House of Representatives
30 October 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 3099

PETITIONS

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 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.

None of the Australian States has 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 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.

Censorship

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the International Film Theatre Inc. respectfully showeth.

The members of the above, a film society of nearly 900 members, wish to commend the Government on its increasingly enlightened attitude towards the censorship of films.

But they wish to bring before the Government their considered view that mature individuals should not be restricted in the material which they can see, hear or view, maintaining that the implication that decent moral standards may be eroded by the viewing of films is false and misleading.

They believe that no case has been established for the censorship of films seen by mature persons over the age of 18 at screenings by properly constituted film societies, film festivals, libraries and educational institutions.

They believe that the protection of immature persons can be achieved by the introduction of restricted exhibition and the adoption of uniform legislation and regulations in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth specifying age limits for admission to the public exhibition of films so classified as restricted.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should heed the act on these submissions. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, 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 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 five 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 physioally and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that 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 seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 3099

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs a question. Has the Minister yet learned that a survey by members of some of the medical disciplines of the University of Western Australia, just completed, has revealed serious health problems among Aboriginals in the Kimberleys, especially relating to hookworm, respiratory infections, and, I understand, poor nutrition? Is the Minister aware that the respiratory infections have been found to have the effect of seriously impairing the hearing of Aboriginal children, thereby drastically reducing the benefit gained from their schooling? Can the Commonwealth, after examination of the findings, finance a health and educational compaign to rectify these sub-standard conditions in the Kimberleys?

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

– Although 1 have heard of the report the honourable member mentions I have not had the opportunity of studying it in detail. I do, however, agree with the general nature of the findings, and they bear out the findings of the school on Aboriginal health, particularly Aboriginal infant health, which was sponsored by my own Office of Aboriginal Affairs some time ago. I do agree, of course, that there are these serious diseases in the Aboriginal population. They are much less prevalent than they were because we are improving the situation but their incidence is still far too high. I am not satisfied with it and I do not think the honourable member will be satisfied with it either.

As to the point he raises regarding deafness, yes, the respiratory diseases are quite strongly established in the Aboriginal population. I am not quite certain and, indeed, I think the medical profession would not regard itself as being completely certain, of the causes. To some extent this could be due to lack of Aboriginal immunity to some of the respiratory infections which we have introduced from overseas. To some extent it is due, I think, to the fact that Aboriginals live in smoke fined rooms or even smoke filled huts. This is something which they prefer to do even when more adequate accommodation is provided, although I would not say that in all cases by any means there is adequate alternative accommodation provided. I shall look particularly at the aspect which the honourable member raises because I am convinced that deafness is the cause of many of the imputed cases of mental retardation in both the Aboriginal and European population and that something effective can be done about this. The Government’s proposals in regard to handicapped children relate to both Aboriginal and European children and are directed towards this objective.

page 3100

QUESTION

CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Defence a question. Further to a question previously asked by the honourable member for La Trobe I wish to ask the

Minister: Can he inform the House whether any decision has yet been reached concerning pay for senior officers of the Citizen Military Forces?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am glad to be able to tell the House that a decision has been made on this matter. The new rates of pay for senior officers of the Citizen Military Forces will be backdated to 1st July 1969. The increases vary from $500 to about $2,000 a year. Of course, pay for the Citizen Military Forces is tax free.

page 3100

QUESTION

CITY RAILWAYS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Have the New South Wales and Victorian Governments at any time applied to his Government for assistance with the Eastern Suburbs and Melbourne underground railways? Whether or not formal applications have been made, I ask him: Is he aware that President Nixon has asked the American Congress to provide $1.0 billion over a 12-year period for the development of urban transport, and that the Federal Government of West Germany is sharing the cost of underground railways in Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Essen, Dusseldorp Ludwigshafen, Hanover and Bonn? Since the Commonwealth is now receiving many millions of dollars in repayments from intercaptial railway projects, I ask the Prime Minister whether the Australian Federal Government’s failure to give the same assistance for railway projects in Australia’s large cities, as the American and German Federal Governments give to similar projects in their large cities, is due to a decision in principle that the Australian Federal Government should not accept such responsibilities, or is it due to doubts about the economic justification of these particular projects?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the first part of the question is yes, both the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government for some considerable time have been raising the question of assistance for the underground railways. The New South Wales Government, of course, has been pursuing the building of its own railway with its own finances, and I gather that the Victorian Government proposes to do the same. I do not feel that I have any responsibility to answer the Leader of the Opposition on what President Nixon does or what happens in West Germany. What we are interested in, I thought, was what happened in Australia, and what has happened in Australia is that this Government has provided for urban transport in the form of roads about a half a billion dollars more in this agreement than was provided in the last, or for all roads, but has removed the former blockage which prevented this being spent on roads in urban areas. What it has also done in the railway projects to which the honourable member refers is a matter of record if we look at the standardised rail gauges throughout Australia.

page 3101

QUESTION

TELEVISION INTERVIEW

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. No doubt the Prime Minister saw, or has seen reports of the Leader of the Opposition’s television interview last night on “This Day Tonight’, in which he claimed that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, is Mr Gorton’s ‘joss*. Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether this is true?

Mr GORTON:
LP

-I did notice the oddity referred to and took the opportunity to And out what the dictionary definition of joss’ was because I was no more sure of what it was than apparently the Leader of the Opposition was. But it turns out to mean ‘a Chinese figure of a deity or an idol’. I can assure the House and the Leader of the Opposition that 1 do not regard Mr Hawke as a Chinese figure of a deity or an idol. It may be that he was referring to the secondary meaning which is a thin cylinder or stick of fragrant tinder mixed with clay’. I do not know which of them he was referring to, but 1. can assure him that if he meant the first definition he was incorrect; if he meant the second, he was rather insulting Mr Hawke.

page 3101

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. He will be aware that the Professional Officers Association decided to suspend industrial action to enable a new salary review to be undertaken by the Public Service Board in conjunction with the Professional Officers Association, the Association of Professional Engineers. Australia and the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draftsmen of Aus tralia according to the conditions provided in a joint statemment of 14 September 1970.I ask the Minister: Is he in a position to advise me whether the review has been completed and when it will be made available to the associations concerned? Further, is he aware of the need for an early decision and determination of the claim for pay increases for professional engineers?

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

– I am aware of the facts as recited by the honourable gentleman. Anybody who read the statement issued by the parties would equally be aware of exactly those same facts. When the parties have finished their discussions they will no doubt issue another statement so that all of us will likewise be informed of the facts in the same way.

page 3101

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM LEVIES ON AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he recalls the statement to the House earlier this week by the honourable member for Lalor on the proposed system of levies for some agricultural products to be introduced by Britain when the honourable member said:

The Minister for Trade and Industry is again the harbinger of bad news . . . The Minister for Trade and Industry has supervised the drift of Australia into this situation.

Is this a further instance of the irresponsible approach to the nation’s problems by a negative Opposition shadow Minister? I further ask: What does the Minister think of farming prospects in northern Victoria?

Dr Everingham:

– I take a point of order. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule out of order the first part of the honourable member’s question which seeks from the Minister an opinion on a matter that is not within his jurisdiction and which asks him to impute motives to an honourable member of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s point of order has no relevance at all to this question.

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

– I well remember the speech of the honourable member for Lalor; he opened by alleging that I was the harbinger of bad news. I take no offence at it. I thought it was rather gratuitous comment unless by any chance it was to be read to indicate that the honourable member for Lalor thought that if the news was bad 1 should nol communicate it to the House. I simply came in and told the facts of the situation. But what I remember best of the speech of the honourable member for Lalor is that he read out categorically the list of countries with which we had tremendously increased our trade sales - Japan, the USA and various others around the world. I interjected to say that he was telling my success story, and that is really the position. If people want to know how we have succeeded in diversifying our trade since Britain made the first attempt to join the European Common Market I commend to them the speech of the honourable member for Lalor. As to the second part of the question, I am looking forward with great enjoyment to the prospects of farming in northern Victoria.

page 3102

QUESTION

EMIGRATION

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration: How many migrants left Australia last year? How many of these migrants were dissatisfied? What were the reasons for their dissatisfaction? What action is he taking to ensure that all migrants who come to Australia are integrated into the community as quickly and harmoniously as possible?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– As at June 1970 the number of migrants who returned to their home countries was about 27,000. I think it is fair to say that some of that group were undoubtedly what may loosely be called disgruntled migrants. However, it is equally true that a large number were certainly not disgruntled. One irritating facet of Press reports of this issue is that when the number of returning migrants is reported in daily newspapers the total number is inevitably prefaced with the word ‘disgruntled’ when in fact that is not the case. Migrants return home for a wide diversity of reasons and the investigations that have been carried out by my Department indicate that these reasons reflect as much on the personalities of migrants as on the conditions in Australia. If I may I will very quickly give an instance. This is as mobile an age as there has been in our history and people regard it as reasonable to move from one country to another without any definite intention to settle. Many migrants return home for personal reasons. Of the total group, this accounts for a substantial percentage of those who return to their home countries. Of the balance - that is to say, those who return because their expectations in this country have not been fulfilled - it is fair to say that a reasonable proportion on returning home seek the opportunity to come back to Australia a second time. I recall that when I was in Britain recently the number of persons who had sought a second assisted passage was around 18,000. But undoubtedly this is not an area in which we can be complacent because one returning migrant is certainly one too many. I have initiated several major studies within the Department to search out those areas in which our performance can be improved.

page 3102

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: SPOTLIGHT SHOOTING

Mr FOX:

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is he aware that in most of the major countries spotlight shooting has been banned? Is the Attorney-General aware that field game associations and sporting shooters’ associations do not regard spotlight shooting as a sport and would favour the introduction of legislation to make it illegal? In the interests of wildlife conservation will the AttorneyGeneral give consideration to placing this subject on the agenda for the next conference of Attorneys-General?

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

– I am informed that in a number of overseas countries what is known as spotlight shooting is prohibited by law. I shall give consideration to the question of whether this is a subject which should properly be referred to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. I have a slight doubt about its being within the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee. If it is not, it may well be within the jurisdiction of some other committee of Commonwealth and State Ministers. But having considered that problem I shall certainly further consider the request put to me by the honourable member.

page 3102

QUESTION

GRAPEFRUIT

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

– Representations may have been made to me in writing in recent days regarding a threat of imports of grapefruit and other citrus fruit. However, I am not aware of such representations. Certainly, personal representations have not been made to me. If there is a threat to the citrus industry I suggest that representatives of that industry make a case to the Government, either through me or the Minister for Trade and Industry. If that case can be substantiated it could be put to the Special Advisory Authority of the Tariff Board for some emergency action to take place. The matter would then go before a full Tariff Board hearing to see what protection was required. This has been the normal procedure with rural industries if there is a threat pending. I suggest that the honourable member give this information to the organisation with which be is associated.

page 3103

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORES

Mr MACKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports in various newspapers yesterday concerning the agreement alleged to have been reached with the New South Wales State Government for transfer of Sydney Harbour foreshore land to the State Government. Have details of the transfer been finalised, and if so are there any conditions which would preclude future alienation of the land by a State government for nonrecreational purposes?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The Commonwealth has been negotiating with the Government of New South Wales for some considerable time on the matter of the foreshore land around Sydney. It has been our objective to return to the people of Sydney as much of the foreshore land held by the Commonwealth as could be done provided the defence requirements and the other responsibilities of the Commonwealth Govern ment were not impeded. The Press reports to which the honourable member refers indicate the size and location of the lands under discussion. The actual final reply or the last reply to the Commonwealth offer from the Premier of New South Wales was received in my office only yesterday morning but it does appear that the Commonwealth’s proposals are generally acceptable to the State. I think there are one or two details still to be finalised before any final agreement is reached. I had thought that this matter would be the subject of an announcement by the Premier of New South Wales and myself, but I can well understand the enthusiasm of Mr Lewis at the prospect which has opened up by the Commonwealth Government’s farsighted and generous action.

Dr Everingham:

– What about the alienation of land?

Mr Uren:

– What do you think we are - aliens?

Mr GORTON:

– May I add, Mr Speaker, that our objectives were to get rid of such land as we could without interfering with our reponsibilities and to ensure that the land that we divested ourselves of was retained for park purposes and nothing else.

page 3103

QUESTION

SEISMIC OBSERVATIONS AT ALICE SPRINGS

Mr BARNARD:

– Did the Minister for National Development in association with the Minister for Supply issue a Press statement on seismic observations at Alice Springs on 16 October? Did the statement contain the significant information that the United States geological and geophysical project at Alice Springs undertook studies of a classified nature? Is this the first admission by the Government that classified work is undertaken at the Alice Springs project, usually described as a weather station? Was there an agreement between the Australian and United States Governments when this station was established and was it published in the ‘Australian Treaty’ series? Is the Press release I referred to the first official description of the station as a joint Australia-United States project? Is it not a fact that United States Air Force Detachment 421 operates the station without any Australian participation other than construction, installation and some mapping and survey work? Finally, I ask the Minister: Does any Australian Government agency actually participate in or receive significant information about any classified work of the United States Air Force?

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

– I was very interested in the detailed answer which was given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The only problem is to put a question to it. However, I will obtain a copy of the joint statement to which he refers and see that it is provided to him. That indicates the limit of the information that can be provided.

page 3104

QUESTION

WILLIAMSTOWN RIFLE RANGE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– In asking my question of the Minister for the Army I refer to a headline in yesterday’s Melbourne ‘Herald’ which reads: ‘Army Will Hand Over Bay Rifle Range’. I ask: Does the Minister for the Army know that in this House at least three of his immediate predecessors as Ministers for the Army assured me at question time that the Williamstown rifle range in Victoria would be retained for Queen’s prize shoots, interstate competitions and other important rifle shooting events? Is it true as stated that the Minister has entered into a firm proposal to give 20 acres of this range to the Williamstown Council and that the secretary of that Council has said that his Council expects to get the rest of the range for housing development? Will the Minister for the Army please clarify the position?

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

– I saw the early edition of the paper that was shown to us this morning by the honourable member for Mallee during the question that he asked. I noticed that in the later edition the headline had been changed to reflect more accurately the story that was carried by other newspapers. I wish to inform the honourable member that at no stage have I, or my predecessors or the Army authorities undertaken to hand over the 280 acres of the Williamstown rifle range. My predecessor did indicate in May 1969 that some 20 acres of the range could be made available under certain conditions for parkland or recreational purposes. The Williamstown Council has been asked for proposals in the light of those requirements, but so far no firm acceptable proposal has been put by the Council to me, although I have indicated that I would meet a deputation by the Council on this matter. Some intricate legal problems are related to the transfer of the land for these purposes, but it is hoped that in consultation with the Council these problems can be resolved.

Concerning the whole range area itself I remind the honourable member that I said that no undertaking has been given to hand over the 280 acres. Although the range is of immense value to the Australian Regular Army, the Citizen Military Forces and the Cadet Corps, the Department has always said that it would be prepared to move from the range, but only as soon as a suitable alternative area could be found. The help of the Council, together with that of the State Government, has been enlisted in this search, but no suitable alternative area has yet been found.

page 3104

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Treasurer agree that the sharp seasonal liquidity fluctuations in Australia are damaging to our economy, particularly as they result in conservative Treasurers applying harsher monetary measures, such as even higher interest rates? Does he agree that these fluctuations are, to a large extent, caused by Government taxation policy whereby many individuals have large amounts of taxation to pay in April, many citizens receive taxation refunds in July, August and September, and many companies pay taxation in February? Will he introduce the United Kingdom practices in this matter? If not, what does his Government intend to do about this unsatisfactory situation?

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

– I do not agree that the present order of things has quite the effect that the honourable member suggests. The fact is that these seasonal fluctuations have been part of the Australian financial scene for many years, and established financial institutions and other people concerned have, over the years, become adjusted to the fact that there will be considerable fluctuations as, indeed, there are heavy seasonal fluctuations because crops ripen at certain times of the year and sheep tend to be clipped at one stage rather than another during the year. We have given considerable thought to ways in which swings of taxation can be modified. This is a complex problem, not easy to solve.

Those who pay under the pay as you earn system of taxation normally are anxious to obtain their refunds if over the year their deductions amount to more than their tax liabilities. It is not easy to bring these closer in line because of the varying circumstances of individuals but we have in mind, and do, in fact, practise, some measures to endeavour to soften the fluctuation. The really reputable financial institution is aware of this and calculates its business accordingly. The system does, very largely, adjust itself to the state of affairs.

page 3105

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: SPOTLIGHT SHOOTING

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Attorney-General know the most effective way of getting rid of foxes is by spotlight shooting? Is the combined weight of State and Federal Attorneys-General to be invoked to protect the interest and well being of the fox? Does the Attorney-General know that foxes eat my lambs?

Mr HUGHES:
LP

– I am distressed to receive the piece of information contained in the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question. But 1 suggest, if I may - I hope not too facetiously - that the honourable member for Wakefield and the honourable member for Henty might get together and resolve their differences and then come back to me.

page 3105

QUESTION

SUGAR CANE DESTRUCTION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. The right honourable gentleman will recall that last week the honourable member for Dawson addressed a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the impending destruction of huge quantities of sugar cane in Queensland in spite of the Commonwealth negotiated International Sugar Agreement under which some or even all of the sugar this year could have been stored. He will remember the reply that this sugar destruction was totally the responsibility of the Queensland Government. As this large scale destruction of sugar cane is now about to commence in areas which cannot stand over cane, and as the economic future of farmers in the sugar industry depends predominantly not on Federal legislation and arrangements which the Federal Government makes with Queensland but also on treaties it makes with Commonwealth countries and other countries, I ask: Do the Prime Minister and his Government endorse or deplore the needless destruction of huge quantities of food in Australia, particularly in view of the international criticism of this nation which is certain to result from so nationally irresponsible a decision?

Mr Gorton:

– The Minister for Trade and Industry will answer the question.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– This is a question - I do not say this offensively - which clearly is calculated to gain some political advantage from a situation which I concede is troublesome to many Queensland sugar growers. It does, of course, appear to everyone to be a regrettable thing if a man, having grown a crop of cane, has to destroy some of it. But this fact has been implicit in the Queensland legislation, which has had the total approval of the Cane Growers Council and the Australian Sugar Producers Association for 20, 30 or 40 years. It is part and parcel of the industry. The sugar industry is one industry in Australia which is geared to produce for the market that is available, and it is geared and committed not to produce in excess of the market that is available. The market that is available is that which requires for home consumption some 650,000 tons of sugar, some 335,000 tons which is contracted to be sold to the British Government, and Australia’s basic export quota under the International Sugar Agreement, which is of the order of 1 million tons.

Mr Whitlam:

– But under that Agreement it can be stored.

Mr McEWEN:

– Under the Agreement it can be stored to a point. It must not be stored in excess of that point. Under that Agreement it must not even exist in excess of a certain point. The Agreement, the confidence in it and the meticulous observance of it have given to the whole international sugar world - I speak not only of producers but also of consumer countries - a confidence that sugar will not be poured on to world markets in excess of demand and that the Agreement will produce the result in sugar values that was aimed at. Some 3 years ago Australian sugar had to be sold on world markets at £St&12 10s - less than lc per lb f.o.b. on the assumption, for the purpose of calculation of freight, that that sugar was in the West Indies. That price moved up, after going backwards and forwards, to £Stg17 10s a ton at the time when this Sugar Agreement was signed, and the very basis of the Sugar Agreement was that all sugar producing countries committed themselves, through Acts passed through their respective parliaments, not to supply to. world markets a greater quantity than was provided for in the Agreement.

The outcome of this Agreement has been simply marvellous for the interests of the Queensland sugar grower and the Queensland sugar industry. It has resulted in prices of not £Stgl2 10s a ton, not £Stg 17 10s a ton but £Stg43 and £Stg44 a ton. I do not retreat from the fact that under Queensland legislation some cane shall be destroyed; on the total balance of advantage there is not the slightest doubt that scores of millions of dollars will be put into the pockets of Queensland sugar cane growers by reason of the terms of the commitment which leads to them occasionally destroying some of their cane.

page 3106

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware of a report tabled this week at the National Congress of the Returned Servicemen’s League by Air Vice-Marshal F. M. Bladin, the Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of that body which stated that internal protest movements in Australia and America have prolonged the Vietnam war causing unnecessary death and suffering and that these protest movements have in fact weakened the free world defence structure in South East Asia? Will the Prime Minister state to the House, as requested at the Congress, that the Government will tolerate dissent only while it stays within the law and does not infringe the rights of the majority of the population?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I saw in the newspapers a report of the statement referred to but that is my sole knowledge of that particular statement. I have indicated before in this House and outside it that the Government believes it essential to protect the civil rights of minorities but it believes it equally essential to protect the civil rights of the majorities and will not permit organised minorities to go beyond the law and interfere with the rights of the majorities.

page 3106

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether his attention has been drawn to predictions by John A. Volpe, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, that there will be a 50 per cent reduction in highway deaths in the next 7 years and a reduction of 10,000 deaths in the next 2 years. Is he also aware of the statement by Douglas V. Toms, Director of the United States Federal Highway Safety Bureau that within the next decade cars will be built which will be so safe that it will be extremely difficult to kill oneself in a car? What further action can the Federal Government take to ensure that Australians can look forward to similar prospects?

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

– I think everyone in Australia is appalled at the very high incidence of motor car fatalities and accidents which statistically this year have meant that there have already been over 100 more deaths than for the comparable period last year. With last year’s death toll at more than 3,000 people and with more than 80,000 people seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents the whole question of motor vehicle safety and the difficulties associated with it tends to be one of our principal social health problems. In terms of what can be done to ensure a greater level of motor vehicle safety I am not aware of the reports to which the honourable member refers but I do know that much of the work done in the United States of America in improving the safety patterns of motor vehicles has been with a view to protecting those within the car. in Australia what we are endeavouring to do is adopt standards which will be as far as possible in line with not only those laid down in the United States but also those laid down in Europe. These standards take into account not just the passengers in a car but also the safety of the vehicle in relation to other vehicles and pedestrians. For that reason there are some instances where the panel which advises the Australian Transport Advisory Council has made recommendations for design rules which differ slightly from those applied outside Australia. At the present moment there are 22 design rules that have already been adopted. Progressively in Australia we will move more and more to the point where, one would hope, international standards of safety not only for persons within the car but also outside the car will be improved.

As far as the other aspects of vehicle safety are concerned, in the last Commonwealth aid roads programme the Government provided li per cent of the allocation, or about $18m, specifically for road research and programmes associated with safety of road design. It is intended that this amount should be used in association with the State and local government road construction authorities to ensure that in the building of new roads safety shall be one of the most important factors. Similarly, provision is made for other areas such as driver training, driver policing and enforcement of safety regulations, many of which are predominantly the responsibility of State government agencies.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council is constantly moving to try to ensure that there shall be the maximum possible uniformity amongst the States both in those aspects and in commection with road signs, which are now not only uniform within Australia but basically are moving towards uniformity throughout almost all of these countries where people drive on the left side of the road. The honourable member’s question referred to a very significant and important problem in our community. It is one that no-one can afford to treat lightly. For that reason the Federal Government is constituting a new body to advise me and, through me, the State Transport Ministers on aspects of safety which might help to reduce some of the impact of the present appallingly high level of road vehicle accidents.

page 3107

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY ACT

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959- 1969, I present the eleventh annual statement on the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidy during the year ended 30 June 1970.

page 3107

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES ACT

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1966, I present the twenty-fifth annual report of the Australian National Airlines

Commission for the year ended 30 June 1970 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 3107

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the annual report on work done under the Act during the year ended 31 December 1.969.

page 3107

WAR SERVICE HOMES ACT

Dr FORBES:
LP

– Pursuant to section 50B of the War Service Homes Act 1918-1968, I present the annual report of the Director of War Service Homes for the year ended 30 June 1970. An interim report was presented to the House on 4 September 1970.

page 3107

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS) ACT

Dr FORBES:
LP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969, I present the annual statement on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1970.

page 3107

CITIZENSHIP ACT

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Citizenship Act 1948-1969, I present the annual return of persons granted certificates of citizenship for the year ended 30 June 1970.

page 3107

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-1965 I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust for the year ended 30 June 1969, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements.

page 3107

QUESTION

CONTINENTAL SHELF OF AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · Lowe · LP

– by leave - An article in a financial newspaper recently criticised the principles on which Australia has acted in relation to granting petroleum exploration permits on the continental shelf between the northern coast of Australia . and Indonesian Timor, and questioned the international validity of Australia’s actions. The subject is of national importance both to Australia and to its great neighbour, Indonesia. But the article itself is factually so inaccurate and doctrinally so confused as to be altogether most misleading. I take this opportunity of putting the position in proper perspective.

I make four points. First, Australia based its 1967 legislation for regulating the exploration and exploitation of the petroleum resources on the continental shelf squarely on the International Geneva Convention of 1958, to which Australia is a party. So are 40-odd other states, including the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia and Thailand. To follow the convention was strictly in accordance with Australian constitutional law.

There are some distinctive features of detail in the Australian legislation, for instance the so-called picture-frame lines which delimit for domestic purposes the areas within which the respective states and territories should exercise agreed administrative functions. But the principles, based as they are on the Convention itself, are common to many other countries, and in accordance with international practice.

Second, the 1958 Convention embodies the two conceptions on which the law of the continental shelf is founded. It expressly states what has been called the expanding rim doctrine - that is, that the shelf extends to the 200-metres depth line, and beyond it to the limit of exploitability. From this, it is crystal clear that there is nothing in the law as it stands to restrict exploration permits to the 200-metres depth line. Many other countries besides Australia - including the United States, Canada and New Zealand - have granted such permits.

The International Court of Justice has emphasised in a recent North Sea case that what is known as the morphological concept is also inherent in the Convention. Indeed it is the foundation of the doctrine which the lawyers later took over and developed. The morphological concept is that the continental shelf is the natural prolongation under the sea of the land mass of the coastal state, out to the lower edge of the margin, where it slopes down to and merges in, the deep ocean-floor or abyssal plain. These two concepts are in no way inconsistent. They both point to the outer edge of the margin as the limit of the coastal state’s rights.

Third, the rights claimed by Australia in the Timor Sea area are based unmistakably on the morphological structure of the sea bed. The essential feature of the sea bed beneath the Timor Sea is a huge steep cleft or declevity called the Timor Trough, extending in an east-west direction, considerably near to the coast of Timor than to the northern coast of Australia. It is more than 550 nautical miles long and on the average 40 miles wide, and the sea bed slopes down on opposite sides to a depth of over 10,000 feet. The Timor Trough thus breaks the continental shelf between Australia and Timor, so that there are two distinct shelves, and not one and the same shelf, separating the two opposite coasts. The fall-back median line between the 2 coasts, provided for in the Convention in the absence of agreement, would not apply for there is no common area to delimit. This Australian view is of course well known to Indonesia. There has in fact been a recent exchange of views, still incomplete, between Indonesian and Australian officials.

Fourth, the sea bed proposals made last May by the President of the United States are based on the two concepts of the continental shelf that I have mentioned. Many developing states, in the sea bed discussions in the United Nations, have expressed the desire to secure a revision of the 1958 convention, so as to restrict to the 200- metres depth line the area of national jurisdiction on the continental shelf. President Nixon, however, has put forward the compromise proposal that from the 200- metres depth line out to the continental margin the coastal state would continue to control sea bed operations, through administering an international mining code and holding as trustee for the international community a substantial proportion of the revenues derived.

Whatever eventual legal arrangements will emerge for the sea bed, the present law will not be changed except by agreement; and without adequate safeguards for existing investment there is little or no likelihood of agreement. I therefore do not accept the view that titles which Australia has granted in the Timor Sea are open to question.

page 3109

COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY SCHOLARSHIPS

Ministerial Statement

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Education and Science · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– by leave - In my statement to the House on 19 August 1970 I informed honourable members that I was considering representations about the level of benefits payable to students holding Commonwealth tertiary scholarships. I indicated that I expected to make a statement on this matter before the end of the year. The Government has now decided that the following changes will operate from 1st January 1971: The maximum living allowance payable to holders of Commonwealth university and advanced education scholarships will be increased from $620 to $700 a year in the case of students living at home and from $1,000 to $1,100 a year for students living away from home. This latter increase will also apply to students over 25 years of age, married students and others whose entitlement to living allowance is not based on parental income. The stipend payable to holders of Commonwealth postgraduate awards for research study will be raised from $2,350 to $2,600 a year. This higher rate of stipend will also be paid to holders of the new post-graduate awards for full time study leading to a master’s degree by course work. Students receiving living allowance under the Commonwealth university and advanced education scholarship schemes will be permitted to earn up to $10 per week during the academic year without affecting their entitlement to living allowance. At present students living allowance is reduced when their earnings during the academic year exceed $6 per week, or $7 per week in the case of independent students. The new rates and conditions applying to Commonwealth university scholarships will also be applicable to the new Canberra teacher education scholarships to be tenable at the Canberra College of Advanced Education in 1971.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– by leaveThe Opposition welcomes the adjustments which have been made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen), butwe have been impressed by the submissions made by the National Union of

Australian University Students. It seems to us that these adjustments are being made more than a year behind the changes in the cost of living, and they always appear to us to be inadequate by a margin of approximately $100 when compared with the sort of real living costs which students actually have to face. We are also a little disappointed that in this statement there is no reference to a further adjustment in the marginal adjusted family income - the means test which applies to the income of parents of students. The comments of the National Union of Australian University Students on this question seem to us to be important. Referring to an earlier adjustment that was made by the Commonwealth, the Union said:

NUAUS congratulates the Commonwealth on the increase in the Marginal Adjusted Family Income (MAFI) and its decision to keep this under review in the light of variations in the Commonwealth Statistician’s index Weighted Average Minimum Weekly Wage.

However, we are disturbed that the ratio of the MAFI to average earnings is the lowest in 1970 since 1961. We would therefore recommend that the MAFI should be increased by $250 to $2,900.

At present it is $2,650. The Union conducted a survey of the actual costs incurred by university students. The Union has this comment to make - and it seems to us to he quite moderate:

NUAUS has also looked at the maintenance or living costs for a university student

In 1969 it was estimated that total costs for students living away from home, not including hooks and equipment, were $1,106 to $1,289.

Since then fares, rents, clothing and food costs have all risen.

A revised estimate for 1970 is between–

And this change will not apply until 1971-

  1. . $1,132 to $1,362. Comparable figures for a student living at home are $754 to $9 14 in 1969 and $768 to $968 in 1970. These figures are not based on luxury living, but for a student living modestly.

The Union has gone into the question of typical student charges. I will not go into the fees, books and stationery, but living costs for a girl arts student living away from home were $1,247 a year ago and it is about the same for a man living away from home. The Union suggest a change which seems to us to have something to recommend it. It suggests:

NUAUS believe that the Commonwealth should examine the case for two MAFIs–

That is, the marginal adjusted family income - the living at home MAFI and the living away from home MAFI.

We suggest this because it seems to us that there is an extra burden on families in nonmetropolitan areas who send their children away to a tertiary institution. For a student living away from home and his family there are two cost burdens. The first is that living away from home is more expensive than remaining at home. Such costs as accommodation and the wages of a housekeeper, etc., are considerations when living away from home is necessary. These costs are already taken into consideration with the present differential between living allowances. The second cost which is a hidden cost is that students who have to live away from home, the vast majority being country students, come from home situations which usually include lower family incomes and higher living costs. This means that the percentage of income spent on sending a child to university is higher than it is for a city family on the same income. We estimate this cost differential at $500.

We do not ask that all these adjustments be made but we do feel that the adjustments are somewhat belated and also somewhat inadequate and we hope that there will be a speedy review.

page 3110

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment -

Loan (Housing) Bill 1970.

States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970.

States Receipts Duties (Exemption) Bill 1970.

States Grants (Receipts Duty) Bill 1970.

Without requests -

States Receipts Duly Bill (No. 1) 1970.

States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 2) 1970.

States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 3) 1970.

page 3110

QUESTION

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– As Acting Chairman of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts I present the One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Report of the Committee and I ask for leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr HURFORD:

– Honourable members will recall that on Wednesday I tabled the One Hundred and Twenty-third Report which relates to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer, 1969-70. The

One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Report relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for that year and covers the remainder of the items included in your Committee’s examination of the expenditure results of departments. As both reports stem from the same inquiry,many of the observations made by your Committee in its One Hundred and Twenty-third Report apply equally to the items included in the report that I am presenting today. In its previous reports relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund your Committee has emphasised that the overprovision of funds for a department is undesirable, misleading and, perhaps unfair to other departments whose financial needs might not have been met fully as a consequence.

For this reason your Committee has outlined, in several of its reports, the principles relating to estimating that have been formulated by the Department of the Treasury and endorsed by your Committee. The evidence taken in respect of the financial year 1969-70, has again reflected the need for these principles to be restated and they are included in chapter 1 1 of the report for the guidance of departments and others concerned.

Successful financial management, however, depends not only on the realistic formulation of estimates but also on efficient administration throughout the financial year. In this regard evidence tendered during our inquiry has revealed cases of administrative weakness which we believe require early attention. Your Committee would emphasise that in its inquiries into the estimates and related expenditure it must continue to highlight these shortcomings whenever and wherever they occur. 1 recommend the report to honourable members.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3110

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 October (vide page 3083), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– As my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has made clear, the Australian Labor Party opposes this

Bill. This is the second Bill of this sort this year. Both have been introduced in strikingly similar circumstances. The first Loan (Defence) Bill was debated in this House at a very advanced hour on 12th June. I think the honourable member for Melbourne Ports spoke on the Bill some time after 2 a.m. He expressed the Labor Party’s opposition to the Bill but because of the lateness of the hour and the need to finish legislation he did not carry it to a division. Now, in the closing hours of this session there is a similar Bill before the House. I do not suggest there is anything sinister in the timing of these 2 Bills; it may be coincidence. But both these Bills have involved immense amounts of money. But for the vigilance of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports when the first Bill was introduced in June, some very important features of this sort of legislation would have been missed.

In essence these Loan (Defence) Bills derive from the logistic arrangements between Australia and the United States of America. Under this logistic arrangement with the United States Government, Australia has been able to make credit arrangements for the purchasing of equipment for the Services from the United States. According to the 1970 Defence Report, credits totalling $A549m have been negotiated since 1965. A total of $360.8 17m had been spent against these credits to 30th June 1970. At this date a balance of about Si 89m remained for future purchases, but it was estimated $77. 63m would be spent in 1970-71. The servicing of these credit arrangements had absorbed $32. 762m in interest payments with a further interest payment of $ 16.340m planned for 1970-71. The size of this interest payment for 1970- 71 emphasises the burden of servicing these credit arrangements; it is half the total of the interest payments in the previous 3 years. To 30th June 1970 a total of $140.360m in principal had been repaid. This is the broad background to the credit arrangements with the United States.

I refer to the first Loan (Defence) Bill introduced in June this year. This proposed that a sum of $100m be borrowed from the United States. When this was put to the House, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports criticised the necessity for such a loan and made the point that defence purchases should be paid for as they are made. In other words, they should not be made against a previous credit arrangement at a particular rate of interest. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports criticised the absence of any quotation of an interest rate in this Bill. He made the point that it was absurd to borrow such a large amount of money on terms that were not even set down. I turn now to the second Loan (Defence) Bill introduced by the Treasurer on Wednesday night. This traces through the history of the amount borrowed in the first Loan (Defence) Bill. The final arrangement was for $US89m. Orders approximately equal to the amount of that credit had been placed in the United States by about the end of June.

The timing is interesting because the report of the Auditor-General refers to this borrowing and makes the point that interest was payable at 7i per cent per annum. According to the Auditor-General’s report there were no amounts advanced under this agreement during 1969-70, that is until 30 June this year. It seems that about late June-early July there was a spate of approaches against this credit. This was not reflected in the last report of the AuditorGeneral. There is no indication in thu Treasurer’s second reading speech of what this $US89m was spent on. The obvious implication is that it was used to finance the purchases announced in the Minister for Defence’s statement to this House early in March. This $US89m was disposed of very quickly because now this Bill has been put forward seeking the approval of the Parliament for spending another $US125m on defence equipment from the United States.

This is to carry an interest rate of 7.375 per cent - I per cent more than the interest rate for the loan under the first Bill. The interest rates for loans under these credit arrangements have risen quite sharply in the past few years. According to the Auditor-General’s report for 1969-70, the total dealings under the initial Loan (Defence) Act of 1966 were $US407.808m. Of this sum $US310m has been negotiated at 4i per cent, $US19.97m at 54 per cent and $U77.2m at 4 per cent. This year we have negotiated $US89m at 7.125 per cent. Now the Government wants approval for another $US125m at 7.375 per cent. This indicates the hurden higher interest rates will put on servicing these borrowings in the years ahead. This is a major reason in the Opposition’s attitude to this Bill.

In 2 Loan Bills this year we will spend some $US214m to be repaid at interest rates exceeding 7 per cent. We have not been told what this spending is for, although it would be possible to get some rough idea from looking at defence estimates and the reports of the Auditor-General. There are many alarming features of this whole arrangement with the United States. There are many aspects of it which have never been explained. The information contained in the Minister’s second reading speech is completely inadequate to assess the scope of these credit arrangements and what their burden will be on the Budget in the years, ahead.

There is another peculiar aspect to this whole credit structure with the United States. In 1969 a Loan (Defence) Bill was passed by this House providing for an amount of $US75m to assist in financing the purchase of the Fill aircraft. The Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech that no drawings have been made against that loan. According to the 1969-70 report of the Auditor-General this was to be repayable over 7 years with interest at 6 per cent per annum. No amounts had been advanced under this agreement although commitment fees of one-half of 1 per cent per annum had been paid totalling $336,840 in 1969-70. In 1968-69 a similar fee of $247,388 had been paid. This loan was supposed to be contributed to the cost of 24 Fill aircraft, spares and associated equipment and services. It is impossible on the evidence available to find out why this loan was negotiated. Why has it not been used to finance the Fill deal? Certainly Australia is still paying and paying heavily for the Fill despite the present uncertainty and technical predicaments of the aircraft. According to the latest Auditor-General’s report, progressive spending on the plane to 30th June 1970, amounted to just over S200m out of the estimated total cost of $US30Om

In 1968 spending totalling SI 6.656m had been incurred: made up of $10.71 lm Chargeable to Division 702 and $5.944m to the Loan Fund. This is much the same breakdown as in 1968-69 when spending of $80.85m was incurred on the plane. In neither year was any of this spending financed from the borrowing authorised by the 1968 Bill and specifically earmarked for the Fill. The Treasurer may be able to explain this. In the absence of such explanation it seems incredible that this credit should not be put to use, particularly as some $580,000 has been paid in commitment fees. If this $US75m is not needed for the Fill why has it not been switched over to other defence buying? If it is needed for the Fill, then why has it not been applied to Fill spending? Why has the Fill purchase been financed from other sources? Above all, with this big credit available at an interest rate of 6 per cent, why has it been found necessary to negotiate further credit arrangements at substantially higher interest rates? Why should this credit lie idle and build up commitment payments? Obviously, if this $US75m was applied to the Fill, the aircraft purchase at present estimated costs would be substantially paid for.

These are very important matters with serious consequences on overseas payments and defence arrangements in the years ahead. They deserve much more detailed explanation than ever given to this House or contained in annual Defence Reports or Auditor-General Reports. If the present Loan Bill is passed the Government will have total unused credits of $200m to play with. It got rid pretty quickly of the $89m approved in the last Loan Bill. What has been bought with this money and what will be bought with the credit sought in this loan? There must be grave dangers with such a volume outstanding for defence purchases from the United States of supply creating its own demand. If the credits are available there will be strong pressures to spend it. Indeed there is virtually an obligation commitment because the arrangements just build up commitment fees which have to be paid, if the credits lie fallow. This is not conducive to prudent defence planning and procurement.

I agree completely with the attitude of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean): We should not finance our defence purchases in this way. We should treat defence purchases as an expendable item for which we should not incur debt or borrow overseas. We should pay for our defence as we go and with enphasis on satisfactory delivery and terms of payment. With the existing credit arrangements we do not know what we are buying and we cannot find out the cost of individual items because of the variation in interest rates under the deal.

The whole approach to defence procurement under this sort of arrangement is completely wrong. The Opposition will no longer sanction defence spending in this way. The vagueness of these arrangements is an open invitation to irresponsible and incompetent defence spending.

Under an arrangement of this sort Australia has paid out $200m on a plane which has not been delivered, will not be delivered for at least 18 months, and may never be delivered. There can be no trust in the effective use of credit arrangements by a government which has made disastrous mistakes in defence purchases from the United States. This is why we are questioning the whole structure of these arrangements, the purchases to be made under them, and the future fiscal consequences of them. The Treasurer said that $US450m arranged under the initial Act of 1966 had been absorbed by the end of 1969. An additional $89m has been spent in the last few months.

There is $US75m outstanding; now the Government wants another $US125m. This all adds up to $US739m for procurement of defence equipment from the United States.

What has the Government been able to obtain from the United States to offset this huge outlay? Earlier this year I asked the Minister for Defence what subcontracts had gone to Australian companies from our defence purchases in the United States since 1966 when the credit arrangement started. The Minister said it was not possible to give precise information because some Australian companies had negotiated directly with United States companies. He was able to point to 4 sub-contracts which he described as major. The total value of these sub-contracts was $4.24m. The Minister said further that important negotiations were in progress on sub-contracting, offsets and co-production arrangements for a number of important purchases. These included the 12 medium lift helicop ters, 42 utility helicopters, 11 helicopter gunships, and 84 light observation helicopters. We have heard nothing more about the success or otherwise of these negotiations.

In total, the offset obtained for this vast spending in the terms of the credit arrangements is pitifully small. Certainly, this is a very complex and difficult question but the Minister and his predecessor have put very strong public emphasis on this whole question of defence procurement and offset policy. It can justly be said against the background of their repeated expositions of policy that nothing of significance has been achieved. On any assessment of the figures the Government has managed to offset less than one-half of one per cent of the money poured into United States defence purchases. The Opposition is most unhappy with the implications of this Bill; the House has been most inadequately informed of its consequences. In particular, arrangements of this sort put defence procurement completely beyond any sort ot effective surveillance of this House. There are many questions arising from this legislation that must be answered.

The Government has a responsibility, in view of its programme of borrowing generally for the purchase of equipment, largely from the United States of America, to explain to the House how this money is to be expended and the value that Australia is receiving in terms of defence procurement, having regard to the fluctuating rates of interest to which I have referred and the enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer, particularly when one looks at the purchase of the Fill aircraft. I think it would be wrong to end my speech on a Bill of this nature without again referring to the enormity of the tragedy of the Government’s venture into the purchase of an aircraft such as the Fill, for which we have now paid more than $200m and for which we are still meeting interest payments although we have not yet received one of the aircraft. There is not one responsible Minister who can inform the House when the Fill will be available and whether it will ever be used by the Royal Australian Air Force. These are some of the reasons why the Opposition believes that a Bill of this nature deserves a far greater explanation and a more concise and objective explanation from the Minister for Defence, particularly when the Bill involves this kind of borrowing and having in mind the unhappy situation which has applied in this country in relation to the procurement of defence equipment overseas by this Government. For these and the other reasons 1 have already enunciated the Opposition has no alternative but to oppose this Bill.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Immigration · Flinders · LP

– I do not want to weary the House at any great length at this stage because of the pressure of other legislation. In any case it will be clear to honourable members on this side of the House that the motives which have generated the Opposition’s approach are in fact very narrow and political. I simply want to emphasise that this Bill is essential to Australia’s defence effort. It seeks parliamentary approval for borrowings by the Commonwealth of up to $US125m for the purchase of defence equipment from the United States. The effect of what the Labor Party has been saying in relation to the Bill would be to defer the purchase of these essential items of defence equipment because they cannot be paid for out of cash savings. The only consequence of accepting what the Opposition has been saying in relation to the Bill would be to impair Australia’s defence capacity. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) who has just resumed his seat after having had an opportunity to speak at length to the House can restrain his exuberance, and if the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) can also restrain himself, I might indicate that those items which it is desired to cover under the loan include firstly all the costs of the Phantom F4Es other than the costs of leasing the 24 aircraft. These costs include the supply of 5 spare engines and ground handling equipment, that is the initial spares, followon spares, maintenance supply items, some special operational equipment, training ammunition and so forth. Other items to be purchased under the loan include 35 utility helicopters for the Royal Australian Air Force; 11 armed helicopters for the RAAF; 12 medium-lift helicopters for the RAAF; type Ml 13 armoured carriers for the Army; special communications equipment, low cover radar and special detection equipment for all 3 Services; special equipment and armament stores to further enhance the capabilities of the Navy Skyhawk fighter-bombers.

This list of military hardware self evidently explains the purposes for which this legislation must be passed at this silting of the House. The only effect of what the Opposition has been saying would be to defer that purchase of essential military equipment and through that deferment to impair Australia’s defence capabilities.

Mr Crean:

– What about our reserves?

Mr LYNCH:

– J will come to the question of reserves if the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) can contain himself. The only effect of the Opposition’s argument would be to defer the purchase of this essential military equipment and inhibit the considerable build up in military hardware which has occurred in recent years as a consequence of this Government’s deliberate policy. Several queries have been raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! One of these was why the Fill loan of $75m could not be used for the purchase of some of this equipment. If one reflects on the Loan Defence Act 1968 under which the Fill loan was negotiated, it will be clear that the loan can be used only for the purchase of the Fill which, of course, is a matter for discussion and a matter which has been the subject of comment by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The loan certainly cannot be used for the purpose suggested by honourable members opposite. 1 am surprised that the 2 honourable gentlemen opposite have raised this point. If they look at the legislation in relation to that loan and at the copy of the agreement which was attached to it they will find that the point 1 have just made is self-evident.

Last night during my absence from the chamber - I am in charge of this Bill at the moment not in my own right but representing the Treasurer (Mr Bury), who is detained on rather urgent business - the honourable member for Melbourne Ports raised a query as to the necessity to purchase overseas. I gather that he put forward the view that, in lieu of purchasing overseas in this way, we should utilise our international reserves. The essential point that needs to be borne in mind is that Australia is still a substantial net importer of capital. Although domestic savings finance the great bulk - almost 90 per cent in recent years - of Australia’s gross domestic capital formation, overseas capital plays an important and, indeed, a quite critical role in financing our national development. An essential purpose of borrowing overseas is to supplement the resources for financing the purchase overseas of goods and services which are so necessary for Australia’s development.

When loans are raised overseas for financing Government expenditure the call on resources which is involved in the expenditure is matched by an addition to the country’s international reserves. This represents an addition to the nation’s capacity to supplement supplies available from local production with supplies from overseas. As far as Australia is concerned, there are good balance of payments reasons for borrowing overseas when favourable opportunities arise. Despite the recent improvement in Australia’s trading position, the balance of payments remains heavily in deficit on current account. In 1969-70 a current account deficit of $803m needed to be met by an increase in Australia’s net indebtedness to overseas countries. The prospects of securing continuing access to private overseas capital on this scale are not so certain that we can afford to forego reasonable opportunities to finance some part of Government expenditure on overseas goods and services by means of loan raising.

I do not intend to go through all of the points which have been raised by the 2 honourable gentlemen who have spoken in the debate, because of the pressure of legislation and the fact that this is the last day of the current session. Suffice it to say that this is an essential Bill in relation to the need for Australia to continue to build up her military hardware. The only consequence of what the Opposition has put forward today would be to impair considerably the build-up of military hardware which the Government, as a matter of deliberate policy, has pursued since it has been in office, and particularly in recent years. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put:

That the Bill be read a second time.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 44

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3116

APPROVAL OF WORK- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Construction of Primary School at Wagaman, Northern Territory

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

– 1 move:

That in accordance wilh the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Const ruction of a primary school at Wagaman, Northern Territory.

The school is planned to accommodate 360 primary and 200 infant pupils in a single.storey air-conditioned complex. Amenities and facilities will include covered open assembly areas, tuck shop and kitchen, library, general purpose room for group activities, oval and basketball courts.

The school is the first in the Northern Territory to be designed on the modern open plan’ concept for flexibility in instruction and adoption of. modern developments in co-operative and team teaching. The estimated cost is $875,000.

A sum of $5,000 is allowed in the estimate for acquisition of a work of art as a design feature but in reporting on this aspect of the proposal, the Committee concluded that expenditure should be on the same scale as for a Canberra primary school, that is, up to about $1,500. The form of this provision has not yet been decided.

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

– In supporting this motion 1 would like to commend the Government on showing once again its tremendous faith in the development of the Northern Territory by building yet another school in the northern suburbs of Darwin, this time at Wagaman. The concept of the open plan design is very welcome and I also commend the Government for once again including in the design an oval. 1 am glad to see that there appears to be a growing tendency to provide ovals in these schools. It is most essential in the education of children to have them participate in sport. The sum of $5,000 for the acquisition of a work of art is a very welcome departure from previous practice and I commend the Government on this as well. I think that this school at Wagaman will be quite an exciting place for the children.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Development of the Port of Darwin

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

– I move:

The proposed work includes construction of a general cargo wharf and facilities at Fort Hill West, a cargo handling shed on Kitchener Drive, a dredged basin and facilities for small ships in Frances Bay, a bulk cargo jetty head causeway and ore handling plant at Quarantine Island, East Arm and associated road and rail works. The estimated cost is $ 19.03m. The Committee has reported favourably on the works comprising this proposal.

In respect of the Committee’s conclusions concerning construction of a new quarantine station, the allocation of a suit able site to enable the construction of a new station to start at an early date is under consideration.

The Committee’s comments and recommendations regarding dredging for the LASH (lighter-aboard ship) facility have been noted and will be investigated with a view to reaching a decision in time to permit if necessary the additional dredging being undertaken concurrently with other proposed dredging work in Frances Bay.

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

– In supporting this motion I say how pleased I am that the Government has decided to spend this sum of $ 19.03m on the development of the Port of Darwin. Ever since I have been in this place I have highlighted the congestion on the wharves in Darwin and urged very strongly, even to the extent of going with Government committees to view the situation in the Port of Darwin, that something should be done. Over the last 5 years inward cargo has developed so that it is now 400,000 tons a year. Outwards cargo, including the iron ore from the Fort Hill iron ore wharf, has reached over 1 million tons a year. With the new general cargo facility west of Stokes Hill and the retention of the existing sheds and berths at Stokes Hill and Fort Hill and the implementation of the LASH ship and little ship facility at Frances Bay, apart from the bulk handling port being shifted to East Arm, there should be little or no confusion in the years to come. So in commending the Government on the introduction of these plans I would say that Darwin is headed towards being a most important port and could be said to be developing as the hub of this Indonesian archipelago area. It is now up to all concerned to get this work done and I would urge them to see that nothing in the way of stoppages or go-slow tactics is put in the way of this work so that when this port does come to fruition Darwin will take its rightful place as one of the most important maritime centres in this area.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– As one who represents an electorate far removed from Darwin but having an interest in all Australia I compliment the Government on these 2 works for which it has sought the approval of the House. I also compliment the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) for the interest he has taken. It is my opinion that members can get too parochial, as T think, nearly every member of this House has on some occasion. 1 say very briefly that Darwin is a very important city and most important to the great north of Australia. These 2 measures are quite different. The first was for a primary school and the second for the development of the port of Darwin. They are opposite ends of a proposition, so to speak, but both very important, and I am very happy here this morning to know that the Government proposes to carry out these works. I compliment the Government, the Minister and the honourable member who represents the area.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Naval Support Facility, Cockburn Sound, Western Austrafia

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

– I move:

The proposed work involves construction of a causeway some 13.500 feet long linking Garden Island to the mainland at Point Peron as a preliminary to the establishment of shore based facilities on Garden Island. The work includes construction of a 2,100- foot southern approach rockfill mole, a 1,000-foot low level trestle bridge, a 6,200- foot central section of armoured rockfill mole, a boat channel 100 feet wide dredged to 12 feet below low water ordinary spring tide, a 2,020-foot high level bridge and a 2,400-foot northern approach rockfill mole.

A 24-foot roadway, a 5-foot footway, water, power and communication services and road lighting arc to be provided on the causeway. The estimated cost is S9m. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– This report provides the first outline of what the Government intends for the naval support facility at Cockburn Sound. Ministers have been very wary in the past over conveying other than the most cursory information about the proposed base. We now know from this report that it is planned to establish a facility for the berthing and logistic support of ships and submarines. According to the report the facility could be in operation in 1975. Major Befitting and docking facilities are not planned in the initial stages. This is much more information than has ever been given to this House by the Government. in his election policy speech last year the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) did say that naval facilities would be installed over a period. The only elaboration he has made since was at a Press conference in Brisbane last year and I quote from the Australian’ of 20th October 1969, which reports the Prime Minister as having said that the base would have an initial capacity for 3 submarines and 4 frigates in 6 or 7 years’ time. He was quoted further as saying that he had no doubt that as Australia grew, the facilities would be expanded. He said also that there was no possibility of having a significant twoocean capacity within 10 years, though Australia would have one eventually. This is the only account I have been able to find of what the Prime Minister envisages for Cockburn Sound.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) have been less than enlightening. In his defence statement on 10th March the Minister for Defence stressed the need for a greater maritime capability in the waters around Australia. He said that the whole range of requirements of naval dockyards was under review and with the withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the Indian Ocean, some shifts of resources from the eastern States was necessary. On 14th May in this House the late Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes moved a motion calling for urgent priority to be given Cockburn Sound on the defence programme. In his response the Minister for the Navy said only that there was a design study then being made on the causeway. This study produced the report now before the House.

There was no reference to the project in the Budget although other construction work for the defence Services was outlined. It is a very great pity that a comprehensive statement on Cockburn Sound has not been made to the House by either the Minister for Defence or the Minister for the Navy. At the very least, the feasibility study made by Maunsell and Partners and given to the Government on 18th April 1968, should have been tabled in the House. Nor has the House had the benefit of the interdepartmental study of Australian dockyard facilities.

In the absence of all this information it has been impossible to make an informed assessment of the project or to debate it. Now, on the last day of the sitting, the House is given a report which sets out for the first time some of the specifics of the Government’s proposals for Cockburn Sound. Undoubtedly, this has been done with an eye to the Senate elections. I do not complain of this; it is a legitimate political tactic to use such a report in this way. What is wrong is that the House will not be able to debate this issue with the benefit of the first concrete set of proposals and background information that has been given to it on Cockburn Sound. This concerns members of the Opposition.

Apart from the defence aspects of the issue there are environmental aspects which are important. The House will note that 2 Opposition members of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), drew attention to the impairment of the environment and moved an amendment that was defeated. There is very little reference to this side of the issue in the report, although I understand a considerable amount of scientific evidence was given to the Committee. I know that several members of the Opposition are concerned about the impact on the environment of the proposals and they should have been able to discuss these matters in the House. As it turns out, a full-scale debate on Cockburn Sound will not be possible before the next session.

There was little need for Australia to think of an Indian Ocean capability in the years of the great British bases in Singapore, Ceylon and the Middle Bast. Those days are gone forever and it is now a matter of urgency that the two-ocean capability of our defence forces be given teeth. Certainly the development of Cockburn Sound solely as a naval base seems beyond Australia’s resources. Of course the Navy has not the capacity to use a major base in the west at anything like full capacity. This is why the Australian Labor Party’s policy, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), has centred on development of general maritime facilities at Cockburn Sound.

For some years the Western Australian Government has been interested in using Cockburn Sound to relieve the pressure on

Fremantle inner harbour. There is scope for a development scheme initiated by the Commonwealth and supported by the State covering the provision of naval, maritime and commercial facilities at Cockburn Sound. The Navy’s part in the development could be concentrated on providing a support role for a modest Indian Ocean capability. This is the way the Opposition has seen the Cockburn Sound development over the years.

In summary, it is regrettable that the first account of the Cockburn Sound project should have to be conveyed to the House by way of the Public Works Committee. It is even more regrettable that a full-scale debate on all aspects of the project has not been held and now cannot be held before March next year. With these serious reservations, the Opposition welcomes the report and the valuable information it contains.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for the Navy · Moreton · LP

– I want to make one or two brief observations. I find it very difficult to accept the impeachment of my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) regarding the manner in which this matter has been handled. I recall that only a short while ago a motion was moved by our late colleague Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes. I indicated to the House on that occasion that it was the Government’s desire, and it certainly was my desire, that the project should be proceeded with with the utmost dispatch.

The first requirement in this project was for the Public Works Committee to consider the causeway. The entire project cannot be considered unless there is, firstly, a consideration of the causeway, and I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will concede that. When the detailed design of the causeway had been completed the matter was referred to the Public Works Committee, and I think one could say with a sense of fairness that there was no delay there at all. I hope that the members of the Committee would not think it impertinent on my part if I were to thank them most warmly for the way in which they treated the project, at some inconvenience to themselves.

Mr James:

– At considerable sacrifice.

Mr KILLEN:

– That is so. I acknowledge it most freely. This reference was made on short notice because there had been an expression of a wish by me that the detailed design be completed as quickly as possible. The Department of Works did that, and the officers of the Department in turn put themselves out. I think it is wrong that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should seek to persuade the House to draw the conclusion that the report of the Public Works Committee has been deliberately presented on the last day of this session for the House of Representatives. Nothing is further from my mind. It would have been a matter of agreement to me if the report could have been tabled, say, a fortnight ago but this was not physically possible. I am sure that the honourable gentleman will on reflection concede that the members of the Public Works Committee did handle this matter with despatch and that this is the first available opportunity to present the report to Parliament, lt is a matter of sheer coincidence - I could describe it in no other way - that today happens to be the last day of this session.

As far as the facility itself is concerned, studies are under way and plainly it is, as the honourable member would admit, a matter of Government policy as to what the facility will provide, lt would be my expectation that the people of Australia will hear something about this in the very near future. I do not think that the honourable member’s gentle impeachment on this matter has any basis because the Senate election is a coincidence. T say that it is a coincidence and it is nothing else. Certainly the members of the Public Works Committee put themselves out, and I thank them most warmly for what they did.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) have engaged in some dialogue as to who has been put out and the fact that this report has been presented at this late stage of the proceedings of the Parliament. Mention was made that the Public Works Committee had been put out and had engaged in their examination at great personal sacrifice. The Minister made reference to the Department possibly being put out and making a great effort to bring this project to finality. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the

Parliament not having an opportunity, in view of the number of pressing matters that have to be dealt with, to debate this matter upon consideration of all the implications that are involved. I have risen to speak in this debate to give a brief account of the reasons for the minority report to which the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) and I were a party. We feel that there is a pressure to bring this matter to finality and this is not in the best interests-

Mr Barnard:

– I wanted to make this point and I referred to both you and the honourable member for Leichhardt.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You did indeed, and I think I should add to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in this regard. The minority report which the honourable member for Leichhardt and 1 submitted was to this effect: Unless the Government is able to convince the Parliament that the work is urgent, further investigation should be carried out to ensure that impairment of the Cockburn Sound environment will not occur’. I believe that the words ‘unless the Government is able to convince the Parliament that the work is urgent’ are very interpretative and they apply not only to the environmental situation but could well apply to the strategic situation as well. I will be perfectly frank. I have no great obsession with the contention that the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean represents any contemporary threat to Australia. We have had this kind of talk dished up to us for a century. At Botany Bay, not very far from the landing place of Captain Cook at Brighton-le-Sands, there are a couple of old cannons which were put there before the turn of the century. They are directed towards the Sydney Heads and were designed for the purpose of preventing the Russians from entering Botany Bay.

There is $9m of taxpayers’ money involved in this project and as the Minister implied in a sense it is a causeway which leads to nowhere.

Mr Killen:

– That is not right.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a causeway and it leads to an island which is to become a naval facility. I think there has been co-operation on the part of the Public Works Committee in considering this proposal. I expect that the Parliament will approve of the Public Works Committee recommendation and should that happen there would be very great co-operation on the part of this Parliament because it would be approving the construction of a road to something, of the details of which honourable members will be unaware. The Government has failed up to this point of time to submit details about the naval facility which the causeway will serve. These things could have been done in a more systematic and comprehensive way so that a total submission could have come to the Parliament at the one time. However, as the Government is engaging in a project which involves the expenditure of $9m, the Parliament has a right to know what all the other consequences are. As I say, I have no obsession about the Russians coming here. After all, if they do come via the Indian Ocean they will conquer half of the world on their way here.

If there is to be a base on the western side of Australia or in that vicinity, we might have regard to potential aggressors from other parts of the world such as the north of Australia. Maybe we have some right to expect that the Government would make out a case as to why a naval facility is not being incorporated in the current proposals to build a new port at Darwin. It has often been said that there are threats from that part of the world, including the Vietnamese who are supposed to be coming steadfastly towards Australia in their sampans. There are a lot of ambiguities which have not been made clear by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Minister for the Navy or anybody else.

But 1 do have some obsessions and they are about decent values and things like the environment and about matters which affect posterity and the wellbeing of the people in this country. I have a very strong feeling that there is too much obsession with political expediencies in many of these matters. I recall that the Prime Minister has on various occasions made pronouncements about this. In his policy speech on 8tb October he said:

Our fleet numbers will increase and we will have to take an increasing interest in the Indian Ocean as the British withdraw.

Firstly let me comment on that. The British have reversed the decision to withdraw. The east of the Suez embargo, which was the product of a previous British Labor Government, has now been changed and if we are to think of defence in this new contemporary situation we should probably have regard as to whether there will be utilisation of the Singapore facilities. This is a matter which deserves some consideration. The Prime Minister said:

Therefore we have decided that we should begin the planned development of a naval base at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia.

The point I make as I read these several comments of the Prime Minister is that the commitment is being made and subsequently in its wake after the commitment, which must be upheld at all costs, comes the consideration of the ecology of Cockburn Sound, the environmental factors and so on. Is it to be expected that the Parliament which has a predominance of Government members would dare deny a commitment by the Prime Minister? The commitment is there before the feasibility studies are undertaken. Subsequently on 19th October the Prime Minister was asked: ‘Finally, Prime Minister, on defence. Is Cockburn Sound now a firm plank of your Government’s policy?’ He said:

Yes, it is. We arc going to build it up gradually. We are taking the first step of a number of phases recommended by our consultants and that is the building of the causeway. And gradually we will be building up the other requirements for naval facilities so that there can be as our fleet grows in the years ahead as it will, some elements of that fleet based in that area.

Here is another commitment made before studies were undertaken. Strangely enough the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) came into the act. On 10th March 1970 he said:

New works under construction or approved include the development of the RAAF airfield at Learmonth, the construction of the access causeway at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia . . .

He said on 10th March 1970 that the causeway, approval for which is now being considered in this place, was then either under construction or approved. This illustrates the anticipatory style of the Government on these matters. This is the kind of thing about which I personally have a very strong resentment. I do not believe the Parliament should be taken for granted in connection with these matters. This proposal involves depriving the public of a very beautiful island of some 3,000 acres.

A lot of people have great regret about this. The island abounds in flora and, of course, it has some limited fauna. It accommodates that lovely creature the tamar, of which Western Australia is very proud. Evidence was given by a number of experts that other things will be put into serious jeopardy. The Committee was given evidence by such people as Dr Joseph Gentilli, a reader in geography at the University of Western Australia who claimed to be a world authority on climatology. He confessed to many anxieties about the Government’s proposals. Evidence was also given by Dr Logan, a lecturer in geology at the University of Western Australia who was similarly concerned and who made many forthright statements. Evidence was given by Dr Keith Crooks, who is a reader in sedimentology at the Australian National University and President of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science. He was also extremely helpful and informed about these things.

Time will not permit me to go through their evidence, but if honourable members read this evidence I am sure that they would be gravely concerned by the prospect of the ecology and the environment being detrimentally affected in the Cockburn Sound area. Authorities, some of whom I have referred to, have contended that the causeway is to be built over sandbanks which are held together by sea grass. They have said that as a result of the restriction of currents and the circulation of water and the pollution that is bound to take place, not just because of the causeway but because of the associated development that will be undertaken by the port authority, we could easily find that the sea grass will be destroyed. If this happens the sandbanks which will hold the causeway may collapse and I believe that this is the kind of matter that is deserving of the utmost contemplation. We should seek the benefit of the advice of all the experts we can find.

This situation should not result because an impetuous Prime Minister, when on the hustings, in a desperate situation made commitments which cannot be scientifically upheld and which would destroy a lovely sound and fine harbaur which will serve in the near future a population of almost one million people. It is not just a matter of following in the wake of someone who wants to score some miserable or even useful political advantage; it is a matter of going about these matters in a responsible and sensible way. The country is becoming sensitive to pollution. We want to live with our environment. We want to make certain that whatever adjustments are made are made in a way which has regard for all the considerations that we can bring to bear. I am not sure whether the evidence is confidential.

Mr Killen:

– Are you referring to Maunsell?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes.

Mr Killen:

– I think it is privileged to the Committee, but that would be subject to confirmation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In that case I would like to comment in this way: I have marked 8 matters where the Maunsell report has made reference to inquiries which are being undertaken or are to be undertaken and which in my view, and in the view of people far more expert than I, should have been undertaken before this report was concluded. In evidence before the Committee people such as Dr Gentilli Dr Logan and Dr Crook contended strongly that model studies should have been made. They also contend that other examinations concerning climatic conditions, wave movements, tides and things of this kind should have been undertaken.

In my view what has been done is just not good enough. I do not believe that the Parliament wants the Public Works Committee to treat matters in an indifferent, offhand or rubber stamping way. For my part, I am not prepared to act in such a way. I believe that we have a responsibility to let the Parliament know that when the Government approves the causeway, as it is bound to do, it will be risking an expenditure of $9m because it is possible, according to experts, that the causeway will collapse.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have used some time in disparaging criticism of the obligation, which is now part of the Government’s policy, to provide a base at Cockburn Sound. I wish to use the last few seconds of this speech to pay a tribute to the people who have serviced the Public

Works Committee on this matter. I include in my remarks the personnel who serve under the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen). They are men of great competence and calibre. My remarks apply also to those who serve under the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). It is a tribute to them that they have effectively done all that they could in the circumstances about putting a useful case to the Public Works Committee and to this Parliament. I hope however that we do not engage in this impetuous decision-taking in the future and that we have more regard for the preservation of environment, ecology and the best interests of the Australian people when we take into account the serious matters which concern us about defence.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

- Mr Speaker, there are one or two things that 1 would like to say about this project which is a particularly important one not only for Western Australia but also for the whole of Australia in relation to defence and other measures within Australia. As I see it, it is Australia’s responsibility to build these facilities if we are to expect our allies to come to our assistance at times of trouble. Whose responsibility would it be, if not Australia’s, to do these things? To the present time - this has been indicated in the report from the Public Works Committee - naval support facilities have been established on the eastern coast of Australia. There is none in the West. The project Cockburn Sound will make use of a natural harbour which has a tremendous capacity. Cockburn Sound is a very good site indeed.

The points that have been put to the Committee during its investigation are very important. The nature of the development of the causeway itself is important. We have had on the west coast of Australia, as have many other parts of this nation, movements of sand. Over the generations, it has moved from north to south and south to north. The movement varies at different times of the year. It is important, as has been discovered in building these sorts of facilities on our coasts, that nature’s process be taken note of. No doubt, the engineers who are responsible for this project have taken surveys of sand movement and know what they are doing. I sincerely hope that they have taken everything into account because we have seen instances on many occasions throughout the world where harbours have been built or levels have been changed to some extent and silting up processes have occurred. The Garden Island section of Cockburn Sound, because of its depth, is a natural harbour. On the eastern side of Cockburn Sound is not to be found the depth that there is on the western side of the Sound. With the aid of a couple of barges, a large ship can be moved into the Island itself because of the depth of water that is available. That is why it is important to retain present conditions so that the harbour does not silt up.

One of the main points that I wish to make - and 1 know that time is short today - is in relation to the approach to this project. By ‘approach’ I mean the method of approach either by approach road or approach rail, whichever may be used. Naturally, access must be provided to a project of this nature. I would say to the Government and to those responsible for this work that the access to this project should be a part of the contract. The material to build this causeway has to come through a built up area which is known as Rockingham and Safety Bay. It can come through this area only. Therefore, before the project is commenced, I would suggest that the engineers and those responsible for this project build the access road first. That is my hope. If this is nol done, the present roads will be ruined and the project and those concerned with it will become very unpopular with local people.

During the planning of this project, which started many years ago, by the Fremantle Port Authority which has a long term interest in it with the State Government - the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) and the Government are well and truly aware of that fact - room was left for access to be provided to this area. Those associated with the design of this development originally in Western Australia hoped that at some future time a naval base would be developed in the area. No doubt the relevant maps have been made available to the Committee although no mention has been made of this point in the report as far as I can see. No doubt these maps were made available to the Department of Works and possibly to the Minister also. Here is provision for access.

Here is an area that has been left to make room to get to this project. The plea that I am making today to the engineers is not to go ahead with the project until the access has been developed. It has to be developed.

Who is responsible is another matter. I am not arguing as to whether the responsibility rests with the State or the Commonwealth, or whether it is a joint responsibility. What is important is that to cater for the tonnages of material that it will be necessary to use as well as the activity involved in getting personnel and machinery to the area access must be provided. 1 would hate to see the development of this area go ahead without the provision of suitable access into the area itself. It would be difficult but for the fact that planning was undertaken many years ago for this purpose and room was left for access to be provided. Whether or not this point has been taken into consideration, I do not know. I do make the plea that, if this has not been done, this matter should be looked at by the Government and personnel interested in the project so that the area which has been left available for this purpose may be developed to provide access to this project. ft is a great pleasure for me to be able to support this project today. In Cockburn Sound, I look forward to the gradual development that will take place in this area of the many facilities that are required to back up a naval base of this description. Some of these have been built; some are being built. We have seen development taking place in the area, lt is not many years ago that there was practically nothing in the way of industry in Kwinana and Cockburn Sound generally. Today the area is a complex of steel works and other support industries. They have come to this area, which is growing extremely rapidly. Viewed as a long term venture I believe that this naval base project with the other development that is going on and will continue to take place and together with the tremendous advantages of the harbour, will be a tremendous success. Western Australia will welcome this project greatly.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I rise on this occasion to draw attention to the public interest, regarding the effects of the proposed causeway to Garden Island, which is gathering momentum. I feel that the House should be made aware of these matters. Many people believe that a bridge would be more in the interests of the community and conservation generally. Many calls for a referendum have been made by responsible authorities as to the advisability of establishing the base. Alternate sites being suggested are the north west Cape or that general area because it is thought that having a naval base within the bounds qf the metropolitan area is an unnecessary invitation to treat the city area as a nuclear target in time of war.

No-one has suggested that Western Australia should not have a naval base, but thoughts are centred on an investigation to arrive at the best possible site in relation to the effect that such a site would have on the welfare of the community in time of war rather than to select a site to meet the convenience of the Navy. The protection of public recreation areas and matters of conservation in respect of the environs of Perth are other points being considered. With these factors in mind, proposals have been made to hold a symposium of experts in this field in Perth to ensure that all aspects of the matter are investigated and that the public is informed fully. This meeting preferable would be followed by a referendum of the people, for this is a matter in which the various experts are divided in their opinions. People in Western Australia who are conscious of their need for defence also are aware of the need to ensure the preservation of public amenities such as holiday resorts like Garden Island wherever possible. This has led to the thought that the Commonwealth should establish a Cockburn Sound commission to assume overall responsibility for environmental management of Cockburn Sound.

I feel that, at this juncture, the Government needs to look at the questions raised by public demand with a view to reaching a solution acceptable to experts, conservationists, shire councils and the general public, and which fits into the defence needs so urgently in need of revision in Western Australia, and so long awaited. It would be regrettable, after deferring the naval base for so many years, to go forward with a system of construction or with a site which could be bettered or adjusted in some way. I raise this request for the Government to consider and act upon, because of the pub lic pressure I have received, for most people are aware that I and other Labor Party members from Western Australia have supported the cry for a naval base in Western Australia. In fact I mentioned it in my maiden speech in this House yet I can see the logic of the proposals put forward by the public and I agree that they should be acted upon. However, to support my concern for matters raised by the public, I read in the report that the Committee members themselves took cognizance of conflicting evidence presented to the Committee by experts. A motion was moved to the effect that unless the Government is able to convince the Parliament that the work is urgent, further investigations should be carried out to ensure that impairment of the Cockburn Sound environment will occur. No doubt the Committee had in mind that the work will not be completed until 1975. Although the motion was defeated, it is regrettable that it was not adopted or rephrased to set a time limit on the investigations and still permit a programme of development to continue. We would all agree that compromise and agreement are far better than absolute rejection. However, the result will be that experts will continue to argue, the public will remain unsure of the decision and, if there is any substance in the basis of the experts’ disagreement, we could &e responsible for the loss to Australia of some of our national heritage of flora and fauna and could set off a disadvantageous reaction in the marine life of Cockburn Sound and its surrounds - all for the wain of a patient expert investigation of the proposals or of a symposium of experts to decide whether the matter can be sufficiently investigated and explained to satisfy a majority of those who have expressed doubt about the suitability of the present concept of the overall development. No doubt even with the legislation being implemeted these investigations could still take place in the interests of the community.

Another aspect which has concerned many people, even to the level of State parliamentary members, is that the report deals with the completion of the causeway in 1973 but gives no assurance of a programme to complete the naval facility. It has been commented that this is only establishing the basis for a base. Say what we will, it does not give any semblance of providing for the commencement of the base until June 1973. This project could fall victim to similar defence delays as have been experienced in our air defence system. Some alarm has been expressed that the project may be abandoned after ecological damage has been done. I believe that the suggestion for the establishment of a Cockburn Sound commission to take over the responsibility of environmental management of Cockburn Sound is worth while and should be adopted. The State Government has responded to public pressure and has established a Ministry for Conservation, but no doubt it will be some time before it commences to function successfully. The Ministry will be enabled to look at matters, such as those proposed by the public and the Press. ( refer honourable members to an editorial in the ‘West Australian’ of 19th October 1970. Strangely enough, for once I agree with the local Press. The editorial headed *A New Beach?’, reads:

The Commonwealth should be anxious to cooperate with the State Government in making possible conversion of the foreshore between Coogee and Woodman Point for recreation and use by tourists.

If the 2 governments could reach agreement there would be unrestricted access to an attractive part of the foreshore now largely denied to the public, thus providing some compensation for the demands of industry, commerce and defence on Cockburn Sound.

The first move is for the Stale to find another site for the Mines Department’s explosives depot, which occupies 280 acres and cordons off a long section of the beach. If that were done, the Commonwealth would have no excuse for retaining its 280 acres at the southern end of the strip. With the growth of international air traffic it can scarcely bc necessary to hold a waterfront site for a quarantine station that has an average turnover of fewer than 25 people a year.

Canberra’s obligation to fall in with the State’s idea is increased by the possibility that construction of a naval base would result in exclusion of the public from Garden Island. The question of removing obstacles to mainland development is nol confined to the sound. North of Fremantle the rifle range will remain a barrier to the foreshore realignment of West Coast-highway as long as the Army refuses to do its shooting elsewhere.

So it can be seen that there are problems, that there is a need to look at the development in depth and to take into consideration the doubts of the public and experts. To this end the energies and thoughts of experts should be further directed in investigations which would include an ecological survey.

Regarding the question ot holiday homes or ‘squatters’, as they were referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in a reply to a question on this matter, many of the 60 people involved hold responsible positions, one, I understand, being a Minister in the State Government. They are entitled to some consideration. Perhaps in the overall plan of development, these holiday homes could be integrated and allowed to remain in an area reserved for this purpose, or perhaps they could be gradually phased out over future years. We must bear in mind that the actual establishment of the base installations is vague at this point of time, and what I have suggested would be a more reasonable approach. Many people have planned to retire to the island and have established substantial residences and invested large sums there. T ask that every possible consideration be given to these people.

In conclusion I shall quote an expert who gave evidence before the Committee and who supports the establishment of the base. The expert is Mr Peter Waterman, for whom I have the highest personal regard. I quote from an article written by him on environmental surveys in relation to the natural environment. In the article he states:

Once the natural environment has been modified it is impossible to reverse the process. Things cannot be put back where they were and mistakes corrected.

With this in mind, it can be seen that before any environmental modification can take place there must be a survey or stock-take nf the environment to see:

What is there.

What natural processes are actively changing that environment.

What will be the effect of interrupting the natural process. 1 think that is an extension of the evidence that he gave to the Committee. It is evident from all that has been presented that attention must be given to those matters that have been brought forward by the local Western Australian public and to Press opinions.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– Speaking as Chairman of the Public Works Committee, which has just reported on this question, there are several points that I should make. The first duty of the Public Works Committee was to determine whether there was a problem and a need to be filled. The Committee examined witnesses from the Department of Navy and it was clear that although there was no present need if we were not at war, if we were planning we should plan for the possibility of future wars. This, of course, is the only reason for which Australia has a Navy - apart from providing employment for the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen). Assuming that there may be wars in the future, planning is done in the expectation of one day having to fight a war, so regard must be had to the security situation. It was quite clear that the expert evidence pointed directly to the need for a naval facility somewhere on Australia’s western coast. The Committee had to decide the location of this facility. Here again the Committee had the benefit of expert evidence from the Department of Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. All their advice pointed quite directly to a location in the Perth area. The next question the Committee had to decide was where in the Perth area should it be. Again all the expert evidence pointed quite clearly to the fact that it should be in Cockburn Sound and that if it were in the bay itself it should not be at Woodman Point but at Cockburn Sound. That having been established quite clearly, the next question was how should Garden Island be connected to the mainland. Should it be connected by a bridge or a causeway? All the expert evidence suggested that it should be a causeway for one particular reason, namely, that the causeway would give the additional advantage of possibilities for future port development by the Fremantle Harbour Authority.

The next matter the Committee had to consider was whether the erection of the causeway and the 2 bridges that are part of the concept would have any adverse effects on the environment of the Sound. Here again the Committee heard a great deal of evidence, all of it from selfconfessed experts, some of them denying the others the accolade of expertise. Some evidence indicated hesitation and doubt on the subject, and other equally authoritative evidence quite clearly indicated that in the opinion of the expert witnesses who gave the evidence, no deterioration of the environment was expected. We weighed this evidence lo the best of our ability. The experts disagreed between themselves; we disagreed between ourselves, but we divided on non-party lines. The majority came to the decision that no deterioration of the environment was likely. For that reason the majority of the Committee recommended that the work should proceed.

There are 2 points I would like to make in conclusion. The first relates to the question that was raised in what I thought was a rather doubtful or unpleasant way by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) - that we were being urged to get this report in so that the work would be approved before the Senate election. Nothing like this ever crossed my mind, and I am certain that it never crossed the mind of any other member of the Committee. We have a duty to report to Parliament as soon as possible after we get a reference, and this we did. We took no cognizance of any political advantage. I am very proud to pay a tribute to the Committee and its traditions. We have never heard party politics discussed in the Committee. What we have done has been a clear example of a committee fulfilling its duty to the Parliament to report to the Parliament as soon as possible after it has made a proper inquiry into the matter referred to it. We were under a great deal of pressure in terms of time to get the report in before the Parliament rose. I also would like to pay a tribute, firstly, to the witnesses from the Department of Works, who processed the reference with a great deal of dedication and ability. Secondly, I pay a very great tribute to the staff of the Committee. I thought it would have been impossible for us to report back to the Parliament on this reference in the timetable that we had set for ourselves. Nobody else had set the timetable for us, but we had set it ourselves in fulfilling our duty to the Parliament. The efforts of the staff of the Public Works Committee deserve every commendation, and I make that commendation publicly.

In conclusion, I would like, at the end of the year’s work of the Committee, to pay a particular tribute to the members of the Committee for the way in which they have worked with me. We have worked under great pressure. We have had more references than ever before in the history of the Committee, and the demands put upon the Committee members have been beyond the proper call of duty, but they have responded every time that demands - perhaps sometimes unreasonable demands - have been made upon them by their Chairman. I appreciate their co-operation.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I would like to endorse substantially the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. As a member of the Committee, I can say that the decision on this reference we are debating was not an easy one. The honourable member for Wakefield pointed out that the Committee is a non-party Committee and correctly said that it should remain so. In reaching the decision to recommend that the Parliament give approval for the works to be carried out at Cockburn Sound there was a conflict of opinion between the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), who are members of my Party, the Australian Labor Party, and myself. I have the greatest respect for all members of the Committee and in particular for the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Hughes, but I would like to record in the Parliament that the honourable member for Hughes and the honourable member for Leichhardt suggested and moved as an amendment:

That unless the Government is able to convince the Parliament that the work is urgent, further investigation should be carried out to ensure that impairment of Cockburn Sound environment will not occur. 1 voted against this amendment because there was evidence before the Committee that if investigations were continued as they had been for another 2 years the decision might not be different and the opinion of the Committee might not change. I may have erred in my decision, but 1 have no regrets, because the Committee, as the honourable member for Wakefield has said, is a non-party Committee and gives its opinions in accordance with the evidence and in accordance with what we believe to be the best interests of the nation.

Personally I’ am against vast expenditures of public money on defence. When the countries of the world are coming closer and closer together, when conferences are taking place in different parts of the world, we should meet together as brothers and give away the human conflict between nations that has gone on for centuries. As a member of this Parliament, I intend to strive towards that end as long as I am able to speak. Until nations take a positive stand, until the time when vast defence expenditure is avoided and the hungry peoples of the world are properly clothed, properly fed and properly housed - which as a member of this national Parliament I hope to see - I shall strive towards that end. But one’s personal opinion is different from community opinion. I suppose in private all members of this House would agree that to denounce public expenditure on defence for this nation would be an electoral loser. How shabby can we as members of this national Parliament be in our approach to hospitalisation, education, homes for the aged and satisfying the needs of aged people when we continue to pour vast defence expenditure down the drain?

But if one asked the community to express in the ballot box at the polls its opinion on what I have just said, some people would say: ‘That member James, the member for Hunter, is prepared to leave our country defenceless.’ This, of course, I would not do. There is no threat to Australia in the immediate future. As I see it there will be no threat for another 30 years, if ever. I have asked people who are not keen political students due to their obligation to put chops on the tables in their homes and support their wives and children: ‘Who is going to invade us? Will it be Indonesia?’ The answer is no. ‘Japan?’ No. ‘Burma?’ No. ‘India?’ No. ‘Malaysia?’ No. Vietnam?’ No. ‘What about China?* The answer is: ‘Ah! What about China?’ I say to them: The only information I can give you about China is from a report from the Pentagon, the war office in the United States which plans global strategy. It states that the Chinese have very few fighter aircraft, that they are very short of high octane fuel, that they have a vintage type Soviet submarine and that they have shallow draught naval craft, but that they have one of the strongest armies in the world, armed with small scale-

Mr Giles:

– Shanghais?

Mr JAMES:

– No. I wish it were balloons on sticks. That is what the world has to get back to.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 suggest the honourable member for Hunter might get back to the subject under discussion. The Bill does not cover the whole defence subject or matters of external affairs; it relates to a recommendation of the Public Works Committee.

Mr JAMES:

– I am just making a passing reference. I respect your ruling, Mr Speaker, but deep in your heart you must appreciate that what I am saying is true. However, the Cockburn Sound project is one which I believe the Australian people want and for that reason I support it. I hope this proposed naval facility will never be used in human conflict. I hope it is never used as a target by our enemy - if ever there is one - with the possibility of the blood of the people of Perth being spilt. Expert evidence given before the Public Works Committee showed that the people of Perth would be affected by a nuclear attack on the naval base at Cockburn Sound.

The Australian Labor Party has also put forward the suggestion that as the Government believes in forward defence the naval facility to be established at Cockburn Sound might instead be provided at one of the islands under the control of this Government such as Cocos Island. If the Government was consistent in its belief in forward defence and in the maintenance of a strategic military force in Malaysia then there is a powerful argument for the setting up of this naval base at Cocos Island so that the great populace of Perth would never suffer in the event of a nuclear attack upon the base - and may we hope that this never occurs. It is true that this Garden Island is a paradise for man. It is true that to create this naval base further to the north on the vast coast of Western Australia would involve tidal problems. Although my knowledge of the coast of Western Australia is limited, Cockburn Sound would appear to be the appropriate place for tidal reasons. I support the recommendation made by the Public Works Committee to the Parliament, but may the base be used only as a deterent to an enemy and never be used in human conflict.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– The Opposition supports this project and I would like to join other speakers in congratulating the members of the Public Works Committee on their report. I will express just a few reservations that are purely personal. They are mainly in the form of questions that perhaps might be answered for me by the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) or the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), representing the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). These are just a few personal observations. I am sorry that once again the Public Works Committee has to be the butt of criticism. This is not in any way a reflection on the very fine work it has done for the Parliament during the year.

First of all, I am concerned about the ambivalence of the Government in the degree of urgency of this project. I also have certain reservations about the effect the base or the causeway will have on the ecology of the area. A lot of evidence has been given before the Public Works Committee on the effect on the environment. Most of the fears centre on the flow of water through the Sound which will severely affect the environment. This flow will probably be reduced by as much as a third or a half by the causeway blocking the Sound. Some reference is made to this in one of the submissions to the Committee by Dr Keith Crook of the Australian National University. I would like to quote from this submission because it makes me think that the Committee has thought about the environment only as an afterthought.

Mr Chipp:

– It is hardly fair on the Committee to say that it looked at it as an afterthought. It gave a great deal of thought to it.

Dr GUN:

– I am sorry. I did not mean that the Committee treated it as an afterthought, I meant the Commonwealth Department of Works. In his submission to the Committee Dr Crook said:

The fact that the feasibility study was based on a causeway with a single opening, and that a second opening of larger cross section is now found advantageous, suggests that feasibility of the causeway as a concept was assessed on engineering and narrow economic criteria, with little regard for environmental considerations. Such considerations have certainly influenced the final design, but there is some reason for believing that the design changes anti-date the availability of environmental data.

Other material was presented to the Committee but I do not want to go through it all now. Mention has been made of the problem of restricted Bow through the Sound which could be exacerbated by the fact that the West Australian Government intends to put a sewerage plant at Point Peron, the effluent from which would go into the Indian Ocean, lt is suggested by Dr Crook that the tides would carry this around the Point and into the Sound. Mention has also been made of the dangers of erosion and other effects which could cause the death of sea grass on the sills around the margin of the Sound and this in turn could cause erosion and foundation failure of the causeway. This plus siltation effects in the Sound could result in the base itself being rendered unworkable or costly and difficult to maintain. A further fact that was mentioned was that there is no guarantee that there is not going to be any underwater mining in the Sound which could also have effects on the marine biology.

Dr Crook also mentioned in his submission that there seemed to be some evidence of undue haste - not, I hasten to add. on the part of the Committee but on the part of the Commonwealth Department of Works in its submissions on how soon the project would go ahead. On page 8 of Dr Crook’s submission he said:

At 4 points in the Department of Works statement reference is made to the scheduling of the project in such a way as to suggest that it is viewed as something of a crash programme. Among these points are the desire that work commence in January 1971 and the unwillingness to wait li years for the results of scale model studies. This view is further supported by the incomplete nature of the Department of Works statement, and the fact that design approval has outrun the collection of supporting data.

The point I wish to make is that there does appear to be undue haste as far as the Commonwealth Department of Works submission is concerned. But the point that most concerns me about the report of the Public Works Committee is that while the function of the Public Works Committee is to make an examination of the project from the standpoint of engineering and economic feasibility and effects on the environment, the strategic considerations are really primarily the concern of Cabinet. They are not so much the concern of the Public Works Committee. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 on page 3 of the report relating to the proposed construction of the Point Peron-Garden Island causeway.

  1. At the public hearings we took a considerable amount of sometimes conflicting evidence from witnesses expressing reservations about the proposed development from a number of viewpoints. Some of the evidence suggested that insufficient investigations had been made for an unequivocal assurance to be given that the proposed work would not have harmful long term effects on the natural environment of Cockburn Sound and Garden Island. More positive assertions on these lines were made by some witnesses.
  2. Contrary evidence on these aspects was given by departmental and supporting witnesses and we were told of the various investigations which had been taken into account when the project was being developed.
  3. It was also submitted that Garden Island should continue to be available for recreational use and that the survival of the Island’s flora and fauna would be prejudiced by the proposed development.
  4. During our final consideration of the proposal, we closely studied the evidence given by all witnesses and the result of our study is reflected in the extract from the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October which is quoted in paragraph 37 below. Clearly we could not reach a decision acceptable to alt witnesses or other people interested in the Cockburn Sound area but it was the view of the majority of the Committee that the proposed development on Garden Island is essential and that the construction of a causeway for access purposes is appropriate having regard to all the circumstances. lt does suggest to me that undue consideration was given to strategic matters and not enough consideration to the effects on the environment. One wonders how urgent the project really is when one looks at the statement made by Sir Allen Fairhall when he was Minister for Defence, shortly before he retired from office. He said:

If one looks al the size of our Australian Navy, it would be completely ludicrous at this stage - and for some time to come - to talk about our having a 2-ocean Navy and I hope nobody will take this as any indication that we ought not to think about that rather desirable aim.

He goes on to say that although the Government regards it as an essential project the urgency of it is questionable. It is important to remember that when Sir Allen Fairhall made this speech the Government was in full flight under pressure from the Democratic Labor Party from the Freeth doctrine of using a short spoon when supping with the Soviet Union. The Minister for Defence made a statement, earlier this month, suggesting that the matter is not really one of top urgency for the Government I cannot understand the necessity for the sudden urgency. Why can we not have a look at the environmental considerations?

J have been asked to cut my remarks short. I want to ask a couple of question that I am not quite satisfied about, and I hope that the Minister can answer them for me. In the first place, I am not quite sure why we cannot have a bridge across from the mainland to the island instead of a causeway. This seems to me pretty axiomatic. I cannot see any reason why we do not have it. Secondly, I want to know why this particular site was chosen. I have Albany in mind, particularly. I have not seen Albany myself, although I lived in Western Australia. I have listened to what some of my Western Australian friends have told me. They tend to be very sensitive about how good their State is. They all tell me that Albany is one of the best deep water harbours in the world. I cannot see why it was rejected by the Committee. The evidence given to the Public Works Committee stated that Albany was too far to the south. Too far south for what? That is something I cannot understand.

Another objection to the siting of the base at Albany was that it does not have the industrial backing that a site near Perth would have. I would have thought that this would be an argument in favour of decentralisation. Is it not one of the arguments that if the population is concentrated too much in the cities it becomes too vulnerable to nuclear attack? From a defence point of view surely it would be an advantage to decentralise and perhaps shift the base out to Albany. Finally I would like to quote an article concerning the naval base being a matter of great urgency. It says:

By emotionally conceding to oceans more importance than human opinion, Western countries are simply playinginto Russia’s hands.

This is not from a radical journal. It is from an editorial of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 3rd September. It is a very interesting article. I commend it to all honourable members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3130

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS ACT

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, I present the report on the operations of that act and of the operations, insofar as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and of the International Bank Agreement for the year ended 30 June 1970.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3130

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice No. 3, General Business, being proceeded with forthwith.

page 3130

NATIONAL SERVICE REGULATIONS

Motion to Disallow Regulation

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– by leaveI move:

The general position of the Australian Labor Party regarding the National Service Act and the national service system is well known. Although it is not the time to canvass that subject, it is worth while considering some of the principles that have to be implemented by regulation, of which the national service system is one. This afternoon we are faced with the continuing search by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) and his Department for an equitable answer to a totally inequitable system. One might say that it is the impossible search for the squaring of the circle. We see another instance of it this afternoon.

On the surface the implications of this fairly simple and reasonable looking amendment lead one to say: ‘Perhaps in the first instance I ought to support it as it stands.’ That brings me to the point about the method by which this House examines the regulations. As a general rule, in the ordinary course of events, day by day, they come to honourable members as they are churned out by the administrative machinery. They are examined, on some occasions, in a cursory way by honourable members. In other cases they are given a thorough examination. Unfortunately, it is often left to the other House through its system to give a thorough examination to the ordinances and regulations. This House should examine that system very thoroughly. The Senate seems to be creeping in front of us in matters of parliamentary government.

As is the custom with most legislation, the power to make regulations concerning the national service system is conferred upon the Minister and the Department. In this system we are dealing with people in the absolute. One might say that the end result is the sacrifice of some person for the nation’s cause. Therefore we ought to limit as absolutely as possible the discretionary power of the Department wherever it Rows through the national service system. We. on this side of the House find ourselves in a dilemma about this. We have on the one hand the natural disinclination to have anything to do with the national service system and, on the other, if the system is to be altered to include or exclude somebody we want to see the contradictions removed. In this instance an examination of the system leads one to believe, and has led my Party to decide, that these regulations ought to be opposed. The regulations provide for a widening of the dragnet so that it can pick up a few more people. It might not pick up very many people. It might not have been worth the administrative exercise in the Department, ft might not even gather in another 6, 8, 10 or 15 people to the armed services, reluctant as they may be to serve.

For some people these regulations will lead to more worry, more hardship, more doubt and more concern. Therefore the Opposition believes that they ought to be rejected. More people are going to be upset. A handful of students are going to be picked up by this system in which so many have escaped. I think it ought to bc salutary for us in the Parliament to consider what we are doing in that regard. The Minister has not told us how many people will be caught by the dragnet as a result of this - we will not pick up the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) - when so many have escaped already. Of course this is part of the inequitable nature of the whole system. Under the national service system 536,358 have registered up to 30th June this year. Over half a million young men have registered to serve. To that date only 43,061, much under 10 per cent, have been called up.

The system of deferments leaves open areas of discretion to the Ministry. One of the problems 1 pose to the Parliament in this regard is the mystery about administrative instructions. What kind of administrative instructions go forth? Under what instructions are the departments operating? The Opposition is not brought into enough of this in this Parliament, in any area. I am not making a particular criticism in this instance of the Minister for Labour and National Service, although when we put to him through his office a request that some officer from his Department should come before our party committee, and explain exactly what was meant by the 2 complicated amendments that were before us, he was reluctant. I am not saying that he would have refused in the end, but we made a request that an officer be made available before the party committee to examine the 2 paramount questions involved in these regulations. The first one was with regard to the Minister’s discretionary power on conscientious objection, which was discussed yesterday in the other place. The other one concerned the technicalities involved in the regulations.

I have been in this Parliament for 15 years. This is only the second time I can recall that any Minister has felt inhibited or doubtful about letting officers of his Department come before us to discuss these matters. So I lay my small protest on the table in this regard. The other point is, of course, the complicated legalism that flows from a consideration of regulations. Most of the members of this Parliament are fairly literate. Many of them have had a good deal of experience in handling legislation. But I defy honourable members, and anybody else for that matter, to get hold of the National Service Act, the National Service Regulations and the amendments to them and make head or tail of them without anything less than a lengthy examination. We must resolve this question of the complicated legalism that flows as much from the power to make regulations and the method by which they are made as from the law itself.

We are considering here the question of student deferment. Students are a special body in the community in this regard. They get special rights because they are students. There are those, of course, who say that because they have special rights then the community has a right to impose special obligations upon them. In the situation of national service as it is presently implemented we on this side of the House must reject that. It seems to me there are 3 issues involved in the general question of student deferment. First of ail, there is the question of social equity, ls it right and proper that students should be deferred when others have to make the sacrifices? The other, and the one to which we on this side of the House would pay more attention, is: What is the position of the individual who is being caught up in the system as far as individual benefits are concerned? 1 suppose if we were in a state of war the thing we would place first would be the needs of the armed services, in particular the Army. I think it is the one we ought to put last in this particular situation but I have a feeling from questions that have been asked in this House and answers that have been given to them in the past few weeks, that it is the needs of the armed Services that are likely to come first.

What is happening here today is that the Regulations are being changed, as far as I can determine from an examination of them and through consultation with others, in such a way that those students who until now have been able to remain undergraduates until they were 26 years of age, and by so doing pass through the system without being caught for national service, will now be caught up in the dragnet. What we are facing this afternoon is: Do we want this handful of people, who so far have been able to pass through the system and perhaps escape national service, caught and brought in? We on this side of the House oppose the national service system root and branch and therefore we do not want anybody else brought in. We therefore oppose it from that standpoint.

But while we are considering this question this afternoon I think the House ought to examine the general question of students. We all find ourselves in what might be called a liberal dilemma, a small 1’ liberal dilemma. I do wish the Party would change its name to something like Conservative’ ‘Reactionary* or whatever is the most appropriate nomenclature for the moment. So when 1 use the word ‘liberal’ it has nothing to do with the Australian political party which has the hide, the brass, the conceit, the arrogance and the cheek to opt for that name for itself. We would all say: ‘Here is a universal system and everybody must be in.’ Therefore, if everybody has to be in there are no deferments for anybody - students, hardship cases or anybody else.

We do not belong to that kind of community. There will always be compassionate considerations anc! hardship considerations. Of course, we could do something such as, 1 understand, the Swiss do. In Switzerland all those who do not serve have to pay an extra tax of some sort. But we do not opt for that either. So we have a situation in which we have decided that for the benefit of the individual, and probably more likely for the benefit of the community, the students ought to be able to complete their qualifications - get them out of the road - and then we will pick them up. There can be a lot of arguments against any sort of student deferment. I am not putting those arguments forward but they do highlight the inequitable nature of the whole system which is now before the House. For instance, as far as statistics show at the moment, and statistics are notably inadequate in all these areas, probably less than 2 per cent of sons of working class people get to a university and only about 10 per cent of university students come from working class areas, lt would be of great advantage to us, for instance, to know how many students per head of population in the universities of Melbourne come from the municipalities I represent, Brunswick and Coburg, and how many from, say, Balwyn and Kew. The odds are that there are more students from Balwyn and Kew in the university and more young men from Brunswick and Coburg in the Army because few of them can be deferred as students.

Mr Cohen:

– What about Bradfield?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, as a general rule they would be in the deferment bracket. The other point is that when we start deferring students we are probably starting to defer the fittest people, the ones from the most prosperous homes, the ones who could be most useful to the Army. So I am trying to highlight the difficulties that the whole system imposes, the continuing contradiction between values, human rights and the power of the State and the mystiques that have developed around the national service system.

This afternoon we are deliberating upon the proposition that the last few young people who have managed to get through the system because they have managed to remain undergraduates until they are 26 years old shall be caught up and shall not escape the Liberal Party’s national service dragnet. This question of deferments of course also involves the personal discretionary decision of the Minister. This again, I believe, is something we ought to reject as much as possible when it comes to questions of such overwhelming importance to the very lives of the young people who are caught up in the national service system. At the moment it is difficult to know how many deferments have been granted. The Minister has not told us, although he did say this in his comments when he issued these Regulations:

There are some men who are liable to render service and not eligible for extended deferment but who might avoid call up until they pass the age of 26 when liability for service would cease. In the majority of cases they have actively sought to evade their obligations under the Act. The Regulations have been amended so they will be liable to serve until the age of 30.

The Minister has not told us how many of these people there are. The person who is still an undergraduate at the age of 26 is, of course, an exceptional person, lt is a very difficult proposition in these days, the way university quotas operate, to remain an undergraduate until you are 26 and also to have passed through the national service system. Therefore I think that this particular regulation ought to be rejected because it is of minute military importance and very little social significance to pick up another few people and so expand the national service dragnet. Therefore we on this side of the House believe that the regulation ought to be rejected. There are some other matters that are, of course, important when we are considering this question of the liability of anybody to serve after he reaches the age of 26. By the time men reach the age of 26 the odds are that they are married. In all probability they have a family, have launched upon a career and have started to become important social units. So not only are we disrupting the man’s personal life, we are affecting his family, the work he does, his career and the society in which he is starting to play an active part. We are probably giving over to the Army people who are completely incompatible with a peace time army. It must be a strange and odd experience for a man of 26, now married with a home of his own, launched on a career and probably getting his foot somewhere up the ladder of the Public Service, the teaching service and so on, to go off to Puckapunyal. The young men there are only 5 or 6 years younger than he is but all their experience in life is completely different.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And someone grabs his girl friend.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. Our war time experience is no example because there we had a total community involvement. I believe that to concentrate any effort upon trying to pick up more people at the age of 26 is socially undesirable, militarily unnecessary and, of course, is contributing to the inequities of the whole system. While we on this side of. the House appreciate the administrative dilemma that the Government is in and that the Government wants to close up every hole in the system we believe there are more important issues at stake. Therefore as this regulation expands the system in that it captures a few more people and puts them into the system, it serves no useful purpose and should be rejected.

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

– Is the motion seconded?

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I second the motion, and in doing so I should like to make an additional point in passing. I congratulate the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), because as a result of the Minister taking action to amend the regulations, Brian Ross was released from gaol earlier this year. As the Minister is no doubt aware, some time in June I made representations to him to allow the question of Ross’ conscientious objection to be decided by a court. The statutory rules were amended, by amendment No. 5, to allow the Minister himself to refer to the court the question of a person’s conscientious objection. 1 was pleased when I heard on 10th August last that Mr Justice Smithers had been appointed to hear Ross’ case and at a later date to hear that Ross had been released.

I am one of those people who completely oppose the National Service Act. I object to conscription. I find it difficult to understand how conscription is justifiable at any time. But having said that, I realise that the Government has been elected and re-elected on the proposition that it supports conscription, that it supports national service, and I think that we in the Opposition have to make the National Service Act as pleasant as possible from the point of view of the people who are affected. Dealing with the specific regulation which we seek to disallow today, I should like to address myself to the point made by the Minister in the explanatory notes which accompanied the amendment to the regulation. It is pointed out that the regulations now cover men who have not been called up before 26 years of age, for example, because they may have been seeking to evade their obligations and to escape detection. I can see no good reason why the regulations should be altered to cover those people.

I am not one of those people who have been urging the Government to prosecute those who have been defying the National Service Act. I am not one of those who have been attacking the Government for selective enforcement of the law. I think that there is very little for which the Government can be congratulated. But the fact that the Government does not put in gaol everybody who defies the National Service Act is certainly a step in the right direction. The Government puts too many people in gaol as it is, and I do not think that we should encourage the Government to put more people in gaol. But what I do object to is the fact that there are people who have evaded their obligation, as it is put, from the age of 20 years to 26 years. In many cases these people have sent letters to the Minister telling him that they do not accept the provisions of the National Service Act. The Minister has had 6 years in which to deal with those people. For good reasons - excellent reasons, I should hope - he has decided not to prosecute them. I think that it is wrong to allow another 4 years in which these people can be prosecuted. lt means that for another 4 years these people can be prosecuted at any time when it becomes politically convenient or when there is some other reason for prosecuting them. I think this is completely wrong. For 6 years the Government has been aware of the fact that certain persons have been avoiding their obligations and it has not taken any steps to prosecute them. Now the Government has decided to extend for another 4 years the period in which these people can be prosecuted. It will make it tougher for the people concerned; it will make it almost impossible for them to obtain certain jobs and so on. I think it is completely wrong for the Government to use the regulations in this way. Therefore, I very strongly support the motion to disallow this regulation.

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

– There is a great misunderstanding on the part of the mover and seconder of this motion as to what the regulation is directed to do and what in fact it achieves. For the benefit of the 2 honourable members who have spoken in the debate and indeed of every other honourable member in the House who wishes to listen, 1 think it is necessary to recount a little of the way in which the regulation has operated and to explain how it will operate in the future. Under the National Service Act statutory provision is made for liability of people to serve up until 30 years of age. Under the Act there is power for the Minister to declare classes of people who will be given deferment. The deferment is of 2 kinds: It is temporary deferment or it is unlimited deferment. Unlimited deferment has in the past been given to everybody over 26 years of age. This has had the consequence that if a man does not perform his service up to the age of 26 years he will come into the position where he will not need to render service because he will have an indefinite deferment.

The other classes of people who have been given deferment have been given limited deferment, that is, deferment while they have been students undertaking a course. People over 26 years of age were deferred indefinitely and people up to 26 years of age could be deferred for the period of their studentship. We then find the situation where some students having got an arts degree have found it necessary to go on to get a master of arts degree in order to make their qualification creditable for the work force. So the regulations were amended for the purpose of allowing somebody to take a post-graduate course after he reaches 26 years of age. If this amendment had not been introduced, a student would have been forced to go into the Army before he bad completed the training which he needed, and of course this was undesirable. So the regulations were amended to allow us to defer the call-up of that person beyond 26 years of age.

Upon review I have come to the conclusion that that capacity to extend deferment beyond the age of 26 years should not be limited to people taking post-graduate degrees, because it is quite clear that if a person is doing a course, such as medicine, which may take him beyond the age of 26 years we would not want to be in the position where we had to call him up for service in the Army. Before the regulation was amended we had to call that person up before he was 26 years old, and by calling him up in those circumstances he could complete his course. So the purpose in amending the regulations was to allow us to defer people doing a primary course beyond the age of 26 years, just as we defer people doing a post-graduate course beyond the age of 26 years.

Having decided to do that, which 1 think is proper - and in a moment I will give, honourable members a breakdown of the sort of people who are affected - we found this completely inequitable situation with the young man who had registered and, having registered and applied for a student deferment, had obtained a student deferment. He went on and completed his education at the age of, say, 27 years. He was then liable to be called up for national service, after having completed his education at the age of 27 years, but the person who has done absolutely nothing about registration, who had evaded all his obligations, who had concealed himself, was free of all obligations if he concealed himself successfully until the age of 26 years. It was quite inequitable for the man who had concealed himself to have his obligation to serve evaporate, whereas the man who had complied all the way through, who had obtained a student deferment, had to go into the Army when he reached 27 years of age. So what I recommended should be done was to extend the period of liability for service right up to the statutory limit of 30 years. This enables complete freedom to defer students so that they can complete their course, whatever it is, and not have to call them up before they have completed their course simply because they have reached the age of 26 years.

Mr James:

– To help the silvertails.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member says that this was done to help the silvertails. 1 will come to that. I understand that the Opposition must be objecting to this regulation for one of two reasons. The first is that it objects to the regulation because it is in favour of disadvantaging the student against the evader. For all that the Opposition opposes national service I do not attribute that motive to the Opposition, but if that is the motive of the Opposition I would like to say so quite clearly and unequivocally. Assuming for a moment that it is not the motive of the Opposition to advantage the evader against the student so that it would have the evader not serve and the student do so, the only other purpose can be that there is an assumption on the part of the Opposition that the regulation will benefit what the Opposition calls the ‘silvertail’ - that is the person who is a student at university - as against the non-silvertail whom the Opposition describes as the apprentice. 1 did not have in mind that the Opposition which denies class consciousness was prepared to adopt a class conscious attitude in order to justify its stand on this regulation. What the Opposition is saying is that it denies the right of a university student to be deferred because he is a silvertail’. My experience of university students is quite the reverse. The honourable member for Wills put his argument on the basis that there will be more undergraduates from Kew than there will be from Northcote and Brunswick. 1 think they were the other 2 suburbs he mentioned. Whether that be true or not I do not know. If there is advantage in being born of parents in Kew rather than being born of parents in Brunswick or Northcote I think it is a rather temporary and unreal advantage. I think that the majority of people in this place-

Mr Bryant:

– Brunswick and Coburg have better representation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– 1 was about to say that perhaps the only disadvantage they do have is in that representation but I wonder how they can possibly make any representation. The honourable member would not let them talk. He would do all the talking. I will give to the Opposition 5 reasons why this regulation is necessary. Then I will give the numbers which will disclose the invalidity of the suggestion that it somehow benefits ‘silvertails’. The definition of silvertail’, according to the honourable member for Wills, includes university students.

Mr James:

– Privileged persons.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, university students being privileged persons whom the Opposition says it does not represent and indeed opposes. The first reason is that a man may take on a course of longer than normal duration. Medicine and architecture are such examples. In Victoria, for example, a technical teacher traineeship may extend up to 8 years. We have covered those people rather than call them up for service when they are 25 and they perhaps have 1 year to go to finish their training. It must be extended for those persons. The second group are those who are undertaking a course which has a natural progression to further study or training. To give a simple illustration, this may be a B.A. followed by an M.A. Thirdly, men may transfer from one course of training to study another, necessitating a longer period for eventual completion. An example is a young man who undertakes a science course and during the course transfers to a medicine course.

In the fourth group are those persons whose study course extends beyond the normal date of completion. These people may be young men who have failed in a year. But the officers in the Department do not make the judgment as to whether deferment should be granted for student continuation. This is done by the educational authorities themselves. If they allow the person to continue his studies, we recognise this. Fifthly - and here are some more of these ‘silvertails’ we are protecting, according to the honourable member for Wills - we have young men undertaking their courses on a part time basis who cannot undertake them on a full time basis because they do not have the financial resources to do it. These ‘silvertails* will not be able to do that if we accept the motion moved by the honourable member for Wills. He is not only against the undergraduate; he is against the other fellow whom he started out to protect. The illogicality of his argument is manifest.

The sort of courses where people are deferred for this reason and who will now be able to complete their training include - and I want honourable members opposite to listen to these ‘silvertails’: Fitters, toolmakers, draughtsmen, laboratory technicians and technicians who have completed apprenticeships or courses of training and are now doing a diploma of mechanical engineering. On the argument of the honourable member for Wills, we should not let those ‘silvertails’ have the benefit of this. Other examples are printers, electricians, fitters and radio technicians who have completed apprenticeships and who are now doing higher trade certificates; electronic technicians proceeding to a certificate in electrical engineering: building industry employees pursuing certificate courses in building technology, bricklayers, foremen builders, etc.; draftsmen proceeding to diplomas in architecture and civil engineering; metallurgists, industrial chemists and laboratory technicians proceeding to diplomas of science; and men pursuing various degrees including dentists, teachers, doctors, computer programmers, finance officers and bank officers.

There are 7,712 students who are being considered for deferment as students. They include 4,078 who are undertaking degree courses at universities. Only 144 of them have prolonged their deferment by undertaking post-graduate studies. And 3,634 are undertaking non-degree courses - that is, at other than a university and including technical college courses. There are 5,612 trainees who are being considered for deferment as trainees. Of that number 3,828 are apprentices in the various apprenticeship courses and 1,326 are not apprentices but are undergoing recognised courses of training. There are 1,000 registrants at the moment who want deferment and in whose interest it is essential that this regulation survive. If this regulation does not survive these young men will have to be called up into the Army before they complete their training. What sort of men are they? They are certainly not silvertails’. This regulation is quite consistent with our policy and I think it would be consistent with the views of everybody in the community including those who are opposed to national service but who. accepting that national service exists, would want these young men to be able to complete their training before they entered the Army. It will benefit them for their future to complete their training now and it will benefit them for their reestablishment. I ask the House to reject the motion because it is quite ill-founded.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The Minister for National Service (Mr Snedden) has avoided all the social issues and social implications which have been placed before the House. He managed to pick up an interjection from one of my colleagues and he then made-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! Is the honourable member for Wills speaking in reply?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, unless there is someone else who wishes to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Wills.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, I thought that was one of the rules. The Minister took up an interjection from one of my colleagues and used it as a theme in his discussion. The term ‘silvertail’ is one that I never use. I spelt out as well as I could in the time that I allowed myself, and I still had 5 minutes remaining to me when I sat down, the type of student who would be within this bracket of 26-year old remand. The Minister spent his 20 minutes trying to put a cloud of justice around a totally unjust system. The cheek of him to talk about anybody being able to talk in this place when he has made a remarkable contribution to the parliamentary system by using the gag on anybody and everybody, particularly myself, whenever he could do so. If there is any misunderstanding on this side of the House the Minister is the one who is responsible for it. When our committee sat down to consider this it was suggested that we should get someone from the Department to talk to us about it. As I set out earlier I do not claim to bc able to follow the ramifications of these regulations

Mr Giles:

– You would not understand them.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right and you have no understanding either, not only legally but socially. I do not claim either to understand the implications of this amendment to the regulations, the Minister’s explanation for the regulation and the National Service Act itself. None of us could hope to be able to follow all of the social, legal, administrative and statistical implications. So we suggested to the Minister that it would be desirable for an officer of bis Department to come before us and tell us what all of these implications were. We wanted to do the Minister the justice of thinking that the issue raised by my friend, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), was a good one. In other words, if the Government was making the conscientious objection system more viable we were for it, but we could not quite grasp all of the implications. What was the result? The Minister did not say outright that we could not have anyone, but he said he thought it would be difficult; that he had his doubts.

Mr Snedden:

– Not so.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, that is the message. 1 received, so the Minister can look into his own administration. In the 15 years that I have been here only on 2 occasions has a Minister suggested that there should be any inhibiting factor placed before a member in discussion on these matters. So, if I misunderstand the system I place the blame at the door of the Minister or at the door of his Administration. But I do not misunderstand the system. The issues that I placed before the Parliament were these: Firstly, that the proposed amendments to the regulations provided for widening of the dragnet and will bring in a few more people who for now are able to escape it. The Minister might say, as indeed might his colleagues, that this is inequitable; everyone else gets picked up. What utter nonsence. The Minister produced figures showing that 536,000 persons have been registered, 43.000 have served and 490,000 or more have escaped the system. The Minister talks about equity and justice. He talks about community attitudes. The community is increasingly rejecting this totally inequitable and unjust system.

The Labor Party is opposing this regulation because, as the Minister stated in his instruction on this matter, it widens the dragnet and it picks up a number of people who have been avoiding the call-up. We on this side of the House say that we are not interested in expanding the dragnet. We are interested in changing the system. I wish there were some solution to this problem. But in the present situation the Opposition totally rejects the national service system. However, we will not reject out of hand matters such as this because they are part of the system. As I have said - and again I refer to the Minister’s words - this regulation is designed to expand the number of people who can be picked up and it closes a very small loophole.

The Minister was careful not to say how many people he thought had escaped the dragnet. 1 pointed out that 1 thought it would be very difficult for a person in the national service age group to be still an undergraduate and over 26 years of age and not to be caught up somewhere either by rejection by the universities because of unsatisfactory progress or in some other way. However. I made the observation that as a person becomes older it becomes increasingly difficult for him to fit into the Army system; it becomes increasingly hard upon his family, his career, his employer and upon the society in which he is taking an increasingly important part if he has to spend 2 years in the national service system. It must also be militarily highly undesirable for such a person to land into a platoon of young men of 20 years of age who have different attitudes and different aspirations. Also, it would be almost impossible for the platoon commander who is probably only 21 or 22, or for a corporal or a sergeant of the same age, to handle those people properly. It would be almost impossible to make them feel at home in the system. This is why we oppose this measure.

If the Government were to reduce the age we might support this proposition. But I believe it is totally unjust to expand the required age beyond 26 years of age despite the fact that the statutory obligation to serve does go on to the age of 30. I believe that the Minister has done us a slight disservice this afternoon by not taking up those issues. The fact is that a large proportion of the community now totally rejects the national service system. As far as I can tell from an examination of the regulations - I am the first to admit that the complex nature of the regulations makes it difficult to follow them completely - the House should reject this regulation because it expands the number of people who will be caught up in the system and it makes it a little more difficult for perhaps a small number of young Australians and I do not believe that is socially desirable or politically just.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 34

NOES: 48

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3139

COMMONWEALTH PLACES (APPLICATION OF LAWS) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2802), on motion by Mr Hughes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– Mr Deputy Speaker, at the Committee stage I will move an amendment in the following terms:

Clause 4, page 2, at the end of sub-clause (!.) add the following proviso:

Provided that no criminal prosecution under the applied provisions of this Act shall be instituted after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent in respect of acts or omissions occurring before it receives that assent.’.

The purpose of this amendment is to avoid the retrospective enactment of criminal laws by this Parliament. Honourable members will be aware of some of the circumstances which create the necessity for the enactment of legislation such as is contained in this Bill. The need for legislation such as this arises out of what can only be described as the legal complexities of our legal system which result from the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the High Court and the provisions of the Judiciary Act, and which have produced a dual system of laws creating Federal jurisdictions over some matters and areas and State jurisdictions over other matters and areas.

To understand what has happened and the amendment to what I understand the legislation seeks to achieve, we need to bear in mind continually the division of legislative powers between the Commonwealth and Slate governments. Tn some areas, the powers overlap. In other areas, the powers do not overlap. We are fortunate at least that the problem does not affect the Commonwealth Territories. We all know that the Constitution gives power to the Commonwealth Government to make laws on the subjects which are set out in section 51 of the Constitution, and we also know that it imposes certain prohibition and restrictions on the Commonwealth Government, which have the effect of making some of the laws which it might want to pass invalid for one reason or another. Many of these prohibitions and restrictions do not apply to State laws.

Sometimes the prohibitions are not immediately apparent, and this can be said to be the case in the section of the Constitution which, as it has now been interpreted by the High Court, has produced the necessity for this legislation.

The section is 52 (1 .) of the Constitution which gives to the Commonwealth the exclusive power to make laws in respect to all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes. This means, as it has now been interpreted in Worthing’s case, that the States have no power to make laws that relate to such places. It means that, whereas it has always been assumed that State law applied to such Commonwealth places as military establishments, quarantine establishments, post offices, perhaps Commonwealth research establishments and Commonwealth courts as may be located in the States, the fact is that many such laws do not apply. I think that it is fair to say that the decision in Worthing’s case surprised many lawyers, although the problem had been the subject of speculation and comment on and off for years. As a problem, it bad never come before the High Court before.

Briefly, the facts of Worthing’s case were that a Mr Worthing, who has now made legal history, was injured when he fell from his working place which was located at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond in New South Wales. He sued his employer for damages and sought to rely on the New South Wales Scaffolding and Lifts Regulations which imposed certain duties on employers to provide certain safeguards for their employees. That legislation confers important rights on injured workmen. In this case, the employers counsel argued that the regulations did not apply at the RAAF base at Richmond because it was a Commonwealth place, legislation had been been enacted by New South Wales after the base became a Commonwealth place and so it came within the scope of section 52(1.) of the Constitution.

Eventually, the case found its way to the High Court. The Court held by a majority of 4 justices to 3 justices that the regulations did not apply on the RAAF base. The reasoning behind the decision is applicable to many other kinds of State laws. The decision revealed a void in all such

Commonwealth places from the time when they had been acquired from the Commonwealth. Now, by this Bill the Commonwealth seeks to fill that void.

There are of course 2 general alternatives that could be adopted to solve the problem. The first would be for the Commonwealth to enact a comprehensive new code of Commonwealth laws that would be probably different in many ways from the laws of the States, and that would apply to these Commonwealth places. It is obvious, I think, that this alternative has been rejected by the Government and we have no quarrel about that. The other alternative was to enact legislation that adopts State laws as Commonwealth laws and this is what has been done. However, the extent of the difficulties posed by Worthing’s case were not readily apparent it appears even to the judges of the High Court who decided the case.

The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, at page 235 of his judgment as reported in the Australian Law Journal, saw no great difficulty, for he said:

No doubt the Parliament will need to legislate to fill a void which a decision in the sense of my opinion would have disclosed. But it can be done so referentially, and without delay or difficulty, merely by continuing by dint of Commonwealth law, the terms of State legislation which would be applicable if the place or places so acquired, or for that matter to be applied, had remained within the legislative jurisdiction of the State legislature.

Similarly, His Honour Mr Justice Windeyer at page 247 of his judgment as reported in the Australian Law Journal said:

However, the inconveniences and complications that arise upon this view are less serious than would be those that would come from any other of the suggested constructions of Section 52. They are less serious because they are easily remedial by the Commonwealth Parliament. It does not have to enact a complete code of laws, criminal and civil, for all Commonwealth places as a substitute for anarchy there. For there is no anarchy, merely divergences in the law applicable in different places within a State which were acquired by the Commonwealth at different times. That lack of uniformity in the operations of State law could be overcome by a short Commonwealth Act while at the same time ensuring that Commonwealth places remain within Commonwealth control. As I see it, all that is necessary to resolve all the difficulties is a Commonwealth Statute providing that the laws of each State from time to time in force, should have full force and effect in all places already acquired or acquired in the future by the Commonwealth . . .

His Honour went on to say:

Save in so far as any such State law is inconsistent with any Commonwealth law or is incompatible with the conduct by the Commonwealth of its lawful purposes carried on in any such place.

Therefore, he began to touch on the problem as it appears and as became apparent to the Parliamentary draftsmen when they began to tackle the problem.

Immediately the experienced and very capable legal officers of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department began looking at the problem that had to be solved, they discovered that it could not be done by a simple short Act. They discovered a situation that was almost bizarre in its complexity. If they were going to enact a Commonwealth law to convert State laws into Commonwealth laws they had to consider a number of problems. They had to consider, for example, the difficulty of State laws controlling Commonwealth instrumentalities and Commonwealth laws controlling State instrumentalities. They had to decide whether to make the legislation retrospective and, if so, how to make it retrospective. In this context - of course, my foreshadowed amendment is directed to one aspect of this point - they had to consider whether the civil law should be made retrospective and whether the criminal law should be made retrospective. They decided that they would make both civil and criminal law retrospective, lt is to this latter aspect of making retrospective criminal law that this amendment is directed and which it seeks to overcome. They had to decide what to do about State police and other State officials who administer State laws - officials like scaffolding and lift inspectors and factories and shop inspectors. These good people are employees of the State and not of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth has no control over them. In pursuance of their duties as State employees they are not obliged to enforce Commonwealth laws. There have been reports of State police refusing to perform what would otherwise be police duty because of the fact that some incident with which they would otherwise have been concerned had happened on Commonwealth property.

The draftsmen had to be careful that if they restated all the State laws as Commonwealth laws they did not bring about some invalidity in those State laws that flowed not from State law and not from section 52 (1.) of the Constitution but from some other provision of the Commonwealth Constitution. For example, section 55 of the Constitution requires that a Commonwealth law imposing a tax must impose the tax only and do nothing else. State laws do not have to be so limited. A general Commonwealth law applying all State laws might infringe section 55. The draftsmen also bad to be careful about section 109 of the Constitution which makes Commonwealth laws prevail over State laws where they are inconsistent with each other. The draftsmen also had to be careful about re-enacting all the State laws as Commonwealth laws because different tests apply to determine appeals to the High Court and to the Privy Council when the appeals arise out of State law from when they arise out of Commonwealth law. We know that the Commonwealth position on appeals to the Privy Council is different from the position of the States. It was thought proper, and we agree with it, that insofar as it was possible, the position should be restored to as near as possible to what it was before Worthing’s case was decided. There should be no addition to the differences and divergencies that already exist between various parts of Australia.

The draftsmen had to be careful that in giving Commonwealth judicial power to State courts and tribunals they complied with section 77 of the Constitution, because many State tribunals are not constituted in such a way that they can exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth. There were many other problems, and the draftsmen have done their best to anticipate them and legislate to overcome them. Only time will tell whether they have succeeded and the extent to which they have succeeded.

I come back to the retrospective enactment of criminal law as a problem, because that is a feature of the Bill and that is the purpose of the amendment to be directed at it. The Opposition believes that criminal law should only be enacted retrospectively in the most serious cases - and this is a general proposition with which few people would disagree - and to overcome some particularly acute problem that cannot be overcome in any other way. We believe that if there is no criminal law on a subject it is one thing to enact a law that makes behaviour criminal in the future but quite another thing to enact a law that says that what was not criminal in the past shall be regarded as always having been criminal. This is a fundamental and very important principle. We know of no cases that would be prejudiced or no hardship that would take place through following the normal course and enacting criminal law as from the time of the commencement of the Act. Since Worthing’s case it is true that a number of cases have come before the courts where defendants have pleaded the defence that is based upon the reasoning in Worthing’s case. This is not uncommon because defences of this sort become fashionable once it becomes known to lawyers the success that can attach to them. We believe that these defendants should be entitled to rely on the law as it has been declared by the High Court until it is changed by this Parliament. We do not believe that this Parliament should take away any of those defences by changing the law retrospectively. Clearly some cases are stronger than others but if this Act is made retrospective as far as the criminal law is concerned the defendants in such cases will be liable tobe charged again, notwithstanding that they have already been charged, tried and possibly acquitted. This is double jeopardy, which should always be avoided. We believe that it is not good enough to rely on the discretion of public servants, who are in some prosecuting section somewhere, not to charge again a man who has already been charged once because of some feeling that they may or may not have as to whether he has been sufficiently prejudiced or whether they consider the case serious enough or not serious enough to warrant a second prosecution. We believe that such matters are too important to be left to the discretion of prosecuting officers in State courts of petty sessions and other State prosecuting officers.

The amendment, if it is carried, will be in the best traditions of the English law. We believe that if a person has a good legal defence, because the High Court has said so, he should not have it taken away from him retrospectively unless there are extremely compelling reasons, and we do not believe that sufficient reasons exist in this case.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Debate interrupted.

page 3142

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 4 p.m. and in accordance with the Order of the House of 26th August I now propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3142

COMMONWEALTH PLACES (APPLICATION OF LAWS) BILL 1970

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I refer to clause 4 which reads, in part: (1.) The provisions of the laws of a State as in force at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) apply, or shall be deemed to have applied, in accordance with their tenor, at that time in and in relation to each place in that State that is or was a Commonwealth place at that time.

I move:

At the end of sub-clause (1.) add the following proviso:

Provided that no criminal prosecution under the applied provisions of this Act shall be instituted after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent in respect of acts or omissions occurring before it receives that assent.’.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– Briefly, I am not at all surprised that the member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) should have misplaced the amendment that he has moved because I would have thought that it was an amendment with which no-one would want to be associated. Indeed, with respect, I find it hard to see how anyone who holds himself out to be a lawyer could support such an amendment. It seems to me quite contrary to all the principles of law and quite contrary to the principle of retrospectivity to which he referred. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory does not seem to appreciate that the rule with respect to retrospectivity is a rule of statutory interpretation. Any legislature can implement a law - can pass a law - having retrospective effect even with respect to criminal offences provided that it makes it clear and beyond any doubt that this is what it intends to do. So it is a principle of statutory interpretation and not some hallowed principle that the honourable member seems to have divined from sitting under an olive tree or by some other means.

What, after all, is the basis of the principle? This is the main and serious point. Whether it is a principle of statutory interpretation, or whatever it is, the principle is that no-one should be put in jeopardy by way of a prosecution for an offence based on facts which were not an offence at the time they were committed. In this case, facts which would comprise such a prosecution and on which such a prosecution would be based were illegal. They were contrary to the plain terms of a multitude of State statutes and regulations. What Worthing’s case is about - and I would have thought this was fairly clear - is that the laws do not apply in specific Commonwealth places. But the State law was extant. It was articulated. Everyone knew what it was and the simple consequence of Worthing’s case, I would have thought quite clear, is that State law does not apply in Commonwealth places. But the individual, the poor citizen, who the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory is very concerned should be protected from a prosecution, knew, of course, that the law was there on the State statute books. He knew that in many cases it would have been illegal, irrespective of what the State law said, in cases such as murder or many other criminal offences. It was known what the State law was. The effect of this legislation that is proposed now is to provide mechanical provisions and a workable system so that that law can be enforced. It does not change the State laws. It does not affect crimes that were constituted as crimes by those State laws.

Finally, there is one further point, and merely on this basis alone one can dispose of the amendment that has been proposed by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory. The amendment seeks to insert in the Bill the following words:

Provided that no criminal prosecution under the applied provisions of this Act shall be instituted after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent in respect of acts or omissions occurring before it receives that assent.

Of course it states a lot that is obvious. It is obvious that no prosecution could be instituted before the royal assent was given to the Act. That much is obvious and beyond any doubt. The amendment seeks to cover a case where an act or omission may occur between today, for instance, and the day when the Bill receives the royal assent.

If the words contained in the amendment were incorporated in the Bill and the Bill became a law with those words incorporated in it, it would mean that a person could commit an offence against the plain terms of a statute, knowing full well that what he was doing was contrary to a State law and knowing full well that he would get away with it completely. He could perform that act with complete immunity until the royal assent was given to the Bill. He could perform continuous acts of the same nature, each of them contrary to the provisions of State laws, and he would know that there would be no way on earth of prosecuting him for breaches of those State laws. So on those grounds, with respect, I think it can fairly be said that this amendment should be rejected out of hand.

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

– Having listened to the arguments that have been advanced, I am quite sure that what the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) has said is correct in law, and I rather feel that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) would find himself, as a lawyer, not departing from it very greatly. However, sometimes in politics, as at the bar, a man has to put an argument with which he does not completely agree. Therefore I am quite sure that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory would recognise some merit in the arguments that have been put against his amendment.

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

– I wish to speak only briefly. In fairness to my colleague the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby), who has had to put the argument on behalf of the Opposition, I think it should be pointed out that Worthing’s case still presents some doubt about the law that applies in respect of time and about the law that applies to an offence committed at a place acquired by the Commonwealth. It could well be that many criminal prosecutions could be launched by the Commonwealth because the law was in existence before the place was acquired. It ought to be said on a social basis that it is well known that a soldier has already been charged and acquitted for a so-called offence on Commonwealth property, and I think the one thing that we are anxious to see does not happen is his being re-charged, because the matter on which he was charged comes within the time that will be covered by this Bill. This is the thing that I think is important.

Surely nobody, not even the most vicious opponent of a man who breaks the law, would want to see him again charged because this Bill is to be retrospective in its application. I think that is something that ought to be said in fairness to my colleague. The case in point, as the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Hughes) would know, concerns an alleged drug offence in an Army camp in Brisbane. Because of the so-called weakness in Worthing’s case, the soldier Who was charged was acquitted. The Attorney-General surely would not want it to be suggested that he should now be recharged for that offence because it is within the 6 months period specified in the Bill. I think that is the real issue involved in this matter.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I would like to reply very briefly on this point of retrospectivity. If I may say so, I think that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) should be commended for the brevity and succinctness with which he put the argument and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) likewise deserves to be commended. They put their points very clearly.

Mr Daly:

– You follow suit.

Mr HUGHES:

– I shall. I do not need any prompting from the honourable member for Grayndler. The Government has given very careful consideration to this question of retrospectivity. I would say that the views put in this Committee debate by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) set out the reasons which disposed the Government to press the view that the legislation should apply retrospectively in relation to criminal activities. The general reason why the retrospective application of a law is frowned upon is a very good one, namely, that to give a law a retrospective application disappoints people’s expectations and undermines the assumptions upon which they may have regulated their activities.

I think the Committee will agree with me, upon due deliberation, that that principle upon which, generally speaking, retrospective laws are not favoured simply does not apply in a case involving people who for years, indeed ever since federation, have ordered their affairs on the assumption that the laws made by the State Parliaments, unless specifically directed - which they never were - to Commonwealth places, had a general application in those places; so it could not be said that people committing activities of a criminal nature were undertaking those activities in the belief that they would be exempt from criminal law in relation to those activities. I think that is the simple ground upon which the retrospectivity of criminal sanctions in this very unusual case can be supported and ought to be supported by the Parliament. If the amendment as proposed by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory were to be passed there would be or could be, as the honourable member for Diamond Valley has already pointed out some very remarkable consequences. It could be open day for people to commit very serious acts which would ordinarily be criminal acts between now and the date when the Bill received the royal assent. I do not think that is a risk that the Committee should countenance. For those reasons the Government opposes the amendment proposed by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3144

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Mr HUGHES:
LP

– Pursuant to section 11 of the Commonwealth Police Act 1957-1966, I present the annual report of the Commissioner of Police on the operation of the Commonwealth Police Force and summary of its activities for the year ended 30th June 1970.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3144

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr ERWIN:
Ballaarat

– I present the fourth report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 3144

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

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

page 3144

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

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

page 3144

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Retirement of the Right Honourable John McEwen

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– We are reaching the close of this period of sittings which brings to an end another parliamentary year. It has been an exceptionally busy year and the Autumn session saw the greatest number of sittings for 14 years. As is customary at the close of a parliamentary year I wish to express our appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, for the firm and impartial way in which you have handled the business of the House and, indeed, to express the thanks of all of us to all those - the attendants, those in the parliamentary dining room, Hansard - who keep this Parliament running.

I wish particularly at the end of this parliamentary year to talk a little on the fact that it marks the closing chapter of one of the outstanding careers ever held in the Federal Parliament. John McEwen has served longer as a member and as a Minister than any other man in the Parliament.

The Deputy Prime Minister and the right honourable member for Murray has been in this House for over 36 years and has been a Minister for a period totalling a quarter of a century. If the House will bear with me one moment I would like to read into the record the posts which have been held by this great servant of Australia.

He was Minister for the Interior from November 1937 to 1939; Minister for External Affairs from March 1940 to October 1940 - if I may interpose, I think he was always had a frustrated ambition to be Minister for External Affairs in that it is something I know so much interests him - Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation from October 1940 to October 1941; member of the Australian Advisory War Council; member of the War Cabinet from 1940 to 1941; Minister for Commerce and Agriculture from December 1949 to January 1956; Minister for Trade from January 1956; Deputy Prime Minister from 26th March 1958; Acting Prime Minister on many occasions; Acting Treasurer; Acting Minister for External Affairs; Acting Minister for Defence and Prime Minister from 19th December 1967 to 10th January 1968. He has been the leader of the Australian Country Party from 26th March 1958 and has represented the Australian Government at numerous overseas conferences during that time. He was appointed a Privy Counsellor in 1953 and appointed to the Order of Companions of Honour in the New Year’s Honours List in 1969. I suppose his career of service to Australia can be said to have begun when he enlisted in the first Australian Imperial Force on 9th August 1918.

There is, indeed, in comparatively few words a record of service of various kinds of which any Australian could be proud and on which I believe the whole of this House and all members of it would wish to congratulate him. I think there will be other occasions in the future for us to pay a full tribute to John McEwen but today, since it is the last time on which he will be taking his seat in the House after this last year of service, I wish to say that Australia and the Parliament are greatly in his debt. I wish to add a personal word of thanks for his friendship during the period of time I have been Prime Minister and before when

I was a Minister, for his co-operation and for his support. I have found John McEwen to be an extremely hard fighter for the causes in which he believes; to be a man never devoid of strong arguments to advance in favour of the causes in which he believes but a man governed by reason and a man above all who when once an arrangement or an agreement had been reached could be trusted implicity to keep that arrangement or that agreement no matter what the circumstances might be. This is a high tribute to pay to a man.

As I said, he first sat on the benches of this Parliament 36 years ago. He won an international reputation as a tenacious and successful negotiator, as other negotiators from other countries throughout the world will ruefully admit. He enjoys the healthy respect of leaders of other countries and all those with whom he has negotiated. I think his name is synonymous with the interests of the rural industries of Australia and I think they have had no greater champion than he. There will be, I believe, in the years ahead people who look back and not only say what I have said now but who will point to things which will still be in operation and say: ‘That is greatly serving Australia’s interests and that was initiated or supported by John McEwen’. I refer to such things as the Japanese Trade Treaty which now is of such great importance to us and in the future will I believe be of even greater importance. I refer to such things as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. I refer to such actions, in which I was glad to be associated, as the re-entry of the Australian Government into overseas shipping. I refer to the actions taken to preserve and protect and enlarge Australian equity interest in Australian resources as they develop. These will be monuments, enduring monuments, to a service which we know because we have seen it, and which the future will know because of the monument resulting from this service.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– Firstly I wish to tender the apologies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) for not being present, not only to express their good wishes to officers of the Parliament for their services during the past year, but also for not being here on this important occasion with which the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has dealt at some length, that is the departure from the Parliament today into retirement of the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr McEwen). The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition are unfortunately engaged on another mission which precluded them from being here.

I wish to join in the sentiments that have been expressed by the Prime Minister to all those who make Parliament work, from the officers here to the Library staff, the dining room staff, the transport officers and all those associated with the Parliament whose activities in many cases go unnoticed but who make it possible for us to carry out our duties here. On behalf of the Opposition I join in the sentiments that the Prime Minister has expressed. The Prime Minister dealt at some length with your impartiality, Mr Speaker. I think you will excuse the Opposition if it says it does not go all the way with him in that respect, but pulls up a little short I remember saying to a former member of this Parliament about a certain Speaker: ‘He is not a bad Speaker.’ He said: ‘No. He has improved out of sight. He has become a little fair lately, too.’ I do not say that that applies to you, Mr Speaker, but the Opposition never agrees that the Speaker is completely impartial. But we do extend to you our good wishes.

At this stage, while I cannot on behalf of the Opposition, wish Government supporters success in the Senate election, I will say that we hope they go well hut not well enough. But to all those associated with the election I repeat the Opposition’s good wishes. I refer now to the retirement of the Leader of the Country Party. Next to the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), who is not here today, I have probably the longest service, with the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), in the Parliament. For twothirds of the time that the Deputy Prime Minister has been in the Parliament I have gazed across the chamber at him, mainly from the wrong side of the Parliament. I have seen him, more than any other member of the Parliament, in Opposition and in Government, and have learnt to respect his capacity and ability. Undoubtedly he has had a long and distinguished period of service in the Australian Parliament. I suppose we could say, in a sentimental way, that with his retirement there passes an era in politics ranging from the middle of the depression years to this year of 1970. That span of years with which he has been associated are amongst the most historic in Australia’s history. It must bring back some very fond memories, some bad memories and at the same time a feeling of achievement of having lived through a period of depression and 2 world wars, to an age when man has reached the moon.

Today there goes from the Parliament a figure and a personality whose service is linked with Australian history. We on this side of the Parliament know, more than the Government does, that the Deputy Prime Minister is and always has been a very hard fighter. He has never given much quarter and has never asked for any. I have always liked one thing about him. I think he is uninsultable. Much greater parliamentarians than I ever hope to be have tried him out in that respect and he stood the test of time in the most bitter days. One of the cardinal points in a politician, if he can achieve it - and it is hard to do - is that if he is uninsultable he will have much happier nights when he goes home. With due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, I do not think he lost many nights sleep over worrying about what he said or did in the Parliament. When I heard him on television a while back saying: ‘I am a mild man’ and when I heard his speech here a day or so later against the Leader of the Opposition, I thought somebody had got the script mixed up. At the same time, these are things that we have learned to appreciate.

The Country Party will certainly miss him. I would not be so offensive to those who are to follow, as to say that he cannot be replaced. But undoubtedly - I say it in all sincerity - he has served his Party well. To the best of his ability he did what all parliamentarians and members of parties should do: Give of their best for their party. It does not always please everyone, but I think we can say that the Deputy Prime Minister has done that for the Country Party in a very commendable way. Having said so much, may I again associate the Opposition with the tribute paid? I think it is a great thing that, for once in a while, the member concerned is present to hear his valedictory, because too often a member has to be dead before things are said about him that really matter. This is a very desirable change and is more in keeping with the times than if these things are said when the member is not present to hear them.

Finally, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that as he passes through the doors of Parliament into the shadows of retirement I believe I can say quite sincerely on behalf of all members of the Opposition that our good wishes are extended to him and his good wife for many, many happy years in retirement.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I would like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition and associate myself with their remarks. Speaking on behalf of the Australian Country Party I would like to place on record in Hansard our appreciation of the magnificent job of leadership that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) has done for our Party over the past 12 years and of his tremendous record of parliamentary service to the nation. We, as a Party, are greatly indebted to him and thank him very dearly. John McEwen, the honourable member for Murray - that electorate name has not been heard very much in this House because the right honourable member has mostly been referred to as the occupant of one or other office - has had a remarkable period in Parliament. He has held almost every portfolio. He holds the record for the greatest period as a Minister in this Parliament. I believe he will be regarded by historians as the greatest statesman this country has seen since Federation, indeed if not one of our greatest ever.

John McEwen is the third Leader of the Australian Country Party. The first was Sir Earle Page, then came Sir Arthur Fadden. Now, for 12 years, it has been the right honourable John McEwen, Leader of the Australian Country Party and presently Minister for Trade and Industry. During his 12 years as Leader of the Party he has strengthened and developed the Country Party to the highest water mark we have seen. Today it is stronger in the 2 Houses of Parliament than we have ever known it to be. Probably even more importantly than that, John McEwen has broadened the image of our Party. He has shown to the Australian people that it is more than a Party just looking after the interests of rural people. It is a Party that has an interest in all the activities of the nation. It is a truly national Party. John McEwen has made a name for himself in this Parliament and in Australia. Those of us who have travelled overseas and have attended meetings of the great international councils know also that his name is known world wide. He has built a reputation for himself as an international negotiator and a man who has tried to organise the world in the better distribution of food products. I believe that this is something for which the world will remember him.

His contributions to the International Sugar Agreement, the International Wheat Agreement and, of late, to the International Grains Arrangement which for the first time included the Food Aid Convention, are giving benefit to people all over the world. John McEwen is known as a strong, influential man. Only those who have sat in the Cabinet room with him know of his tremendous capacity to influence other men in what I believe is the right decision. I have sat there with him during the terms of 3 Prime Ministers. I have always admired the way in which he could present a different point of view and generally win the support of Cabinet. Looking back over a period of Cabinet discussions, as a member of the Government I am grateful that John McEwen has been there to guide us in making the right decisions. In his period of office all of us have learned a great deal about how to manage the country.

He himself can look back on a monumental record of legislation with which he personally has been involved or in which he has had a tremendous influence in bringing down. John McEwen entered this Parliament prior to the last world war and was a member of Cabinets which had to mobilise the forces and reserves of this country to prepare it for war. He was associated with the Advisory War Council. He played a tremendous part in postwar reconstruction in the first Menzies-Fadden Government and I believe that much of the growth and the prosperity that this country enjoys today has occurred because of the advice guidance and leadership that was given by John McEwen. As a personal man he had a great capacity to win friends. I know of few leaders of any country who are always as courteous and as friendly as he is. He imbued in his staff and in the members of his Party a sense of dedication and loyalty and I want to say that we will miss him very much. There will be other occasions for speaking but I must say now that he has always been an example and an inspiration to us all. The training that we have received under his leadership will fit us all well for the future. He goes down to the Murray Valley to farm. I want to assure him that we will continue to get all the support and benefits we can for farmers knowing that he may be one of the recipients of them. But, Mr McEwen on behalf of my Party we are eternally grateful for what you have done. You will always be welcome back here as a friend and we hope we will see you from time to time. Good luck, God bless you, you are a great Australian.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I have been a member of this Parliament since a byelection in May 1955 and during tha*, period I, like other members of the Opposition who have been here over the years, have appreciated the great ability of Jack McEwen. I endorse the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony). Speaking about your personality, Jack, we are sorry to see you go, but as politician we are bloody glad. But if you, as a private citizen, ever lead a delegation to the next Minister for Primary Industry, that is the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), on behalf of the primary producers I am sure that your views will be respected and given every consideration.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– First of all, at this time of the year when Parliament is breaking up after the Budget session, I want to thank everyone in this House and the staffs of the different departments for the great courtesy and goodwill they have extended to me during this year and, of course, the many years that have passed since I entered this House. I have always greatly appreciated the goodwill because although we have debates and I find fault now and again with certain people I have never on any occasion taken my fight to personalities, only to politics, and I think that this is one of the reasons why I have enjoyed my stay in this House. But now, as other honourable members have done, I want to say some words about John McEwen. I want to say them very slowly and definitely.

Let me say that I think he is one of the finest combinations of heart, conscience and brain in the community. He has been here for very many years. Only the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), who is unavoidably absent, and the Leader of my Party, Mr McEwen, were in this House when I was elected on 9th February 1946. Every other member on this side of the House - not the other side - has come since then. So I have had an association of nearly 25 years with the Leader of the Party and for 14 or 15 years I have been the Whip. The Leader of the Party is the leader. He is the boss, but the Whip is a sort of rouseabout manager and I have come in contact with him often in connection with politics.

Contrary to my usual practice I have written one or two things down because I want them to be accurate. Honourable members seem to derive much amusement from that statement. If they had only waited till I had finished the sentence perhaps they would not have seen so much humour in it. I wanted to be accurate in phrasing. My statements have always been accurate in logic and, of course, in fact. Mr McEwen has been a practising farmer all the time he has been in this House. This has been something that has given him the chance from year to year, with the changing times and changing machinery and farming methods, to bring to this House the practical experience that he gained in the early stages of his farming and which increased as he went along. He came to this House and gave us the benefit of it.

Whenever he spoke in this House, at meetings, conferences or overseas he was listened to with great attention because everyone seemed to know that what he said was valuable, worth hearing and worth taking into consideration. When the skein of events became tangled it was to his clear brain and logical thinking that men turned. Of course, on so many occasions his advice, having been taken, proved to be correct and Australia and the people who live here benefited greatly. He never lacked a sense of humour and has always been able to maintain his great faith in Australia and Australians and, perhaps I could say, particularly in primary producers and primary industry for which he has fought so valiantly.

When I decided to speak in this debate I thought of that story ‘A Message to Garcia’ by Elbert Hubbard. The period of the story was the time of the Cuban war and General Garcia was somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of Cuba, no-one knew where. It became necessary for the President of the United States, President McKinley, to get a message to Garcia, but there was no way of getting it to him. There were no telephones, radio or anything of that kind and someone said: ‘There is only 1 man who can do it, a fellow by the name of Rowan.’ He was sent for and taken before McKinley and McKinley gave him a message. He wrapped it up in a waterproof package and then left. He crossed the narrow sea in an open boat and in 3 days had traversed the Cuban jungle and delivered the message to Garcia. The point I want to make is that he did not say: ‘Why pick me?’ He did not say: ‘How can I find him?’ He did not ask: ‘Will tomorrow do?’ or a lot of other fool questions that men ask sometimes for he was a man of action. People say that gold statues of such men should be placed before every school of learning throughout the world.

We have any amount of men who can translate 1 language into another and solve all sorts of intricate problems but we have so few men of action, men who, metaphorically speaking, can carry a message to Garcia. John McEwen is one of those men. He carried a message, first of all I suppose, from the place where he was farming to Canberra, but the message was for all primary producers and people throughout the nation. Then, of course, what he has done since then has brought benefit to everyone in the community. I refer to the things that he has said and done in this House and been responsible for, such as, as the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said, the Japanese Trade Agreement which has had an effect on the lives of every man, woman and child in this community. My personal opinion of John

McEwen is, of course, tremendously high. He has been a great friend of mine for very many years. I appreciate him as much as I possibly can. Let me finish where I started; I really believe he is one of the greatest combinations of heart, conscience and brain in our community.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– This week 25 new members are finishing their first year’s service in this Parliament and the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) is in his last year. This is a sad moment for him. There is only one such moment in the life of any member of Parliament - the last hour of the last day of his parliamentary career. All of us who have watched his career with interest, some from the sidelines and some right in the middle of the battlefield, certainly appreciate his qualities. He has been my opponent ever since I entered this Parliament, which was back in September 1946, just 6 months after the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) came into this place.

In those days the right honourable member for Murray sat on this side of the chamber, and 1 only wish that he had sat on this side for a lot longer than 3 years. But in my first 3 years in this place I looked upon him as a terrifying character. The way in which he used to get stuck into the Australian Labor Party - Ben Chifley and all the boys - horrified me. I had not struck anybody like that before This happened in my first years in this place, I had led a quiet life previously. I used to sit where the honourable member for Calare (Mr England) sits now, and the right honourable member for Murray used to sit where the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) sits now. One day the right honourable member for Murray walked out after making a terrifying attack on the Labor Party. He told us that there was nothing good in any of us, that we were just a lot of no-hopers. That was early in my career in this place, and I had never heard such language used about anybody before. After he had left the House that day I noticed that there was on his desk a book which he had been reading. It was entitled ‘Odd Man Out’. I thought that it truly described the right honourable member - he was a very odd man to me.

But during the years the right honourable member for Murray has shown all of us that irrespective of his Party affiliations, he is a tremendous fighter for causes and for this country. I admire this about him as much as anything else. It has been said that he has been in the Ministry for 25 years, 21 of which have been continuous. This means that he has been a very lucky man - lucky because the Party to which he belongs and the parties which he has supported have won 9 successive elections. If they had not won those elections he would not have been a Minister for all those years. So this is one important fact to be remembered when reference is made to his long period in the Ministry. If a member is to continue as a Minister his party has to win elections and he has to be selected as a Minister by the Prime Minister.

The right honourable member for Murray has served this country very well under 3 successive Prime Ministers. He has been an outstanding figure in every Cabinet of which he has been a member. That is my firm belief. We owe much to him, although we have not always agreed with him. He is a tough, tenacious, unbending, dedicated parliamentarian. We will miss his dedication. We will miss also his detailed answers to questions. Sometimes his answers were a bit long, but I always admired the fact that there was an awful lot of meat in them. To my knowledge, in the 24 years I have been here the right honourable member for Murray has never said in reply to a question: ‘Put that question on the notice paper.’ That is something he has never done. He has tackled every question. Often he has flung the ball back with a lot more spin on it than it had when it was thrown to him. We appreciate these things. I trust that his retirement will be a constructive, happy and relaxed one. I think that he must have the constitution of an ox to endure the gruelling life of a parliamentarian for 36 years. It is the toughest life that can be endured by anybody in this country. He has survived it, and he has survived it fit and well. I trust that he will have years of relaxation in his retirement and that he and his wife will really learn to live now that he is leaving this place.

Recently after I had told a person, whom I had never seen before, that I was a member of Parliament and had given a brief outline of what a member of Parliament does, I was asked: ‘When are you going to get out of it and start living?’

Those words really hit me. I had never realised just what this life is like. We do not live; we exist. I hope that the right honourable member for Murray will start to live when he leaves this place.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Shipping and Transport (4.50 · New England · CP

– Very briefly I should like to be associated with the good wishes which have already been expressed, and in particular to say a few words in support of the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony). We think of the right honourable member for Murray (Mr McEwen) in 3 ways: Firstly as the Leader of the Australian Country Party, secondly as a statesman and thirdly as a man. As the third Leader of the Australian Country Party he has distinguished himself to the point where as the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party has said, the Party is now at its strongest numerical strength in both Houses of the Parliament. But this is not the only way in which John McEwen has led the Party. He has led it in strength and calibre and in the formation and formulation of policies of government. It is not only as a parliamentarian that he has distinguished himself. In other countries he is possibly the best known of all Australians.

The other thing that I particularly wanted to say is that those of us who think of John McEwen think of him as a man. He is a bonny fighter, as the honourable member for Grayndler has said, but he is a man of conviction and a man of compassion. Behind every man there is a woman. John McEwen came into this place as a dairy farmer, a soldier settler from Stanhope. He leaves here with much honour and distinction having contributed a great deal to the Parliament and to Australia. He leaves here with the woman who has been with him for many years, for a good part of his parliamentary life. John I should like to join all those others in wishing you well.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I should like to say a few words on behalf of the new members who came into this Parliament at the beginning of this year. When I was a young boy I remember seeing John McEwen stride across the political stage. I think that all of the newcomers to this Parliament feel a sense of privilege at having served, if only for a very short time, in the same House as the right honourable member. I am rather glad that it has been for only a year, because I can recall in one of the great debates that have taken place in this Parliament since I have been here - the off-shore oil debate or the Vietnam Moratorium debate - when he was thundering forth I almost slipped under the bench because of th: power of his oratory and the damage which I believed he was doing to the Parliament.

He is one of the few men to stride across the political stage who has risen almost above party politics, not in our eyes but certainly in the eyes of the Australian people. I have often been embarrassed at the number of times I hear, even at Labor Party meetings, of the high respect in which the right honourable member is held. On behalf of the newer members in this House, I thought that I should wish him well in his retirement.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Murray · CP

– Mr Speaker, let me first offer my good wishes to you and thank you for the manner in which you have discharged your duties. I should like to express the thanks of myself and my Party to all those whose work enables the Parliament to function. This is the most difficult speech I have ever made in my 36 years here and I think all my friends and colleagues knew that I hoped there would be no reference to myself and that I would be allowed to pass out quietly, but they would not have it. First of all, I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) very deeply for the words that he used in referring to myself and my service. I endorse completely and gladly your reference to the friendship that has developed between us and the relationship of mutual trust and respect without which a coalition government could not work, but which has developed between us and has enabled the coalition Government from that point on to work and to work successfully. I will always remember the tribute that you have paid to me.

I am most grateful to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) for the manner in which he has spoken. He is a bonny fighter himself and we have exchanged many verbal blows in all the years we have been in this place. He might think I am uninsurable but I felt some of the hits. The thing is not to disclose it. I do appreciate the tribute the honourable member has made. I accept the explanation for the unavoidable absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitiam). There is a relationship between myself and the Leader of the Opposition, and between my wife and the Leader of the Opposition, that is curious. When I first got a job in the Commonwealth Public Service at the age of 15 it was as a young clerk in the Crown Solicitor’s office and my boss was Gough Whitlam’s father, Fred Whitlam. And many years later when my wife, who was a stenographer in the Crown Law Department in Adelaide, came to Canberra Gough Whitlam’s father was her boss. On many occasions I have been to the home of the Whitlams senior. I have been unrestrained, as was my duty and as I conceived it to be, in hitting out at the Leader of the Opposition across the table in this place as the occasion required but I have always had a little notch in the back of my mind remembering that I was unfortunately hitting at the son of a man whom I had very greatly respected. Fred Whitlam was a man who enjoyed enormous respect.

My Deputy, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), has spoken most generously of me and spoken on behalf of our colleagues. And Doug, I cannot express how deeply I appreciate what you have said - very deeply do I appreciate it. I thank the other honourable members who have spoken. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) explained that he was glad to have been with me and more glad to see me go. I took that in good part. I treasure the remarks of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) who speaks always from his heart. He and I are close friends, have been for a long time and always will remain close friends. I thank you very much, Winton, for what you have said. To the Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), I say that I appreciated his remarks. He painted me in a very dark black - not in a light black, but in as dark a black as you could get. He turned back to the days when I sat on the other side in Opposition. I think what he said is true but I have no regrets. I thank the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) very much for his tribute and particularly, Ian, for your tribute to my wife. I thank the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) for the rather unique experience of a new member who knows little of me standing up and speaking as generously as he did.

To ruminate for a moment, I would like to say that it is a good thing to have something to guide you. I once had the privilege of talking to Winston Churchill and he said: ‘If you are going on a journey it is a good thing to have a map.’ It was another way of saying: ‘It is a good thing to know where you are going.’ I believe I have had a guiding star. I try to believe I have observed it. It is that the first thing always is the good of the country. The good of the country is at present tremendously important. The survival of the country in the long run is absolutely dominant over every other consideration and I believe this has never been out of my mind for one moment during my political life. It has given me a guiding star.

I have great devotion to my Party. I am tremendously proud of it and tremendously indebted to it. I have said before that all the opportunities I had arose because the Country Party allowed me to carry its brand. It was as a representative of the Country Party that I stood for Parliament, that I went into the Cabinet, that I am Deputy Prime Minister, and I am never unconscious of the fact that the Country Party is the basis of all that I am and have been. Of course, it has always been my duty and my privilege to work for the Government of which I am a member and it is quite a wonderful thing for any person to have the opportunity of being a member of a government and so have the opportunity to influence great events related to the well-being of the community or sectors of the community. Of course, I have carried the banner of the special interests and requirements of the rural industries but this has never been an exclusive responsibility; the whole well-being of the country has been in my mind at all times

I am an extraordinarily lucky person to be able to say that not only have I known but I have worked as a Cabinet Minister with Mr Joe Lyons who was himself a great man; with Menzies, whom we all know was and is a great man; with Harold Holt who was a charming man and a very, very solid citizen and Prime Minister. I have said, and I repeat, that I have the privilege of serving under and working with my coalition partner, the Prime Minister, in my own Party 1 have worked with a mass of good fellows over the years and I do not attempt to mention them all. But to have worked with Sir Earle Page in his earlier years was to work with a man who would bear comparison with any man in the public life of Australia. He contributed greatly to it. Many will remember Artie Fadden as a great man, a great parliamentarian and a great Leader of the Country Party. I have sat in Opposition in the House in the days of the Prime Ministership of John Curtin. I do speak and ever will speak with respect for John Curtin. He came to office as Prime Minister in the blackest days of the war. He had not the advantage of having been a Minister before. He had only one man in his whole Cabinet who had been a Minister before and he had to take up the responsibilities in an hour of black crisis. He did it and he did it well. I never hesitated to recount this. Chifley was a great man too and a great man to his party. I have seen a number of Leaders of the Opposition in my day. I go back to Jim Scullin who was a magnificent debater in this place. Curtin, as Leader of the Opposition, was a magnificent debater. Chifley, although not so articulate, was certainly a very powerful man. I remember Dr Evatt who wore himself out working for his Party and for the causes that he sponsored. Another leader of the Labor Party was Arthur Calwell, who is a man to be relied upon implicitly and who has followed the flag of the Labor Party with absolute devotion. And now I have been sitting with the present Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam.

Through all of this I have enjoyed a most wide experience. Difficulties: Yes - there have been very great difficulties. Opportunities: Yes - there have been very great opportunities. I do not propose to ruminate on those other than to say that in my view I am a very, very lucky man to have had the opportunities that I have had. I have been very lucky to have had the opportunity to take a part in doing things which, according to my light and judgment, I have thought to be right. All I want to say of my own efforts is that I have always put the best that I have into what I have done. In the course of this long life one makes many friends. I have many friends in my own Party and in the Party of our coalition partner. My friendships are not confined to this side of the House. I have had opportunities to enjoy friendships overseas which have arisen because of my political opportunities to travel as a Minister. Twenty-four years, 25 years - whatever it is - as a Minister is a long time and I confess that recently I have found the exacting duties and the sheer physical pressures of office increasingly onerous. But there it is: One works for the nation and works for his Party to the best of his ability.

I have worked in the field of overseas trade. I have availed myself of the opportunities I have had since 1956 of trying also to strengthen greatly the fabric of Australian manufacturing industry because here is a tremendous base of our strength - the base in which most employment is to be found and therefore the base upon which our immigration policy depends. I want to thank all of those with whom I have worked. Firstly, I thank my Cabinet colleagues. I could allow myself to start naming members of the Cabinet but I will not do so. I thank not only my Cabinet colleagues but all of the members of the Ministry. I have had great pleasure and satisfaction out of working with such fine colleagues. I have made a great many friends in my own Party of course. But enough of politics.

Before resuming my seat I would like to comment on the very generous things said of me by honourable members. No-one can work in the fields in which I have worked without valuable advisers. I have been extraordinarily fortunate in having the benefit of Sir Alan Westerman, at present the head of my Department, and before him Sir John Crawford. They are very, very great Australians; they are 2 very able and dedicated men. We who work hard in the political field like to feel that we are dedicated. I would like to put it on record that you find nowhere dedication of a greater degree than you find in the Commonwealth Public Service. I pay this tribute to those men and to the many other officers who have been my advisers through the years. May I offer a spot of advice to Ministers and those who may become Ministers: Whenever a man comes into my room for the first time to offer me advice I say: ‘If you do not tell me that I am wrong when you think I am wrong, you are no good to me as an adviser. You must press your point.’ In this way you get the benefit of the total strength of the Public Service.

Turning from the level of the great advisers, no busy Minister could carry out his duties without the benefit of a competent personal staff of secretaries and stenographers in his office. I pay a tribute to the very few people who over this long period of years have comprised my personal staff. They have served the country through me magnificently. Whatever I have been able to achieve I could not have achieved without that assistance.

In retirement it is my intention, of course, to observe the political scene with interest. Politics is so much in my blood that it would be impossible for me not to observe the scene with interest. But I have no intention ever to think of interfering in the scene or in my Party or any other Party. I have done my piece and I go away. However, this is not to say that if my advice is ever sought I will not give it. The best advice that I can give will be available. Now, like the Roman senator of old, Cincinnatus, I return to my Sabine farm.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would like to thank briefly the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) for the sentiments that they have expressed about me and the staff of the Parliament. I will be happy to pass on their expressions of appreciation. Might I also say on behalf of the Parliament and the staff of the Parliament that I am sure each and every one of us who has been associated with John McEwen wishes him and his good wife a very happy and long retirement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.13 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker.

page 3154

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Universities: Admissions to Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and Law (Question No. 340)

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

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

  1. The first table shows details for universities which have faculties of Medicine, Engineering and Law in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Because admissions to all universities in each of these cities are processed through a com mon admissions centre and each applicant may indicate a number of alternative choices, the figures indicate the number of qualified applicants who nominated medicine, engineering or law at the specified university, as their first preference. However, the students admitted to a particular faculty or university may not necessarily have been among those who expressed a first preference for the faculty and/or university concerned.

I should also mention that the numbers admitted frequently do not coincide with the quota figures shown in part (2) of the answer. The main reason is that many of the quotas apply to both new and repeating students while the figures for qualified applicants in the first table relate only to new students.

The number of students admitted may also exclude some who are not classified as ‘new’ under the Statistician’s definition. For example, while 108 students entered the Faculty of Law at Sydney University for the first time in 1970, other categories of students including ArtsIII/Law I students, graduates and repeating students increased this figure to approximately 270.

In respect of all other universities which have faculties of medicine, engineering and law, the following table shows the number of qualified applicants who were admitted into each of the faculties shown in the years 1966-1970 inclusive. No qualified applicants were excluded.

Underground Railways (Question No. 1447)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Does he know the nature and extent of assistance by the respective Federal Administrations for the construction of underground railways in Washington (including the adjacent areas of Maryland and Virginia) Bonn, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Stuttgart and Vienna.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

As detailed information on these projects is not held by my Department I have had some verbal inquiries made. I am told that the underground railways, which will be operated by city transport authorities in each case, have each received Federal assistance. Further, that this assistance is on the following basis:

Washington: Estimated cost of project $2249ro ($US2495m): Federal assistance $ 1034m ($US1147m) in form of grant.

Vienna: Estimated cost of project S179m (5,100 million Schillings): Federal assistance $84m (2,400 million Schillings) in the form of a loan repayable over 12 years.

The Federal Republic of West Germany: It is the general rule for the Federal Government to make a grant equal to 50 per cent of the ‘subsidisable cost’ of a project, and for the State to meet 30 per cent and the municipality 20 per cent of the ‘subsidisable cost’. The municipality also meets the ‘unsubsidisable cost’ which is between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the total cost.’

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 1468)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General since his answer to me on 7th April 1970 (Hansard, page 802).
  2. What matters were considered at these meetings in the attempt to secure uniform laws.
  3. What stage has now been reached in the attempt to secure uniform laws on the matters listed in his answer on 7th April 1970.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. Since 7th April 1970, the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General has met in the following places on the dates indicated:

Sydney- 9th and 10th July 1970

Sydney- 18th September 1970

Perth- 15th and 16th October 1970

  1. and (3) It would be inconsistent with the confidential nature of the discussions of the Standing Committee to provide a complete list of the matters considered by the Committee. The present position of the matters listed in my answer of 7th April 1970 (other than matters appearing from that answer to have been completed or removed from the agenda) is shown in the list set out below. No new subjects for uniform laws were discussed at the meetings held in July and October. The meeting on 18th September 1970 was a special one to consider the proposed legislation to remedy the situation arising from the decision of the High Court in Worthing v. Rowell and Muston Pty Ltd and others.

Foreign-owned Banks (Question No. 1483)

Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What foreign-owned banks are operating in Australia at present.
  2. What foreign-owned institutions or organisations, that could be broadly classified as merchant banks, are operating in Australia at present.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The following Banks, whose head offices are not in Australia, have authorities under the Banking Act 1959-1967 to carry on banking business in Australia:

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (came into operation on 1st October 1970 following the merger of Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited and The English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited).

Bank of China

Bank of New Zealand

Banque Nationale de Paris

  1. The term ‘merchant bank’ is commonly used in Australia to relate to companies undertaking a diversity of financial and commercial activities. Consequently there are difficulties in identifying companies of this type. The following companies in which overseas interests are reported to have majority shareholdings have been described in press reports and other public sources as merchant or investment banks. As the list has been compiled from public sources, it may not be exhaustive. Some of the companies are understood to carry on business outside Australia as well as in Australia:

ANZ Hambros Investment Services Ltd

Australian European Finance Corporation Ltd

Australian Finance and Investment Co. Ltd

Australian International Finance Corporation Ltd

Euro Pacific Corporation Ltd

Hill Samuel Australia Ltd

Intercontinental Banking Services Ltd

International Pacific Corporation Ltd

Martin Corporation Ltd

Merchant Bills Corporation Ltd

Partnership Pacific Ltd

Phillips-First City-Brandts Ltd

Ralli Australia Pty Ltd

Thomas Brown and Sons Ltd

Trans Australian Investment Trust

Westralian International Ltd

Australian Army: Repostings (Question No. 1760)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) officers and (b) men have been reposted within Australia in each of the past 5 years.
  2. How many (a) families and (b) children have been involved in these repostings in each of the past 5 years.
  3. What has been the cost of (a) furniture removals, (b) vehicle removals and (c) furniture storage for the same years.
  4. What disturbance allowance is paid to those reposted.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The following figures of all postings within Australia, and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea also include postings which have not involved a change in location:
  1. Whilst precise statistics of family involvement are not maintained, it is estimated that the numbers would be of the following order:
  1. Costs associated with removals:
  1. Disturbance allowance:

Crimes Act: Application to Foreign-born Australian Citizens (Question No. 1791)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Attorney-Gen eral, upon notice.:

  1. Are foreign born Australian citizens disadvantaged under Australian law as compared with locally born citizens.
  2. Are there special additional punishments applicable to foreign born citizens under certain sections of the Crimes Act; if so, are they acceptable in the interests of justice.
  3. If not, will he take steps to introduce appropriate amendments to the Act.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister for Immigration to question number 860 (Hansard 1st October 1970 at page 1991).
  2. In 1926 the Crimes Act was amended to provide in section 30l that the Attorney-General may by order under his hand direct any person to be deported from the Commonwealth who was not born in Australia and who is convicted of an offence under sections 30c 30j or 30q of the Act. Subsequent amendments of the Act have not affected the powers granted under this section.
  3. These provisions appear never to have been used and consideration will be given to amending the Crimes Act in this respect when the Act is next under review.

Australian National University Council (Question No. 1818)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What Statutes have been made by the Council of the Australian National University.
  2. When was each Statute (a) notified in the Gazette and (b) tabled in the Parliament.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) Australian National University Statutes made by Council and approved by Governor-General:

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 1878)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-Gen eral, upon notice:

When he furnishes an answer to question No. 1468 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 18th August concerning the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General, will he include information on the matters discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee in Sydney on 18th September.

Mr Hughes:
LP

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

See the answer to question No. 1468.

Australian Army: Membership of Political Parties (Question No. 1984)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Is there any rule of law or of practice in the Army that requires an officer to instruct a private to cease being a member of a political party.
  2. If so, will he describe and identify the rule.
  3. Is he in a position to state whether instructions have been given by an Army officer serving in Canberra to a private serving in his unit in Canberra that he should cease to be a member of the Australian Labor Party while he remains in the Army.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No. The military regulations relating to political activities by Regular soldiers are: Australian Military Regulation 210 which states in part -

An officer or soldier shall not -

  1. institute in any military premises; or

    1. when in uniform attend any meeting, demonstration or procession held for a political purpose’.

Australian Military Regulation 210a which states in part -

An officer or soldier of the Military Forces who is employed on continuous full time military service shall not take any active part in the affairs of any political or municipal organisation or party, either by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner’.

  1. I am unaware of any such instruction having been given.

Railways: Financial Statements (Question No. 2001)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what was the (a) value of assets, (b) outstanding debt, (c) amount of loan repayments, (d) amount of interest payments and (e) profit or loss for the year’s trading for each State rail system and the Commonwealth Railways as at 30th June in each of the past 10 years.
  2. In which years were freights and fares increased in respect of each system, and what was the amount of the increase in each case.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The detail requested is not recorded by my Department. However,I have had an examination made of annual reports of the railway systems and some information has been extracted. This information is set out below in schedules I and II, but it should be noted that there are substantial differences in accounting methods and terminology among the systems and a number of interpretations were necessary in compiling the table in schedule I. The most important of these are referred to at the foot of the schedule.

Child Endowment (Question No. 1812)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What would be the cost of increasing child endowment by $1 for each child.
  2. What is the present cost to revenue of income tax deductions allowed on account of (a) family allowances and (b) that part of the family allowance attributable to children.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The full-year cost in 1970-71 of increasing the weekly rates of child endowment by $1 per child is estimated to be $216m.

  2. The costs to income tax revenue of deductions allowable for the maintenance of dependants for the 1970-71 income year, at the rates of tax for the 1970-71 income year, are estimated to be as follows:

    1. all dependants$275m;
    2. dependent children $157m.

Tasmania: Transport (Question No. 2177)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

On what subjects and on what dates have Messrs Pak-Poy and Associates supplied reports on Tasmanian transport.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

In December 1968 Messrs Pak-Poy and Associates reported to the Tasmanian Government concerning the study they had been commissioned to undertake in relation to the Launceston metropolitan area. Iunderstand that they also recently presented a preliminary report on the first stage of a study of the State’s transportation system. In addition, I am told that the firm is currently engaged, in conjunction with the Tasmanian Public Works Department, in bringing up to date information in the 1964 Hobart Area Transportation Study, which was carried out by other consultants.

National Service Training (Question No. 2007)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. What has been the cost of national service training for each year during which the current scheme has been in operation.
  2. What percentage of Army expenditure did this cost represent for each of those years.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The cost of national service training and the percentage of Army expenditure this cost represents is set out below:

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 2019)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General upon notice:

When he furnishes answers to questions Nos 1468, 1676, 1732, 1878 and 2018 which I placed on the notice paper on 18th August, 3rd September, 16th September, 23rd September and 13th October, respectively, concerning the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral, will he include information on the matters discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee in Perth on 15th and 16th October.

Mr Hughes:
LP

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

See the answer to question No. 1468.

Immigration: New Zealand (Question No. 2022)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

When and where and on what grounds were applications lodged and decisions made concerning the entry of (a) the husband and (b) the wife whose cases were mentioned in the New Zealand House of Representatives on 8th July 1970 (New Zealand Hansard, page 1627).

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The husband did not have to apply for permission to enter Australia - see answer provided to Question No. 1121.
  2. The wife applied on 21st May 1970 to the Australian Trade Commissioner’s Office, Auckland, and on the same date entry was approved subject to satisfying medical requirements. Medical forms were provided to her on the same date but were not returned until 9th October. On 13th October she was asked to send her passport for endorsement with permission to enter Australia. On 16th October the passport was received, endorsed and returned to her.

Bunbury Harbour Works:

Employment of Aliens (Question No. 2056)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many South Koreans or other aliens were originally issued with permits to work on Bunbury Harbour Works.
  2. How many of these persons have now left Australia.
  3. Of the number of persons who left Australia, how many were replaced.
  4. How many additional permits have been granted since the dredge arrived in Bunbury.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Approval was granted in March, 1970, for the temporary admission of 10 South Koreans in connection with the Bunbury Harbour works. These included management personnel and specialists to prepare the dredge for operations.
  2. One member of this group has left Australia. He was the Branch Manager.
  3. One additional South Korean was admitted to take over the duties of Branch Manager.
  4. In June, 1970, approval was granted for the temporary entry of a further 10 South Korean specialists for employment on the dredge.

Migration: United Kingdom - Whyalla (Question No. 2082)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice:

Has he information which shows how many people from the United Kingdom have:

migrated to Whyalla and

left Whyalla to

settle in other parts of Australia and (if) return to the United Kingdom during each of the past 5 years.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Information is not available to indicate with accuracy the movement of British assisted migrants to and from Whyalla. It is estimated that in the 5 years to the end of June 1970 more than 10,600 British assisted migrants indicated upon arrival in Australia their intention to proceed to Whyalla.

No information is available on which to base an estimate of the number of departures from Whyalla in the same period.

It is estimated that the population of Whyalla has grown from 22,121 people at the time of the 1966 Census (of whom 5,500 stated they were born in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland and 3021 were born in other overseas countries) to approximately 28,900 at 30th June 1969. No estimates of the birthplace of the present population of Whyalla are available or are expected to be available before the next Census.

Rhodesia: Passports (Question No. 2122)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

On what dates did Mr Eric Butler, national director of the Australian League of Rights, obtain the passports on which he made theRhodesian visits about which I inquired on 10th March1966 (Hansard, page . 118) and 1st October , 1970 (page 1985).

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Mr Butler who is an Australian citizen resident in Victoria was issued with Australian passports in Melbourne on 15th June 1962 and 17th February 1967.

Civil Aviation: Charter Aircraft (Question No. 2127)

Mr Charles Jones:

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

  1. How many charter aircraft accidents occurred in each of the last 10 years.
  2. How many charter aircraft were registered in each of these years.
  3. How many (a) pilots and (b) passengers were (i) killed and (ii) injured in each year.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) The information required is contained in the following table:

General Aviation: Accidents (Question No. 2128)

Mr Charles Jones:

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

  1. How many general aviation accidents occurred in each of the last .10 years.
  2. How many general aviation aircraft were registered in each of these years.
  3. How many (a) pilots and (b) passengers were (i) killed and (ii) injured in each year.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The information required is contained in the following table;

Local Government Authorities (Question No. 2147)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

How many authorities in each State does- the Statistician now classify as local government authorities. (Hansard, 24th October 1967, page 2204 and 21st May 1969, page 2097).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The number of authorities in each State classified by the Commonwealth Statistician as local government authorities at 30th June 1970 was as follows:

Census: Life and Health Insurance (Question No. 2148)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the trial survey for the 1971 Census of Population and Housing conducted (a) in Sydney in July 1969 or (b) in Melbourne in April 1970 include a question whether a person is covered by life assurance on his own life, medical benefits and hospital benefits.
  2. Has this question been omitted from the schedule for the 1971 Census.
  3. If so, why.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. This question was one of several new Census questions which were tested in the Sydney trial survey of July 1969.

Subsequently it was decided to exclude this question and a number of other questions from the 1971 Census of Population and Housing schedule. It was appreciated that if these data were obtained from the Census it would serve a number of worthwhile purposes. However, it was considered that there should be limits to the amount and type of information sought in a Census.

In considering what new questions should be added to the 1971 Census Schedule, the Government was aware of the danger that the Census could become too great an imposition on the community and was conscious of the sensitivity of people to enquires about their private affairs.

Consequently, each of the questions proposed for inclusion in the Census was examined closely and special attention was given to the need to obtain a balance between government and private requirements for statistics in various fields and the degree of intrusion into the privacy of the individual.

It is considered that the questions to be asked in the 1971 Census provide such a balance.

Census: Pensions (Question No. 2149)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the trial survey for the 1971 Census of Population and Housing conducted (a) in Sydney in July 1969 or (b) in Melbourne in April 1970 include a question whether a person receives a pension and, if so, the type of pension.
  2. Has this question been omitted from the schedule for the 1971 Census.
  3. If so, why.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to question 2148.

Census: Housing Finance (Question No. 2151)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the trial survey for the 1971 Census of Population and Housing conducted (a) in Sydney in July 1969 or (b) in Melbourne in April 1970 include a question whether there is a mortgage (or contract of sale) on the dwelling and, if so, the type of institution holding the first mortgage and the size of monthly repayments made on the first and other mortgages.
  2. Has this question been omitted from the schedule for the 1971 Census.
  3. If so, why.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to question 2148.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 2161)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What ships have been built overseas for Australian owners in each of the last 5 years.
  2. In which country was each ship built.
  3. What was the tonnage in each case.
  4. Is he able to say who launched each ship.
  5. If so, has he any information as to whether the lady who launched each ship was the recipient of a gift; if so, what was the nature of the gift.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. to (4)-
  1. Neither I nor my Department has any knowledge of gifts exchanged between the lady launching a vessel and the company concerned.

Nationality Laws (Question No. 2180)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

Is he able to say whether naturalised Australian citizens from (a) Yugoslavia and (b) Greece are liable for national service when visiting their country of origin.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Whether a person loses the nationality of his country of origin upon acquiring Australian citizenship depends upon the nationality laws of that country.

The position under Yugoslav and Greek law is that Yugoslav and Greek nationals retain their nationality upon becoming Australian citizens. They therefore become what is known as ‘dual nationals’. In such cases the principle of master nationality applies, which means that when such a person is in the country of either nationality the nationality of that country predominates.

When an Australian citizen who is a dual national returns to the country of his other nationality his Australian citizenship may not exempt him from any obligations, such as military service, which he may have as a national of that country.

National Development (Question No. 1289)

Mr Stewart:

asked - the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Will he make available a copy of any statement which he, or his predecessor, has made on (a) the national integration and (b) utilisation of various fuel and energy sources.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

I assume that the honourable member wishes me to make available only statements which are not in Hansard.

A review has been made of all News Releases issued in the last 3 years; 73 of these were found to have some relevance to the exploration for, the supply of, or the demand for various energy sources in Australia.

Copies of the News Releases have been made available to the honourable member.

Housing: Ex-servicemen (Question No. 1414)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. On what occasions and with what result have discussions taken place with housing authorities in each State to ensure that on discharge a former serviceman is not at a disadvantage in comparison with civilians generally in seeking to purchase a housing authority dwelling.
  2. In how many cases in each State have request been (a) made and (b) granted for the State housing authority to make houses occupied by servicemen available for sale to them.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Such an approach was made to each State housing authority in November 1969. From the information then provided it appears that generally in each State servicemen have the same opportunity as civilians to apply for and purchase a State housing authority dwelling.
  2. I have taken this part of the question as referring to dwellings erected for allotment to serving members of the forces under the provisions of the 1956-1966 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements. A search of my Department’s records extending back to the 1st July 1956, i.e., the date of commencement of the 1956-1966 Agreement, reveals that requests have been made as follows with the results shown:

Victoria - Requests 10, granted 9

Queensland - Requests 1, granted 0.

Western Australia- Requests 31, granted 27.

Productivity Statistics (Question No. 2028)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What progress has the Statistician made on preparing statistics on productivity since his predecessor’s reply to me on 28th October 1963 (Hansard, page 2364).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

In a reply to the honourable member in Hansard on 16th November 1964 on this subject the then Treasurer advised as follows:

The Commonwealth Statistician informs me that because of the inherent shortcomings of such measures, and, to some extent because of data deficiencies, he does not envisage publishing an official statistical series purporting to measure labour productivity. Work is continuing on expanding and improving the data available in production and other series usually considered in studies of productivity.’

This continuing work has included the preparation and publication of estimates of gross national product at constant prices (rebased to 1966-67), of gross product by industry at constant prices, of indexes of factory production, of re-based series of numbers of wage and salary earners in employment, and of the Australian labour force.

In its submissions in recent National Wage Hearings the Commonwealth has provided estimates of the change in gross national product at constant prices per person at work. These estimates have been derived using gross national product at constant prices and employment figures from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. I refer the honourable member also to the answer to question No. 1821, Fart (1). asked by the member for Melbourne Ports which appeared in Hansard on 27th October 1970.

I am advised by the Statistician that he intends to examine during 1971 the desirability of compiling and publishing measures of change in product per unit of labour force, despite their significant conceptual limitations. This examination will be in the light of data developments, and of practices which have become conventional in many countries. It is proposed to consider together measures at the levels of major industries as well as that of gross national product It will be necessary to give attention to technical problems including some that arise from the changes and developments associated with the introduction (as from 1968-69) of the integrated economic censuses. The Statistician does not expect to resolve these matters until after the forthcoming rebasing of his factory production indexes as at 1968-69. This work is expected to be completed during the second half of 1971.

Superannuation Funds (Question No. 2088)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What progress has the Statistician made in collecting statistics on the total number and coverage of superannuation funds in Australia and on the number and occupation of contributors to them since his predecessor’s answer to me on 26th September 1969 (Hansard, page 2169).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that because of the many heavy demands on Bureau resources, it has not been possible to undertake any of the further developmental work required to obtain more complete and detailed statistics of superannuation funds and contributors.

Consideration was given to the inclusion of a question in the 1971 Census to obtain information on numbers of contributors. However, to lessen the burden on the public and to avoid intrusion into the privacy of individuals, the Government considered that it should not be added to the Census schedule on this occasion.

The position is therefore still as stated in my reply of 26th September 1969 to question number 1876.

Semi-Government Authorities (Question No. 2146)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up-to-date and consolidate the list of Authorities classified as semi-government authorities for national accounts purposes (Hansard, 14th May 1968, page 1426 and 10th September 1969, page 1140).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Acting Cmmonwealth Statistician has provided the following list of authorities classified as semi-government for national accounts purposes.

page 3169

COMMONWEALTH

Aboriginal Advancement Capital Fund

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission

Australian National University

Australian Shipbuilding Board

Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority

Australian Wool Board

Commonwealth Hostels

Commonwealth Serum Laboratores

Export Payments Insurance Corporation

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation

Joint Coal Board

Prisoner of War Trust Fund

Overseas Telecommunications Commission

Qantas Airways Limited

River Murray Commission

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority

Trans Australia Airlines

Commonwealth Banking Corporation and Reserve Bank of Australia

page 3169

TERRITORIES

Northern Territory Housing Commission

Northern Territory Port Authority

Commonwealth Brickworks

National Capital Development Commission

ACT Electricity Authority

Canberra Theatre Trust

page 3169

NEW SOUTH WALES

Board of Fire Commissioners of New South Wales

Electricity Commission of New South Wales

Broken Hill Water Board

Grain Elevators Board of New South Wales

Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board

Hunter District Water Board

Rural Bank of New South Wales (Government

Agency Department)

Metropolitan Meat Industry Authority

Housing Commission of New South Wales

Rural Bank of New South Wales

page 3169

VICTORIA

Ballarat Sewerage Authority

Ballarat Water Commissioners

Country Fire Authority

Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria

Geelong Harbour Trust

Grain Elevators Board

Housing Commission of Victoria

Lower Yarra Crossing Authority

Melbourne Harbour Trust

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works

Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board

Portland Harbour Trust

Rural Finance and Settlement Commission

State Electricity Commission of Victoria

Victorian Inland Meat Authority

Victorian Pipelines Commission

State Savings Bank of Victoria

page 3169

QUEENSLAND

Queensland Housing Commission

Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement

Queensland Ambulance Brigades

Queensland Hospitals Boards (Loan Funds)

Queensland Fire Brigades Boards

Cairns Regional Electricity Board

Capricornia Regional Electricity Board

Mackay Regional Electricity Board

Townsville Regional Electricity Board

Wide Bay-Burnett Regional Electricity Board

Northern Electric Authority of Queensland ‘

Southern Electric Authority of Queensland

Sugar Experiment Stations Board

Queensland State Government Insurance Office

Bowen Harbour Board

Bundaberg Harbour Board

Cairns Harbour Board

Gladstone Harbour Board

Mackay Harbour Board

Rockhampton Harbour Board

Central Western Regional Electricity Board

Townsville Harbour Board

The Fish Board (Qld)

The North Queensland Fish Board

page 3170

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Electricity Trust of South Australia

Fire Brigades Board

Municipal Tramways Trust

South Australian Housing Trust

Radium Hill Project

Leigh Creek Coal Fund

Lotteries Commission of South Australia

Natural Gas Pipelines Authority of South Australia

South Australian Metropolitan and Export Abattoirs Board

State Planning Authority

State Savings Bank of South Australia

State Bank of South Australia

page 3170

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Lotteries Commission

Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Board

Slate Electricity Commission of Western Australia

State Housing Commission

Western Australian Fire Brigades Board

State Government Insurance Office

Rural and Industries Bank of West Australia

page 3170

TASMANIA

Agricultural Bank:

Homes Act 1933

Closer Settlement Act (1957)

Closer Settlement Act (Soldiers Account) (1957)

War Service Land Settlement Act (1950)- State Funds

War Service Land Settlement Act (1950)- Commonwealth Funds

State Advances Act (1935)

State Advances Act (Rural Credits) (1935)

Re-establishment and Employment Act (1945) - Commonwealth Funds

Primary Producers’ Relief Act (1947)

Primary Producers’ Relief Act (1960)

Flood Relief Act (1960)

Primary Producers’ Relief Act (1962)

Housing Department (Homes Act, 1935)

Hydro-Electric Commission

Metropolitan Transport Trust

Metropolitan Water Board

Public Trustee

Tasmanian Racing Commission

Fire Brigades Commission

State Sinking Fund Commissioners

Flinders Island Abattoir Board

King Island Abattoir Board -

Tasmanian Government Insurance Office

Government Printing Office

Transport Commission

Tasmanian Grain Elevators Board

North Esk Regional Water Supply

Prosser River Water Supply

West Tamar Water Supply

Animals and Birds Protection Board

Burnie Marine Board

Circular Head Marine Board

Devonport Marine Board

Flinders Island Marine Board

Hobart Marine Board

King Island Marine Board

Launceston Marine Board

Smithton Harbour Trust

Strahan Marine Board

Ambulance Commission

Burnie and District Ambulance Board

Devponport and District Ambulance Board

Northern District Ambulance Board

Ambulance Board of Southern Tasmania

Navigation and Survey Authority

State Library

Rural Fires Board

Census: Superannuation (Question No. 2150)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the trial survey forthe 1971 Census of Population and Housing conducted (a) in Sydney in July 1969 or (b) in Melbourne in April 1970 include a question whether a person pays into a retirement benefit scheme such as superannuation, provident fund, annuity, etc.
  2. Has this question been omitted from the schedule for the 1971 Census.
  3. If so, why.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to question 2148.

Census: Transport to Work or School (Question No. 2152)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the trial survey for the 1971 Census of Population and Housing conducted (a) in Sydney in July 1969 and (b) in Melbourne in April 1970 include a question on the method of transport used by each person to get to work or school.
  2. Has this question been omitted from the schedule for the 1971 Census.
  3. If so, why.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to question 2148.

Papua and New Guinea Development Bank: Loans (Question No. 1735)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What was the number and amount of loans to (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates approved by the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank in 1969-70.
  2. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (i) employed and (ii) housed by the bank.
  3. What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average salaries and allowances paid by the bank to its (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate employees.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. Loans approved in 1969-70 were:
  1. Employment and housing as at 30th June 1970:
  1. Salary rates are the same for both indigenous and expatriate officers occupying similar positions. However, expatriate officers receive an overseas allowance to bring their remuneration to a level comparable with that payable for corresponding kinds of work in Australia plus a Territory allowance.

Salaries and allowances paid to indigenous and expatriate officers as at 30th June 1970 were:

Papua and New Guinea: Compensation Payment (Question No. 1963)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Why was the widow of a New Guinean worker (a) offered and (b) permitted to accept an amount of compensation that was less than the prescribed amount, as stated in his answer to question No. 1279 (Hansard, 19th August 1970, page 212).
  2. Did the Administration offer to provide legal representation to this widow in order that she could test her legal entitlement to a higher amount.
  3. What was the amount of compensation paid to the widow.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Labour in the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Labour has provided the following information:

(a) The offer was made by the insurance company without admission of liability on the basis that if the full amount was sought, they would contest liability,

The question of ‘permitting’ the widow to accept does not arise. The offer of the insurance company was put before the widow by her legal adviser together with his advice, and it was accepted by her.

There was no power in any person other than the claimant to accept or reject an offer of settlement.

The widow was represented by the Public Solicitor and had she wished she could have refused the offer and contested the matter in court.

One thousand dollars.

Repatriation Boards (Question No. 2187)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Repatria tion, upon notice:

  1. Is there a Repatriation Board in each State.
  2. If so, who are the members of the board in New South Wales.
  3. Should members of the board sit as a group when examining cases.
  4. If so, have there been any occasions when cases have been dealt with by individual members only, and, if there have, what were the reasons for doing so.
Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. D. J. W. Smith, Chairman; D. McNab and W. M. Brunsdon, members.
  3. and (4) I am informed that a Board cannot and docs not sit to determine claims unless at least two members are present, this being the number required under the Act to constitute a quorum and each of the members present signs the record of the decision.

Industrial Conditions (Question No. 772)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Do any awards or industrial agreements in the Commonwealth provide for (a) double lime for day-workers after two hours overtime, (b) normal overtime rates for unrelieved shift-workers, (c) double time for shift-workers when Sundays and/or public holidays fall on an ordinary rostered shift, (d) meal allowances to all employees required to work overtime or (e) payment for public holidays which fall on a shift-workers’ rostered day off.
  2. If so, which awards or industrial agreements make provision for any one of the conditions listed above.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The information which has been collated for the honourable member is too lengthy and complex to be published in

Hansard. Copies are available at the Table Office of the House of Representatives.

Electoral: First-past-the-post System (Question No. 1680) Mr Daly asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Is he able to say in which countries Parliamentary elections are conducted under the first-past-the-post system of voting.

If so, which are they.

If the information is not on hand, will he endeavour to obtain it as soon as possible.

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

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). The following particulars have been furnished by courtesy of the National Librarian.

Countries in which elections for the Central Parliament are conducted under the firstpastthepost system of voting:

Royal Australian Air Force: Repostings (Question No. 1761)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. How many (a) officers and (b) men have been reposted within Australia in each of the past 5 years.
  2. How many (a) families and (b) children have been involved in these repostings in each of the past 5 years.
  3. What has been the cost of (a) furniture removals, (b) vehicle removals and (c) furniture storage for the same years.
  4. What disturbance allowance is paid to those reposted.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Male officer and airmen postings within Australia during the period concerned, are as follows:
  1. The assessed number of families and children involved in the above postings are:

(3)

Precise costs of vehicle removals are not available. In general, separate specific transportation costs are only paid where the movement on posting exceeds 1,000 miles. In these instances the cost is inseparable from the general removal charges. For movements less than 1,000 miles, members are paid a mileage rate. These costs which have only been segregated from normal travelling allowance costs since 1968-69 are:

  1. The current rates of disturbance allowance are:

    1. where a married member occupies furnished accommodation at the locality of his new posting, disturbance allowance is $50 for each removal.
    2. where a married member occupies unfurnished accommodation in the locality of his posting and his furniture and effects are removed to such premises at public expense:
  1. where an unmarried member has been granted a removal at public expense:
  1. where a member initially occupies furnished accommodation and then subsequently unfurnished accommodation in the locality of his posting, the total disturbance allowance received does not exceed the rate applicable to unfurnished accommodation.

Northern Territory: Mining Leases and Pastoral Holdings (Question No. 1772)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. In respect of each mining lease and pastoral holding held in the Northern Territory by overseas controlled companies, what are the conditions of the lease or holding and what is the (a) area of land leased or held, (b) stated purpose of the lease or holding and (c) expiry date.
  2. What proportion of (a) pastoral holdings and (b) mining leases in the Northern Territory are held by overseas controlled companies.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Each mining lease in the Northern Territory, whether held by overseas controlled companies or otherwise, is subject to basic covenants and conditions set out in the Mining Ordinance, including covenants to pay rent and royalties, to use the land continuously and bona fide for the purpose for which it is leased, not to assign or underlet without the consent of the Administrator. All mining leases are subject to covenants and conditions requiring the working of the lease, the protection of Aboriginal rights, restoration of land and such special conditions as are deemed necessary. Pastoral leases are similarly subject to basic covenants and reservations set out in the Crown Lands Ordinance, including reservations of entry and inspection, reservations of all minerals, reservation of a power of resumption, reservation of timber, reservations in favour of Aboriginal inhabitants of the Northern Territory, covenants to pay rent, to use the land for the purpose for which it is leased, to stock the land in accordance with the provisions of the lease, to destroy vermin and noxious weeds, to allow free passage of travelling stock, to avoid pollution of streams and water channels. The Administrator may impose such additional conditions as are considered necessary in particular cases.

Special mineral leases which are granted by the Minister under Division 2a of the Mining Ordinance are subject to the provisions of the

Ordinance and contain such conditions as the Minister determines.

Individual title documents may be inspected at the offices of the Mining Registrar and Registrar of Titles in Darwin. (a), (b) and (c) See table attached.

  1. (a) Twenty per cent of total leases, (b) Seven per cent of total leases.

Australian Capital Territory: Population (Question No. 2062)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the population of the Australian Capita] Territory is increasing at about 9 per cent per annum compound.
  2. Did he state on 20th August 1970 that the Government believed that we may well have reached the time when there h need for extra representation for the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. If so, is the Government taking any steps or making any preparation to create a second seat for the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives.
  4. If steps are being taken what are they.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the population of the Australian Capital Territory increased from 86,300 (approximately) at 30th March 1965 to 130,600 (approximately) at 30th March 1970 which represents an increase of 8.64 per cent per annum compound.
  2. During the debate on the Territory Senators Bill on 20th August 1970, 1 said, in part:

Certainly when one has regard to the rapidly expanding electoral population of the Australian Capital Territory it appears that the time is fast approaching when some additional representation for this Territory may be justified on the basis of the number of electors involved.’

  1. and (4) The matter is under review.

Paramedical Services: Victoria (Question No. 2154)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has Victoria given notice since his answer on 16th April 1970 (Hansard, page 1314) that lt intends to seek financial assistance under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969; if so, when did it do so.
  2. How much assistance has each State received under the Act.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No State has yet received financial assistance under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969.

However, a scheme for the provision of a paramedical service at Murray Bridge in South Australia has been approved for subsidy under the Act and it is expected that a claim in respect of this scheme will be made during the current financial year. A proposal concerning another paramedical scheme in South Australia based on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital has been submitted to me for approval and is presently being examined. Other schemes are also under consideration by the State authorities in South Australia and Tasmania.

Incident at Yugoslav Consulate, Melbourne (Question No. 2174)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

To what extent and by whom will the neighbouring property owners be recompensed for the damages they suffered in the attack on the Yugoslav Consulate in Melbourne on 21st October 1970.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I am not aware that any claims have been made by the property owners concerned, nor am I in possession of the particulars of possible insurance policies that the owners may have.

Rhodesia: Air Travel and Advertising Services (Question No. 2176)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

What did he ascertain, as a result of the inquiries be promised on 3rd June 1970 (Hansard page 2797) about:

the sale of tickets to Rhodesia al South African Airways offices in Australia, and

advertising in Rhodesia.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

South African Airways offices in Australia have discontinued the sale of tickets to Rhodesia.

Although Qantas has, in the past, placed advertisements in Rhodesian newspapers and magazines as part of its general overseas advertising programme, this practice has now ceased.

Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 1454)

Mr Whitlam:

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

On what dates and for what routes has TransAustralia Airlines sought and been granted or refused a licence since his predecessor’s answer to me on 26th September 1969 (Hansard page 2135).

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Details of licence applications made by TransAustralia Airlines since 26th September 1969 and the results of the applications are as follows:

Qantas: Passport Examination (Question No. 1108)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. In what circumstances does Qantas require a passenger to produce his passport.
  2. In how many cases has Qantas accepted Rhodesian passports since the Southern Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
  3. If Qantas no longer accepts Rhodesian passports, when did it cease to accept them.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Passport and other checks by Qantas officers are necessarily made when carriage is requested on Qantas by a passenger proceeding to a country which imposes responsibility on the air carrier for examining the authenticity of the documentation carried by that passenger. Qantas’ conditions of carriage provide that a passenger shall comply with all the passenger clearance requirements of the Governments of countries into and over which the airline flies and that a passenger must present for examination all exit, entry and other documents required by Governments.
  2. As Qantas does not maintain records by nationality of the number of passengers ticketted the number of Rhodesian passports presented to Qantas officers is unknown. However following adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 253 of 1968 action was taken by Qantas officers to comply with the terms of the resolution.
  3. As indicated in the answer to Question (1), Qantas refuses to cany passengers who cannot produce the documentation required by the Government of the country in which the passenger is intending to disembark. It is this criterion which determines whether Qantas will cany a passenger who produces a Rhodesian or any other passport.

Civil Aviation: Perth-Sydney Flights (Question No. 1659)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Did Trans-Australia Airlines flight 592 fly direct to Perth from Sydney on Friday 21st and Friday 28th August, 1970: if not, why not.
  2. Did Ansett Airlines flight 220 fly direct to Perth from Sydney on Friday 21st and Friday 28th August, 1970: if not, why not.
  3. If the direct flights did not take place, to which airports were they diverted, and how late were they in arriving at Perth.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (3) TAA flight 592 did not operate on 21st August due to a specially revised programme of flights to cater for the school holiday traffic. It operated on 28th August with 50 passengers from Sydney. Because flight 516 became unserviceable in Adelaide it was diverted into Adelaide to pick up passengers. It arrived in Perth 2 hours 7 minutes late.
  2. and (3) Ansett Airlines flight 220 did not fly direct to Perth from Sydney on 21st or 28th August. On both flights it was necessary, due to weather, to land at Adelaide en route to uplift fuel. Flight 220 arrived in Perth at 0138 hours on 22nd August and at 0025 hours on 29th August.

Civil Aviation: Perth-Melbourne Flights (Question No. 1(60)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Did Trans-Australia Airlines flight 516 fly direct to Perth from Melbourne on Friday 21st and Friday 28th August, 1970: If not, why not.
  2. Did Ansett Airlines flight 222 fly direct te

Perth from Melbourne on Friday 21st and Friday 28th August, 1970: If not, why not.

  1. If the direct Sights did not take place, how late were they in arriving at Perth.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (3) TAA flight S16 was scheduled direct from Melbourne to Perth on 21st and 28th August but on each occasion was required to land at Adelaide for fuelling because of weather conditions.

On 21st August the flight departed Melbourne 85 minutes late due to accumulated delays resulting mainly from a one hour mechanical delay in the morning. This, together with the fuelling stop in Adelaide, delayed the arrival in Perth by 2 hours and 27 minutes.

On 28th August, flight 516 was unable to depart from Adelaide because of instrument trouble and an unserviceable trim brake. Some of the passengers were carried on flight 592 which arrived in Perth 2 hours 7 minutes late. The balance of passengers were carried on flight 522 which reached Perth at 1.20 a.m.

  1. and (3) Ansett Airlines flight 222 did not fly direct from Melbourne to Perth on either Mat or 28lh August. Calls were made at Adelaide for fuel because of weather conditions, Flight 222 arrived in Perth at 0127 hours on 22nd August and at 2359 hours on 28th August.

Trans-Australia Airlines: Melbourne-Perth Flights (Question No. 1663)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. At what time was it first known that TransAustralia Airlines Flight 516 -from Melbourne to Perth on Friday, 21st August 1970, would be delayed out of Melbourne.
  2. Was it known before Flight 508 left for Adelaide that Flight 516 would be delayed. If so, was an attempt made to transfer passengers from Flight 516 to Flight 598 to give them an opportunity of boarding Flight 552 at Adelaide.
  3. If passengers were transferred to Flight 508, how many were transferred.
  4. If no passengers were transferred, why not.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) It became apparent at about 5.30 p.m. on 21st August that Flight 516 would be delayed by approximately 1 hour. As Flight 508 was scheduled 2 hours 5 minutes earlier than Flight 516 and was fully booked, no benefit would have resulted from contracting passengers booked on Flight 516. In addition. Flight 522 to which Flight 508 waa a connection was also fully booked and both departed with full passenger loads.

Trans-Australia Airlines: Delayed Flight (Question No. 1664)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Was Trans-Australia Airlines flight 516 delayed in Adelaide on the night of Friday, 28th August 1970; if so, for how long.
  2. Were any passengers on flight 516 transferred to flight 522.
  3. If so, how many were transferred.
  4. If no passengers were transferred, why not.
  5. Was flight 522 fully booked at the time it was first established that the aircraft scheduled for flight 516 was unserviceable.
  6. If not at what time were bookings completed for flight 522.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Flight 516 was unable to depart Adelaide on 28th August because of instrument trouble and an unserviceable trim brake.
  2. Yes, all passengers from flight 516 were accommodated on either flight 522 or flight 592.
  3. and (4) Fifty-six passengers were transferred to flight 522, and 49 to flight 592.
  4. No. At the time when it became known that flight 516 was unserviceable there were approximately 50 passengers booked on the AdelaidePerth stage of flight 522.
  5. Flight 522 became fully booked at Adelaide when 56 passengers were re-booked on this flight from flight 516 which became unserviceable at Adelaide at about 9.30 p.m.

Trans-Australia Airlines: Delayed Flights (Question No. 1665)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Was Trans-Australia Airlines flight 516 delayed in Melbourne for some considerable time on the night of Friday 21st August, 1970.
  2. If so, was the particular aircraft scheduled to make this flight grounded for the whole of the time the flight was delayed: If not, was it in service flying passengers elsewhere.
  3. If this aircraft was in service elsewhere, between which airports were passengers being flown and what priority did these passengers have over those who were flying to Perth.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Flight 516 was delayed 85 minutes in Melbourne.
  2. and (3) The aircraft in question was subject to a delay of 63 minutes for mechanical reasons prior to operating flight 512 on the same day. This initial delay, with other minor delays during the day, resulted in the increased delay to 85 minutes. The aircraft was not deployed elsewhere at the expense of the Perth service.

Civil Aviation: Flight Schedules (Question No. 1702)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. What discussions have taken place over the last 5 years in an endeavour to eliminate the duplication or near duplication of arrival and departure times by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines passenger aircraft at major airports in Australia.
  2. What were the results of those discussions in each instance.
  3. Is the matter currently under examination.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Useful discussions have taken place between TAA and Ansett Airlines before any proposed major schedule changes. These major changes take place regularly throughout each year at the following times - April, July, October and November. The airlines are aware of the desirability, in the public interest, to spread timetables. They attempt to obtain the best spread of timetables consistent with the practicalities and economics of airline operations.
  2. There has been a progressive movement away from parallel timetables over the last few years. Especially on routes with low frequencies, every effort has been made to ensure a maximum spread of the services between the two operators. This spread has been sought during the day and over the days of the week. On high density routes, such as Melbourne to Sydney, the number of services has been high enough in itself to give a wide choice of times throughout the day to the traveller. Nevertheless further spreading is sought.
  3. Yes. This subject is one that is under continuous examination by the airlines, also between the Department of Civil Aviation and the airlines. This examination is directed towards the increased spreading of timetables wherever possible.

Sydney Airport: Departure During Curfew Hours (Question No. 1797)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. Did any jet flight take place over the vicinity of Annandale in the Federal Electoral Division of Grayndler during the curfew hours on Monday, 17th August 1970, at approximately 12.50 a.m.
  2. If so, what special circumstances operated for permission to be granted for this flight
  3. Did any jet flights take place over the same area in curfew hours between 11 p.m. on Wednesday, 12th August 1970, and 6 a.m. on Saturday, 16th August 1970. (4)If so, what exceptional circumstances necessitated the flights.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. A Qantas B707, Flight QF641 departed Sydney Airport for Perth and South Africa at 12.48 a.m. towards the north using Runway 34.
  2. This aircraft was delayed beyond its original schedule of 10.45 p.m. due to a double engine change and a last minute electrical defect prior to leaving the hangar. When the delay became apparent Qantas sought and obtained a clearance from the Airport Director for a departure up to 11.59 p.m. Subsequently this was amended to 12.30 a.m. in the light of a further delay prior to positioning the aircraft at the terminal. The approvals were on the basis of the aircraft using the southern runway (16) for departure over Botany Bay. Doppler navigation requirements peculiar to the Wallaby Route prevented an aircraft substitution without incurring a further delay to the service. Had dispensation not been grunted the flight would have incurred approximately 7 hours additional delay through to Johannesberg and the return flight Johannesberg-Sydney would have incurred a similar delay. At 12.20 a.m. the wind changed to 325°/10-12 knots necessitating a departure towards the north.
  3. and (4) There is no record of jet flights over the Annandale area in the curfew hours between 11 p.m. on 12th August and 6 a.m. on16th August 1970. There were 6 jet departures which used Runway 16 towards the south over Botany Bay and 2 jet arrivals that approached from the south over Botany Bay to land on Runway 34 as follows: 12th August - 11.20 p.m. departure, Qantas B707

Flight QF177 scheduled doors close and taxy 11 p.m. 11.22 p.m. departure, Qantas B707 Flight QF641 scheduled doors close and taxy 10.45 p.m. 11.37 p.m. departure, Qantas B707 Flight QF272 scheduled doors close and taxy 1 1, p.m. 11.45 p.m. departure, BOAC VC10 Flight BA802. This aircraft had been delayed in Hong Kong on the inbound flight to Australia due to a radar malfunction and a crew rest, and its late departure from Sydney was approved by the Airport Director. Its normal schedule out of Sydney was 11.45 a.m.. 12 hours earlier. 14th August - 11.02 p.m. arrival Ansett B727 VH-RMR Flight 49 was a school holiday special approved by the Minister. 11.30 p.m. departure, Qantas B707 Flight QF272 normal schedule11 p.m. had arrived late from Melbourne. 11.59 p.m. arrival, Qantas B707 Flight QF879 had been delayed by industrial problems and its flight was approved by the Airport Director. 16th August - 2.21 a.m. departure TAA B727 Flight 1369 was a school holiday special approved by the Minister.

Sydney Airport: Towra Point Development (Question No. 1918)

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Avia tion, upon notice:

  1. When was Towra Point first considered for development as an extension to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.
  2. Did the Prime Minister announce that Towra Point was no longer under consideration. If so, when.
  3. What reason was given by the Prime Minister for excluding Towra Point from consideration.
  4. When was it announced in the Parliament that parallel runways would be constructed at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.
  5. When will these runways be constructed and what is the estimated cost of each.
  6. At what distance from the existing runways will the parallel runways be constructed.
  7. What properly or land will need to be acquired for the construction of these runways.
  8. Will the residents in the Botany and Randwick Municipalities suffer an increase in the jet noise burden by the construction of these runways.
  9. Were the details and diagrams of the parallel runways tabled in the Parliament. If so, when.
  10. Did the Noise Exposure Forecast for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport exclude consideration of the parallel runways configuration, If so, why.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil

Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The development of Town Point as an airport had been kept under review from 1945 to 1969.
  2. Yes, in March 1969.
  3. Community noise problems.
  4. Tentative plans for parallel runways were brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works when it was considering the International Terminal Building project in 1965. They are mentioned in the Standing Committee’s report to Parliament dated 21st September, 1965.
  5. , (6) and (7) Alternative proposals for parallel runways are currently under study and it is too early to finally determine their layout in relation to the existing runways, the time of their construction, and the cost
  6. The traffic at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is increasing and is expected to do so for a number of years. Special endeavours are made to keep the noise disturbance from aircraft operations in areas adjacent to the airport, including Botany and Randwick Municipalities, to a minimum. Some increase in noise occurs with increasing traffic. New types of aircraft will be required to comply with noise standards which will effectively reduce the noise these aircraft create, and this should gradually effect a reduction in noise disturbance in the longer term.
  7. Please see answer (4) above.
  8. No, but the appropriate Noise Exposure Forecast will be taken into account when considering the parallel runway project.

Civil Aviation: Second Airport for Sydney (Question No. 1925)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Will the report of the inter-departmental committee concerning the establishment of a second airport for Sydney be tabled in the House or released publicly so that its findings may be scrutinised.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

As has been previously indicated to the honourable member in answer to earlier questions in the House, the report of the inter-departmental committee will be referred to the Government.

Following its consideration by the Government, 1 expect a statement will be made, but it is unlikely that the report will be tabled in the House or made public.

The Minister for Civil Aviation has also previously indicated that it is his intention to set up consultation with the State Government before a final choice of a site is made for a second airport for Sydney.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 1996)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the firm of Ampol Petroleum Ltd in recent years placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board for the construction of a tanker for the carriage of petroleum products on the Australian coast.
  2. If so, when was the order placed with the Australian Shipbuilding Board.
  3. When were tenders called.
  4. When was the order placed with a shipyard.
  5. Which shipyard was used.
  6. What is the tonnage of the tanker and the cost to the owner.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the hon.nourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Ampol Petroleum Ltd placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board for ‘P. J.

Adams’ in March 1957. The company placed on order with the Board for a second tanker on 3’lst August 1967.

  1. Tenders were called in May 1957 for ‘P. J. Adams’ on 29th January 1970 for the second tanker.
  2. The Australian Shipbuilding Board placed an order with the shipyard for ‘P. J. Adams’ in March 1958. The Board has not yet placed an order with a shipyard for the second tanker.
  3. ‘P. J. Adams’ was built at Whyalla.
  4. At the time of construction the capacity of the ‘P. J. Adams’ was 33,000 deadweight tons. This vessel has since been ‘jumboized’ and its capacity is now 55,000 deadweight tons. The original cost to the owner was $6.8 million. The capacity of the second tanker will be about 23,400 deadweight tons but its cost has not been determined at this stage.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 1997)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the firm Howard Smith Ltd in recent years placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board for the construction of a tanker for the carriage of petroleum products on the Australian coast.
  2. If so, when was the order placed with the Australian Shipbuilding Board.
  3. When were tenders called.
  4. When was the order placed with a shipyard.
  5. Which shipyard was used.
  6. What is the tonnage of the tanker and the cost to the owner.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Howard Smith Ltd placed an order for an oil bulk ore carrier with the Australian Shipbuilding Board on 25th August 1970.
  3. Tenders have not yet been called.
  4. The Australian Shipbuilding Board has not yet placed an order with a shipyard.
  5. See (4).
  6. The vessel is expected to be about 83,000 deadweight tons and the cost to the owner has not been determined at this stage.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 1998)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd in recent years placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board for the construction of a tanker for the carriage of petroleum products on the Australian coast.

    1. Ii so, when was the order placed wilh the Australian Shipbuilding Board.
    2. When were tenders called.
    3. When was an order placed with a shipyard.
    4. Which shipyard was used.
    5. What is the tonnage of the tanker and the cost to_ the owner.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Shell Co. of Australia placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board for ‘Cellana’ on 9th October 1963. The Company was given approval to import a 72,000 d.w.t. tanker on 25th May 1969 on condition that an order for replacement was made within 3 years of date of importation. It placed an order with the Board for a large crude oil tanker on 2nd September 1970.
  3. Tenders for ‘Cellana’ were called on 10th September 1965 but have not yet been called for the crude oil tanker.
  4. The Australian Shipbuilding Board placed an order with the shipyard for ‘Cellana’ on 15th August 1966.
  5. ‘Cellana’ was built at Whyalla.
  6. The ‘Cellana’ is 22,000 deadweight tons and cost the owner $5.2m. The crude oil tanker will be about 72,000 deadweight tons and the cost to the owner has not been determined al this stage.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 1999)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Have the firms of Caltex Oil (Australia) Ply Ltd and H. C. Sleigh Ltd in recent years placed an order wilh the Australian Shipbuilding Board for the construction of a tanker for the carriage of petroleum products on the Australian coast.
  2. If so, when was the order placed with the Australian Shipbuilding Board.
  3. When were tenders called.
  4. When was the order placed with a shipyard.
  5. Which shipyard was used.
  6. What is the tonnage of the tanker and the cost to the owner.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Botany Bay Tanker Co. Ltd, an Australian registered company formed jointly by the overseas oil company Caltex Oil Australia Pty Ltd and the Australian public company H. C. Sleigh Ltd, placed an order with the Australian Shipbuilding Board on 18th December 1969.
  2. Tenders were called on 14th August 1970.
  3. The Australian Shipbuilding Board has not yet placed an order with a shipyard.
  4. See (4).
  5. The tanker will be about 62,000 deadweight tons and the cost to the owner has not been determined at this stage.

Housing (Question No. 2075)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

How many bornes have been built in each Stale in each year as a result of the Commonwealth’s offer of a grant of $25m over 5 years to build nursing borne accommodation for the frail aged.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. assume that the honourable member refers to the Commonwealth offer of financial assistance to the Slates under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969 whereby matching grants totalling $5m are available to the States over the fiveyear period to 30th June 1974 in respect of approved expenditure for the .provision of nursing home accommodation for aged persons of limited means.

Expenditure for the erection of two nursing homes in Western Australia and three in Queensland has so far been approved for Commonwealth financial assistance under the Act.

Tasmania has submitted for approval a project for the erection of a nursing home complex at Hobart. The project which is due to commence in the first half of 1971 is presently under consideration.

Immigration: Assisted Passages (Question No. 2079)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many elderly people have migrated from England on assisted passages in the last 3 years.
  2. How many have returned to England in that period.
  3. Are English migrants the only migrants who have to reimburse the Australian Government if they return to England within 2 years.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The number of elderly persons arriving in the last 3 years under United Kingdom Assisted Passage Scheme was as follows:
  1. This information is not available as departure statistics do not show which were assisted migrants; whether the persons concerned were aged 65 or mare when they first came here; or how long they had lived here.

However, the number of elderly former settlers departing permanently, who stated their country of intended residence as the United Kingdom or Ireland, was as follows:

  1. No. Under all of the assisted passage schemes assisted migrants undertake to repay the amount incurred by the Australian Government for passage costs if they leave Australia within 2 years of arrival.

Shipping: Sydney-Darwin Costs (Question No. 2124)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Have shipping costs from Sydney to Darwin doubled in the past month.
  2. If so, is this due to the introduction of container vessels.
  3. Is it a fact that conventional ships previously carried cargo at half the cost of container ships.
  4. If so, will he inquire into this undesirable development in shipping costs.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Shipping costs have not doubled. The seafreight representing the gross return to the ship, in the case of less than container loads, has increased by 12i per cent. The depot-to-depot rate embodies charges, at cost, payable to wharf authorities and for off-wharf transport and depot ser-vices.
  2. No. A substantia] increase, well in excess of present container rates, would have been necessary in order to overcome the consistent and heavy annual losses incurred if conventional tonnage had remained in the trade. Port authority charges on container cargoes have markedly contributed to the present level of costs.
  3. No.
  4. Officers of both the Australian National Line and my Department have conducted a close investigation into total distribution costs arising from the shipping service preliminary to my making a further visit to Darwin.

Education: Teachers (Question No. 2134)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time technical teachers are employed by education departments in each State and in each Commonwealth Territory.
  2. Of the part-time teachers (a) how many have and (b) what percentage has received the equivalent of at least (i) 3 months, (ii) 6 months and (iii) one year full-time professional teacher training.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Information on numbers of technical teachers employed by education departments in the States is available, I believe, in published reports of State education and technical education departments, to which the honourable member may wish to refer. Details in respect of technical teachers employed either by the Commonwealth or the State departments in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory as at October 1970 are as follows:

The 28 part-time teachers in the Northern Territory are those in the Adult Education Centre who teach technical subjects.

  1. The information requested on the extent of professional training received by part-time technical teachers in the States and Territories is not readily available.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 2153)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Which States have made claims for financial assistance under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969.
  2. When did each State claim assistance.
  3. How much assistance has each State received.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) No States have yet submitted formal claims for payment of Commonwealth financial assistance under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969.

However, it is expected that claims will be received during the current financial year in respect of nursing homes to be erected at Redcliffe, Rockhampton and Townsville in Queensland and at Albany and Bunbury in Western Australia, all of which have been approved for Commonwealth financial assistance under the Act

The Queensland projects are estimated to cost $650,000 and this amount, if fully expended, would attract Commonwealth assistance of $323,000. In Western Australia the estimated cost is $773,500. Expenditure of this amount would attract that States maximum entitlement of $381,000 under the Act

An application has been received for approval of erection of additional nursing home beds at Hobart and is at present being examined.

Australians Travelling to New Zealand: Visas (Question No. 2181)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that naturalised Australian citizens require a visa to enter New Zealand whilst British born Australians do not.
  2. Can he say whether this discrimination applies in any other country.
  3. Will the Government make representations to the New Zealand Government with a view to stopping this discrimination.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. No. Neither Australian citizens by birth nor by naturalisation require visas (or passports) to travel from Australia to New Zealand.

However, Australian citizens by naturalisation may on arrival in New Zealand, or subsequently, be asked to confirm their citizenship and it is advisable that they carry appropriate evidence of it

In this regard miniature declaratory certificates of citizenship are available from the Department of Immigration.

  1. and
  2. See answer to (1).

State Primary Schools: Libraries (Question No. 2182)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is there evidence to show that library resources available to State primary schools are often of an extremely limited and inadequate nature.
  2. Has consideration been given to extending the library grants scheme to primary schools.
  3. If not, will he arrange for a study to be undertaken to ascertain if an extension of the scheme is desirable.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). The Commonwealth’s unmatched capital grants for libraries in both government and non-government secondary schools are directed to the area of greater need requiring the greater expenditure per student. The requirements for library resources in primary schools is one of the matters taken into account in the Survey of Needs which was undertaken recently on the initiative of the Australian Education Council. Those requirements will be considered by the Governments of the States and the Commonwealth in their own examination of the results of the Survey of Needs.

Australian Army: Members Attending Political Meetings (Question No. 2196)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Army, upon notice:

Is regulation 219(a) of Australian Military Orders contravened when a member of the Army on leave attends branch meetings of a political party.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Australian Military Regulation 219 (a) is not pertinent to this subject.

Australian Military Regulation 210 would be contravened if a member, while in uniform, attended a political party branch meeting and Australian Military Regulation 210A would be contravened if a member took an active part in a political party meeting.

However Australian Military Regulations would not be contravened if a member in civilian clothes, on leave, attended a political party branch meeting and did not take an active part in the meeting.

Wollongong University College (Question No. 2183)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether the Wollongong University College occupies an area of approximately 82 acres; if so, is it anticipated that this will prove to be inadequate for the proposed student population of 10,000.
  2. Is he able to say, in respect of each other university established in the last 20 years, what is the (a) present student population, (b) projected student population and (c) area occupied.
  3. If it is established that the Wollongong University College is inadequately sited, will the Government make early and adequate financial assistance available for the acquisition of additions to the site area.,
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The Wollongong University College does occupy an area of approximately 82 acres. I am aware that the Students’ Representative Council expects the university to grow to an enrolment of 10,000, but no intimation of ultimate size has yet been given me by loose who will plan the development of the new university or by the State Government.
  2. In the table below are listed the universities established since 19S0, the student population as at 30th April 1970, the estimated student populations in 1972, and the area occupied by each university inclusive of residential college sites:
  1. The New South Wales Minister for Education, the Honourable C. 8. Cutler, advised me some time ago that Wollongong University College will be granted autonomy as from 1st January 1975. My reply to the Honourable Minister was to the effect that the Australian Universities Commission would consider any requests put to h and would be prepared to recommend appropriate grants to enable the College to achieve autonomy as from 1st January 1975. I further advised the Minister that the Commonwealth Government would consider any such recommendations by the Commission sympathetically. In making requests to the Australian Universities Commission, I would expect the appropriate State and University authorities to take into account the adequacy or otherwise of the existing site of the Wollongong University College.

Containerised Meat Exports (Question No. 2245)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will containerised beef exports from all Queensland ports be railed to Brisbane, some of it past Port Alma, Australia’s major beef port, which has been equipped for container shipments at local expenses and on local initiative.
  2. At the same time will incompletely loaded Australian National Line coastal ships be passing and calling at Port Alma.
  3. Is the preference for rail transport over coastal shipping due to (a) fair costing and competition between the ANL and Queensland Railways, (b) restrictions placed on the ANL by Commonwealth agreement with the overseas shipping conferences involved, or (c) by uneconomic rail freights being accepted by the Queensland Government.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The Australia to Europe Shipping Conference has decided to centralise containerised meat exports at Brisbane. It is expected that centralisation will commence next year on a date to be determined after arrangements have been concluded with the Queensland Government. Meat exports in this trade represent 8 per cent of the total meat exports from North Queensland ports.

In the Australia to West Coast of North America trade shippers will have a choice » of shipping direct by conventional reefer vessels of shipping direct from some North Queensland ports by Columbus container vessels or a of centralising at Brisbane for shipment by the OCL, ACT and ANL consortia or Farrell Line

Meat exports in this trade represent 85 per cent of the total meat exports from North Queensland ports.

It is regrettable that the Northbound Shipping Conference has not yet decided the type of service it will offer after 1970. The Conference has been asked by the Departments of Trade and Industry and Shipping and Transport to advise its intentions but has not yet done so. The Departments are continuing to press the conference for an answer. Meat exports in this trade represent less than 7 per cent of the total meat exports from North Queensland ports.

  1. As most of the arrangements for centralisation remain to be finalised I am unable to advise the position regarding ANL ships.
  2. The method of centralising containers is a matter for commercial negotiation. There has been no Government limitations placed on ANL engaging in feedering. The Government’s concern in this matter has been that the North Queensland shippers should not be disadvantaged bv the imposition of additional cost burdens on meat exports. The Australia to Europe Shipping Conference intends to absorb the cost of centralisation into the general freight structure and I would expect that a similar principle will be adopted by the other shipowners.

I have no knowledge of the freight rates being offered by the Queensland Government.

Tax Collections: Road Transport Industry and Motorists (Question No. 2255)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what taxes are collected by each State from

    1. the road transport industry, and
    2. motorists.

  2. Can he say what sums were collected by each State for each of the last S years for which statistics are available and what was the cost of administering those taxes.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The member’s attention is drawn to the mimeographed publication “Commonwealth, State and Territory Taxation Collections 1968-69’, reference number 5.30, issued by the Commonwealth Statistician on 23rd January 1970. (-lis attention is drawn specifically to Tables 4, 5 and 6. Table 4 relates to Slate Government taxation collections; Table 6 relates to Local Government authorities taxation collections; and Table 5 relates to taxes collected by other Govemmental authorities in the States.

It is not feasible to ascertain the cost of administering particular State taxes.

Australian National Line (Question No. 2256)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Why is it necessary to pay the commission and agency fees of $3,380,713 shown on page 26 of the annual report of the Australian National Line for 1969-70.
  2. To whom were the commissions and fees paid and what amounts were paid in each case.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The Commission and agency fees shown in the ANL annual report represent payments for services related to the booking of cargo which have been necessarily incurred by the line in conducting its shipping services.

The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is required, under the provisions of the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Act, to arrange for the booking of cargo carried in its vessels in coastal shipping services to be provided by one ot more of the signatory companies. It must pay for such services at rates as agreed between the Commission and the Company concerned or if they cannot agree at rates to be determined by an independent authority.

  1. The fees were paid to the various shippingservice companies providing cargo booking services for ANL in coastal and overseas .trades. As the Line is required to operate in a competitive environment it would be commercially inappropriate to detail financial arrangements with individual suppliers of shipping-services.

Shipping: Dry Docking Facilities (Question No. 2259)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: (il) What dry docking facilities exist on the Australian coast for ships in excess of 1,000 tons.

  1. Are these facilities available in Australia for ships in excess of 60,000 tons such as the Amanda Miller’.
  2. Is it intended that ships well in excess ot 60,000 tons will be built in Australia.
  3. If so, what plans exist for the provision of dry docking facilities for them.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The following table sets out details of Australian dry docks available for commercial vessels in excess of 1,000 deadweight tons:
  1. 1 am advised that it would be possible for a vessel of the size of the ‘Amanda Miller’ to be docked at the Cairncross Dry Dock in Brisbane.
  2. The largest size of vessel which can be constructed in Australian shipbuilding yards .is about 80,000 d.w.t. At the present time there are no orders on hand for ships in excess of this tonnage.
  3. The Government is currently examining availability of and requirement for dry docking capacity in this country. The examination will take into account all likely future requirements.

Education: 18-year-olds (Question No. 2155)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What, (a) number and (b) percentage nf (i) 15, (ii) 16, (iii) 17 and (iv) 18 year olds were in full-time education of any sort in the latest year for which he can obtain this information.

    1. Can he provide this information for the intervening years since the Report of the Murray committee in September 1957 (paragraph 48).
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. (a), (b) (0, (ii), (iii), (iv) and (2) The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following statistics of the numbers and percentages of 15, 16, 17 and 18 year olds in full-time education of any sort in 19S4 (as shown in the Murray Report, 1961, 1966 and 1968. These statistics are derived from information obtained in the Population Censuses of 1954, 1961 and 1966, and from a survey of study courses conducted in 1968 as part of quarterly population surveys, based on a I per cent sample of households throughout Australia.

Complete information on the numbers in full-time education of any sort is only available for the years shown above. Most of those in full-lime education in these ages were enrolled at school or university for which details for all or some of the intervening years may be found in the publications of the Commonwealth Statistician.

Department of Education and Science (Question No. 1992)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What efforts or representations have been made between Prime Minister Menzies’ answer to me on 1st May 1962 (Hansard, page .1 199) and his own answer on 22nd September 1970 (Hansard, page 1494) lo secure statistics for the current academic year in time for the debate on the estimates for the Department of Education and Science.

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

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

My Department has regular contact with officers of the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and has made various representations with a view to bringing forward the collection and publication of education statistics.

The Acting Commonweatlh Statistician has advised that he arranged with ie universities in 1963 that preliminary returns should bc prepared, reflecting the staff situation and student enrolments at 31 March. Preliminary statistics based on these returns were published and were available before the budget date for 1964 and subsequent years. The final detailed statistics, superseding the preliminary, were based on final returns referring to 31 July and were published several months after the budget debate. As the range of the statistics developed requests were received from the universities to restrict the annual reporting to a single set of returns. In discussions with representatives of the universities it was found practical to advance the reference date from 31 July to 30 April and thereby still to produce final statistics at a reasonable date using a single set of returns. In the first year of the new arrangement 1970, summary statistics were published at the beginning of September. This arrangement will be repeated in 1971. As all universities become familiar with the new system improvements in the timeliness of reporting and publication of the statistics are expected.

Statistics relating to the Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme compiled by my Department now relate to the position as at 30th June each year, which is an advance of three months from the position at 30th September referred to in Prime Minister Menzies’ reply. As stated in my recent reply, Commonwealth Scholarship statistics are normally available by the middle of August each year.

Most of the other statistics in the questions referred to are the subject of special collections by my Department and the Australian Universities Commission. Over the years steps have been taken to obtain these statistics on a regular basis, but whilst every effort is made to ensure timely reporting it is not always possible to avoid delays in obtaining all of the information.

Commonwealth Receipts (Question No. 307)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What (a) interest, (b) redemptions, (c) revenue, (d) grants, (e) gifts and loan moneys has the Commonwealth (including its banks) in the last financial year (i) paid to and (ii) received from (A) State, local or semi-government authorities, (B) autonomous health, education and welfare organisations and overseas aid recipients and (C) private interests, including interest paid to overseas lenders less Australian tax thereon.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The available information relating to the honourable member’s question is set out below. The figures have been taken as far as possible from information published in the budget papers ‘National Income and Expenditure 1969-70’ and ‘Commonwealth Finance 1969-70, Bulletin No. 8’; however, in some cases the published information has been supplemented by unpublished figures prepared by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician. All the figures relate to 1968-69, the most recent year for which all the detailed information that is available has been published or compiled. Much of the information sought by the honourable member - especially in relation to the lending and investing activities of the Commonwealth Banks - is either not collected or not available in the detail necessary for certain parts of the question to be satisfactorily answered.

(i) Total interest paid by Commonwealth authorities as shown in ‘National Income and Expenditure 1969-70’, Table 10, amounted to $26m. This figure relates mainly to interest on government securities, and was arrived at after offsetting receipts of interest from State, local and semigovernment authorities amounting to $65m. This latter amount consists of interest on advances made by the Commonwealth to the States, particularly advances under the Commonwealth-State Housing agreements. Information is not available to divide interest paid by Commonwealth authorities between A, B and C. The amount of tax paid by private interests on interest received from Commonwealth authorities is not available.

Total receipts of interest by Commonwealth authorities in 1968-69, excluding interest received from State, local and semi-government authorities referred to in (a) (i), amounted to $21m. This amount consists largely of the net profit of the Note Issue Department of the Reserve Bank, which is treated as interest for national accounting purposes, together with net interest on bank balances of Commonwealth authorities.

(i) Total redemptions paid by Commonwealth authorities in respect of Commonwealth debt amounted to $20 lm in 1968-69. Of this total, $43m was in respect of redemption from Loan Fund; S62m related to redemptions and repurchases by the National Debt Sinking Fund; $17m represented cancellations by the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve; $13m was redeemed from the Swiss Loan Trust Account; $37m represented repayments of borrowings under the Defence Credit arrangements with the United States of America; and $28m was repaid in respect of borrowings on behalf of Qantas, the Australian National Airlines and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Most of these redemptions were paid to private interests, including overseas lenders.

Redemptions (i.e. repayments of advances) received during 1968-69 from State, local and semigovernment authorities amounted to $67m and from private interests to $46m. Repayments received from autonomous health, education and welfare organisations, and overseas aid recipients were negligible.

(i) and (d) (i) Current (i.e. revenue) grants to the States from Commonwealth Government authorities amounted to $l,155m in 1968-69. Grants to the States from Commonwealth revenue for capital purposes amounted to $264m during the same year. Grants to autonomous health, education and welfare organisations and overseas aid recipients totalled $169m in 1968-69, while transfer payments in the form of cash benefits to persons, subsidies to enterprises and other overseas contributions were $1,664 million.

(ii) Total revenue (i.e. total receipts on current account) of Commonwealth authorities, as shown in National Income and Expenditure 1969-70’ Table 10, was $5,784m in 1968-69. It is not practicable to divide this total between A, B and C.

(fi) Receipts of grants by Commonwealth authorities during 1968-69 were negligible.

(i) In national accounting terms, loan moneys (i.e. advances) paid to the States, excluding loans raised on behalf of the States to finance their Works programmes, amounted to $177m in 1968-69. Advances to private interests and overseas interests, other than aid recipients, totalled J 131m. Of this amount 361m relates to the timing difference between payments for and delivery of major items of defence equipment purchased overseas, this amount being itself offset in part by the delivery of other capital items (particularly civilian aircraft) purchased overseas for which part-payment had been made in advance. Advances to autonomous health, education and welfare organisations and overseas aid recipients were negligible in 1968-69.

Total loan moneys received by Commonwealth authorities during 1968-69, excluding internal Treasury Bills and loans raised on behalf of the States to finance their Works programmes, were $1.09m. This figure cannot be divided between A, fi and C. Receipts of gifts by Commonwealth authorities were negligible in 1968-69.

Charities (Question No. 964)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say how many registered charities there are in (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, (c) South Australia, (d) Western Australia, (e) Tasmania, (f) Queensland, (g) the Northern Territory and (b) the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Are they categorised into different groups.
  3. If so, what are these groupings.
  4. Are they required to file annual returns of Income and expenditure.
  5. If so, what was their (a) total gross income, (b) total gross expenditure and (c) total net excess of income over expenditure in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Victoria (iii) South Australia, (iv) Western Australia, (v) Tasmania, (vi) Queensland, (vii) the Northern Territory and (viii) the A.C.T. during the latest period for which figures are available.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided me with the following answer;

Charitable organisations are not required to register in Tasmania, the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. In other States, organisations wishing to appeal to the public for support towards charitable purposes are required to register with the appropriate State authority. There are differences in registration requirements and in arrangements for the renewal or cancellation of registrations. Therefore the numbers of registered organisations are not comparable from State to State. There are approximately 8,000 organisations registered in New South Wales with the Chief Secretary’s Department, but -more than half are small and intermittent in making public appeals, such as parents and citizens associations and voluntary bush fire brigades. In Victoria, there were 1,411 institutions and benevolent societies registered with the Hospitals and Chari ties Commission in June 1969. In South Australia about 160 organisations are licensed, by an advisory committee under die Charitable Purposes Act, on a long-term basis for soliciting money or goods foi certain charitable purposes. Licences are also issued on a short-term basis for special collections, such as for Tasmanian bush fire relief. In Western Australia, the number of charitable organisations holding a licence from the Chief Secretary’s Department at 16 June 1970 was 345. In Queensland the Department of Justice is responsible for registration of charitable organisations. On 16 June 1970, 573 organisations were registered as charities, and an additional 2,085 organisations, such as Apex and Kindergarten Associations, were sanctioned ‘for community purposes’.

Registered organisations are categorised into groups only in Victoria and in Queensland.

In Victoria the groups are as follows, the numbers of organisations in each group at 30 June 1969 being shown in brackets: hospitals (160), benevolent homes (12), hostels for the aged (124), children’s homes (56), foundling homes and refuges (15), rescue homes’ (4), convalescent homes (1), blind, deaf and dumb institutions (6), medical dispensaries (2), institutes for maternal and infant welfare (4), philanthropic organisations and societies (295), church relief organisations (27), benevolent societies (76), training schools for nurses (3), nursing services and societies (4), bush nursing centres (20), ambulance services (24), hostels (11), creches (7), kindergartens (135), and organisations for the welfare of boys and girls (425). In Queensland, registered organisations are classified as charitable organisations or as community purpose organisation.

Annual return of income and expenditure are required in New South Wales from registered charities with an annual income in excess of $8,000; in Victoria all registered institutions submit annual reports and audited financial statements; in South Australia financial statements must be submitted when required by the Minis :er (but such statements need only relate to the activity for which the licence was granted); and in Western Australia audited statements must be submitted when required by the Minister.

The only available compiled information about income and expenditure relates to Victorian charitable institutions and benevolent societies subsidised for maintenance purposes. The figures for 1968-69, taken from the Twenty-first Report of the Hospitals and Charities Commission, were as follows: gross income S128.241.219; gross expenditure $126,639,791; excess of income over expenditure 91,601,428.

Australian Goods: Costs (Question No. 1223)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did he recently suggest that Australian creativity, through more and deeper research, development and design, would reduce costs.
  2. If so, how many examples can he give in which (he abovementioned factors have actually resulted in price reductions for Australian produced goods.
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. My words were ‘Australian industry has available to it and is increasingly using the best, most up-to-date technology in the world. More than that we must strive to add original, Australian creativity, through more and deeper industrial research, development, invention and design. These things are needed to keep costs down and to enable Australia to provide its own needs and to win an increasing share of world markets by being first on the market with a new or better product’.
  2. The contribution to efficiency which a greater involvement in research, development, invention and design brings with it can affect prices of manufactured goods in a number of ways. It can enable improved quality and performance to be provided without an increase in price or enable increases in costs, such as wages, to be absorbed without the necessity for a rise in price. In other circumstances it may reduce the extent of the price increase which otherwise would be necessary. In other cases an actual reduction in price can be made. The Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board, in its Annual Report for 1969-70, has included (Appendix D) a range of actual examples of successful industrial research and development and resulting improvements in efficiency. For example, assembly labour costs of one firm were reduced by 30 per cent through improvements to an automated process. An item of equipment developed by a steel company for its own use costs only one-quarter of the price previously paid by the company for similar equipment. The development by another company of the use of new materials in its products has allowed price reductions of about 10 per cent despite increases in other costs.

Payroll Tax (Question No. 1361)

Mr Crean:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the amount of payroll tax collected from (a) State governments, (b) local governing bodies and (c) other State authorities from 1st January 1969 to 31st December 1969.
  2. What was the amount collected separately from education departments in each of the States for the same period.
  3. ls payroll tax levied on teachers’ salaries where teachers are employed by State education departments but not on teachers’ salaries where they are employed in non-government schools.
  4. If so. what is the reason for the different treatment.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. For purposes of this reply, State authorities have been divided into four categories:

    1. State departments whose payroll lax liability is met by the relevant State Treasury. The mainland State railways are included in this group.
    2. State authorities. other than departments included in (a) and other than those classified as semi-government or local authorities under (c) and (d) below. Examples in this category are universities, technical colleges, forestry commissions and pastures protection boards, the New South Wales Departments of Main Roads and Government Transport, and the Country Roads Board in Victoria.
    3. Semi-government authorities - that is, those authorities with separately analysed accounts which are classified as semi-governmental authorities for national accounts purposes by the Commonwealth Statistician (including Tasmanian railways). See answer to Question No. 2146.
    4. Local government authorities - bodies set up under Local Government Acts to carry out functions in defined areas. The County Councils in New South Wales are included in this category.

The Commissioner of Taxation has provided the following estimates of payroll tax paid by these authorities in 1969.

  1. Payroll tax collections from State education departments are not recorded separately. However, the following estimates of payroll tax attributable to salaries and wages paid by the various State education departments based on information contained in State budget papers, have been prepared in respect of salaries and wages paid during 1969:
  2. Payroll tax is levied on the salaries paid to teachers employed by State education departments but is not levied on the salaries of teachers employed by schools and colleges run by churches. The salaries paid by other nongovernment schools and colleges is run by a nonprofit body, provides education not above secondary level and is not a technical school.
  3. The liabilities and exemptions in the law arise not by virtue of the category of the schools concerned but because of the status of the various bodies which conduct them. Religious institutions have been exempt from payroll tax since its introduction and this exemption has applied to schools conducted by them. In 1966, exemption was extended to non-church, non-government schools and colleges (other than technical schools) run by non-profit bodies and providing education not above secondary level. State schools are part of the structure of services provided and financed by the State governments, and the Commonwealth Government has indicated that the payment of financial assistance grants to State governments on the basis proposed at the June 1970 Premiers* Conference is on the understanding that those governments and their authorities continue to meet payroll tax on wages and salaries of their employees. This condition is the same as that which applied under the two previous financial assistance grants arrangements.

Government Revenues (Question No. 1383)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What percentage of revenue from their own sources, including net revenue of business enterprises, was received in each of the last 10 years by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States, (c) semigovernment authorities and (d) local government authorities.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

For the purposes of this answer it has been assumed that the honourable member is seeking information on the percentage of total revenue for all levels of government raised by each of the four levels of government The revenue figures reflected in the percentages in the table below have been prepared on the same basis as those provided in answer to similar questions relating to the revenue of Commonwealth, State, local and semigovernment authorities asked by the honourable member on earlier occasions. The details are consistent with current account receipts shown in Tables 5, 10 and 1 1 of the Budget paper ‘National Income and Expenditure 1969-70’ but exclude revenue on account of Commonwealth Territories.

  1. Net revenue of business enterprises consists of revenue net of working expenses and depreciation, but before payment of interest. (b) Including Commonwealth semi-government authorities but excluding Territories. (c) Excluding payments from the Commonwealth and from other levels of government, (d) Preliminary estimates.

Superannuation (Question No, 1509)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has he received a submission from the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Unions regarding the Superannuation Board.
  2. If so, what is the nature of the submission.
  3. Is the rate of return on the Superannuation Fund only approximately equal to die loss if value of the investments due to inflation.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No. However the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations informed my Department on 1 May 1970 that it had made a comprehensive review of the Superannuation Act, that it had adopted new policies as a result of that examination and that it intended to develop its policies in more depth before submitting them for formal consideration.
  2. The rate of interest earned by the Superannuation Fund in each of the last five financial years was as follows:

To the extent that annual average earning rates can be related to an inflationary trend in terms of accepted economic indicators, the rates of return shown would be higher than any erosion in the real value of investments held by the Fund owing to inflation for the yean shown.

Government Revenues (Question No. 1668)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the (a) revenue, (b) payroll tax and (c) percentage of payroll tax to revenue in respect of (i) semi-government and (ti) local government authorities in each State in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is set out in the table below for 1968-69. the latest year for which revenue figures are available. For purposes of this reply, semi-government authorities are defined as those with separately analysed accounts which are classified as semigovernment authorities for national accounts purposes by the Commonwealth Statistician. (See answer to Question No. 2146.)

In interpreting these figures, the following points are relevant:

  1. Payroll tax paid by business undertakings that is included in the working expenses of those undertakings would have been deducted from gross revenue to obtain the figures of net revenue included in the table.
  2. Some of the totals of payroll tax shown in table above would include tax paid in respect of capital expenditure. Such tax payments would normally be a charge against funds provided for capital purposes (usually loan funds) and not against revenue.

Superannuation (Question No. 1807)

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

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the total contribution by employees to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What interest has been earned by the Fund on investments in each of the last 5 years.
  3. Are the contributions by the employees themselves the only amounts available for investment.
  4. What amounts have been paid out in pensions in each of the last 5 years.
  5. Does section 33 of the Superannuation Act limit the Commonwealth contribution to the pension and, accordingly, does the Commonwealth not make any contribution to the fund for investment.
  6. Does the Commowealth^ contribution to the pension approximate the ratio of 70 (Commonwealth) to 30 (employees’ contribution plus investment return).
  7. What amounts would have been required to have been paid by the Commonwealth in each of the last 5 years to provide a ratio of 70 (Commonwealth) to 30 (employees’ contribution).
  8. By what amounts would the income from investments have increased in each of the last 5 years if the Commonwealth bad made contributions to the fund on the ratio of 70 (Commonwealth) to 30 (employees’ contribution).
  9. Does the Government intend to amend the Superannuation Act to provide that the Commonwealth shall make contributions to the fund on the basis of 70 (Commonwealth) to 30 (employees’ contribution).
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The figures for the year 1969-70 are not yet available. Those for the previous 5 years are:
  1. In addition to the contributions by employees themselves amounts received as interest on investments and the proceeds of matured and realised investments are available for investment.

(4)

  1. Yes. In accordance with section 33 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 the Commonwealth’s contributions to pensions are when the pensions are payable and these amounts are, accordingly, not available for investment. Any amounts paid into the Fund by the Commonwealth under section18 are available for investment.
  2. The Commonwealth normally meets fivesevenths (71.43 per cent) of the pension payable in respect of each contributory unit although a higher proportion may be met in certain circumstances for example, when sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 33, and section 61 apply. The Commonwealth meets the full cost of pensions paid in respect of non-contributory units and of pension increases granted after retirement.
  3. The following amounts would have been required to have been paid by the Commonwealth in each of the 5 years 1964-65 to 1968-69 if the Commonwealth has . contributed on the basis of two and one-half time employee’s contributions for units of pension.

(8)It is not possible to answer this question without making assumptions as to the investment opportunities that would have been available.

  1. This is not a matter that is under consideration by the Government at this time.

Alumina: Export Prices (Question No. 1882)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department made an appraisal of export prices charged for alumina for the purposes of company tax assessment, considering that the purchasers are mainly foreign firms which own Australian alumina work.
  2. If so, has this appraisal considered competitive world prices and public incentives provided for Australian production including (a) rail freight and electric power rate concessions, (b) double taxation agreements, (c) caustic soda import duty concessions, (d) harbour dues and (e) land and water rates, etc
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. There is a specific provision in the income tax legislation which applies to an Australian business controlled by non-residents. Section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides that, where it appears to the Commissioner of Taxation that the business produces either no taxable income or less than the amount of taxable income which might be expected to arise from that business, the person carrying on the business in Australia shall be liable to pay income tax on a taxable income of such amount of the total receipts of the business as the Commissioner determines. In the case of a business which sells alumina overseas, the export price charged would beone of the factors taken into account in determining whether section 136 is applicable.
  2. In a section 136 situation, regard would be had to world prices in determining the taxable income that might have been derived by an Australian business if its sales were made on an arm’s length basis. The various double taxation agreements entered into by Australia do not operate to inhibit the powers of the Commissioner to apply section 136 in appropriate circumstances. In calculating the taxable income of any taxpayer, deductions are limited to outgoings which are incurred in the derivation of assessable income. Where reductions in rail freight, electricity charges, import duty, harbour dues and land and water rates are provided as incentives for Australian production, only the net payments actually made would be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes.

Payroll Tax (Question No. 1978)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What amount and percentage of payroll tax was paid in the last financial year by -

each State Government,

semi-government authorities in each State and

local government authorities in each State.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

For purposes of this reply State authorities have been grouped into three categories:

State authorities other than those classified (under the definitions given below) as semigovernment or local authorities. These include State departments, railways (other than the Tasmanian railways, which is classified as a semi-government authority), universities, technical colleges, forestry commissions, pastures protection boards, etc. In part (1) of the answer to Question No. 1361 the authorities in question are themselves divided into 2 categories. They are not so divided in this answer because, by reason of the secrecy provisions of the payroll tax law, the Commissioner of Taxation is unable to provide certain State-by-State dissections.

Semi-government authorities - those authorities with separately analysed accounts which are classified as semi-government authorities for national accounts purposes by the Commonwealth Statistician. Includes Tasmanian railways. (See answer to Question No. 2146.)

Local government authorities - bodies set up under Local Government Acts to carry out functions in defined areas. The County Councils in New South Wales are included in this category.

The amounts of payroll tax paid in 1969-70 by authorities in each State in each of the above 3 categories and the proportions that these amounts represented in relation to total payroll tax collections, were approximately as follows:

International Labour Conference:

Maritime Session (Question No. 2065)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How did the Australian Government delegates vote on the instruments adopted at the Fiftyfifth (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference in October 1970.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The following instruments were adopted by the 55th (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference:

Convention concerning Crew Accommodation on Board Ship (supplementary provisions).

Recommendation concerning Air Conditioning of Crew Accommodation and Certain Other Spaces on Board Ship.

Recommendation concerning Control of Harmful Noise in Crew Accommodation and Working Spaces on Board Ship.

Recommendation concerning Employment Problems arising from Technical Developments on Board Ship.

Convention concerning the Prevention of Occupational Accidents to Seafarers.

Recommendation concerning the Prevention of Occupational Accidents to Seafarers.

Recommendation concerning Vocational Training of Seafarers.

Recommendation concerning Seafarers’ Welfare at Sea and in Port.

The Australian Government delegates supported the adoption of all the instruments.

Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 2160)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. How many applicants for service in the Citizen Military Forces have been rejected during each of the last 5 years.
  2. How many were rejected on medical grounds.
  3. What were the other grounds for rejection.
  4. Have any of the men rejected for CMF service been called-up for national service.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

It is regretted that the answers sought cannot be provided. Recruiting for the CMF is decentralised to units and the need to maintain statistics of rejected applications has not arisen. The honourable member will appreciate that an administrative burden would be created if units were required to keep statistics which are not required by the Department.

States Finances (Question No. 1979)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. By what amount and percentage in 1969-70 did each State increase its (a) revenue and (b) expenditure (i) including and (ii) excluding net revenue of business enterprises.
  2. By what amount and percentage in 1970-71 does each State expect to increase its (a) revenue and (b) expenditure (i) including and (ii) excluding net revenue of business enterprises.
  3. What amount and percentage of its 1969-70 revenue (a) including and (b) excluding net revenue of business enterprises did each State receive from (i) Commonwealth sources and (ii) its own sources.
  4. What amount and percentage of its 1970-71 revenue (a) including and (b) excluding net revenue of business enterprises does each State expect to receive from (i) Commonwealth sources and (ii) its own sources.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

Complete information on State revenues and expenditures for 1969-70 and 1970-71 (estimates) is not available and it has therefore been necessary to use figures restricted to the Consolidated Revenue Funds of each State. These figures are not fully comparable between States or between years, and the honourable member’s attention is drawn to the comments accompanying the reply my predecessor gave him to a similar question (Hansard, 27th and 28th November 1968, page 3384).

The details requested by the honourable member, on the basis explained, are as follows: (l)(a)(i), (l)(b), (2)(a)(i) and (2)(b)-

(3)(a)(i), (3)(a)(ii). (4)(a)(i) and (4)(a)(ii)-

(3)(b)(i), (3)(b)(ii). (4)(b)(i) and (4)(b)(ii)-

Australian Army: Cooks (Question No. 2179)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. What is the total number of cooks in the Army.
  2. How many of these are civilians.
  3. What is the award wage for a civilian cook employed by the Army.
  4. What is the wage received by an enlisted cook in the Army.
  5. What overtime is worked by civilian cooks.
  6. What are the overtime rates of pay tor civilian cooks.
  7. What overtime is worked by enlisted cooks.
  8. What are the overtime rates of pay forthese men.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. There are 1,408 cooks in the Army excluding casual staff engaged for CMP and Cadet camps.
  2. Seventy-five of these are civilians.
  3. Weekly wages for male cooks range between $46.09 and $53.90 per week according to classification and location. Females are paid slightly less in accordance with present employment conditions.
  4. Basic rates of pay for enlisted cooks are:

Private Grade1- $47.46 per week.

Private Grade 2- $52.85 per week. (This does not include clothing allowance, marriage/separation allowance and living out allowance which in the case ofa married man represents $14.91 per week and $10.50 tor a single man.)

  1. Overtime worked by civilian cooks averages 4 hours per week for each cook.
  2. Overtime is payable in accordance with the Army Exempt Wages Determination which provides for time and one half for work in excess of the daily rostered hours, and double time if more than 11 hours are worked in any one day or in excess of 12 hours from the time of first commencing duty when hours of duty are spread.
  3. Cooks are required to be on duty to meet Service requirements. Times of duty allocated to meet this requirement vary in each unit. Wherever practicable cooks are rostered for five eight hour shifts per week.
  4. Nil.

Local Government Revenue (Question No. 2185)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the only source of revenue of local government authorities is by way of rates and charges on property.
  2. Are the rates and charges levied on ratepayers necessarily increased because the costs of local government authorities are increased through the payment of payroll tax.
  3. Is the payroll tax thus an extra charge on ratepayers.
  4. If so. will he consider taking steps to exempt local government authorities from the payment of payroll tax.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. No. As is shown, for example, in Table 68 of the Commonwealth Statistician’s bulletin ‘State, Territory and Local Government Authorities Finance and Government Securities’, local government authorities receive significant amounts of revenue from sources other than property rates, including licence fees, fines, charges for services and facilities provided by them, grants from State governments and business undertakings profits. Rates on property are, however, the largest source of revenue of local authorities, representing over one-half of their total revenue.

  2. and (3) It is not possible to assess the effect on local authority rates and charges of the payment by such authorities of payroll tax. If, for example, local authorities were to be exempted from payroll tax this could lead to:

    1. a reduction in rates and/or charges; or
    2. an increase in local authority expenditure; or
    3. a reduction in financial assistance provided to local authorities by State Governments; or
    4. some combination of (a), (b) and (c).
  3. It is not the practice to reply to questions involving policy issues. I point out, however, that the Commonwealth Government has indicated that the payment of financial assistance grants to State governments on the basis proposed at the June 1970 Premiers’ Conference is on the understanding that those Governments and their authorities continue to meet payroll tax on wages and salaries of their employees.

Australian Army: Marrickville Depot (Question No. 2253)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Is the Marrickville Army Depot located in a thickly populated residential area.
  2. Is it a fact that on many occasions representations have been made for the release of this land for residential development, but on each occasion the request has been refused.
  3. In view of the grave shortage of land in the Sydney metropolitan area is there any reason why the Depot could not be transferred to a more appropriate site, and the land released to the State authorities for housing purposes.
  4. In any case, will he arrange for a full and complete investigation into the matter with a view to releasing this valuable land for the purposes suggested.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No record is held by my Department of any recent representations made for the release of this land. In 1962 the honourable member asked a number of questions concerning the use being made by the Army of the CMF Training Depot at Marrickville. The Minister for the Army at that time gave an assurance that the site and accommodation was being fully utilised. This is still the case and no change is contemplated.
  3. The retention of a centrally situated training depot is essential to cater for the large number of CMF members who reside in close proximity to the Marrickville Depot. In addition, current Army planning provides for a regular Army unit, now at Mascot to be relocated at Marrickville due to the development and expansion of civil aviation activities in the Mascot area.
  4. In view of the above it will be apparent that no useful purpose would be served by such an investigation.

Primary and Secondary Products: Sales Promotion

Mr McEwen:
CP

– On 15th September the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) asked, inter alia, whether I would appoint efficient and accredited salesmen to travel overseas and continually engage in finding markets for our primary and secondary products. In outlining the role of the Trade Commissioner Service I commented that I had available figures on the publications which the Government regularly produces to bring before the notice of those in foreign countries products available from Australia and the advantage of buying from this country. I can now advise the honourable member that the Department of

Trade and Industry conducts the trade publicity campaigns overseas which include the production and circulation of trade publications in 100 countries and 14 foreign languages. The major publications are:

Austral News’, a monthly trade promotion journal, 92,000 produced each month in 6 languages for distribution in 34 countries.

Australian Products for Import’ is a quarterly trade bulletin aimed at commercial and import circles in European and United States markets; 40,000 published quarterly in 6 languages.

All the Best from Australia’ is a commercially orientated journal circulated in the United Kingdom, lt is published 5 times yearly and is aimed at the promotion of food products to retail buyers, wholesalers, agents and the trade press.

Australia’ is a quarterly trade information journal published in 5 languages with a circulation of 50,000 in 15 countries.

Australian Horizons’ is a general trade publication to inform buyers and the general public of Australia’s way of life and range of products. To date 1,250,000 copies have been produced in 1 3 languages.

Australia’s Trading Economy’ is an exposition of Australia’s trading and economic structure as a background to trading attitudes. Its purpose is to develop an understanding of trading policies. It is for selective distribution in government, business, industrial and trade and financial media in overseas countries.

Manufacturing in Australia’ gives an outline of Australia’s capacity and performance as a manufacturer, lt is for general distribution among potential overseas buyers of manufactured products.

Buyers Guides’ are reference brochures providing information on the standards of Australian primary products. They are distributed to importers of Australian primary products in many countries. They are printed in English and foreign languages.

Newspaper supplements are produced in conjunction with the overall promo tional programme. In 1969-70. 54 supplements were produced in 19 countries. (Question No. 1073) Civil Aviation

Mr Charles Jones:

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

  1. How many times in the last 5 years have pilots employed by (a) Qantas and (b) TransAustralia Airlines gone on strike.
  2. What was the duration of each strike and the estimated loss of revenue in each case.
  3. What were the claims of the pilots, and how many of their demands were agreed to as a result of each strike.
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

  1. Qantas Airways Limited:

    1. There have been three strikes in the past 5 years.

  2. (a) The first strike took place from midnight on 24th November 1966 to 21st December 1966, a duration of 28 days. The estimated loss of revenue was $l2.4ra.

    1. The’ second strike occurred on 1 6th October 1969 and was for a period of 24 hours. The estimated loss of revenue was $154,000.
    2. The third strike occurred on 1st May 1970. The duration was (2 hours and the estimated loss in revenue was $5,000.
    1. (a) The strike in November-December 1966 which was called by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots arose out of claims for salary increases, the formulation of a comprehensive form of contract slating in full all the responsibilities and rights of pilots and the introduction of a formula pay system in line with that already agreed with the domestic airlines. Strike action was resorted to when the Federation of Air Pilots rejected an offer by Qantas of salary increases to pilots which was subject to the Federation agreeing to accept that the pilot crew of aircraft engaged on trans-Tasman operations should be reduced from three to two and for Federation members to conduct night landings into Djakarta.

Under the terms of settlement, Qantas agreed to put into effect the salary increase offer which had been rejected shortly before the strike began, procedures were agreed to settle the operational issues and to deal with the negotiation of a comprehensive new contract covering the rights and responsibilities of Qantas pilots and it was further agreed that new channels of communication and liaison would be established between the Qantas management and its pilots.

  1. The strike by pilots in October 1969, concerned delays in discussions on a new pay contract which occurred because Qantas would not proceed with negotiations while a ban was being applied by pilots against working with so called instant captains. The stoppage was in the form of a protest. No concession was made by the company.

  2. The strike in May 1970 occurred over the following issues:

    1. The refusal of Qantas to take into account for superannuation purposes pay increases granted to pilots in February 1970 by the flight crew officers industrial tribunal.
    2. The wet leasing by Qantas of Boeing 707 aircraft from Caledonian Airways for migrant charter flights.

In relation to (1) above it was finally determined that for the present, and pending an investigation by an interdepartmental committee, current salaries as defined in the Qantas staff superannuation plan be accepted for the purpose of employee/employer contributions, and also benefits including the guaranteed minimum benefit.

Concerning (2) above, while no change was agreed in the wet leasing of aircraft from Caledonian Airways, Qantas undertook to give further serious consideration to the possibility of dry leasing aircraft to provide additional capacity if required in the future.

  1. Trans-Australia Airlines:

    1. There have been two strikes in the past 5 years.
    2. (a) The first strike involved 41 pilots employed on DC9 aircraft and took place from 1st March 1968 to 8th April 1968. The duration was 39 days and the estimated loss of revenue was $1.74m.

    1. The second strike involved all pilots and occurred on 11th and 12 December 1969. The duration was 27 hours and the estimated loss of revenue was $200,000.

    2. (a) The strike of March/ April 1968 concerned a claim by the pilots that the crew complement of DC9 aircraft operated by TAA should include a flight engineer in addition to the two pilots. This claim was rejected by TAA and the pilots returned to work without the claim having been granted,

    1. The strike in December 1969 occurred during negotiations on salaries and working conditions for pilots, which had commenced following the expiry of the Airline Pilots Agreement 1966, and the service upon domestic airlines of claims for a new award.

With respect to the salary claims, the employers offered salary increases of 16 per cent plus two annual increments, each of 3 per cent. The final settlement was on the basis of a 19 per cent increase plus two annual increments, each of 3 per cent.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19701030_reps_27_hor70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant