apparently does not matter so much anyhow in the actuality of the running of Parliament. Apparently it is on most rare occasions that legislation is passed through this House without at least a third of the members being present. If this is so then why quibble about the amendment?

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee) [3.38J- My position on this amendment is very easily and quite quickly stated. It is on record that I am one of the members who voted against the general reduction in the quorum. I feel very strongly on this matter. This amendment gives me another chance to make the quorum as I thought it should be constituted operate on the special occasion of a vote in the House and, of course, I will act accordingly.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am one of those also who did not want the quorum reduced. I think we are getting a bit wide of the real intention of what was carried by the

House when this matter was discussed on 20th August. I am of the opinion that honourable members were of the mind, when they voted, that the calling of a quorum interrupts the business of the House. Standing order 41 says that we have to have a quorum before the House starts. A member has a right under standing orders 45 and 84 to draw attention to the state of the House. Whilst I have taken a view which supports what my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has said, I think the majority of the House has indicated that it does not want quorums greater than one-fifth of the total number of members. However, honourable members have never said that they were prepared to have legislation passed by as little as one-fifth of the members of Parliament. Therefore, would not a solution be to leave the Constitution as it is and maintain a quorum of one-third? We could leave standing order 41, which provides that a quorum must be formed as it is. Then, if honourable members want to alter anything, they could alter Standing Orders. I have in mind standing orders 45 and 84 which set out that a debate cannot continue when a quorum is called for unless a certain number of members come. I think this is the issue. As the honourable member for Wills said, if you are going to alter a quorum for a division you really get away into another field altogether apart from that which was discussed in this place when we debated the calling of quorums. Let us face it: When a quorum is called Opposition members do not come into the House. We are told to stay out. This is the logical thing to do because it is the responsibility of the Government to make up the numbers, not the responsibility of the Opposition. But this is not so in the case of divisions. We are here all the time. Here we have a situation in which the House is discussing a matter of principle as to whether it is just a tedious matter of delaying the Government in the course of the day or of saying: ‘Well, having decided that it wm be one-fifth it will be one-fifth for everything.’ That was not the decision at all. My plea is that the Governmet have another look at the legislation it is introducing. It should leave things as they are and not introduce legislation to deal with the matter. The Government should see whether it could not get around the problem by means of the Standing Orders and the right of members to call quorums.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I would like to compliment the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) on the clarity of his contribution to this debate and to take up one or two of the points that have been mentioned, notably that made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who saw fit to talk of the traditions of Westminster but told us only half the story. 1 believe that all members of the House have received from the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) a table showing comparable quorums in other parliaments of the world. I am afraid that I do not have the document with me now but we know that other leading parliaments have quorums of as little as 5 per cent or 6 per cent of their membership. If we are going to talk about the House of Commons - and I think we might well do so - I believe that its quorum is 6 per cent of 617 members. That is to say, in the terms used by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) and others, 37 members out of 617 can pass legislation. We have been shown the great spectre of a handful of men who have been elected to this place passing important legislation. All I can say is that it will be a much larger handful than is found in most other parliaments.

Mr Berinson:

– So what?

Dr SOLOMON:

– If the honourable member wishes to draw comparisons with other parliaments he should take the total comparison and not select bits and pieces which suit his purpose. I believe that this is the relevance of the matter. At the same time 1 acknowledge that there are one or two parliaments - the Parliament of Tasmania is, I think, one in point - where in fact the quorum is a little higher. The table shows that the Tasmanian House of Assembly has a 40 per cent quorum with a membership of only 35, but as we go down the list we see that Western Australia has 33i per cent, New South Wales 21 per cent, South Africa 18 per cent, India 10 per cent and the United Kingdom House of Commons 6i per cent. I submit that this is a slightly more balanced assessment than one or two we have bad hitherto. This does not mean that honourable members who have already put their view, or those who may do so later, are not entitled to that view; but the suggestion that a reduction in the proportion from one-third to 25 per cent - that is 25 out of 125 here - will see all these members high tailing it out of here and lead swinging around the country is, I think, entirely unfounded. I do not think honourable members do themselves justice in suggesting that. Having been here a short time I do not believe they do justice to me either or to any of the other people 1 know in that category. We have heard at length in the course of parallel debates to this one that committee work is important and increasingly so. What are we going to do about it? Are we all going to rush off and leave the committees standing? Honourable members, including those who suggested otherwise, know very well that we will be engaged in this House for most of the time if we are not in this chamber. So I believe that those honourable members misrepresent to the public who are listening to the broadcast of proceedings the function of this Parliament if they suggest that by such a reduction as is proposed we are just going to be lead swinging. They know darned well that we will not be doing so and that we will be engaged in other and parallel functions of Parliamentarians. Finally, because there are other people who wish to speak, may I merely underline the point that the vote on principle in this matter was a free vote so there can be no suggestion that the vote was pressured, railroaded or rammed through. We have taken a vote on principle which, in effect, is the vote on a particular matter. There is only one thing at stake here and that is the number making up a quorum. In other words, those who were beaten on a free vote are making a last ditch stand to recommit the same matter as was won on principle.

Mr Hurford:

– That is not true.

Dr SOLOMON:

– That is entirely true because there is no alternative interpretation.

Mr Hurford:

– I voted on the other side.

Dr SOLOMON:

– I am sorry, the honourable member may have changed his mind. But the matter is still the same whether it is in principle or in practice. The effect will be the same. I submit very strongly that we have already made up our minds on this. I see no reason to change my mind, nor do I think Parliament will be denigrated or downgraded if this proposal is put into effect.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I see little relevance in the point made by the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) when be compared this Parliament with other parliaments in the Commonwealth and in other countries. I think we are competent to decide how many parliamentarians should constitute a quorum to keep the business of the House going and to pass legislation. At some time in the future a contingency might arise when a government is threatened with its life. The Ministry of 24 members could be brought here to form a quorum and to carry legislation which may have some bearing on the constitutional crisis. One cannot foresee future events. There is safety in numbers. I think half the total number of members of the House plus one should constitute a quorum. That is a fair proposition. For a parliament to transact its business half its number plus one should be present. I do not agree that the number should be 42. But to reduce the number from 42 to 25 is ludicrous and would be a slight on this place and on the membership of this place and an insult to the people of the Commonwealth. think that at least 42 members should be here to transact business. I support the amendment.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– In discussing the size of a quorum, I do not believe that there is any right or wrong about a particular figure. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) suggested that the quorum should be half the total number of members of the House plus 1. He suggested that if the number were fewer the Executive could constitute a quorum. Where would the Opposition be, not having answered the call to come to Canberra? If one takes that argument to its logical conclusion, the Government which, by definition, must have half the total number of members plus 1 could pass legislation and the Opposition could stay away and it would not make any difference to the result. I put that argument aside.

My first point is that there is no magic about any proportion of a body of men forming a quorum. What we have before us is a Bill which seeks to reduce from one-third to one-fifth the proportion of elected members who shall constitute a quorum because, by trial and error and by experience the House has found that it is inconvenient to have quorums called, to have bells rung and to have members coming into the chamber to make up the present quorum of one-third. It is inconvenient and a waste of time, not because people are lethargic or are engaged in pursuits in which they ought not to be engaged but because, as every honourable member knows, they are engaged in other duties outside the chamber. They are seeing constituents, making telephone calls, doing research, writing speeches and spending time in the Library. Honourable members know, as well as I do, the calls made on a member’s time and what he has to fit into the time he spends in this building, which I suggest is busy from 9 a.m. till midnight each sitting day.

There is a need to consider the size of a quorum. Through experience we have found that there is a need to reduce the size to one-fifth in order to keep the business of the House going. We know also that when important matters are debated and when a member delivers a good speech the House fills. People are interested in the conduct of affairs in this chamber. If the quality of speech and debate is good, there will be satisfactory attendance.

Many arguments have been put. The mover of the amendment suggested that the notes here could be compared with the decision made by a jury. A jury has an entirely different function from that of members who sit in a legislative chamber. A jury has to resolve its interpretation of the facts beyond reasonable doubt, whereas we sit to decide political matters and to make judgments on matters of policy. We sit for days on end and consider a wide variety of subjects. No member would claim to have special knowledge or expert knowledge on all those subjects.

So, I come to the point that the amendment contains a proposal not to reduce the number of members required in a division - that is the definition of a quorum - from one-third to one-fifth. There can hardly be any great magic about this. Somebody made an eloquent plea in which he said: ‘If you reduce the proportion to one-fifth, you will need only 25 members. which means that 13 members can decide a question’. That is true. On the other hand, if, as the amendment proposes, you need only 42 members, that means that only 22 members can decide a question. So, there is no magic of right or wrong in this question of a quorum. It is surely a figure that has to be determined by what the House knows as a result of all its experience - it has plenty of experience in these matters - to be reasonable.

Someone made the plea that matters of great importance can be put through this chamber with small numbers present. Important matters involving imposts and civil liberties are put through this chamber. On many of the occasions on which that happens, this chamber is almost filled with people taking an interest in those matters. Likewise, it is misleading to suggest that because a member is not in this chamber he does not know what is going on here or what, in all likelihood, will be the result of the measure, because matters are debated throughout the country and around this building for days, weeks and even months before they come to a vote, in many cases the result is a foregone conclusion.

The amendment suggests that we should have a different proportion for a quorum for a sitting of the House than for a quorum in a division. I consider that such a distinction is unnecessary. A variation in the general quorum exists nowhere else. I believe that the suggestions made to the effect that members will not be responsible are false. From my experience in the time I have been here, I believe that members are responsible and that they take a deep interest in what happens here. When a division is called for, all the members who are in the building will come into this chamber. So an increase in the proportion needed for a quorum in a division is irrelevant. For all those reasons. I believe that there is no necessity to have a different quorum in divisions from that required for a sitting of the House. I support the Bill, and 1 oppose the amendment.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I wish to speak for only a few minutes. I believe that the quorum should be larger than 25. I wonder whether honourable members realise that, with a quorum of 25 and a Ministry of 27, after the Parliament had been adjourned until such and such a date the Ministry could say: ‘They have all gone. Let us call the Parliament together. There are 27 of us here’.

Mr Garland:

– There are only 26 Ministers.

Mr DALY:

– Well, the Ministry of 26, together with a couple of Whips, could call the Parliament together. They could say: Let us put through some legislation, and let us get rid of a few members of the Opposition whom we do not want’. In other words, the Parliament could be called together by the Minister and a couple of hangers-on.

Let us not forget that the Ministry may be enlarged to 30. There is no saying that the number will stay as it is under this Government or any other. These days there are desperate men in the Liberal Party. That was shown this morning. They might say: ‘Let us have a very quick meeting of the Parliament’. 1 merely make the point that, if the quorum is reduced to as low as 25, that will be one of the most dangerous procedures ever introduced in this Parliament, it will bring executive government to the Parliament and anything will be able to be done quite constitutionally. Therefore, we must have a higher number. Even the one-third which has been suggested does not meet my wishes, but I shall go along with that, although I think it should be much larger. 1 point out a real danger that 1 envisage. Supposing that honourable members are held up somewhere by a fog while on their way to Canberra. The Cabinet of 25 which happened to be in Canberra at the time could get together and do anything. lt could expel people, put through legislation, or even give effect to some of the matters raised this morning. This is a real danger. I oppose a quorum of 25 and suggest that it should be a bigger quorum.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Chairman, l want to answer one or two points which have been raised.

Mr Giles:

– You have spoken already.

Mr BRYANT:

– I can speak twice.

Motion (by Dr Gun) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 38

NOES: 34

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! It being 4 p.m., in accordance with the resolution of the House of Repre sentatives of 26th August I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1077

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce - Minister for

Labour and National Service) [4.5] - Mr Speaker, 1 want to move the appropriate procedure to enable the House to complete the House of Representatives (Quorum of Members) Bill now. The only thing that needs to be done is to put the question at the Committee stage, report to you and then move for the third reading of the Bill. I require the question, ‘That the House do now adjourn’ to be put forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The situation is that progress having been reported and it being after 4 o’clock the question is, That the House do now adjourn’.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1077

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (QUORUM OF MEMBERS) BILL 1970

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

House adjourned at 4.7 p.m. to Tuesday, 15 September, at 2.30 p.m. 1078 Answers to Questions [REPRESENTATIVES] Answers to Questions

page 1078

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated-

Education: Payment of Fees (Question No. 82)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What would be the cost to the Commonwealth of paying the fees of the present number of students at (a) universities,(b) colleges of advanced education, (c) teachers’ colleges and (d) technical colleges, whose fees are not already paid by Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities.

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

– The Ministerfor Education and Science has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The most recent figures available of fees paid by students attending universities, other than those whose fees are already paid by Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities, are those for the 1969 calendar year. The universities have estimated that in that year, the fees received from these students totalled $11. 07m

For 1970, after allowing for increased student numbers and increased university fees, my Department has estimated that fees payable by these students will be $13m.

These estimates do not take into account the value of reimbursements to students who as employees of the Commonwealth are eligible for a refund of fees paid. Nor do they take account of savings to the Commonwealth from a reduction in claims for income taxation deductions which would arise from the abolition of fees.

After taking account of these factors it is estimated that, if the Commonwealth were meeting the cost of fees payable in 1970 by students attending university, whose fees are not already paid by Commonwealth and State Departments and instrumentalities, that cost would be about $11.5m.

  1. With respect to colleges of advanced education, information collected indicates that in 1969 fees totalled about Sim. After allowing for rising fees and student increases, and for reductions in taxation claims and the abolition of reimbursements to government employees, it is estimated that the cost to the Commonwealth of paying the fees of students attending colleges of advanced education in 1970, whose fees are not already paid by Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities, would be almost $3m.
  2. and (d) This information is not available to me as State authorities have not been able to provide sufficient details of the components of fee income for my Department to establish the cost to the Commonwealth of meeting the cost of fees payable by students attending these institutions whose fees are not already paid by Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities.

Northern Territory: Education (Question No. 1037)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What number and percentage of (a) male and (b) female teachers (i) resigned or (ii) took leave from government schools in the Northern Territory in the last year for which he can obtain the information.
  2. How many (a) male and (b) female teachers were employed in government schools in the Northern Territory in the last year for which he can obtain this information.
  3. How many (a) male and (b) female students were beingtrained as teachers for government schools in the Northern Territory in the last year for which he can obtain this information.
  4. Can he give separate information in respect of (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

In the Northern Territory the administration of education by the Commonwealth is shared by the Departments of Education and Science and the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration. The answers to this question are shown separately for the responsibilities of each authority.

Community schools under the control of the Department of Education and Science

All teachers at Community Schools are employed by the South Australian Education Department, who have made available all of the statistics in this section. 1 (a) (b) (i) (ii). The following numbers of teachers (i) resigned and (ii) took leave during 1969:

2 (a) and (b) The number of teachers employed in Northern Territory Community Schools at August 1969 is as follows:

  1. All teachers are employed by the South Australian Education Department. Similarly most teacher trainees who may eventually teach in the Northern Territory are in training under bond to that Department. No teachers are trained specifically for work in the Northern Territory.

    1. Schools under the control of the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration.

All teachers are employed by the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration, who have made available ail of the statistics in this section. 1 (a) (b) (i) (ii) The following numbers of teachers (i) resigned and (ii) took leave during 1969.

  1. The numbers of teachers taking leave relate to periods of more than 3 months only. There is no duplication due to counting of multiple applications.

  2. Percentages are based on total numbers of fulltime teachers at the beginning of 1969.

    1. The total number of teachers at Welfare Branch schools at December 1969 was (a) 99 male and (b) 80 female - total 179 teachers.
    2. The number of students being trained as teachers for Welfare Branch schools during 1969 was (a) 36 male and (b) 19 female- total 55 teacher trainees.
    3. The division .of teachers into primary and secondary is not practicable in respect of Welfare Branch schools. Most of the teaching is at primary level with some special post-primary courses emphasising manual arts for boys and domestic science for girls.

Farmers: Financial Difficulties (Question No. 1115)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has any consideration been given to the need to provide some protection for farmers, who are in financial difficulties because of drought or other measures outside their control, against demands being made upon them by banks, finance companies, stock dealers, machinery firms and like concerns.
  2. Has the desirability of introducing legislation to provide for a moratorium for the farmers received any consideration; if so, what is the intention of the Government.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The provision of protection for farmers in meeting their debts, such as legislation to provide for a moratorium, is a matter for the State Governments. I understand that a measure of protection for farmers who find themselves in financial difficulties due to circumstances beyond their control, such as natural disasters, may be available under some existing State legislation. So far as the banking system is concerned, I am informed that the Reserve Bank has been assured on many occasions that the trading banks give sympathetic consideration to requests for assistance from rural clients who because of natural disasters including drought, experience difficulties in meeting repayments on bank loans.

The Government is examining the need for reconstruction of rural industry, including as one aspect of reconstruction, the question of producers’ indebtedness, and of ways in which the Commonwealth can most effectively assist.

Wheat (Question No. 1293)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the Bureau of Agricultural Economics carried out over recent months any survey of a comprehensive nature into the effects which a reduction in the first advance payment on wheat would have on the economic situation in predominantly marginal wheat growing districts.
  2. If so, what was the finding.
  3. If no recent survey has been made, will he arrange for the Bureau to commence an immediate investigation; if not, why not.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and (2). No.
  2. A function of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is to keep under continuing review and to report on factors affecting the position of primary producers in the light of changing economic conditions. For the wheat industry one method of doing this is through its periodic surveys of the industry which it undertakes at fiveyearly intervals; the last of these was carried out in 1967 and on the normal timetable the next comprehensive review of the industry may be expected in 1972.

However, other examinations of the wheat industry are carried out from time to time to assist governments and the industry in drawing up appropriate policy measures. As an example, the Bureau is currently carrying out, at my request, an investigation into the immediate and longer term needs for debt reconstruction and farm adjustment, 2 problems of particular relevance to many wheatgrowers in Australia.

The Bureau’s resources are necessarily limited The organisation is already under strain in meeting the various demands placed on it for research and there is a clear need for priorities to be established in carrying out its research and investigation programme. In the current situation it will be generally agreed that problems of debt reconstruction and farm adjustment have high priority and that other topics which may be importtant in themselves have to be put on one side for the present. Given its limited resources and the relative priorities, the Bureau does not propose at this stage to embark on the survey referred to in the honourable member’s question.

Income Tax Returns (Question No. 1366)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that under the Income Tax Assessment Act, (a) notice is published in the Commonwealth Gazette requiring every individual who is resident in Australia and whose taxable income from all sources in and out of Australia exceeds $416, to furnish an income tax return, (b) the Commissioner has the power, under section 163, to demand from any person an income tax return and (c) males over 65 years and females over 60 years are allowed tax free income of $1,300 for a single person and $2,262 for a married couple.
  2. Will he give consideration to the granting of an exemption to these persons from the obligation to prepare a return of income, and will he take steps to see that notice is given that exemption from the lodgment of the returns is granted to aged persons whose income is within the exempt limits.
Mr Bury:
Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. Yes.
    2. Males over 65 years and females over 60 years are granted freedom from tax where the taxable income does not exceed $1,300 in the case of a single person and $2,262 for a married couple. In addition, reduced rates of tax apply to-
    1. a single taxpayer to whom the age allowance provisions apply where the taxable income is between $1,301 and $2,275; and
    2. a married taxpayer to whom the age allowance provisions apply where the combined taxable income of the taxpayer and dependent spouse exceeds $2,262 and the taxpayer’s own taxable income does not exceed $4,121.

  2. Where the income of an aged person falls within die tax free limits, he is advised by the Taxation Office that it will not be necessary to lodge returns of income in any future year unless -

    1. he is desirous of obtaining a refund of tax instalment deductions;
    2. it becomes necessary as a result of changes in the age allowance provisions of the law or increases in the income of the taxpayer or spouse which result in the exemption levels being exceeded; or
    3. he is requested to do so by the Taxation Office.

The taxpayer is also advised that in order to avoid tax instalment deductions being made from salary, wages or pension received by him in excess of $8 per week he should, at the beginning of each year, lodge with the person paying such income an age allowance declaration form.

Customs Duty (Question No. 1372)

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What amount of Customs duty was

    1. paid by or
    2. exempted in respect of specific industries associated with
    3. caustic soda
    1. soda ash (Hi) chlorine and
    2. related products in each of the last 5 years.

  2. What percentage of duty-exempt caustic soda is used for alumina production.

Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that information on the amount of Customs duty paid by, or exempted in respect of, specific industries is not available.

However, he has supplied the following table showing imports cleared for home consumption by type of duty, of (i) liquid and solid caustic soda (sodium hydroxide), (ii) soda ash (sodium carbonate and sodium carbonate decahydrate) and (iii) chlorine, for each of the years 1965-66 to 1969-70.

  1. The percentage of caustic soda entered under by-law for the production of alumina in relation to the total amount of caustic soda admitted under by-law for the year 1969-70 was 99.97 per cent.

Caustic soda for the production of alumina is admitted under by-law subject to the alumina produced in the process being exported.

Conference on the Development of Australia’s Ports (Question No. 1441)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Which State Ministers attended the Conference with him at Southport in July 1970, to discuss the development of Australia’s ports.

  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by:

    1. the Commonwealth,
    2. the Territories, and
    3. the States.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The Hon. Davis Hughes, M.I..A., Minister for Public Works, New South Wales The Hon. Murray Byrne, M.L.C., Minister for Public Works, Victoria. The Hon. N. T. E. Hewitt, M.M., M.L.A., Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland The Hon. J.D Corcoran, M.H.A., Deputy Premier, Minister of Works and Minister of Marine, South Australia

The Hon. L. H. Bessell, M.H.A., Minister for Transport, Racing and Gamingand Mines, Tasmania

The Hon. R. Hutchinson, D.F.C.. M.L.A., Minister for Works and Minister forWater Supplies. Western Australia was unable to attend due to illness.

  1. No requests or suggestions were made for legislative action.

The Conference agreed that the Commonwealth would analyse the port information supplied by the States. A statement would then be prepared of procedures and objectives from StateCommonwealth official body on matters affecting development of Australia’s ports.

Following this the Commonwealth would call together State officials so that machinery procedures may be developed for recommendation to Ministers in the light of these objectives.

Fisheries Research (Question No. 1473)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What was the (a) subject, (b) location, (c) cost and (d) purpose of fisheries research conducted by his Department in the last financial year.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The subject, location and purpose of fisheries research conducted by my Department in the last financial year is shown in the attached table. The cost of this research cannot be estimated since, for the most part, it was borne by normal Departmental expenditure and separate records have not been maintained.

Election Statistics (Question No. 1557)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What number of votes was cast for each subdivision of each Brisbane metropolitan Federal electoral division at the Brisbane City Hall on the occasion of the 1969 general election.

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

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

Oil Tankers (Question No. 1583)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What regulations control the discharge of ballast from oil tankers in

Australian waters; and

international waters.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

In the case of ballast water containing less than 100 parts of oil per million parts, there is no restriction on discharge. In the case of contaminated ballast water, the appropriate controls are:

in Australian territorial waters - the laws of the States and the Northern Territory that give effect to the The International Convention for the prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 19S4, as amended;

in international waters - the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960-1965 in respect of Australian ships and the laws of countries that are parties to the above-mentioned Convention in respect of their own ships.

CSIRO Staff: Salaries (Question No. 1507)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the alarm expressed by CSIRO scientists, engineers, experimental officers and scientific service officers about their salar)’ situation.
  2. Does the Commonwealth Government support the proposition that there should be a close relationship between research scientists’ salaries and academic salaries.
  3. If so, will the Government intervene accordingly in the present appeal before the Arbitration Commission.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. I am aware that professional staff in CSIRO have made representations in support of salary increases.
  2. The Government has not considered this matter because the authority for the determination of rates of pay of ‘Research Scientists in Commonwealth employment is vested in independent statutory authorities including the Public Service Board or, upon application by a staff association, in the Public Service Arbitrator.
  3. The Public Service Board has informed me that the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dealing with the appeals instituted by the CSIRO Officers’ Association and the Professional Officers’ Association Commonwealth Public Service, against Determinations No. 44 and 45 of 1970, reserved its decision on 6th July 1970 and that the decision is expected on Friday 4th September 1970.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 September 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700904_reps_27_hor69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant