House of Representatives
3 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2343

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr GORTON:
Minister for Defence · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth;

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

There are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist.

As a toursit attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country. lt is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray, that:

The export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control.

Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

-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 Stale 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 hundred 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 physically 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.

Education

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 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 classed and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of. one thousand million dollars is required oyer, 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 physically 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.

Education

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 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 physically 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.

Education

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 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 physically 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.

Taxation

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully sheweth:

That they are gravely concerned that tax concessions for people residing in Zone B have not been increased for 11 years.

Their concern is aggravated by the fact that many towns of high living costswhich are situated geographically in isolated areas are either classified as Zone B or receive no zone classification.

They are also gravely concerned that taxpayers living in these isolated areas receive no tax deductions for travel and accommodation expenses when they or their dependants are forced to travel to cities to receive specialist medical treatment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly praythat the honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will take immediate steps to amend the above tax anomalies by:

An early investigation of the location of Zone A and Zone B areas so that towns of equal isolation and’ cost factor will receive the same zone concession.

An early investigationof the amount of concession entitlement for Zone B with a view to an increase in that amount.

The Income Tax Assessment Act be amended so that travel and accommodation expenses be allowable deductions when a taxpayer or his dependants’ are forced to travel from isolated areas to cities for specialist medical treatment.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition pf residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That there is a likelihood that education in the

Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

The the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a

Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

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 humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system,
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable

House make legal provision for -

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

page 2345

QUESTION

SHIPPING STRIKE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I preface ray question which is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service by reminding him that towards the end of last week I personally requested him to support a submission I had made for a compulsory conference of representatives of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and ship owners. The Minister will remember that I was informed that the ship owners intended to stand firm and that such a conference was not possible I now ask the Minister whether he is in a position to make a further statement on this situation and whether the conference I sought towards the end of last week is not now taking place.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The conference mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not taken place but I can inform him that, as a consequence of talks held this morning in Sydney between the unions and the ship owners, the strike committee and the executive of the stewards’ union have agreed to recommend to a meeting of the stewards’ union a resumption of work tomorrow. The ship owners in their turn have agreed to defer the issue of notices of dismissal and the process of deregistration. As I came into the House this afternoon the general terms for a resumption of work were not known in fine detail. I will ascertain what those terms are immediately after question time and inform the honourable gentleman. At this stage there is every possibility of a resumption of work tomorrow. Certainly this is the Government’s hope. Apart from that J. will not comment further because obviously the negotiations are at a most sensitive stage and the honourable gentleman will appreciate that further comment by Ministers will not be helpful in the settlement of the dispute.

page 2345

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the Government’s call for Australian industry to lift its rate of productivity and with the background of rapid increases in wages and holidays, a proposed reduction in the working week to 35 hours and a monumental loss of man hours following irresponsible strike action, will the Government give early and favourable consideration to providing some positive incentives to help industry to achieve this objective? Will the Government consider the need to apply taxation benefits enjoyed by the primary sector to the commercial and industrial communities? I refer to such benefits as an allowance for obsolescence of buildings, a reduction in company tax, which is now the highest in the world, and a reduction in interest rates.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government is, of course, very anxious to see an increase in productivity. The purpose of the Government’s policies is to achieve this. Unfortunately, too often those purposes are frustrated by strikes that occur without reasonable grounds. As to providing some incentive, I remind the honourable gentleman that it is very much in the interests of all areas of the work force - employers, instrumentalities; the whole range of those producing the gross national product - to increase productivity. They have already an incentive to do it. Whether the Government can add to that incentive through the benefits referred to by the honourable member is a matter that would have to be considered in the Budget context and I will take under reference the honourable member’s question.

page 2346

QUESTION

MALAYSIA

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence, who will recall that as Prime Minister at the Five Power Conference in Canberra in June 1969 he said that the role of Australian forces- in Singapore and Malaysia was based on the concept of ‘the indivisability of defence of Malaya and Singapore’. The Minister will also recall that the exclusion of East Malaysia under this definition was unacceptable to the Government of Malaysia. I ask the Minister: Do the Five Power arrangements drawn up in London last month apply to East Malaysia as fully as they apply to West Malaysia?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I think that the Leader of the Opposition might have gone back a little further in his resume to the initial statement made in this House on behalf of the Government when the decision was made to retain Australian troops in the Singapore-Malaysia area, even after the withdrawal of the British forces. If he does cast his mind back to that he will note that in that statement it was specifically pointed out that we were talking of the peninsula of Malaya and that we felt that at that time the best service we could render in regard to East Malaysia was diplomatic assistance and other assistance of that kind. At the moment the 5-power arrangements which were drawn up and which were the subject of a communique issued in London differ from the previous arrangements under which British and other troops were stationed in that area. Previously, the British had the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement which was quite definite and quite specific that they were required to take certain action in certain circumstances. The new agreement arranges for consultation when the areas are believed to be the subject of attack directly or an internal subversion inspired from without. The present provisions provide for consultation between the parties, which are different from the provisions required under AMDA and they apply to all the areas in the area.

page 2346

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Can the Minister for the Interior inform the House of the outcome of the -recent discussions of the Joint Study Group investigating constitutional development for the Northern Territory Legislative Council? Will he also assure the House that these discussions will continue to take place until worthwhile conclusions have been reached?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Joint Study Group on Northern Territory Constitutional Development completed its first week of discussions last week. All those who attended the discussions felt that the outcome had been most useful and constructive. Much has already been accomplished in the consideration of the issues raised by both parties - those officers representing the ‘various Commonwealth departments and those representatives of the Legislative Council, the elected representatives - in seeking the new State-like responsibilities for the Northern Territory Legislative Council. The Joint Study Group has adjourned to allow of a more detailed study of the points that have already been discussed, It is anticipated that the group will meet in Darwin on 1st June. Therefore, there will be an examination of those points that have already been discussed, and they will be discussed in greater depth. For my own part, I am delighted - and I am sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory will be delighted - that these discussions have commenced on such a cordial and constructive note. If the discussions continue along this course it will be in the best interests of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the Commonwealth as a whole.

page 2346

QUESTION

DEFENCE . ORDERS

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. On 24th February this year 30 per cent of the workshop personnel of Hawker Siddeley Electronics Ltd at Salisbury were made redundant. The reason given by the Government officials for this action was the delay in placing an order for anti-submarine devices at a cost of $lm which the Minister for Supply had announced publicly would be placed with this firm. Will the Minister give urgent attention to the placement of this order as the firm, Hawker Siddeley, announced last Friday that a further IS to 25 personnel would be put off?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I think that the best thing under the circumstances would be to ask the honourable member to put the question on notice.

page 2347

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: In order that wheat growers and financial institutions assisting the industry may have the most authoritative advice on which to base their future financial requirements, will the Minister inform the House of the state of all unfinalised pools? Will he give the House the maximum information available as to the estimated final realisation of these pools, the anticipated date of final realisation, the anticipated date of the next payment from these pools, and finally, the estimated amount of the next payment?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I understand that at the moment there are 3 pools remaining to be finalised. Those are the pools of 1968-69, 1969- 70 and, of course, 1970-71. My advice is that a second payment of about 10c a bushel can be made in July on 1968-69 pool wheat, and on current indications the pool will be wound up about the end of 1971, with a final payment of between 3c and 4c a bushel, making total payments to growers between $1.23 and $1.24 a bushel f.o.r. for f.a.q. wheat. Substantial quantities of 1969-70 and 1970-71 wheat remain unsold, and preliminary estimates have been made of second and subsequent payments on these wheats, but of course they are only preliminary and they are subject to change.

Because of the incidence of sales on credit of up to 3 years, it will probably not be possible to finalise the 1969-70 pool until about the middle of 1974 and the 1970- 71 pool until about mid-1975. Final returns are estimated on the basis of recent experience to be, on the 1969-70 pool, about $1.24 and, on the 1970-71 pool, about $1.26 a bushel f.o.r. for f.a.q. wheat. These estimates, of course, are only tentative and must be taken into account in conjunction with the fact that there is still quite a deal of unsold wheat from each of these pools. Second payments will be made as funds become available. At this stage it does not seem likely that they could be made for the 1969-70 pool until May- June 1973 and for the 1970-71 pool until about June 1974. The amounts of the second payments cannot be estimated accurately, but on the 1969-70 pool they could be in the vicinity of 7c a bushel.

page 2347

QUESTION

MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE MILITARY BASES

Mr MORRISON:

– Will the Minister for Defence tell the House why, if Malaysia and Singapore are as anxious to have Australian forces as the Government says they are, we have to pay any money at all for the use of military bases in those countries, particularly as the United Kingdom and Australia paid for the construction of the bases in the first place?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– It has been agreed by the British- Government and the Australian Government that it is reasonable to pay for beneficial services which are provided to bases and to the troops in them and, in certain circumstances, for the hire of married quarters on the market. It has not yet been agreed that payments over and above those sums should be paid. This is still a subject of consideration, as I think was made clear in the communique issued in London.

page 2347

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of reports that the Australian Medical Association is devising a scheme to scrap the pensioner medical service? Will he assure this House that the pensioners will not become the meat in the doctors’ sandwiches completely and that we will retain a scheme suitable for them?

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

– I have been aware for some time that an Australian Medical Association study group has been working on possible schemes to replace the pensioner medical service as it exists. As far as I am aware, the AMA has not reached the stage at which it has finalised its own conclusions on this let alone present them to the Government. Until such time as it does so, I do not think that I can make any useful comment except to say to the honourable gentleman that the Government certainly would not permit the replacement of the pensioner medical service with any other scheme which was to the disadvantage of pensioners.

page 2348

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to that recently asked by the honourable member for Boothby. Did the Treasurer, when speaking yesterday at Wesley Church, Melbourne, say, among other things, that in Australia there appears to be wide scale personal boredom and lack of purpose or acceptance of challenge? If so, I ask: Having regard to the undeniable fact -that the vast majority of this country’s manufacturing work force is geared to, and is expected to obtain production schedules based upon achievement in’ high volume overseas companies, can it be assumed that the Minister’s remarks were directed to that section of high level executive personnel who spend so much of the working week on golf and race courses?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I will provide the honourable gentleman with a transcript df what I said at Wesley Church yesterday so that he can read my remarks iri their entirety. As reported, various segments of what I said were taken out. What I had to say needs to be seen as a whole. I put a great deal of time into constructing my speech because I believe completely in what I said. In the course of speaking I drew the attention of anybody who cared to listen or read to the need for everybody in our community to play his part in the realisation of Australia’s potential, because only by realising that potential will we be able to achieve the things that we as Australians want. The honourable member, at the end of his question, made an allegation which related to employers who spent time on the golf course. If employers spend time during the week on the golf course I criticise such action, except insofar as it is necessary for them to obtain relaxation so that they can do their jobs.

Employers owe a duty to manage to the very best of their capacity and to instruct themselves in the way to manage, so that they can use in the best way all of the resources which it is their duty to command. By a partnership between management and all persons in the work force, whether they are employed at the middle management, supervisory or workshop floor level, we shall achieve something in Australia. The honourable member will not help this objective by picking out for criticism individual members or strata of the work force.

page 2348

QUESTION

MAKINE STEWARDS’ STRIKE

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has his attention been drawn to the comments of the Acting Premier of Tasmania, Mr Lyons - who* is a supporter of the Minister’s own Party - in today’s issue of the ‘Canberra Times’ in which he praised the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, for his help in attempting to end the marine stewards’ strike in Tasmania? Can the’ Minister reconcile: these statements by the Acting Premier of Tasmania with his own statements and those of the Prime Minister, the former Minister for Labour and National -Service and the Minister for Shipping and j Transport, as reported at. page 1665- of Hansard of 20th April .1971, which were made in an attempt to denigrate the ACTU, Mr: Hawke and the trade union movement for ^political advantage? Has his attention also… been drawn to the statement of the Acting Premier of Tasmania that the report that he would call for Royal Australian- Air Force and Naval assistance for Tasmania was ‘arrant nonsense’? Is it not a fact that . these and other strikes are a result of the failure of the Government to amend, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to make it more workable?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I certainly Would not agree that the strike referred to by the honourable member has arisen because of the failure of the Government to amend ‘ the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If anything, what the present strike does show is the need for unions involved in these situations to confine their industrial activities to representations before the Commission because that is the proper forum where cases of this type should be argued and sustained. As I said to the Deputy Leader :of the Opposition, the negotiations, which may lead to a resumption of work tomorrow, have reached a most sensitive stage. This’ question, which I regard as provocative at a very sensitive time of the negotiations, is not designed to take a proper look at the situation which is before us in relation to this dispute. Frankly, for my part, I decline to comment in depth on what the honourable gentleman has said - not that I would not want to comment, but because, as 1 made clear in answer to an earlier question in relation to the possibility of a resumption of work, any further comment by Ministers at this stage would not be productive.

page 2349

QUESTION

ARMY SURVEY CORPS

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Is he aware of the stop work meeting held last Friday by members of the lithographic squadron of the Army Survey Corps in Bendigo over the. continuing procrastination by the Government in bringing their pay into line with civilian rates? Will he take immediate action to remove the dissatisfactions and frustrations which, if allowed to continue are likely to cripple this highly skilled technical unit?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– This question relates to the lithographic section at Fortuna which I have visited and which has been the subject of representations by the honourable member for Bendigo, and therefore 1 think I have a right to answer it. Essentially, the question relates to the pay of that lithographic section which, at the moment, is aligned to the Federal graphic arts award. That award has been surpassed by the Public Service Board, which has added to it an increment and struck a special rate for printers within the Government Printing Office. It is the desire of members of my Department to have this matter examined in detail by the members of the Kerr Committee, and the previous Minister for Defence forwarded this matter to that Committee for examination. As I said, the honourable member for Bendigo has made representations in the past on this subject and has been given a series of answers. He raised the matter in the Parliament last week. I understand that he contacted members of the lithographic section on Friday and the matter has received some publicity. The matter is before the Kerr Committee and I am hopeful of an early resolution of the problem. It is not a matter in which my Department can act unilaterally, but we have expressed our sympathy with those who are engaged in this work in that section.

page 2349

QUESTION

POLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to allegations that the ConsulGeneral of the Polish People’s Republic in Sydney has brought commercial pressure to bear on the publishers of the Polish language newspaper ‘Polish Weekly’ because of political content in that newspaper concerning workers’ riots in Poland last December? Have investigations been made into these allegations, and if so, with what results? Does he agree that, although we have glaring examples of political views being put as news in Australian newspapers - I cite the Packer Press as one example - this should not condone overseas pressures being allowed to succeed where it is possible to prevent them?

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

– I believe that the honourable member is referring to a . letter which has been circulated to most honourable members. I received a copy of a letter last week in relation to this matter and some inquiries have been made. As yet, they have not been finalised and when I have the result of the investigations, I will let the honourable member know. However, I think that we would all agree that it is not desirable, in the circumstances that the honourable member has mentioned, that pressure of this type should be brought to bear in a country such as Australia where democratic principles do apply. Whatever can be done to resist this type of pressure certainly will be done. However, when the investigations have been completed I will let the honourable member know.

page 2349

QUESTION

ARMY VEHICLES: ACCIDENTS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Army. The Minister may recall that in answer to my questions on notice Nos 2814 and 2815 he told me that an average of more than 1,650 Army vehicles are involved in accidents each year; that 9 personnel were killed and 60 injured in accidents involving Army vehicles in the last 2 years; that 399 nonArmy vehicles driven by Army personnel were involved in accidents last year and that 126 Army personnel were killed and 1,036 injured in the last 3 years in accidents involving non-Army vehicles. The Minister was unable to supply me-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member ask his question.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The question -is coming. The Minister was unable to supply me with the body count of civilians killed or injured in those accidents. Is the Minister worried about those figures? What will the Army do about this matter?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– I recall answering both questions last week,” one relating to Army vehicles and the other relating to vehicles privately owned by soldiers. I was asked to what extent both types of vehicles were involved in accidents. Yes, the Army views with concern the increasing number of privately owned vehicles involved in accidents. Formulating preventive and corrective action is rather difficult. It is a problem which is commensurate with problems facing the community as a whole, but I think it is fair to say that although one cannot be pleased with the number of Army vehicles involved in accidents, oh a proportionate basis the number of Army vehicles involved in accidents is lower than in the case of vehicles privately owned by soldiers.

I can relate some of the methods that have been adopted, which on their own may perhaps solve little, but taken together may help to improve the situation. There is a routine order at one Army camp which prevents soldiers from proceeding more than a distance of 200 miles on a weekend. That would mean a total of 400 miles in less than 2 days. This may seem at first glance to be somewhat rigid but it is being given a trial to determine whether it reduces the road toll. Other actions such as liaison with local police and road safety authorities for the showing of appropriate films could be helpful. Inspection of privately owned vehicles at a unit level to determine whether they are roadworthy is another action that is being taken. Perhaps the role of the co-ordinator of Army safety could be extended to privately owned vehicles to a greater extent. This is a matter about which I am gravely concerned. I am glad that the honourable member has referred to it again. I took note of the answers supplied to the questions on notice and I say again that I will take whatever steps I can to ensure that there is a recognition by members of the Armed Services, particularly the Army, of the need to drive safely.

page 2350

QUESTION

COCKBURN SOUND

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the Navy. Will he inform the House of the state of the construction of the causeway at Garden Island in Western Australia preparatory to establishing a naval base there and whether the construction is proceeding in accordance with planning?

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am happy to inform the House that construction of the causeway for the Cockburn Sound development is ahead of schedule. It is a very important development.

Mr Uren:

– Check with the ecologists.

Dr MACKAY:

– It will add a very considerable amount to the security of Australia in the future. This is an admirable site for a support facility, for a naval dockyard, and for the future plans for Western Australia in this area. The question of ecology has been raised. I would (ike to assure the House that this aspect has been widely investigated and there have been indications that there will be no significant disturbance to the ecology because of the construction of the causeway. The report of the. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which has been presented to this House, bears out this contention. I am happy to state that more recent reports that have come to light with regard to the fauna in the Garden Island area show that whereas some forms of fauna were thought to be unique to the area, other colonies have now been discovered in other areas of Western Australia. These will not be disturbed by construction of the causeway, which will be very much to this nation’s advantage.

page 2350

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Were higher freight rates for Australian National Line vessels discussed at the Minister’s meeting last week with the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission? If so, what is the nature of the increases sought and how can they be justified? Was the Minister serious in his suggestion that the Government might be forced to ‘disband’ all ANL passenger ships running to Tasmania? On more mature reflection, does he not agree with Mr Lyons that this would be a disaster for Tasmania?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– In reply to that section of the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition relating to the future of the coastal ships, I point out that on Friday the Press asked me what steps the ANL would take should the stoppage continue. I forecast that one of the few steps the Government would look at was the possibility of dispersing the coastal passengers ships. It certainly is not my wish so to do. Nevertheless, it had to be pointed but to the Press that because of the strike the ANL was running into great financial difficulties and the strike was costing up to $lm a week. So far as any freight rises are concerned, it is true that we discussed the ANL’s financial situation. I will have to bring a paper on its financial situation before the Government when the strike is resolved. But until that is done I am unable to make any further statement.

page 2351

QUESTION

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry received from the Australian Farmers Federation a request to the effect that the $10Om rural reconstruction proposals are insufficient and that it recommends the expending of $500m? Does the Minister agree that this would be an improvement on the present proposals and that it would go a long way to helping to solve the primary producers’ problems?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– The President of the Australian Farmers Federation did come to see me last week. He made a number of suggestions, including the one to which the honourable gentleman has referred. However, as the honourable gentleman would know from an examination of the second reading speech that I made in conjunction with the rural reconstruction proposals now before the House, a scheme which is seen to be a way of helping to overcome the very real financial problems of rural producers, particularly those in the wool, sheep and wheat industries, is now under consideration. I believe that any radical changes to that scheme should await the implementation of the proposal and the light of experience from its application.

page 2351

QUESTION

POLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Because of the protests by the editor of the Melbourne published anti-Communist weekly and by many naturalised Australian citizens of Polish origin against the alleged action of the Polish Consulate in Australia in forbidding Polish travel agents in Australia to advertise in their newspapers, will the Government consider compensating publications which are victimised for printing facts to the best of their ability, in order to offset loss due to international trade sanctions?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have no knowledge of the facts alleged or the statements made by the honourable member. I will have investigations made for him, and if there is any form of intimidation or other kind of action that we think is improper I will discuss it with the relevant departments and see whether we can have it prevented.

page 2351

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the Australian consulate in Portuguese Timor has been closed? Is there any significance in that?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I had intended to issue a Press release on this subject this afternoon, so this will save me that trouble. It is a fact that we are to close the consulate at Dili in Portuguese Timor. There are a number of reasons why we are doing so. Firstly, the work load there has been very light for some considerable time. Secondly, the building needs substantial maintenance and would cost, I think, about $80,000 to rebuild to a reasonable standard. Thirdly - this is the most important point - we now have opened an embassy in Lisbon which we believe will maintain closer association with the Portuguese Government and will be able to undertake substantially the work that had been handled previously by the consulate. For those reasons we have decided to close the Dili establishment.

page 2351

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr UREN:
Reid

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has seen me regarding this matter.

Mr UREN:

– On Thursday, 29th April, the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) in his reply to the second reading debate on the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill made certain remarks. The report which appeared in Hansard of 29th April did not seem to me to be what was actually stated by the Minister. I might say that immediately after the Minister had completed his speech I made a personal explanation in which I pointed out to the Minister the errors he had made in the speech. I was concerned and so I asked Mr Bridgman, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, to check the tape recording of the speech. Mr Bridgman did so and reported to me that the tape recording was identical to the original Hansard draft. You will rememberMr Speaker, that I informed you of the situation and you were good enough to supply me with the original Hansard draft. The following is an extract from the original Hansard draft and commences with an interjection by me;

Mr Uren:

– What sympathy?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Reid, who is interjecting, made one or two points appropriate to the Bill. He referred to a report from the Brotherhood of St Laurence concerning rents that are paid for certain flats and dwellings in Melbourne. I think that the figure he mentioned was $23. The honourable member recently received an answer to a question on this matter. The question asked the Government to supply details of the weekly cost for a 3-bedroom flat or dwelling. The question was particularly appropriate to Victoria. The answer which has been supplied to the honourable member indicates-

Mr Uren:

– What date was that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It was within the last week - very recently.

Mr Uren:

– I have not seen it.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member may go to his room and acquire it.

In my personal explanation on Thursday, 29th April, after the Minister had completed his speech I said:

I claim to have been misrepresented. In the course of my speech tonight I said that the cost of a Victorian Housing Commission dwelling, according to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, is $22 a week for a 3-bedroom flat. On 1st April 1971 I placed on the notice paper a question in regard to Housing Commission rents. I willread the question in a moment. The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) stated quite falsely and untruthfully that I had received an answer several days ago.

To that the Minister interjected:

No, I did not say that.

I then went on to say in my personal explanation:

The Hansard record will show that the Minister said that if I checked my desk I would find I had received the. reply.

I then went on to draw his attention to the fact that the question was still on the notice paper for that day and I read it from the notice paper of 29th April. I concluded my remarks by saying:

The Minister has said that he has supplied an answer and that it has been on my desk for several days. That statement is completely untrue and I ask him to withdraw it immediately. He made the statement that a reply had been given and it was false.

In this place credibility is an important factor. I will deal only with 4 alterations that were made. The first sentence with which I wish to deal reads:

The honourable member recently received an answer to a question on this matter.

The Minister changed the word ‘received’ to ‘requested’. The second proposition that he misrepresented was:

The answer which has been supplied to the honourable member indicates-

The Minister completely deleted the words which has been supplied to the honourable member’. I then interjected and said:

What date was that?

The Minister replied:

It was within the last week - very recently.

This has been altered to read:

It was within the last week - or, rather, recently that you put the question.

I then interjected and said:

I have not seen it.

The Minister then replied:

The honourable member may go to his room and acquire it.

This was altered to read:

The honourable member should soon acquire it.

This is a complete falsification of the record. I ask that the record be corrected and I wish to state here and now that I in no way reflect on the Hansard staff and I thank them for their courtesy and assistance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The matter will be rectified in the weekly issue of Hansard.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (Lilley- Minister for Housing) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. The misunderstanding which arose in relation to the interjection by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and my answer to it during the debate last Thursday night was due to a. misunderstanding on my own part in that I thought that the answer to a question which 1 had signed had in fact been sent to the room of the honourable member for Reid. That was a genuine misunderstanding. The subsequent alterations merely in the sense of Hansard were all related to that point. They were alterations in relation to tense and alterations which were subsequent to the statement I made that the honourable member for Reid had received the answer to the question. The alterations to the typescript of Hansard were made with that understanding of my own and I sustain that point. As it remains I would suggest that both the interjection and the rejoinder to the interjection do not make sense. It- was with the intention of making sense out of nonsense that in fact the alteration was made. I did .discuss this matter with the honourable member for Reid before coming into the chamber this afternoon. I have discussed the matter with Hansard and I have indicated that both the interjection and the answer should remain as they were originally as this is the desire of the honourable member for Reid even though I still suggest that there are a number of illogicalities and non-sequiturs in both situations.

Mr UREN (Reid)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented then by the Minister?

Mr UREN:

-Yes, I do. The fact is that the Minister completely distorted my personal explanation. That is why I rose. On 29th April, immediately after the Minister spoke I made a personal explanation. The second point I wish to clarify is that the Minister said he spoke to me prior to coming into the House. It is true that he did, but I sought from him a copy of the original draft of his speech. He refused to give it to me and I said that I would have to say it was a false statement. It Was on your authority, Mr Speaker, that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter - not the Minister - forwarded to me the original draft of the Minister’s speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I might say that I requested the Minister to see the Hansard staff in order to make available to the honourable member the original draft of his speech.

page 2353

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTION

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the. text of the following international treaty: Convention No. 112 Concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment as Fishermen, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Fortythird session on 19th June 1959. The law and practice in both: Commonwealth and State . jurisdictions in Australia are in accord with the provisions of the Convention. Subject to the approval of the Federal Executive Council, the Government intends to lodge the instrument of ratification of this Convention with the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office as soon as possible.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is there some way in which we can have a debate on this matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That- is not : within my province.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Only the Minister can do that.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Will you have a debate?

Mr Lynch:

– It will be on the paper, will it not?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We ‘want to debate the International Labour Organisation generally - the whole question Of ILO conventions^ - and this will open up the subject.

Mr Swartz:

– You cannot do it in relation to this matter. It could be done only if the Minister wished to make a statement on the subject at any time.

Mr Lynch:

– I will take this matter into consideration and discuss it with the honourable member at another time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister do it later? Must he not do it now?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The Minister said that he would take . it into . consideration. The Leader of the House, said that he would consider issuing ‘ another statement.

page 2354

QUESTION

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

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

– by leave - I move:

That the Publications Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, when conferring with a similar committee or sub-committee of the Senate, have power to move from place to place.

Amendments, made in 1970 to House of Representatives standing order No. 28 and Senate standing order No. 36 gave the Publications Committee board powers of inquiry. However, the Committee does not have the power to move from place to place. The power is required initially to enable the Committee to inspect the new Australian Government Publishing Service Printing Office, the Department of Supply Central Drawing Office and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department printing works in Melbourne during the winter adjournment. It is expected that the need will again arise from time to time for the Committee to move from place to place in the course of its inquiries. A similar motion, relating to the Senate Publications Committee, is to be moved by the Leader of the Government in that House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2354

SALARIES BILL 1971

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2354

LOANS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April (vide page 2005), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– As the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) indicated, this Bill seeks the approval of Parliament for borrowings by the Commonwealth of $US29.58m, the equivalent of $A26.4m, from the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Boeing Company, and a further loan of $US30m, or $A26.8m, from a syndicate of United States commercial banks led by the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York,. to assist in financing the purchase of jet aircraft and related equipment by Qantas Airways Limited. The planes in question are described as 4 Boeing 747s. Some other material which the Treasurer circulated with his speech shows that this is the 11th occasion on which parliamentary approval has been sought for a borrowing by the Commonwealth in the United States on behalf of Qantas. The Treasurer listed the other occasions and showed that between 1957 and 1968, $US289.9m, or $A258.8m had been borrowed from the United States. He also showed that as at 1st April 1971 there still remained of that sum $US8S.6m, or $A79.1m, to be repaid. So the loans have been self servicing in that they have been liquidated in relatively short periods of time.

The Opposition supported the earlier measure which gave sanction to certain pre-delivery payments on the aircraft, such payments being approved by Parliament at an earlier date. The Opposition offers no objection to the financial aspects of this measure, but it does want to take this opportunity to. speak on the matter. I would have thought the Government might have been a little more forthcoming with information in view of the discussions that have taken place in recent days about the internal affairs of Qantas. It seems odd that the Parliament is expected to sanction large sums of money when we are told that in some respects internal arrangements, both financial and with relation to staff, are not as healthy in Qantas as they might be. I had hoped that honourable members might be given an interim statement. There have been all sorts of comings and goings over the last 10 days or a fortnight between the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the head of the Department of Civil Aviation, Sir Donald Anderson, the management of Qantas, and the pilots. But nobody even at this stage seems to know what has happened.

Before I deal with that, I would like to say something about the finances of Qantas which, up to date, at least have been quite satisfactory. From a reading of the 1969- 70 annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd, dealing with the period up to 31st March 1970, it is hard to say why the internal finances of Qantas should have deteriorated to the degree some people are suggesting. I do not necessarily support that view. Like most people I am a little mystified by the lack of information that is available in view of the critical statements that are being made about the enterprise.

In 1969-70 Qantas Airways Ltd had a revenue of $198.939m and an expenditure of $185.142m, leaving an operating profit for that year of $1 3.797m. On revenue, not capital, of just under $200m, it seems to be satisfactory to make an operating profit of nearly $14m or something like 7 per cent. Out of that sum $5.63 lm was paid to the Commonwealth as income tax. For several years now we have bad the fiction of taxing the enterprise - taking some of the profits out and giving them to the Commissioner of Taxation who then passes them on to consolidated revenue. The remainder, $8. 166m, is left as net profit to go into the reserves of the company. The figures show that during the 12 months there was an increase in the number of passengers carried from 582,000 to 683,000, which is getting fairly close to 2,000 passengers every day of the year. This seems to indicate that Qantas is a popular international airline. On page 3 of the report I read:

In December 1969 the Company ordered equipment for a $17.7m expansion of its computer project, QANTAM. When it becomes operative in 1971, it will be the largest commercial computer system in Australia.

On page 13, dealing with what Qantas is likely to do, the report states:

Of equal importance is the development of a Management Information System. Large volumes of data are required to be processed for maintenance, operational marketing and financial purposes. Ready access to such information is necessary for management decision making.

I would have hoped we might have had some of this management information made available to us to assist us in this debate because it seems that there are considerable internal difficulties. I rely on a couple of articles which appeared in issues of the ‘Financial Times’ on 23rd and 27th April. Both issues dealt with the internal affairs of Qantas. The issue of 23rd April states:

Captain Ritchie . . .

He is general manager of Qantas -

  1. . said yesterday that cost estimates for the airline had jumped beyond estimates in a way never before experienced by the airline.

Last year we estimated a $3.4 million increase in expenses for the year ahead,’ he said.

But we had had the 6 per cent national wage increase on December 14, followed 3 days later by an additional 18 per cent increase for Qantas clerical and graded staff.

We face possible increases in the cost of fuel, and have added airport and air navigational charges.’

With other increases in wages and salaries, the company’s wage bill jumped by $11 million a year.

At the same time, the airline has been faced by a drop of 30,000 in migrant traffic for the year 70-71.

This is equivalent to 3 flights a week to Europe,’ said Captain Ritchie. ‘It is also equivalent to 45 pilots.’

Captain Ritchie said that other major world carriers had been losing ‘astronomical’ sums of money with the widespread fall in traffic growth.

Qantas has no charter to run at a loss, and we are determined to avoid doing so, he said.

Qantas has superimposed on the international traffic situation the Australian cost situation.’

At the moment, Qantas- believes it can sustain existing staff productivity by holding its general staff at its present strength.

However, intake of stewards and hostesses in 1971-72 will drop by a total of some 155.

The same article contains a statement by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots which was strongly critical of Qantas management. The article said:

The Federation said it was surprising and curious that at the end of last year Qantas was seeking to add to their pilot strength from overseas sources.

The Federation said Qantas management had informed it mat the first indications of a likely recession came in December.

This obviously created a doubt, said the AFAP, as to the real reason for the present position when one month later the company was setting about a considerable expansion programme.

The Federation said the Qantas reasons for the recession were hardly valid when the company had not pursued in a businesslike manner the overseas market

Apparently the Federation had not gazed intently enough into the crystal ball. The article continued:

The AFAP calculates that Qantas will end’ the year with a profit of some $5 million and that it is not only in a sound financial position but in a much sounder one than any other world airline.

To indicate the sort of situation that other world airlines are in, I quote from an article in the ‘Economist’ of 17th April 1971, which is just a couple of weeks ago. The article is entitled: ‘£75 to New York? BOAC puts its jumbo 747s into service on Wednesday, roughly a year late. It wants to halve the fares in order to fill the seats.’ The article reads as follows:

The writing is already on the wall. BOAC’s profits have had a turn-round almost as sharp as the collective one which sent the American airlines more than £Stg50m into the red last year, of which £Stg20m was accounted for by Pan American alone. BOAC’s operating profit fell over roughly the same period, from £Stg31m to £Stg5m for the year that ended in March. AH that ground was lost in the second half of the year, and much of it in the last 2 months. There is no particular secret about why this happened. Suddenly, as the 390-seat jumbos have come in, there are more and more airline seats ‘ without passengers to fill them. And nobody is making any very successful attempt to find them. Of course the publicity men are working full blast, but they can only provide palliatives at best. Il is something more fundamental that is required now.

It is no use saying that the airlines should not have bought so many aircraft. They have, and there is no going back on it. What is more, a new aircraft cannot be introduced in ones and twos. If an airline is to sustain a regular service it must have a minimum size of fleet; so BOAC is bringing 6 Boeing 747s into operation in a relatively short time. This is more than 2,300 seats, sufficient for nearly 1 million passengers in a year, or roughly half the number BOAC carried last year.

Using the same sort of arithmetic, as far as Australia is concerned presumably four 747s would carry over 600,000 passengers in a year, which is something like the annual number of passengers carried by all the 21 other aircraft of Qantas in the previous year. This raises the question of whether, as in the ease of steamship companies at an earlier time and later in the case of railways, in some of these undertakings there may not be overcapitalisation and perhaps a seed for more rationalisation in international air carriage than is currently the case. As I have indicated to date Qantas has been reasonably successful financially. I wonder whether, taking into account the capital cost of Qantas, by and large this country would have been in a better or worse position on an international exchange pattern if we had not had Qantas at all. I would hope that if such an examination were made it would show that Qantas had been a net earner of foreign exchange. It certainly has added to the international prestige of Australia.

As T have said before in relation to similar measures, it is a pity that we had not gone as enthusiastically into providing a steamship service for this country 40 or 50 years ago - certainly, from 1920 onward - as we seem to have gone into equipping our international airline with the latest available types of aircraft. I am sure that if Australia had had a steamship service - not only internal but also external - with the same sort of vigour as Qantas provides for the airways, it would have had a very significant effect on shipping freights. Nevertheless, there are times when the. rate at which progress is being made in particular directions ought to be looked at. According to Qantas staff, the company will make a profit of $5m for the year ended March 1971. At least it is in a better position than Pan American Airways, which is showing a loss of about $US50m and the British company which is experiencing a loss of from §10m to $12m. Qantas is certainly not yet as badly off financially as those companies. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, the Government would have supplied us with a little more information. After all, if the Parliament is expected to hand out or sanction the use of $60m and the information is that all is not well in the undertaking that is borrowing the money, at least some of the fears ought to have been allayed. In my view, they have not been allayed. I do not want to take sides in this matter because the negotiations between the staff and the management of Qantas are at a somewhat delicate stage at the moment. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) and others have been brought in to try to bring some unity to the discussions. I hope that the discussions are successful because there is not any doubt, as has been pointed up in the last annual report of the airline that its internal finances were adversely affected last year by industrial trouble. At page 16 of the report it says:

The past year was an extremely active one in the field of labour relations. Qantas, along with other major employers, was subjected to heavy industrial pressure resulting in a series of strikes against the Company, mostly of short duration. Depite increased industrial activity, no serious disruption of services occurred.

Unfortunately, there has been a certain degree of instability in the labour relations between the management and the staff of Qantas. I would not place all the blame on the employees. I believe that the enterprise could not have been what it has been without their support. The management of Qantas has not always been as diplomatic as it ought to have been in its staff arrangements. Perhaps instead of buying a computer it would have done well to strengthen personal relations with its employees to secure a little more peace within that industry.

There is too much of a tendency for these sorts of undertakings - and no undertaking could be more modern than an airline - to provide their management from people who have retired from somewhere else. Whatever their expertise in another direction may have been, they are not necessarily the best people to have the control or the overall direction of an undertaking like an airline, particularly when it has a total balance sheet of about $250m worth of assets offset by about $170m worth of liabilities. That is certainly a large scale undertaking and, with all respect, is scarcely the place for people whose services are no longer required somewhere else. I hope that in the future there will be some vigour in the management rather than the employment of somebody who is just looking to supplement his superannuation which, as a result of the policy of the Government, is losing its value. It is understandable, I suppose, that a person should want to maintain his income, but whether it ought to be done in this sort of way seems to be rather dubious. I sometimes think that the kinds of expertise that are necessary to manage this sort of operation are very much different to those possessed by people who are brought in from outside with an entirely different experience. I hope that perhaps this will be considered in the future when appointments are made to the Board and other parts of the management of Qantas.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I congratulate the honourable member for Mel* bourne Ports (Mr Crean) upon the thorough way in which he has gone into this matter. There is not very much we can say in regard to it. Qantas Airways Ltd has ordered 4 aeroplanes and, of necessity, they have to be paid for. The Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill confirms the transaction. I agree with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that we should have been able to expect some statement about the present position of Qantas. But as the good Book tells us, blessed be he that expecteth nothing for he shall not be disappointed. I do not think anyone can tell us the reason for what has happened to Qantas and the decline in the aircraft carrying trade. This phenomenon has come about so unexpectedly that not even those wretched things that most people put much confidence in but in which I have not been able to express so much confidence, namely computers, would have been able to foresee what has happened in the aircraft carrying industry. It is in a very difficult position.

When I was first made aware of the payment required for the 4 jumbo jets, the immediate thought that came to my mind was: Can we get out of the deal? Is there an escape clause in the contract? It appeared to me to be folly to purchase something that, on present indications at any rate, would be an incubus on the already difficult state of affairs in which Qantas now finds itself. What are we to do? I suppose it is in the lap of the gods. We are to have an aeroplane that will carry three times the number of people that can be carried by the aircraft now operating. Australia has .a . meagre population of 12 million as against the huge population of America, and it. will be hardly feasible or possible for our aeroplanes to leave their home base filled, to near the same capacity as their American, counterparts. We are facing a very, difficult period. It will require all the wisdom and understanding of the biggest business men in Australia to see us through, this period. But in the meantime, of course, that does not make people travel.

I wish I could offer some solution or theory for this quick downturn in aircraft passenger trade. It almost defies theories or the working out of principles. Maybe it is a phenomenon that has come about and, just as locusts come and locusts go, it will disappear. We hope so. It may have been brought about, for the want of a better expression, by an attitude of easy come, easy go. Qantas was our great flag carrier. It received all our approbation. People on all sides of the community were proud of this great company, which carried the Australian flag through many’ lands of the world and which has had ‘an almost accident free record. They were proud of the crews who had previously served with great honour and great, distinction in the Royal Australian Air Force. These men who served their country so well were the nucleus of the air crews that have brought such praise and admiration from people throughout the world for’ the great service they have built up and fér the great organisation of Qantas.

News of the present predicament of Qantas has come as a great shock to us because we thought tha”! Qantas could never fail. I remember being in England when the Rolls-Royce organisation failed, and some friends of mine in Stroud, in Gloucestershire, said in their Gloucestershire way: ‘When Rolls-Royce fails it is nearly as bad as losing our Queen’. I suppose that when we know the state of affairs in which Qantas now finds itself we are entitled to adopt a similar frame of mind, because this company represented something great and unique in a new method of transportation. Now we have arrived at this stage, it will require determination and co-operation from all segments of the industry to overcome the difficulties! We must not overlook the great defence value of Qantas. It may be better if I did not say anything further about this aspect because I do not know how restricted is the information about Qantas in regard to defence. But the wonderful job that it does in servicing Air Force machines, I daresay, is known to most people. I sympathise with the Minister in the predicament in which he now finds himself, but I am sure that the Australian character will predominate and that we will prove again that once we get our backs to the wall we can fight ourselves out of a very difficult position.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, my electorate is concerned with the growth and expansion of Australia’s airline, Qantas Airways Ltd. At the outset I want to say that we are very anxious to see that it continues to progress. After reading the last annual report of Qantas, which was so glowing and which disclosed what was deemed to be the splendid growth that had taken place in the last 10 years, it is with some uncertainty that we now read in the Press that there is to be retrenchment of staff and some setback. The aviation industry throughout the world is very competitive, and we agree fully that money such as provided for in this Bill should be raised to enable the Australian airline to compete effectively with those overseas.

Upon reading the report, we find that we are now to borrow virtually $101 m This Bill relates to part of it, and it indicates that the money is being borrowed on terms that are deemed to be favourable. I have read the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), in which he indicated virtually in one-half page of

Hansard what he thought were the salient points. After looking at the Bill itself and at the annexures and schedules relating to the terms of repayment of this loan, interest rate, etc, I would like enlightenment as to why, as a Government is virtually guaranteeing this loan, we are agreeing to some of these terms. The interest rate certainly would be attractive to an American financier. It is a guaranteed loan. The agreement provides that, certain cash subscriptions will be made. In other words the loan is only portion of the amount involved. It goes without saying that the fact, that when we as an Australian nation contract to buy this type, of aircraft we in fact ‘ are assisting ‘ materially the Boeing company in America. It has been a criticism of Australia’s efforts in dealing with the American aviation industry that we never seem to get part of the business.

I would have thought it would be appropriate even at this stage to suggest that if we are to compete ourselves, as we do because of the economic interest we have in aviation, and if we are to buy these planes from Boeing, at’ least portion of the equipment could be manufactured here. I understand that it is commonplace throughout the world to do this. The Americans are somewhat surprised at out innocence in that we. never ask for this condition. 1 do not know whether it has ever been asked for in this case. However, it follows, does it not, that if we are materially to assist American industry to this extent we ought to assist also our own industry which is in rapid decline? I believe it would be appropriate for us to say: Very well, if this is part of the agreement, why should we not manufacture a portion of the contract here?’ I think that this should be done. Such ‘ an arrangement would materially assist the case we are considering; it would materially assist Australia from a defence point of view.

When we look at the splended personnel we have in Australia we realise that we have all the skill and technology which are needed to manufacture material needed for this type of work. Certain restrictions are laid down. The agreement sets out that we agree that no aircraft or related equipment the purchase of which is to be financed either wholly or in part by America is to - be used in any Communist country or in any country in which the United States feels that there might be a conflict whether declared or otherwise as defined in section 620 (f) of the United States Foreign Assistance Act 1961. Therefore,, for a start, from the point of view of an international airline, we cannot use these aircraft in every country. We know that Australia trades with Communist countries. However, it follows now that because of this agreement we will not be able to use our aircraft to travel to Communist countries. 1 say that this is a severe limitation on Qantas for a start. Surely in any reasonableness it would not be suggested that we would be actively trading with the enemy.

Many Australians will in the future be anxious to trade with Communist dominated countries and will want to travel to those countries by Qantas, which is Australia’s airline. These people deplore the politics of those countries; they do not agree with the leaders of those countries, but nevertheless they believe that trade relations should be encouraged. However, under this agreement we agree not to fly to Communist countries in these aircraft because we are borrowing this money from the United States. I do not think the reason for this is explained in the Minister’s second reading speech. In terms of American legislation called the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 we agree not to engage in all aviation facilities throughout the world. This means that anyone in Australia who wants to go to any of the Communist dominated countries or perhaps a country which the United States deems to be hostile cannot travel to that country by Qantas. This is not because of any volition of Qantas but because of a severe embargo and one which any reputable country would not dare agree to, which has been entered into in order to secure the loan. I think that this aspect of the agreement should be altered. Of course, it is like everything else in this Parliament. The agreement was made in December of last year and it would be very difficult for us to alter it now.

The other point I wish to mention is this: There has been some comment on the fact that Qantas has been trading at a profit, and that is to be applauded. We want to see the profit increase; we want to see the work force of this organisation increased; we want to see . Australian civil aviation continue to be amongst the best in the world, as is the case with Qantas. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Melbourne. Ports, interest on loans plus the amount paid in tax is quite substantial. It is well above the profit. In fact, the amount paid in interest on loans was $5. 6m and profit was only $8m. Therefore it is a drag .that we are borrowing so much money. Nevertheless, Qantas has been a very viable proposition until recently. It now. appears that there is severe competition in the use of the Boeing 747. It is obvious that this competition will increase because the number of this type of aircraft is becoming, so great. This aircraft holds 350 passengers as. against a maximum of 120 passengers in existing aircraft.

The design of this aircraft, I believe, leaves much to be desired.- The economy class section, which basically makes up twothirds of the passenger content, does not encourage passenger travel. It resembles a big vacant theatre. Seats are 9 abreast and no real new services are available. I think an overseas passenger would be anxious to obtain better services and seating than this aircraft can provide. It may be that the recession in the number of passengers is due to 2 factors - the fact that there are many more seats available and that they are not as attractive as the existing seats.

A couple of things ought to be said about public relations in regard to Qantas and its directorship. I can appreciate the fact that the Board of Directors is anxious to maintain discipline but this can get to ridiculous proportions. I would like to indicate to the House what happened to a constituent of mine. This man, a young qualified tradesman was just through his apprenticeship and was working on the night shift. An order was issued that employees were not to use any of the fruit juices stored in the aircraft. However, the young man improperly took a tin of fruit juice after 1 1 o’clock at night. At this time of night there were no facilities available in the canteen because it was closed. Because he took that fruit juice and used it for his own consumption and that of his colleague, he was dismissed from the airline. Perhaps such a penalty was to be expected. But he was then charged with theft and was ordered to appear before a court. I made representations that this was carrying things too far. However, the case had to go on and the charge was dismissed, as it should have been by any magistrate.

The attitude of the Board of Directors, as I understand it, is: ‘We are dealing with a militant union and we really have to teach a lesson in every case. We are going to teach it to the extreme’. Apparently the Board says: ‘Not only will we sack a man but also we will seek the penalty of a criminal conviction’. I stress that this was a case of a young man who was sacked for allegedly stealing a tin of fruit juice at a time when he could not get refreshments for himself. I think that this should be deplored from the point of view of labour and industry conditions. The. young man sought to obtain employment with TransAustralia Airlines. However, it- was suggested that he might not be fit for employment because he was liable to be convicted on the charge. A virtual black ban was placed on him. I stand to be, corrected but I believe the decision in this case came from the top because I made’ representations and they were unsuccessful. If we have this sort of control by the .Board of Directors is it any wonder that there might be some disquiet as to whether Qantas is being managed in every sense from the point of view of getting the goodwill of all employees. This attitude of dictatorship should not apply.

I understand that my colleague the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) has had complaints from people working in the maintenance section of Qantas that a lot .of maintenance work is being done overseas and not in Australia. The honourable member thinks that this is not encouraging the goodwill of employees. To make anything viable from the point of view of economic profit or from the point of view of repaying the loans that we borrow we have to have the goodwill of the employees.

The other point I want to mention concerns my electorate. I believe it is important that Qantas should have the goodwill of all people. In my electorate a lot of development by Qantas is taking place. Because Qantas is our international airline it is dictating what happens at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It says what is to be the future of the airport but consults no -one. Qantas does not submit plans or proposals to the local planning authority. It ignores the authority. This creates a great problem for the people in my electorate. If democracy is to work fairly and if everyone else is to abide by the law in respect of town planning why should not our own airline do so? We are anxious that Qantas should continue to improve. However, Qantas is now’ operating as an international airline from the only international airport we have in Sydney. This is not a viable airport if Qantas is’ to compete with all. the domestic airlines. .

One would think that a feasibility study should have been conducted on the best method of using the paltry 1,500 acres at Sydney Airport. If this airport, is to be an international airport obviously it should be used only by international airlines because traffic will expand so much. This airport should not be cluttered up, as it now is, by domestic airlines which are expanding even faster. The international terminal is becoming virtually -uneconomic because of the continual delays and ‘ the problems that passengers have, not with getting on and off a plane but with ‘clearances, baggage collection and traffic congestion. All of these matters are becoming a real problem. Qantas and the other airlines are anxious to expand. If we get 747’ aircraft coming in with 360 passengers’ and one or two of them arrive together ‘ there will be an interminable delay with customs and with passenger traffic leaving the airport. This creates congestion right throughout the community and causes economic loss not only to Qantas and other operators but also to all of the people in the area.

It is important, from the point of view of this airline, to summarise my statements on the following basis: Firstly, we should try to do away with the article in the First Schedule of the Loan Agreement which states that Qantas cannot fly in all countries. I think it is imperative that this provision be deleted from the Agreement. Secondly, Qantas should encourage better relationships with its employees, particularly in the two instances I have mentioned. Thirdly, from the point of view of the future of the airline, Qantas should consult frequently with the local planning authorities and encourage their cooperation and goodwill, because they are anxious to see that Qantas, at least, survives, if perhaps other airlines cannot effectively operate from Sydney airport.

Do not let us have the situation where we say that perhaps it may not be an economic proposition in the future to maintain our own airline, because if we do not meet competition from international airlines as we are now doing and if we do not meet competition from charter flights we will lose the airline. An intelligent appraisal of the feasibility of Qantas in the future has not been made. If its employees, including the pilots, are so upset because they do not think that they have a future with Qantas they will leave. It is of paramount importance in dealing with this legislation to look at the principles I have mentioned. Of course, Qantas needs all the opportunities for development it can get. It has done well; its profits continue to rise. However, for the first time, there are warning signals that perhaps it will suffer a loss and it cannot afford to suffer too many losses. There are many ways in which an Australian airline, because it is Australian in content and because it has the skill of Australian pilots and should have the patronage of Australians, could, in fact, be an even better profit-making concern. But Qantas will continue to deteriorate if there is tack of goodwill towards its employees and if it lacks the opportunity to develop air routes throughout the world because of what might be termed a hiatus in an agreement with the United States of America arising from the political content of the agreement. Finally, Qantas must look at the adequacy of the airport from which it is operating. It cannot continue to do this because the life of that airport is limited to 1980. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his reply, would deal with some of the matters I have raised.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– At the outset, I should, like to say that, like every other member of the Parliament, I recognise the importance to Australia of an overseas airline industry. I realise that for every Australian who leaves this country by air or by ship there is a considerable loss of our own capital and if we can recoup a percentage of this capital loss by accommodating people on our own airline it is to this nation’s advantage. Almost every country has its own airline. I have been to many countries but I do not think that I have been to one yet where I could not have flown on that nation’s international airline. Perhaps one of the problems of international air traffic today is that there are far too many airlines. Consideration should be given to a system whereby this situation could be rationalised and brought back to a sensible level.

When we read of the sacking of some ISO pilots and the decision not to recruit more staff, we can find much to contrast between the situation of Qantas Airways Ltd and the situation in the United States of America where there have been losses of $150m by the major international airlines and where some 10,000 people have been sacked or stood down. It should be remembered by those who are trying to make excuses for Qantas that this is not necessarily a world-wide happening. In the European sector, airlines are still continuing to succeed. Many honourable members, including the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), have expressed surprise at the fact that suddenly we have been told that our national airline is in trouble. I have done research on this point and I notice that Sir Roland Wilson, while bringing down the annual report of Qantas for 1969-70 - I concede that it is not plainly written, and is fairly well couched - predicted a glowing and promising future but went on to say:

However, new and increased competition from other international airlines, combined with pressures from rising costs, particularly in salaries and wages, make it doubtful whether we can expect a financial result in 1970-71 as favourable as that experienced in 1969-70.

Perhaps that is an understatement. A little booklet, put out by Qantas last year and titled ‘Qantas - at Fifty’ is available to honourable members. If we read this booklet carefully, tucked away in a host of other articles, under a section titled Profitability’, we find the following:

There are some indications, however, that despite the introduction of ‘jumbo’ aicraft, this trend has ceased and unit costs are rising for the first time in the history of civil aviation. The airlines are caught in a scissors grip of rising costs and falling revenue yields and there is, in consequence, mounting pressure for higher tariffs.

I cannot vouch for the correctness of this, but I have every reason to believe that, more than a year ago, the Department of Civil Aviation projected that Qantas was headed for trouble. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports said that we had been given little information on this matter and I should like to hear a clear and detailed statement from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). The members of this Parliament, whether they sit on’ this side of the House or on the other side, are virtually responsible for what is happening to Qantas. The company reports to us each year, through its annual reports, and I do not believe that we have been given enough information. Perhaps the attitude in recent years has been that because Qantas has been doing well we should leave it well alone. We should not interfere. I notice, from looking at its annual reports, that in the last 10 years Qantas has had only one downturn year and that was 1966-67. Although Qantas has not had a completely progressive decade, on the whole, I imagine it would be the envy of many a business organisation.

I think it was the honourable member for Melbourne Ports who referred to the directors of Qantas. From the same annual report, under the heading ‘Qantas Airways Ltd and Subsidiaries, Profit and Loss Account’ we see that directors fees have risen from $22,900 to $28,725. From rough calculations I estimate that this is an increase of some 30 per cent. I think that the people of Australia have every reason to demand, when money such as this is being paid to directors, that results be continually good and that there be no downturn years. Perhaps the suggestion by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that the composition of the Board of Directors of Qantas leaves something to be desired may be worthy of investigation. I would not know for certain, but it is a point which was made by the honourable member and it is something which could be examined by the Minister. The average staff strength of Qantas is a story of success. In the last year it has increased by 5 per cent. Another interesting provision appears in the annual report of the company. Over the 50 years preceding its last report, $8,386,000 had been set aside for long service leave, etc. This year’s report indicates that the figure has increased to $11,807,000- by over 40 per cent. One cannot help but wonder about an increase such as this - the percentage is quite considerable.

My own experience of Qantas is that Australians . have every reason to be proud of its efforts overseas. On the whole it is doing a good job. A few moments ago the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) proclaimed how. proud we are of this great company which has successfully carried our flag throughout the world. Maybe one of our. problems has been that we have been blinded by national sentiment and have not been prepared to look closely at the results achieved and the way in which this company, has been growing. I cannot help but refer to. one i or two of my own experiences and .venture the opinion that while Qantas may be many things that members have suggested, there is still a lot of room for improvement. I recall an incident which occurred in the latter part of last year when I went- to the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to board a flight bound for Tokyo. On arrival at Mascot I was told that my booking, which had been made many, weeks previously, was . not available and that no seat was available. In retrospect I express my complete surprise that, having gone to the trouble df packing my bags with heavy woollens for the trip to Tokyo, on arrival at the international terminal I was told I would have to wait in the queue to see whether some other person failed to claim a seat.

Mr Martin:

– And you are a member of the Parliament.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It would not matter if I was a member of the Par;liament or an ordinary citizen. One expects efficiency when one makes an airline booking. This is only one incident. This is only the beginning. There were others during that trip when I stopped in a number of countries on the way to and from Tokyo. I found that I was placed on flights which did not even exist or which had been cancelled months earlier. I recall a few years ago going to the Hong Kong Airport to fly to Laos. I was told that my aircraft was cancelled for the week. That incident alone taught me to be a patient man. I would never have expected that our own international airline would have booked me on flights which did not exist. Then there was the occasion of the missing airline ticket in Taiwan which cost me a full day. There was also the incident when one member of our party lost part of his luggage. Collectively these things have not left me with a good impression of our international airline.

I know that the father of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), had a lot to do with the formation of the Qantas company which began in my home State of Queensland. Honourable members should hear what the honourable member for Kennedy has to say about the efficiency of Qantas. A number of us in this place could tell good stories. A lot of people swear by the efficiency of Qantas; a lot of people swear by the inefficiency of this organisation. But my own experience has been - I can speak only for myself - that there is a high degree of inefficiency in Qantas and should our national airline continue in this way it will get a bad name and the losses which are being predicted for the future will most certainly become fact. This airline cannot continue to be dependent on national sentiment for support without coming across with the goods, and the goods are efficiency and goodwill.

In passing, I mention that I know of one or two organisations in Australia with considerable dealings outside this country which have refused to have anything to do with Qantas. I do not say these things for any reason other than to try to impress on those responsible for running this company that they have a duty to ensure that everything possible is done to step up the efficiency. It is of no use to say that if we sack 150 pilots we will save ourselves $500,000, $200,000 or $lm. If this really has to be done then sadly that is fair enough. But if there remain areas in which people can justifiably criticise, Qantas has no alternative but to face the issue squarely before it makes a big decision to lay people off.

Prior to entering Parliament I was by occupation an industrial officer. I have some idea of the relations which exist between unions and management. But when one looks from a distance at the record of Qantas, as an observer one cannot help but wonder just where the troubles lie. Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the various unions in the industry have been more militant than even some of the more extreme unions in this country, and it seems very strange that this should happen. I submit that it is possible that here again is another area of failure by Qantas and to which that organisation should give close attention. If Qantas has not already a highly trained and developed industrial relations section some of the money which it has put aside in past years could be directed towards this purpose.

A few weeks ago I raised in this Parliament the value of tourism to Australia. Let it never be forgotten that whilst we in Australia might be saving considerable sums of money on foreign exchange and earning a certain amount of money because of the activities of our national airline, many aspects of our policy, whether it is implemented to protect Qantas or for some other reason, in the field of tourism are costing Australia dearly. I mentioned the other night in this place that Mexico earns $1 billion a year from tourism. The little island of Jamaica earns well over $80m a year. The State of Florida in the United States of America earns $6 billion a year. Ireland earns $1 billion a year. Yet Australia is earning in the vicinity of $100m a year. Tourism in Australia is a completely neglected industry. I believe some of the neglect can be attributed to the policies we have adopted in the protection of Qantas. There was an article in the ‘Bulletin’ recently which stated that whenever criticism arose the Government blamed Qantas House but Qantas House tried to blame Canberra. I do not care who is responsible for the continuing policy. It is a bad policy and it should be changed.

I am not suggesting that we throw Qantas to the wind. Of course we should protect it from those overseas airline companies, those fly-by-night companies, that would make inroads into our established markets and bring to Australia people who would come here anyhow. I am advocating a more realistic policy for those companies which are prepared to bring to Australia by charter those people who’ would not otherwise come here. We are shutting our doors to those people who have much money to spend and who want to see the world because we continue to over-protect Qantas.

Question 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 Dr Forbes) read a third time.

page 2364

LOAN BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2246), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– Mr Deputy Speaker- (Quorum formed.) This Bill is described as a Bill for an Act to authorise the, raising and expending of moneys for defence purposes. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) said in his second reading speech:

The purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to obtain authority to borrow from the Reserve Bank an amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit in 1970-71 and to use the proceeds of the borrowing for defence purposes’.

He went on to show that that is more a fiction than a reality because He said:

The Bill is essentially a machinery measure to enable the Government to carry out policies already approved under the various Acts authorising expenditure, the raising of revenue and financing transactions.

  1. suggest that it is virtually a fiction in that whether the money that is to be borrowed from the Reserve Bank - I will say something about that in a moment- goes ultimately to defence, reimbursements to the. States or some other activity is a matter of the totality of the result rather than of defence in particular. But if the Government says that moneys have been borrowed for defence it gets , around the inconveniences of the Loan Council because the Commonwealth is allowed to borrow moneys for defence without having to receive the prior approval of the Loan Council. The intriguing point in the Minister’s speech is that he said:

Honourable members will appreciate that at this stage of the financial year, with large amounts of revenue still to be collected and expenditures still to be incurred, and because of the unpredictability of loan raising, it is not possible to forecast with precision the amount which it may be. necessary to borrow from the Reserve Bank to complete the financing of the deficit.

All I do at this stage is point out that at this time, which is 2 months before the end of the financial year, the Government indicates the uncertainties; yet when the Budget was brought down in August - almost 9 months ago - the Government claimed that it could foresee the totality of the financial year at that time. Surely this is a matter on which we have to become a little more sophisticated. What the second reading speech on the Bill now before us says, in essence, is that the overall result of this year’s Budget will be a deficit, whereas apparently, in the Budget Speech delivered in August 1970, some virtue was seen’ in the fact that the Budget would show a slight surplus. It forecast a surplus of, I think, $4.4m. The then Treasurer did go on to make a few observations which, in fairness, I will quote; He said:

For these reasons it would be rash to claim that the Budget will prove to be exactly suited to the requirements of the Australian economy through 1970-71. In anycase, strong and pervasive though its effects can be, the Commonwealth Budget doesnot determine the whole course of our economic affairs. A multitude of initiatives and decisions on the part of others have a share in that. In particular, excessive demands for increases in money wages and other incomes - especially when pushed ruthlessly in conditions of full employment- -could jeopardise prospects of balanced growth. There is a need for responsibility and realism on the part of all in. the community here; the problem of containing costpush inflationary pressures is a large” one confronting all Western economies and it cannot be tackled effectively if there is not a general will to do so. Certainly, no Budget framed consistently with a full employment policy” can do the whole job.

Finally he said: we have sought to make this a precautionary Budget but not a repressive one. -

Since that Budget was framed the Government has made a number of changes to it. Economy measures were announced in March this year, in the form of reductions in certain expenditures. I would have thought that if those reductions were justified they oughtnot to have been justified in the name.’ of inflation; they ought to have been justified in the name of efficiency. Since then additional amounts have had to be paid to the States to enable them to get out of certain financial difficulties, the main one of which is forced upon them by wage increases which they have to pay to their employees and which they have no separate means of meeting unless the Commonwealth provides additional money.

Certainly there are a number of unknowns at the time of the framing of the Budget. Even as late as the end of April some of them remain unknown. I cite just one or two of them. Capital inflow is one. We never know during the whole course of a- financial year what the capital inflow will be. In recent times we have relied on it to the extent of about $ 1,000m annually. We do not know what loan redemptions will be. That includes both internal and external loans. We do not know what the effects of subscriptions to new loans will be during a period of 12 months. We do not know who it is primarily who takes treasury bills - whether they are taken within the banking system or by institutions once removed from. the banking system. Nor do we know the effects of what is called open market policy as conducted by the Reserve Bank. I was rather intrigued the other day to read in the only report I have seen of the. lecture delivered by the new Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Phillips, of the reliance that is placed upon open market policy by the Reserve Bank. 1 was pleased to see the new Treasurer make mention the other day of what he called debt management. I have observed in this Parliament for many years now that in this country not enough attention is paid to what can be described as debt management, where ultimately the initiative lies with the Treasurer, the. Treasury and the Reserve Bank if they want to exercise it. In my view, in this country there has been too great a disposition to hand over the initiative in these matters to what might be called large scale manipulators of the private side of the market. Indirectly, the repercussions of that flow over into the public sphere. But, in terms of the total working of an economy one can do only a certain amount, public and private. Somehow or other, one has to strike a fair balance, particularly on the investment side, between what goes into private investment and what goes into public investment.’ A government undoubtedly has the initiative if it wants to exercise in that matter.’

However, there has been too much of a disposition to let the thing ride, and as long as there is not a large degree of unemployment the Government does not seem to worry a great deal whether, in essence, there is more private investment and less public investment. I believe that decisions of that kind are important. This country is still languishing to a degree because there has been excessive private investment in some directions - I do not say in all - and there certainly has not been sufficient public investment in other directions, and in particular in the fields of education and health. As I have said, the initiative to correct that kind of imbalance properly, if it exists, lies in the hands of the Commonwealth.

We will have before us in a day or so a highly technical taxation measure. It is concerned simply with the borrowing, mainly overseas, by undertakings and strongly organised borrowers in this country. We are not talking here about the people who borrow a few thousand dollars to finance a mortgate. We are talking about people who borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to finance development in particular directions. Further, the kind of money that is sought overseas does not come from small individuals in the countries where it is sought; it comes via institutional arrangements. Often some of the institutions are borrowing at one rate and lending at a slightly higher rate, depending on a very slender margin in the transaction. That kind of thing seems to be easier to mobilise as far as private development in certain directions is concerned, but to my mind we have not yet faced up to the crucial question which is the question of getting a fairer allocation of available resources as between public and private investment.

To a great extent, this is what the Budget is in a position to do. In many respects I feel that the whole substratum on which the Budget claimed to be based in August 1970 has been breached in the 8 to 10 months that have intervened since. Firstly, the Budget itself added to inflation in the country because it imposed indirect taxes that could only have the effect of forcing up the prices of the goods and services upon which those indirect taxes were levied, namely, such things as petrol, cigarettes, other consumer items and postal charges. This was reflected in the consumer price index in the quarter immediately after the Budget and, in due course, led to wage claims to place the wage earner on the same level as he was before the prices were inflated. The Government then became seriously concerned about inflation and took what I suggest were panic measures. I think most of them have been politely forgotten since, but they gave the impression at the time that the Government was keenly aware of the dangers in the economy.

I do not know whether the Treasurer will be prepared at some stage to hazard a guess about how much he thinks he will have to borrow from the Reserve Bank between now and the end of April next. He has said that it depends on a combination of factors, one being the amount of revenue’ still to be collected. He. should have a fair idea of the amount of revenue still to be. collected although, looking at the last monthly statement issued by the Treasury covering the 9 months to March 1971 and comparing it with the 9 months to March 1970, there has been a far higher collection of tax revenue in the relevant period in 1971 compared with that in 1970. Part of it is due to inflation but the big differences between the relevant period this year compared with the same period last year lie in the items ‘Net change in Treasury Notes on issue’ and Net proceeds of loans raised in Australia*. I shall deal with those 2 items. Net proceeds of loans raised in Australia for the 9 months to March 1970 amounted to $191m whereas for the relevant period to March 1971 net proceeds were down to $85.465m.

Mr Hurford:

– Less than one-half.

Mr CREAN:

– Less than one-half, the fall being of the magnitude of over Si 00m. There is an extraordinary difference in the amount covered by the item ‘Net change in Treasury Notes on issue*. For the 9 months to March 1970 treasury notes on issue amounted to $492m - near enough to $500m - whereas for the 9 months to March 1971 they amounted to $906m- $900m in round figures. It will be seen that there was an increase of some $400m in the treasury notes on issue.

Mr Hurford:

– Extremely inflationary.

Mr CREAN:

– On the surface inflationary, that is right. The only thing is that one does not know - certainly it is not revealed by that statement - whether those treasury notes, which are taken up mainly within the banking system, have been taken up by the trading banks in place of some other transaction or have been taken up directly by the Reserve Bank. It is necessary to know these kinds of things in order to make an appraisal of the situation. As my friend has said, at least on the surface the situation was much more inflationary in terras of the effects of Government financing in March 1971 than it was in March 1970. That result was obtained immediately after steps supposedly were taken to abate inflation.

There are certainly contradictions from time to time in the logic of this Government. I think it tries to make a virtue of necessity, but sometimes the necessity has arisen because of its failure to handle the situation early enough. Recently in the course of another speech I referred to the situation in Australia as being one of economic drift. Deplorably, this is the situation which faces us in Australia. We seem prepared to let things drift along. If private enterprise can fill the bill and do the investment, fair enough. In effect, the Government’s attitude is: Do not worry where it goes as long as there is investment, and if the sufferer happens to be public investment, particularly at the level of the States, that is just too bad. I do not think that that is anywhere near good enough.

We have had great debates in this Parliament within the past month or so about something called productivity. I believe that one of the greatest contributors to increased productivity is, in the long run, the educational levels of the community from which the work force is drawn. That is highly significant. When all the analyses have been made, productivity to a great extent arises out of having a higher degree of skill in manpower harnessed to a more efficient use of techniques, machines and so on. It is not right simply to blame the wage earner or to call on management. There has to be a co-ordinated approach involving many factors. If there is to be an improvement in the overall level educationally of the work force, that points to the fundamental importance of increased expenditure on education, particularly at the higher secondary and tertiary levels. That is where the immediate impact will be if there are to be any real increases in productivity in, say, the next 4 or 5 years rather than within a generation of 20 or 25 years. It is the short term proposition that we should be looking at.

I should have thought too that the Government ought to have been . concerned a long while ago about what is happening in the loan market in this community. I still think it is deplorable in any community that the interest rate on gilt edged securities has to be as high as 7 per cent because ultimately if the gilt edged rate is as high as that it puts all sorts of punitive rates on borrowings for other than for Government purposes. When one reads from time to time advertisements claiming that lenders will give 9 per cent to 9i per cent before even they lend the money one rather trembles at the consequences to the ultimate borrowers for the goods and services to which that money is finally put. After all, if it is loaned to one person at a rate of 9 per cent or 9i per cent it will not be relent to somebody else at less than 101 per cent or 11 per cent. When one is starting to finance the purchase of land, homes and home equipment in terms of a structure as high as that, I think some serious attempt should be made to grapple with the problem of trying to bring interest rates down. The Government may have to do it by beginning selectively with particular sorts of individuals.

I was a little intrigued recently by a reply given by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to a question about what is undoubtedly a change in the treasury bill rate. The Treasurer said that it was only a technical change. If it is a technical change surely it is made for some particular purpose, and I would have hoped that that technical purpose would lead to a crack in the wall of high interest rates. I hope that the Treasurer has it in his heart to try and get interest rates a little lower than they are because in a few years he will be facing the problem that is facing my family now. They want to buy land and a house and furnish it and this is becoming extraordinarily difficult for them with the interest structure that exists at the moment. Certainly at the moment when loans come up for conversion members of the public are not very anxious to put their money into new government loans even though the rate of interest which they can get is much higher than the one they are currently get ting. Increasingly when a loan is floated the tendency is for a higher proportion to be taken at the short end of the market and a lesser proportion at the long end which, of course, stores up considerable problems every year in relation to additional redemptions.

I think this has been part of the difficulty this year when there is an inordinately large amount falling due for convert sion. I think I saw it stated that loans close to the value of $ 1,000m were due to be converted between July 1970 and June 1971. If that is the case I suppose it is difficult to get the whole lot converted, but nevertheless one would imagine that this would be corrected by encouraging a greater part of available funds to be directed to the .loan market for public rather than private spending. It is money that otherwise would perhaps be disposed of in private hands for some other purpose. The success or otherwise of that kind of venture will, I suppose, depend upon taxation. Taxes in this country are high already and I believe that they are inequitable in the directions in which they are imposed. I would hope that serious consideration will be given to that in the preparation of the next Budget, with not just a few piecemeal concessions here and there but a whole restructuring - even starting anew in relation to income tax, which is the central tax in our system. As the Treasurer knows, in the last 2 or 3 months of the financial year we do get a rather high flow of revenue because provisional taxpayers make their payments in that period. But I think that with the way some of the provisional tax payers fortunes have gone in the last 12 or 15 months some of them will be applying for reductions iri their provisional assessment. The likelihood is that the yield will not be as great as was anticipated at the beginning of the financial year and therefore the Government’s recourse to deficit financing may be greater than was at first thought.

I think one of the dilemmas in which Government supporters get caught is that they are inclined to sneer at the use of Reserve Bank credit as being a resort to the use of the printing press. After all, we have to resort to the printing press anyway to print our notes every year but to suggest that we should not use the weapon of

Reserve Bank credit in certain circumstances is wrong. One of the greatest tasks that faces a community as a whole, I suppose, is how to allocate available sources of credit against the virtual multiplicity of demands that can be put upon the use of that credit. Somehow we have to match one with the other and this is why we on this side of the House believe that there is a need for systematic planning, particularly in the investment field, in order to cut the cake properly as between public and private investment I hope that perhaps before the debate ends the Treasurer will indicate whether or not a figure will be put forward. Sometimes in the past when a similar Bill has come before the House it has included the phrase ‘not to exceed $200m’ or something to that effect but on this occasion, prudently or otherwise, the Treasurer has chosen not to include such a figure.

Mr Snedden:

– It was about 3 years ago that we changed; it is not just this year.

Mr CREAN:

– I know, but I thought nevertheless that this year you would have been prepared to hazard a bit of a guess as to how much you would need by the end of the financial year.

I will conclude where I began - by saying that I hope that in his first Budget the Treasurer will not be quite as exuberant as some of his predecessors were and suggest that he can see, on 17th August 1971, the whole course of the economy to 30th June 1972. I do not think the Treasurer or anybody else can do that and I hope that at some time he will be imprudent enough, if I may use that term, to admit to that deficiency. I recall a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain saying that neither he nor anybody else could predict in April, which is when the British Budget is prepared, what the course of the economy might be even 6 months later. I suggest that this kind of thing is true here, and whilst I suppose a Budget should be more than merely a statement of projected expenditures and anticipated revenues I think sometimes we get a. little too clever as to what the position will be. All I suggest to the Treasurer is that he will be cautious when he speaks on that awe inspiring night of 17th August when the whole of Australia hangs on every word as though it counts when obviously 12 months later they find the words were lighter and the counting was different.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– On this peaceful May afternoon I am declaring war on the financial management of this country. If we look around us in this House we at least find the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) at the table, one Minister on the front bench, one Liberal back bencher, 3 Country Party back benchers and a few back benchers on my side of the Parliament debating what is in effect a blank cheque to the Government. Hansard informs me that the Bill was brought down in this House at 2.37 p.m. on Thursday, the last day on which we sat. If we had sat on the following day, that is, 24 hours after the introduction of this Bill we would have been expected to come in and debate this blank cheque before we had had time to confer with our colleagues about it. Let me explain to those who do not know that in the meantime we have been back in our electorates dealing with electorate problems and therefore the same thing applies, namely, we have been unable to confer about this Bill. If I had had my way and had had the opportunity to confer with my colleagues, I would have recommended that we oppose all clauses of this Bill as a protest not only against the fact that we have to debate it so soon after it was presented in this House but also against the form of reporting on financial matters to this Parliament and therefore to the people of this country.

Clearly, the way it is done is ludicrous. 1 suppose that out of the 185 members of this Federal Parliament - 125 in this chamber and 60 in the Senate - there would be about 10 who would know or understand what the papers before us mean and I would not be numbered amongst them, being a new member. If I may give my qualifications, I should be able to understand them. I have spent the whole of my career in accounting. I have an Economics degree. I have sat on the board of a savings bank and on the Municipal Tramways Trust in my own State of South Australia. 1 believe in budgeting - programmed budgeting and many of these aids to proper management. 1 have managed to help bring them in on other occasions.

The other war I am declaring now is that I intend to stand and speak in these terms on every possible occasion so that papers are brought before us which can be understood by honourable members and which, therefore, will stimulate a number of them to speak about these Bills when they come before the Parliament. As a member of the Labor Opposition, I rose immediately after my friend and colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), because nobody on the Government side of the. chamber was prepared to stand. The Treasurer left the chamber, but has now returned and I hope he will take up the points I mention.

The first example of the- gobbledegook that goes on in financial reporting is to be found in the Budget Speech. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports quoted some of it. There is a very fine section at the end of the speech beautifully, headed The Budget and the Economy’. I will not quote that part again but as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports said, each year the Treasurer, whoever he is, makes something of the total expenditure of the Commonwealth, of the total receipts of the Commonwealth and of the surplus or the deficit that then results. This is fiscal policy. This is supposed to have some effect. In fact, everywhere else in the World it does have some effect. It is part of Government thinking as to how the economy is going to be controlled. If the economy is in an inflationary situation, perhaps we should use fiscal policy to control that situation. Similarly, if we have a certain amount of deflation, perhaps we should have a deficit. Here we make something of it in the Budget Speech and then conveniently forget about it. The next time that we had any sort of financial report to this Parliament - admittedly, I was not present at the time, being on an overseas trip, but I have since read it thoroughlywas when the previous Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, reported on the great cuts that he was going to make in expenditure. Speaking from memory I think they amounted to $7 5m. Already to that stage the increase in expenditure over the amount given in the Budget was $242m. That is one exam ple of the first nonsense, if I may call it that, in relation to this matter of. reporting to the Parliament.

I am not giving this information necessarily in chronological order but another example of the stupidity and absurdity of the reporting of financial matters is to be found in the second paragraph of the second reading speech of the Treasurer relating to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1970-71. He said:

Although additional appropriations are being sought, actual expenditure will not exceed the amounts included in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1970-71 by $120,968,000.

This is the figure that the Government is now seeking approval from the Parliament to. spend. But that is not the figure that is needed over and above that, which was appropriated in Appropriation.Act’ (No. 1). Let me assure the Treasurer that- 1, am not blaming him personally for this. I am merely exhorting him to be a new broom who will bring reasonable financial reporting to this nation. There are: no reasons I know of why adjustments cannot, be made in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) in respect of appropriations in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) which are going to be underspent. This may require a change in legislation. The Treasurer can nod his head about if but if he is intent, as I believe he should be, on bringing some sensible financial reporting to this Parliament and to the nation, he can start doing things in this ‘direction. Perhaps this would not be’ his first priority but it is the sort of thing that should be done so that we will know where the finances of this country are heading- each year.

There are many other examples ‘of these absurdities. We realise that each. year, perhaps not as much in some years as this year, Bills are brought before this Parliament to make changes for political reasons. For example, suddenly there was an increase of 50c in the pension whereas, really, another $4 or $5 was needed. However, for political reasons, because there was a new Prime Minister, Parliament was asked to increase the pension by 50c. Now, this expenditure is taken from the National Welfare Fund, as I think it is” called. This expenditure does not, as I understand it, appear in these documents ‘ arid makes another nonsense of the figures served up to us to this point.

We want to know where this country is heading financially. We want to know what sort of budget surplus or deficit is going to be arrived at as at 30th June. We are sick and tired of relying only on this Government’s monetary policies to cure the inflationary situation that exists in this country. We are sick and tired of hearing Treasurers and Prime Ministers say in this Parliament that the high interest rates are necessary in spite of their effect on housing in this country and the effect they are having on State budgets, resulting in inadequate hospitals and inadequate education appropriations around the country. These extra costs are put on the people because of this monetary policy. This Government has one cure - higher interest rates, or, to a lesser extent, control over the volume of money. We are sick and tired of relying only on this. There are other ways of ordering the finances of this country and one is by means of budgetary measures.

The Government is making a nonsense of budget and fiscal policy by pretending in Parliament, in the second or third week of August, that it is using budgetary policy and then later in the financial year bringing down measures such as these Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) which we find are nothing but a black cheque to make up the difference, whatever it may be, on 30th June. When these Appropriation Bills come before Parliament they make a nonsense of the original strategy, if ever there was a strategy. These are blank cheques. In the case of this Loan Bil] 1971 the Government is asking us merely to pass a Bill through this Parliament to make an Act which will allow the Treasurer and the Treasury, as I understand it, to make up the difference between what is available cash-wise to pay for the expenditure of this country and what has not been collected in receipts. I repeat that this Bill is to make up the difference between what is being paid out and what is coming in by way of receipts. It is necessary if we are to pay the wages bills and this sort of thing. We really would not oppose the Bills because these things are necessary. If the Opposition did decide to oppose these Bills it would do so merely as a form of protest.

I have spoken about simplifying the reporting to this country and I have spoken about making an effort to make the papers that come before us meaningful.

May I turn to what is done in Canada in this respect. In Canada it is not only a fact that they try to make the Budget papers that come before parliamentarians more meaningful, so that there are more than 10 parliamentarians out of 185 - I think I am being optimistic in saying 10 out of 185 - who understand the papers; they also make an attempt to see that the man in the street understands what they are doing with the taxpayers’ money. I am referring now to a document called ‘How Your Tax Dollar is Spent’, which is put out by the Canadian Government. One half of the booklet is written in English and the other half in French. It is put out by the Treasury Board of Canada and sets out the expenditure in the simplest terms. The introduction reads:

Under our parliamentary system the Government of Canada is required each year to prepare for Parliament and the people of Canada a detailed outline of how it proposes to spend the money it will be collecting from the -taxpayers of the country.

The document explains in great detail, in terms for the layman, what the Government of Canada is doing. Let me repeat again because I think it is worth repeating that we not only do not put out a document such as this so that the layman can understand such a policy; we do not put out a document so that parliamentarians can understand it. I will move on from that to have one last word about the way we should be heading, particularly as this is a Bill which, for some reason which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) may be able to explain, is supposed to relate only to defence expenditure. Yet in fact it does not relate only to defence expenditure. As I have said, it makes up the deficit in cash transactions. It would be known outside government accounting as making up the deficit in a cash flow budget. Apparently in Government financing whatever the deficit, we make up for it by a Bill like this at the end of the financial year. For some reason, which I ask to be explained to me, it relates to defence expenditure. Not only do I ask the reason why but I also suggest that it is high time those charged with the task of accounting and reporting to this nation had a good look at another problem, if they are not doing so already, at programme budgeting. If they are doing this already they should get the Government to do something about seeing that programme budgeting is applied to this nation. What is programme budgeting? It means looking ahead and not working out things on an annual basis only - this is one of the factors - but also on a triennial basis if a particular project takes 3 years to complete.

I would like to conclude my comments by saying that where these cash transactions are concerned each member of Parliament - certainly this member of Parliamentreceives a quarterly account or Treasury Information Bulletin. This is a very interesting document. However, I have discovered that some members of Parliament - I would like to know why only some and not all - receive another cash transaction document on a monthly basis. Perhaps publicly I can ask that not only I but all members of Parliament receive this on a monthly basis so that we all may understand these facts. I am referring to a document entitled ‘Commonwealth Financial Transactions 19.0-71’, which covers the 9 months to March 1971. To illustrate the point I made about better reporting to this Parliament and the nation, it seems to me that there is no reason why the Commonwealth Government should not follow the practices outside Parliament in large organisations of dividing the Budget for the various months of the financial year so that we have real comparisons.

At the moment this particular financial transaction budgeting is on a 12-monthly basis and we are looking at comparative figures for the 9 months to March 1971. I know this will cause extra work and I realise that cash receipts come in most unevenly through the year. I have asked questions in Parliament as to why wc cannot do something along the lines of the United Kingdom practice where Treasury receipts come in more evenly throughout the year. This would help the financial management of the country. While they do not come in at an even level perhaps there is no reason why the Treasury should not supply us - I am referring to receipts at the moment - with information on the 1970-71 Budget on a monthly basis. We will then realise at this time of the year that we must expect a lot more receipts because of businessmen paying their taxes in April, and because provisional tax is paid in April and May. There is a lot more to come in during those month’s. When it comes to July, August and September not much is received other than from the PaY.asyouearn tax system but at the same time a large number of refund cheques are sent to the citizens of the nation. These ali affect the cash flow transactions of the country. The Treasury ought to have these figures. I assume that the ‘ Government makes up its Budget on a calendar monthly basis. Surely we can have details given to us on that basis showing how the cash transactions of this nation are faring in comparison with the Budget. I end on that note. I will take every possible opportunity to point out the ludicrous way in which these documents are served up to us and the lack of meaning in the documents. I hope it will eventually mean that we will think hard about this and that we will, not gat blank cheques put up to us on the spur of the moment as we have on this occasion. It will mean that a lot more members of Parliament will take notice of a Bill such as this.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– This afternoon we are debating a Bill which, in the words of the Minister, seeks to obtain authority to borrow from the Reserve Bank an amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit in 1970-71 and to use the proceeds of the borrowing for defence purposes. I am dumbfounded that the Government, has the impertinence to ask the Parliament for further funds for defence purposes when, through an appalling dereliction of duty, it has failed to safeguard an Australian multi-million dollar investment in military bases in Malaysia. The Government, through its incompetence, has in fact forfeited control over an investment at Butterworth worth $12.3m. One of the repercussions is that we are now being asked to pay rent for bases that we constructed. The Australian taxpayer is also being asked to pay rent for military bases in Singapore when, on the basis of our contribution to the base at Terendak we made a contribution of 27.7 per cent of the total cost. That Australian investment for defence purposes amounted to some $7m.

The background to this is that in June 1958 the Australian Government entered into an arrangement with the British and New Zealand governments for contributions towards the cost of building the Terendak base. The British contribution was 54.1 per cent, the Australian contribution was 27.7 per cent and the New Zealand contribution was 18.2 per cent. The arrangement was that the United Kingdom held the lease from the Malaysian Government for 30 years but under that lease, when the time came for the British to relinquish the base, they handed the base back to the Malaysians; and that is precisely what happened. The British had the arrangement with the Malaysians, we had a rather extraordinary arrangement, with the British and so, when the British handed it back, our investment - the Australian taxpayers’ investment - went lock stock and barrel to the Malaysian Government. We have not heard one word from the Australian Government about what has happened with this investment. Yet we are being asked today to vote more funds for defence purposes. The same thing happened at Butterworth base. Although Australia was the operational commander of the base, this base was returned by the British to the Malaysian Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! I would point out to the honourable member that this Bill has a limited scope. It seeks appropriation of a limited amount of money over a certain period. As I see it there, has been a full scale debate on the Budget. I do not think this is the appropriate time for another full scale debate.

Mr MORRISON:

– I was simply making an observation that we are being asked to appropriate more money when the money that the Government has had under its control has been grossly misused. I feel in circumstances such as this, when the Government is asking for more money for specific purposes, honourable members have a right to question what the Government has done with the money over which it has already had control. This is precisely the point I am raising. Perhaps I may be allowed to develop this point further. It is a matter of grave concern to me and, I think, to ail honourable members that the Auditor-General in his report for 1969-70, when referring to the operations at Butter worth, made the following observation at page 343:

The rights of occupancy of the Air Force base, Butterworth, were transferred by the United Kingdom authorities to the Malaysian Government on and from 1st April 1970. Included in the transfer were capital works and equipment which according to departmental records, had cost Australia in excess of $12,300,000.

What concerns me is that today the Parliament is being asked for more money for defence purposes and yet the Government has not accounted to the Australian people and to this House for $20m. It has not given one word of explanation of what has happened to that money. I believe that the Auditor-General should be required to investigate the circumstances in which such a massive amount of the Australian taxpayers money was not satisfactorily protected and certainly was not accounted for. They are the only observations I want to make. It is vital that the Government should be required to present a statement to this House on what has happened to past investment which have cost the Australian taxpayer $20m before the Parliament proceeds to allow further funds for defence purposes.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) commenced his speech by saying that he could not understand the Bill, despite his great intelligence which I appreciate and admire. But later he gave a clear definition of what the Bill intended to do. So he really contradicted himself by saying that he could not understand it and later giving a clear definition of the intention of the Bill. I congratulate him. I thought that he would be able to understand it and that his opening phrase was just to attract attention for the time being. The purpose of the Bill is clear. Unless a great surplus of funds is collected through taxation or unless some other money which had not been expected comes into the hands of the Government, Bills such as this will be required because, with the huge amounts of revenue and expenditure involved, it would be nearly impossible to anticipate exactly to the last cent just how much money would be required.

The Bill authorises the Treasurer to borrow from the Reserve Bank of Australia the difference between the amount of money available and that required to pay the commitments that have accrued since the Budget which was introduced last August. Let me list some of these extra payments. They include $60m to compensate the States for loss of receipts duty revenues. This amount may have been anticipated at the time of the last Budget, but it was not definite and could not be included, in the Budget. Other items include. $43m in additional assistance to the States to help with their budgetary difficulties and about $25m in increased financial assistance grants arising from the effect on the formula determined grants of the higher than anticipated increase in wage rates. In all, payments to or- for the States are now expected to exceed the Budget Estimates by the order of $132m.

The Government has gone a long way towards assisting the States in their budgetary difficulties and the increased wages that they have been required to pay over the year: Additional -payments have been made to the Australian Wool Commission. I fervently hope that the money that is being paid to the Commission will be used to advantage. The Government expects advantages to accrue from the establishment of the Commission. I have doubts in my mind as to whether this money is being spent wisely and as to whether it would not be expended better in rehabilitating people who are now on the land and living under very difficult conditions. In this case’ the money being made available to the Commission is giving many farmers false hopes. Statements are made frequently to the effect that there is a silver lining in the clouds somewhere. These people, being determined Australians, think that if there is a chance of succeeding they will remain. This is unfortunate, because many of these people would have left the land of their own volition and would have been better employed and leading happier and better lives in other circumstances. I make that comment in passing.

The Bill is necessary for the payments to the Public Service and other payments that are required to be made before 30th June. As the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) stated, it is, a machinery Bill. I trust that when the honourable member for Adelaide comes out fighting next time he will have something more definite to go on and something more to put his teeth into. There is very little for him to do so in this Bill. The Bill is not a blank cheque, as the honourable member for Adelaide stated. The purpose of the Bill is simply to find’ money for carry-on purposes. Most big businesses require this from time to time.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– It was not my intention to enter this debate but this afternoon in question time a matter was raised relating to a very large item of defence expenditure. It was mentioned in a question addressed to the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) and concerned the naval base facility at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the Minister but I am led to believe from his answer that the Public Works Committee made a’ recommendation that the construction of the naval base at Cockburn Sound should go ahead, on the’ basis that the damage which I would be caused by the construction of the. facility to the ecology and the environment at Cockburn Sound was regarded by the Public Works Committee as being, not of great importance; that the Committee felt that there were no major ecological considerations or any question of damage to the environment there, and therefore the Public Works Committee felt, with a clear conscience, that it was quite in order to go ahead and recommended the’ -expenditure for Cockburn Sound.

The expenditure involved is very great and should be of importance _ to all honourable members. If the base goes ahead and is finally completed- as it looks as though it will be - about $80m will be spent. I would like to refer to the report of the Public Works Committee in which it recommends that the construction go ahead.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I regret to butt in on the honourable member for Kingston. May I, on a point of order, suggest that the Bill is a machinery Bill to enable the Government to carry out policies already approved? As such,’ I would not think that the Bill should become the subject for a speech on the Budget in which any topic may be debated. Surely it refers peculiarly and particularly to financial requirements by the Government to carry out its programme. [ .

Dr GUN:

– May I speak to the point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

– Order! I pointed out to the honourable member for St George that this was quite a narrow measure and did not want a full scale debate on defence or other subjects. I would ask the honourable member for Kingston to retrain from broadening the debate into those areas.

Dr GUN:

– If I may speak to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the honourable member for Angas might have a good point, but the House has never had any opportunity to discuss this important matter. The Government has never made a statement on the strategic necessity for its constructing a naval base on Cockburn Sound. Frankly, I am very doubtful whether there is a strategic necessity. We cannot discuss it. I tried to discuss this matter when we were debating the recommendation of the Public Works Committee on this matter last October. At that time the honourable member for Angas made it known to me that I had to cut my speech short, and it turned out that I had to cut my speech short so we could hear subsequently the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) give a 20-minute homily on Sir John McEwen so he could ingratiate himself with the Leader of the Country Party and thus tie up his succession to the leadership of that Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out to the honourable member that the House had an opportunity to discuss this matter when debating the Budget papers. This Bill is simply a measure to finance certain programmes in the latter part of the year. It is not a matter on which a. full Budget debate can take place. I ask the honourable member to confine himself to the Bill.

Dr GUN:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, would I be in order in mentioning some of the points behind what appears to be the Government’s thinking on the construction of the naval base at Cockburn Sound? If I cannot discuss it here it means once again discussion on this important matter has to be stood over for another 4 months.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– My advice to the honourable member is that this is not a proper occasion on which to discuss this proposal.

Dr GUN:

– Very well.

Question 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 2374

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2247), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament to, the guarantee by the Commonwealth of $US23.2m or $A20.7m to be borrowed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In essence, Australia stands behind this loan as a guarantor. The Opposition offers no objectionto this measure, whose proceeds will be devoted to assisting a major hydroelectric project on the upper Ramu River in the highlands of New Guinea, about 85 miles north west of Lae. All I point out is the vast amount of development work that still has to be done in Papua New Guinea if it is to reach any significant stage of industrial development or achieve any change from its basically subsistence economy in the years that are ahead. I again point out the difficulty that faces countries such as this when it is realised that the terms of this loan - the interest rate is about7½ per cent - load on to infant development the kind of financial burden that much more sophisticated economies can assume but which perhaps can cripple this kind of endeavour.

I understand that one of my colleagues who has just been in that area wants to say something about the effects of the last loan as far as internal costs are concerned. I would hope that Papua New Guinea will have recourse to the other branch of the World Bank about which we talked recently, namely the International Development Association, which provides money at virtually no interest or for only a nominal service charge. That is the kind of assistance that the well developed have to give to the extremely underdeveloped. As I have indicated, we do not oppose the measure; but I merely take the opportunity to point out the very high burden that the current interest rates on loans from this Bank place upon development in Papua New Guinea.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– This Bill seeks the approval of the Commonwealth Parliament to guarantee the borrowing by the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea of $20.7m from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I point out the tremendous importance of this Bill to New Guinea. The term of the loan will be 25 years, with a period of 5 years grace for repayment. The interest rate will be 7.25 per cent. The money will provide for the building of the upper Ramu Valley hydro-electric scheme with an initial capacity of approximately 45 megawatts and an ultimate capacity of some 75 megawatts. New Guinea is particularly fortunate in that it has the potential for tremendous hydro-electric power development. Originally it was proposed that this scheme should supply power to Lae alone, but it has been extended to supply power to Madang. Goroka, Mount Hagen and a number of other smaller cntres. It will use only 700 feet of the total head of 2,500 feet of the upper Ramu River. The scheme was studied thoroughly by the World Bank, which sent a number of missions to Papua New Guinea, and it is obviously sound. The Bank is happy with the terms of repayment and the ability of the Territory to service the bill.

If this scheme is a success it will make lt possible for the Territory of Papua New Guinea to borrow money for further development from the World Bank. This will relieve tremendous pressures not only on the Australian Government but on the Territory itself in this period of development. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has said, this Bill is not controversial in any way. It is part of the tremendous development programme that Australia is undertaking in the Territory. Anybody who has known the Territory over a period of 25 years, as I have known it, cannot but commend Australia for what she has done and what she is doing. Few people who have not been there realise the transformation that has taken place. This Bill is a tremendous step forward and it will enable the establishment of many industries which will help New Guinea in its development. I have very much pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wonder whether the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) has really read the Bill and the schedules and understands what their implications are.

Mr Foster:

– He cannot read. Don’t show him up.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. I ask honourable members: Why is it that we are to inflict on the people of Papua New Guinea the usurious interest rates involved in this legislation by the control that we place in the hands of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development? Why is it we are to inflict on the unfortunate consumers in Papua New Guinea the final costs of this loan? That is why I rise this afternoon. It is true that the project for which this money is needed will be a valuable contributor to New Guinea’s future.

Mr Duthie:

– You have just been up there?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. The honourable member for Hume has given his commendation to the Bill, but the Bill will inflict on the people of Papua New Guinea greater costs in the form of interest. They are continuing interest rates. These costs have been forced upon the Australian railways system for the last half century or so, and we know what that has done to the whole system.

It is true that we are to build a very large power station in the Ramu Valley and that it will extend transmission systems up through Lae, Goroka, Madang and Mount Hagen. It is true that the supply of electricity and power to this country is improving. It is equally true that Papua New Guinea has great resources to permit the production of hydro-power, which ought to be exploited. The whole project will cost $30m of which we are to borrow $20m.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the terms of the loan. Firstly, let’ us have a look at the Schedules to the Bill. If honourable members have bothered to look at the Bill they will find that it contains Schedules. We have surrendered sovereignty absolutely under the terms of the schedules. The honourable member for Hume said that Australia is doing a great job in this regard. I forget the exact words he used. However, Australia is not doing anything in this regard. Australia is guaranteeing a loan which is at usurious rates of interest for a developing country which cannot possibly afford to pay them. On other points we surrender our sovereignty. This is a typical banker’s document. Just consider some of the items that are contained in the Schedules to the Bill. Section 2.03 of the Third Schedule, which deals with the question of contractors, states:

In carrying out the Project, ELCOM shall, in respect of contracts in excess of $ A 100,000 equivalent, employ contractors acceptable to the Bank upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Bank.

Why has Australia come to the stage where it has to be in mortgage, shall we say, to the International Bank? Surely to goodness there is some system by which the Australian Government is able to be the guarantor and the agent in these matters. I do not believe that we ought to allow this kind of legislation to pass through this House unchallenged.

I have dealt with the question of contractors. Let us come to this gem. Article 3 of the Third Schedule deals with the management and operations of ELCOM. Subsection (d) of section 3.01 states that ELCOM shall: . . consult the Bank before making any new appointments to the positions of General Manager, Assistant General Manager (Finance and Administration) and Assistant General Manager (Engineering).

So the International Bank, a mighty authority surely - some godhead apparently in the eyes of the people opposite - has greater capacity in the matters of supervision and in agency than the Australian Government itself which has been concerned with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme and many other projects. Australia has a very fine record in the construction of all manner of works. Australia has been involved in projects involving electricity, dams and so on. In this case we are to hand that authority over to the International Bank.

I have no doubt that in normal circumstances the Bank will not exercise its authority and impose any great restraint upon the authority. But I believe it is a pretty poor tribute to the Australian Government and the Australian people that we” intend to allow the Bank these powers. But here is the real rub. I wonder whether the honourable member for Hume has read section 4.03 which is contained in Article IV of the Third Schedule? Presumably he has not. This section states:

Except as the Bank shall otherwise agree, ELCOM shall: (i) make no reduction in its existing level of tariffs for electric power services from the date of this Agreement until June 30, 1976; and (ii) take all necessary steps to establish and maintain tariffs for electric power services and take such other actions as shall be required to provide revenues sufficient to produce an annual rate of return of not less than 9 per cent in the fiscal years 1972 through 1976 and not less than 10 per cent thereafter.

In no way can this become a social objective in Papua New Guinea. It has to be an economic question based upon the economic cliches which are currently used in the world of accountants, economists, bankers and so on. Therefore, in the 3 important areas of contractors, appointments to senior positions and rates we are surrendering all sovereignty.

Why is it that we inflict these standards upon these people of Papua New Guinea? Is that what we do to the people of Australia? In today’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ under the heading: ‘Semigovernment loans in Melbourne.’ An article stated that interest paid on loans by the Melbourne Board of Works was 5i per cent. Another semi-government body offered 5i per cent. A rate of 5 per cent was another. The article went on to point out that the State Electricity Commission offered 5i per cent. How is it that we tolerate a situation in which we inflict upon the people of Papua New Guinea a rate of 7i per cent to 7i per cent? An advertisement appears in one of today’s newspapers which states that the rate for the State Electricity Commission of New South Wales is 7i per cent. The schedule of Australian Commonwealth loan raisings which was recently distributed shows that loans for July 1969 ran at 5.4 per cent to 6 per cent; September 1969, 5.4 per cent to 6 per cent; and February 1970, 5.6 per cent to 6 per cent How is it that we are prepared to tolerate a system under which a developing country, and one that will find every cent hard to raise, will be burdened with this rate of interest? I would advise honourable members to visit Papua New Guinea in the next few months so that they may see what the last loan did in that country for posts and telegraphs. Up until a few months ago one could post a letter in Papua New Guinea for 5c Despite the aberrations of this Government the rate in Australia has risen to only 6c. But when I visited Papua and New Guinea last week I found that the letter rate in Papua New Guinea had been raised to 7c. So in a community which has one of the lowest wage scales in this part of the world we now have one of the highest postal rates. The unit fee call on a telephone in the Territory is 12 cents.

I believe that one of the vital elements in a democratic community is intercommunication between citizen and citizen, between government and citizen and between citizen and government. In this instance we have inflicted on the people of Papua New Guinea a heavy impost in the form of high telephone charges. I do not believe we can support, such an increase. Honourable members and the House generally ought to take a good, close look at the system under which we are operating. Of course, this situation will also apply to electricity. High tariff charges for electricity will be inflicted upon the people of Papua New Guinea. They will pay higher tariff charges for their electricity than do people in Australia, and our charges have gone high enough. What I want to know is this: Why do we adopt this double standard in Papua New Guinea? We are told continually and plausibly by the economists and their apologists in government circles that we cannot raise the wage rates in Papua New Guinea because the economy will not support it. They say it might be all right to do this now when we give Papua New Guinea a big subvention and therefore things are perhaps different. They argue that if wage rates were increased now the economy of the Territory might survive, but come independence the country would not be able to support a higher wage rate. If this is the case how is it that we are to inflict upon the people of the Territory a higher cost system? Why is it that the economy of a nation at large can only support low wages but the economy of the private individual is supposed to support high prices? What we are doing, I believe, with this legislation is inflicting upon the people of Papua New Guinea a system which will prevent them from enjoying the full benefit of the electric power which would make a great difference to the standard of living of all the people there as well as to the production of the country.

I hope that this will be the last occasion on which we will allow the people of Papua New Guinea to be mulcted in this way by the International Bank. I wonder why we cannot allow Papua New Guinea to raise money on the Australian internal system in the same way as do local government authorities in Australia? Why can it not go to the local market in the same way as the State electricity commissions, the water boards, the board of works and so on? I put to the Minister that this country is wealthy enough and that there is enough sympathetic support for the people of Papua New Guinea for finance to be arranged , in this way.

Mr Snedden:

– You should ask the State governments what their attitude is to that.

Mr BRYANT:

– Our responsibility is for Papua New Guinea, not for the State governments. The Treasurer does not do too well with Sir Henry Bolte and the rest of them. He would be the last one to get anything. But that, of course, is not the issue. The point is that the Australian community has a large amount of funds at its disposal for all sorts of other purposes. What was the loss incurred by Minsec? I think it was $26m or something like that. I believe that it is iniquitous to inflict upon the people of Papua New Guinea the usurious loan that we are proposing at present. It is quite wrong for us in small matters such as this to go to the international market in this way. I think my friend the Treasurer may be a director of the International Bank - he is either on the Board or he is involved in part of its functions. I am gratified to be in the presence of such a high dignitary of the international money lenders. The next time he attends a Board meeting I hope he will raise with the Bank the argument that if we are doing something for a developing country we should try to use low interest and not high interest policies.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– I did not intend to speak on this Bill but after listening to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) I must refute some of his most ridiculous statements. What does the honourable member for Wills know about Papua New Guinea, when he makes the statement that we are inflicting a burden of interest upon the people of New Guinea? Does he know what might be inflicted on those people if we do not give them the Ramu scheme? There is a most expensive electricity setup there. It is overburdened now and in a year or so it will not be able to cope with the load. The whole thing could fold up completely. The honourable member for Wills criticises the magnificent offer that we have had from the World Bank. This is an extraordinary statement from a member of the Australian Labor Party which has advocated self-government, independence and goodness knows what else. The honourable member for Wills and many other members of the Labor Party have said that we should respect the opinions of members of the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea. The members of the Administrator’s Executive Council - the elected representatives of Papua New Guinea - have examined this proposal thoroughly. They welcome it. Surely to goodness they know what they want. They do not have to ask the honourable member for Wills for his opinion. Finally, I should like to refer to the charges involved. It is a loan for 25 years at 7.25 per cent - a magnificent offer. Where could such a loan be obtained elsewhere in the world? On behalf of the people of Papua New Guinea I should like to say-

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister obviously is talking hot air. He did not listen to my speech. Australian Commonwealth loan raisings are between 4 per cent and 6 per cent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr BARNES:

– I should like, on behalf of the people of Papua New Guinea, to say that if we could get more loans like this we would be delighted to have them. I commend the Bill.

Question 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.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I should just like to make it clear that ample money is raised in Australia at a much lower interest rate than the rate for this loan. It should be on the record that the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) is inflicting on the people of Papua New Guinea the same kind of problems as have bedevilled the Australian railway systems and other public services over the last century.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a. third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

page 2378

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April (vide page 1893), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Dawson wish to speak on this Bill?

Dr Patterson:

– I did not know that the debate was being called on.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is on the list of speakers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2379

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2251), on motion by Mr Fairbairn:

That the Bin be now read a second time. (Quorum formed).

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This Bill is associated with the salaries of academics in the Australian university system. There are 2 points of interest in it. The first is the actual level of the salaries themselves. The salaries for professors will be $15,264; associate professors $12,593; senior lecturers $11,130; and lecturers $9,286 with a minimum of $6,697. In the present state of the university system in Australia it is important that university salaries be increased. While this is only a machinery Bill it does demonstrate a complete change in the way in which the Commonwealth has looked at the question of education over the 15 years in which I have been in this Parliament. Fifteen years ago, when any questions of education were raised in this Parliament it was pointed out to us absolutely from those on the opposite side that it had nothing to do with us, that it was totally a matter for the States; that education was the prerogative of the States and their constitutional right.

In the 15 years since, partly as a result of the initiative of the former Prime Minister but mostly because the initiative had come from other sources, principally from this side of the House, the Commonwealth has been forced into assuming almost total responsibility in large areas of the Australian educational system, and of course one of the very large ones is the university system itself with more than 100,000 students in 15 universities and a very large number of highly qualified people. I think 800 people of professorial rank are in our universities.

Here we are debating a Bill which not only authorises the general salary level or the payment of money for salaries for teaching staff te universities but actually sets out the payments. I believe that this is a desirable change in the Commonwealth’s responsibilities but it is one which ought to be extended to larger areas in the Aus tralian educational system. For a long while it has been a puzzle to those of us who are concerned with education that only at the university level is the Commonwealth prepared to be totally associated with the development of the structure of our universities. The salaries structure inside Australian teaching services is, of course, one of the reasons why they are in constant ferment and why there is a constant shortage in teaching services in Australia. Therefore the Australian Labor Party supports this Bill.

As has been pointed out this Bill is purely a machinery one but the constitutional issue of the Commonwealth’s responsibility for education and for universities is the important issue. The fact that we accept this responsibility is equally important, but the next step is to extend that responsibility to the student body itself. In the last few days reports have been produced by the Australian Union of Students demonstrating the total inadequacy of the support for students. While it is a good thing that the Commonwealth supports adequately the teaching staff in universities it is even more important for it to take adequate steps to support the student body itself. Back in 1951 or 1952 when the Commonwealth university scheme got under-way about 50 per cent of the student body was supported out of Commonwealth funds. I recall in 1949 and 1950, when I was a university student benefiting from the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, that there were almost more spaces than there were applicants. Now we have reached the stage where only 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the student body is being supported from Commonwealth funds for scholarships and this, of course, simply compounds the inequalities in Australian society itself.

I believe that the time has come when we should give serious consideration to the total support of university students and other tertiary students. We should see that at some stage in a young person’s life he ceases to be the total responsibility of his parents and is accepted as the responsibility of the community. When the student is at a level at which his competence will be of great support to the community in the future we must accept that it is a matter of being employed rather than being a student. We have to remove this from the area of charity, which is implied by the provisions of the means test. If their parents are rich the students have to depend on the charity of their parents. If their parents are poor the students have to depend on the charity of the Government or the State. There are large groups of students to whom such a question as the means test does not apply, of whom teacher students are one. Of course people in Service academies form another group.

As to the general teaching services in Australian universities I think that numerically they are pretty close to adequate but I believe that the Commonwealth may have to take steps in accordance with the recommendations we have heard from time to time to do something about the adequacy of teaching or the quality of teaching inside our universities. My own belief is that while many of the people involved in teaching at universities are of the very highest intellectual and academic calibre, ‘their teaching capacity is not of a great order. There is a tendency inside universities to regard research as being more important than teaching. I do not share that view. I believe that the passing on of knowledge and inspiration that can flow from it is more important than most of the research presently being conducted.

Steps should be taken to ensure that value is received for the salaries paid to university staff. But the answer is difficult to find. Universities have a treasured and long held independent status. It is difficult to step inside a university, and say: ‘Do this or do that.’ It is more than difficult; it is undesirable. But such is the general power of the purse and the Commonwealth’s initiative in large areas that this could be an essential factor. I presume that the teaching staff salaries authorised by this measure are adequate as many of them are higher than the salary paid to a member of the Federal Parliament. Insofar as the Commonwealth acknowledges its responsibility in this area the Bill is to be commended, but I hope that the day is not far distant when the Commonwealth will accept a greater responsibility for pre-school, primary and secondary education. Until that aim is achieved the revolution In education will proceed very slowly.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I wish to add only a few words to the remarks of my colleague, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), who has already described this measure as mainly a machinery Bill. I wish again to lodge a protest against the existing machinery for recurrent grants to the States. The procedure by which the Commonwealth provides Si for every $1.85 raised by the universities and State governments seems to me to be quite inequitable. The States have made many complaints over the years about the disproportion in the financing of the recurrent expenses of the universities. One implication of the arrangement is that the State governments have to channel many of their sorely needed educational funds away from other levels of education. They must channel those funds into universities in order to attract the Commonwealth grants. I think we have all been made well aware in the last week or two of the extreme deficiencies of pre-school, primary and secondary education, as well as technical and teacher education.

One of the main reasons for the deficiencies is that the great development achieved in universities has taken place at the cost of other levels of education. I hope that the Commonwealth will again examine the procedure of restricting grants to the basis of $1 for every $1.85 provided by State government funds and university fees. One of the consequences, too, is that the universities have found it necessary in their sorely pressed state to raise student fees quite substantially. As I understand the position from a quick look at the records, in this year alone 4 universities had to increase fees substantially. These universities are the Australian National University, Monash University, the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University. I made a quick survey of these fees. At Monash University the fees are to be increased by about 30 per cent this year. The increase in fees will have quite a discriminating effect on enrolment at universities.

Many students who are well qualified and who are unable to obtain one of the scarce scholarships will be debarred from entering a university simply because they are unable to pay their way. I understand that at Monash University the fees for the first year student were to be increased from $360 to $468. That is a fairly sizeable amount for any parent to spend on a student at a university in addition to the cost of keeping him. This would add a further considerable burden. I understand that next year the University of Queensland will increase its fees by 20 per cent. All this has been made necessary simply because the States are not able to contribute anything further towards matching the Commonwealth grants. The States are forced to make up some of the deficiency by increasing the students’ fees.

This Bill provides for recurrent grants to universities in respect of salaries at various lecturer levels, lt does not provide grants in respect of the non-academic staff of universities. Those payments can be very costly. As a result of the Australian Universities Commission’s very fine pruning of the estimated needs of universities for last year and this year, according to Professor B. P. Williams, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney last year Australian universities were between $6.Sm and $7. 5m short of their recurring financial requirements. Because of the pruning by the Australian Universities Commission - a step which was endorsed by this Government - this year universities are expected to have on recurring expenses alone a deficit of between $llm and $12m. This isa serious position. Government supporters have described in dismal terms the position of the University of Queensland.

Professor Williams has said of many universities that the admission policy for both undergraduate and post-graduate studies would have to be reviewed. He indicated that there would have to be a rise in the staff/student ratios. Over the years the Opposition has been hoping that staff/ student ratios would be reduced, that more lecturers would be made available for the students who are attending universities. We hoped that more tutorial assistance would be given. The high failure rate at universities causes many complaints. 1 understand that about 35 per cent of all students who undertake university studies fail outright to obtain their university degrees. A considerable proportion of those students who obtain university degrees fail to do so within -the minimum time. They have to repeat courses, or repeat a year of a course. This situation is due in great measure to the lack of tutorial assistance and proper lecturing provisions. Unfortunately, it is still a fact in many universities education becomes a matter of mass instruction rather than education. When a lecture is conducted in front of 300 or 400 students with the use of microphones there is little opportunity for communication between the lecturer and the students.

The universities try to compensate for this position by making tutorial assistance available. The extent to which recurrent grants are not being made available to the universities will be reflected in the shortage of tutorial assistance for students. The student who most needs tutorial assistance, of course, is the struggling student, who has not the environmental help from his home background or from access to libraries that is available to other students. He tends to become a casualty in such a setup. I wish to quote a statement by Professor Williams as reported in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 25th March. He said:

Under these conditions we cannot even maintain the quality of our work at a time when we should be raising it.

As I said, this situation has been aggravated by the fact that no provision has been made for the payment of nonacademic salaries at universities. I have in mind a whole horde of staff, including technicians, assistants, and people concerned with the computers. Their salaries would have also risen with the 6 per cent national wage increase. 1 do not see any reference to them in this Bill. I do not know whether any provision will be made for that, but if no provision is made the universities will be that much worse off. I understand that at present more than 80 per cent of the recurrent incomes of universities comes from governments, that 17 per cent comes from students’ fees and that 2.5 per cent comes from endowments.

Another result of this financial stringency affecting universities is that the number of places in universities has had to be restricted not only because of the lack of lecture room and material resources but also because of the shortage of people who can be employed in universities as lecturers and professors. I understand that this year about 5,000 students who qualified by matriculating at quite good levels were unable to gain admission to one of the 3 Sydney universities - the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales and the Macquarie University. Perhaps some of them could have been accommodated in colleges of advanced education or in institutes of technology but as a former lecturer in a teachers college I fear that many of the students who are unable to gain access to a university will enter a teachers college in order to try to get a tertiary education. Many of them will not be suited for teaching and will have no keen desire to become teachers, but because they cannot be accommodated by the universities they will turn to the teachers training colleges. There they will probably take a Science degree, an Economics degree or an Arts degree, and having obtained a Diploma of Education they will probably serve a year or two and then quit the teaching field. There are plenty of people in the community at present who are only too ready to pay off the bonds of those who have qualified as teachers in order to attract them into private employment or into other governmental employment. That is where many of them are now going. Unfortunately this is at the expense of education generally.

Whilst we applaud the action of the Government in making available these grants which will enable salaries of academic staff to be increased, I cannot help regretting that in some ways the very act of providing these increases will take away from other levels of State responsibility in education and cause problems which will be reflected in later years when the students try to go to university. There are still many people who would go on to universities if they had a better secondary education, but to the extent that this will be limited by the distraction of funds from the universities, if I may put it in that way, it will cut down on the opportunities for many others to gain a tertiary education. With those reservations, I support the Bill.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I support the Bill which gives effect to the report of the Inquiry into Academic Salaries by Mr Justice Eggleston following the increase of 6 per cent granted by the national wage case decision in 1970. It seems right to me that the Government has acted immediately in relation to this matter upon receiving the Eggleston report because it is a matter of some honour between the Government and the universities. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) asked various questions related to the broadening ot the request for salary increases. So far as I remember - I have not had time to check - the Eggleston report did not recommend salaries in areas other than those with which the Government has seen fit to deal tonight. However, I am not certain and I might be incorrect in saying that. I take this opportunity to point out some of the issues involved in salary increases.

I think it is quite true that many of us who have had experience with universities since World War II are well aware that for some of that time senior lecturers and ordinary lecturers did not have decent salaries. However, I respectfully suggest that at present they have little cause for complaint. I know that in many Australian universities today senior lecturers particularly are asked to do much more than was once asked of them. Many honourable members who keep in touch with the universities in their home States would realise that this is so. In the past many senior lecturers have had time to conduct research or to carry out some specific job in relation to ad hoc committees of inquiry within the university structure, but no longer do they have time to do so. I welcome the fact that the Government is honouring its commitments in accordance with the Eggleston report. I feel that the position here is rather analogous to the situation posed recently by the Government in terms of industry when it withdrew the investment allowance. I suggest that in many respects the withdrawal of the investment allowance does not help the efficiency of business for the future because we need the resources of modern machinery to keep Australia up to date and efficient compared with competitor countries. In the same way I believe that the Government must look at the case of senior lecturers at Universities who are now working more fully and for a great many more hours than they were a year or two ago. 1 hope that the Government will give consideration to this point.

There will be those in this House - I do not know that I am one of them - who would think it is a desirable state of affairs that senior lecturers be occupied in this way, having in mind that they are entitled to sabbatical leave and to sojourns in Parliament or elsewhere in order to increase their knowledge of world conditions within their own speciality, when perhaps they should be putting in more time doing what they are meant to do, that is, teaching the young people of Australia. However, that is a matter of judgment. I merely point out that that might have been the position in the past but in my opinion it is not the position today. They are now putting in more hours of teaching than was ever required of them in the past. I ask the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn), who is now at the table, to take note of what I have said and decide whether in his judgment this situation is more desirable so that, our universities will have the capacity to teach the promising section of our community and those with the most potential and so that we may have a vast and important resource for Australia.

I shall finish my remarks by expressing a view as a member for South Australia. We have in South Australia 2 universities, the University of Adelaide and more latterly but still not harnessed to full potential, the Finders University. A great many people in my State would like to know why a person such as Professor Medlin, who is in receipt of the top level of salary mentioned in the Bill, should seek voluntrily to lead dissentient groups. On the evidence of last Monday he sought voluntarily in Adelaide to lead a group which 1 would suggest is not highly respected as a group. In fact one could almost be forgiven for referring to members of the group as just about the lowest types that one could get in South Australia. Yet as a senior professor at the Flinders University he has become involved with this group. On many occasions I have debated with Professor Medlin on television and radio and, personally, I am quite fond of him. But I do not think it is right that a man having a responsibility, as I understand his position, to teach people - which is his occupation in life - should do things contrary to this and take off at will for periods of a week or two at a time to join such things as moratoriums.

I am not really concerned whether or not they are moratoriums or whether he goes on walkabout to Ayers Rock. It mat ters not to me. The point is that I cannot see that he is fulfilling his use as a university professor to people in this nation to whom he owes some responsibility. The people of South Australia have not yet been told clearly by the authorities of Flinders University whether or not Professor Medlin has had his wages made up during such periods as he sees fit to take off from his duties. I would like the Minister, if he sees fit although I appreciate it is not his responsibility, to tell us whether or not the taxpayers of this country owe it to a professor who is so erratic in his ideas and so wild in his beliefs that he believes-

Dr Gun:

– He would say the same thing about you.

Mr GILES:

– I know the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) does not fight education on political grounds. Oh, no. Although he said so himself when we were talking about the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest to the honourable member for Angas that whatever the honourable member for Kingston might do, this is the States Grants (Universities) Bill.

Mr GILES:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. With respect, I was really discussing the matter of wages paid to professors which is, I think, in direct relation to the Bill before the House.

But the point is, if I might just take one more sentence to deal with it, that there are people in this House whom I have heard mention in the past the fact that members of their Party go over to South Australia to help in political campaigns to do with education and I do know of one or two cases relating to universities such as the Flinders University where this cannot be said to be true because I have also been invited to the same meeting. However, I think that is as far as I wish to go with this Bill. If I might repeat myself, it is a matter of the Government honouring the suggestions of the Eggleston report to give an increase in the salaries of professors, associate professors, readers, senior lecturers, lecturers on the maximum salary scale and lecturers on the minimum salary scale in order to cope with the 6 per cent rise granted in the 1970 national wage case. Before I resume my seat I would make just one final comment. Although it is desirable that this country should move towards a greater technocrat society, a society of people more geared towards the age that will come to this country competitively, I nevertheless belong, I suppose, to the old fashion school that seriously ponders whether such increases in wages for the top echelon - whether it be in the civil service or the professorial scale - are warranted or, indeed, whether we are not moving a little too quickly towards the technocrat oriented society. I support the Bill.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I speak with slightly more notice than my colleague the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) whom I compliment for raising an extraordinary wide range of relevant topics in relation to this Bill. However, even though I may take up one or two of those he mentioned, the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the award increases flowing from the national wage case as they affect university salaries. The second purpose is to make provision for alterations to recurrent grants to Australian universities. The question of university salaries of course raises a good deal of interest in the community, although perhaps less now than it did a few years ago mainly owing to the fact, I think, that the university salaries structure is reassessed somewhat more consistently or more frequently than it was once upon a time before the days of the Murray Committee. Also perhaps it is because there is a slight lessening of the anti-intellectual flavour of the Australian community to the point where there is an acceptance of what good works people in universities might do, in particular for the young people coming on and learning something. It may also be due to the fact that there is in general a greater degree of acceptability of some sort of training and education in the community at large.

This Bill provides for salaries which could generally be said to be at a fairly high level in this community of ours. I think it should be borne in mind that the people receiving them have gone through a very considerable period of training, and while I might sound a little equivocal on this matter I think, basically speaking, that they are deserved. At the same time it has long been my opinion, having been fairly involved over a number of years in univer sity salary matters from that end of the proceedings and not from this, that there was in fact a discrepancy between the basic rates of salary, that is to say, for the permanent members of the staff or lecturers and the professors at the top end. It was always my opinion that the university people did themselves some disservice by arguing their case on the basis of professorial salaries because even now to some extent, and certainly so in the not very distant past, professorial salaries seemed to be very large in relation to many other avenues of employment in the community and, as is general with these things, it was not normally taken account of by the community at large even if people knew just what there was behind in terms of time input and training to justify those salaries. The community in many of its quarters was more inclined to think of the chap who happened to live down the street and could be seen to be mowing his lawn at 4 o’clock on a Wednesday afternoon. People therefore concluded that most members of university staffs seemed to work something like a 30-hour week, if that, and therefore were being considerably overpaid.

They were not to know, perhaps, that many more people were probably working 60, 70 and even 80 hours a week, were in their laboratories and if not, their offices, on Sunday afternoons and Saturday mornings and various other times which the 9 to 5 element in the community did not regard as working hours. So, as I say, I might be a little equivocal in this and my feeling is that the levels of university salaries are probably not below what they ought to be at this time. At the same time I think it can well be argued that in terms of hours they are decidedly deserved. One can always take into question any system in which certain of its members appear to be having an easy time and in this regard I might point out that university employment is perhaps as much, if not more than any other avenue of the community, a matter of conscience. People give lectures in varying numbers at various set times but beyond that, apart from certain involvements in university commitments of one sort or another such as counselling students and attending meetings - and even they are usually not compulsory - it is a matter of conscience as to how much people put into the job.

I can say from personal experience over a period of 12 years as a teacher and somewhat less as a student that in fact most people are justifying their existence in relation to things such as these salaries. However, it is a widely flexible sort of thing and it is not fair therefore to judge the position on the basis of somebody who appears not to be working from 9 to 5. There is one particular thing to which I would like to draw attention here and that is in the structure of these salaries. It is something to which I drew attention over many years and relates to the point I have just made about the usual university case being made on the professorial salary basis which I believe to be politically unwise. The point is that I suppose there is no area of employment, of occupation or involvement in the community where the junior member of the organisation so nearly approaches in his time input and even in his input of expertise the amount which is put in at the top.

If one becomes an employee of a commercial firm or a public service a great deal of store is put on one’s expertise and the length of time one has spent learning one’s job. That position also applies in universities, but I think it applies probably less deservedly there than elsewhere. These days a person who has done 3 or 4 years of undergraduate training and who has at least one postgraduate degree, which is now the norm, and usually at the doctorate level - that is, he has done 7, 8 or maybe even more years of unpaid training, unless he was lucky enough to be partly supported by a scholarship - is then in a position to teach other people and to carry on research which, by employment contract and as a matter of conscience, are his dual functions. Apart from administrative duties, the duties and many of the responsibilities - certainly the basic ones of teaching and research - of a junior lecturer, if he is of any use - he is not likely to be appointed if he is not - very closely approximate those of his professor. At the present time it may be a case of his two or three professors.

Therefore I think a very good case can be made - I have made it over many years, as I say, from the other end - for the maximum possible condensation of the salary structure of university teachers. As I say, I am speaking at fairly short notice. A quick calculation suggests to me that the pro posed salary of a senior lecturer is 73 per cent of the proposed professorial salary. I would argue that a case can be made to close that gap considerably, possibly to the extent of making the senior lecturer’s salary 85 per cent of the professorial salary. These days the senior lecturer’s scale of salary is roughly the career grade. Perhaps it is tending towards the level of a reader or an associate professor; nevertheless most university teachers will not rise above the grade of senior lecturer, however long they stay in the field of teaching and research. I believe that, in terms of their duties, their faculty input and their work in the university at large - whether it be on the council, of the faculties, advising students or whatever it may be - a very good case can be made for the salary of a senior lecturer to approximate, say, 85 per cent of the professorial level. The same argument would apply, in commensurate degree, down the various gradings.

Therefore I believe, as I have said briefly in this House before, that in terms of maintaining and sustaining university teachers of high quality training and achievement, it is more important to pay competitive salaries at the bottom of the lecturer scale than to grant grandiose salaries - adequate salaries cannot be denied, but certainly inflated salaries should not be contemplated - at the top levels. I do not believe that we will lose, by the brain drain, international competition or whatever else it may be called, our top men who have become integrated and au fait with the system and who like their work, as almost universally they do. I suppose that in that sense they are lucky because they are doing things they want to do and, to a substantial degree, they can select what they want to do, whether it be the courses they teach or the research they undertake. But, with these compensations aside, I suggest that the difficulty is to obtain sufficiently qualified fellows at the bottom of the scale rather than to hold the very well versed fellows at the top. So if in the future any variation or rearrangement is to be made of the salary structure for universities, my strong plea is that we ensure that the bottom level salaries are at least competitive with those paid in alternative forms of employment, whether that employment be in industry, with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation or with similar governmental institutions. After that is done I think the situation will take care of itself.

My friend the honourable member for Angas made some passing reference to study leave, which a long time ago was by no means a right. Over recent years this has become a right in the universities of Australia, but only after being argued for quite considerably. It involves a year’s leave on full pay after each 6 years of employment. To some people this sounds like a great holiday, but to those who are doing their job, which again I would suggest is most, it means a year in which to keep in touch with developments around the world in one’s particular field of expertise and to find out at first hand what the other fellow is doing, perhaps most notably in North America and Britain. Depending upon the field in which one is engaged - one might be concerned with international relations, undeveloped countries or some other field* - one might need to range more widely into areas or fields which are not so well tried in the academic sense, that is, areas which are not as longstanding as leading academic areas of the world.

I have probably said all I need say in relation to that aspect of the Bill. However, there is one other aspect that I believe I should not ignore. This Bill provides for the Commonwealth contribution to the salaries of those engaged in basic permanent academic teaching and research, that is, lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors or readers and professors. In this second reading speech the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) said that the Commonwealth will contribute: the following levels and proportionately for the junior academic staff.

Of course, the junior academic staff includes many people in what is something of a twilight zone. They are below the lecturer level which is the basic level of permanent academic appointment. People in that staff include demonstrators, teaching fellows and people of that order. As I say, for some years they have been in what is essentially a twilight zone. They have not been tied automatically to Commonwealth and State increases in university salaries as they occur every 3, 4 or 5 years, as from Mr Justice Eggleston or anybody else. They have been in a difficult position which stems partly from the matter of university definition itself.

As one moves from university to university one finds that the categorisation and duties of people who are known as demonstrators or teaching fellows vary from State to State and from university to university. In some places it could well be argued that they tend to be imposed upon, being stand-in lecturers who are paid at a lower rate. In other places there may be an enlightened attitude towards them, in which case they tend to have a fair amount of time to spend on their research degree work and do relatively less teaching and practical work of demonstrating, which is done by the more senior people from lecturers up. So up to the present time these people have not been provided for adequately in terms of automatic increases in their salary status in the university structure. I think it is incumbent upon the universities to sort that matter out as best they can by means of the ViceChancellor’s Committee or by some other means. Perhaps it is also incumbent upon the Commonwealth, through the Department of Education and Science, to see whether we can get some rationalisation of that situation as soon as possible so that the danger is smaller in relation to these people who are not yet in permanent employment, who are budding professors and who have every suggestion of making good by doing the best they can. I believe that they should be reasonably paid for that development.

I would just like to touch upon another aspect of this Bill which relates to variations in university recurrent grants. I take particular note of the matter which the Minister itemised concerning the introduction of a scheme of external studies at the University of Tasmania, which is to begin in 1971. This is a question in which I was involved over many years as a member of the arts faculty of that University. It is a question on which one can take up one of two positions. One can take up a political position in which one finds it very easy to say: ‘By all means have as much external studies as possible at the University of Tasmania or any other university, notably that of the University of New England; or, alternatively, consider the position of the university, its size, its viability and its capacity to undertake these studies’.

As I have said on previous occasions, the island of Tasmania has particular advantages and disadvantages in the degree of its decentralisation. People in Tasmania generally regard the matter of decentralisation in those two lights. They take advantage from it and they also tend to be less inured, if that is the right word, or less oriented to a metropolitan dominance as is the case in most other States, if not all. So there tends to be a feeling in, say, the city of Launceston and, to a lesser degree perhaps in the city of Burnie, that what is good for Hobart is good for other places. That leads to a feeling that if there is a University of Tasmania in Hobart, there is no reason why there should not be at least a university college in Launceston, Burnie or Devonport. That is a very nice feeling. It is a good, proud, educational developed-type feeling; but it is not necessarily an efficient, economic or even educationally efficient type of inclination.

In terms of the possible employment ot its permanent staff in rushing up and down the island from Hobart to Launceston, the idea of an external studies course or courses does not greatly appeal to me. However, if the people who give those courses can be, as they are at present or as they are about to be, people in part time employment, not permanently on the University staff and resident and co-opted, as it were - resident in the city of Launceston in this case - then I think a lot of my objection is overcome. It provides for the people of Launceston or, if you like, more widely, the people of northern Tasmania, a more proximate capacity, in terms of distance, to take on first year university courses, in this instance, and to get the benefits from them. If that is so, without there arising any detriment to the general well being of the University or the overextension of the time input of its staff in rushing up and down the island, then 1 think it is a good thing. But I make that qualification. I do not believe, in its present state of staffing and its present need for development of its current faculties, and possibly the development of new ones or at least new schools, that the University of Tasmania can afford to have its permanent staff running off in other directions to give external studies courses. I believe it would be better to pay scholarship money, if necessary, for those students who are competent to go to the University of Tasmania in Hobart and take those courses there. The situation at present appears to be that the few lecturers concerned are being co-opted, as it were, from residency in Launceston and will be on the spot to give those courses. In that sense 1 wish them well.

I believe that this Bill is in the best interests of the universities at large, despite my qualifications and what I have said in the last few minutes. I trust that we will manage, as time goes on, to make an automatic review every 3 years, or whatever it might be, of university salaries and to keep under notice these matters of university recurrent grants which are most deserving.

Finally, the University of. Tasmania sees itself to be in considerable short fall in its recurrent grants. While a case may be made for some other areas of education which may be more deserving than the universities, I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Science to that fact and to the recent pronouncements oi the Vice-Chancellor. I hope we will be able to remedy that situation in the forthcoming triennium.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– 1 want to make a few remarks regarding the position of the University of Queensland. The updating of salaries for academic staff is not the sole matter concerning universities now, particularly the University of Queensland. There is also the question of non-academic salaries. These have reached such a pitch of urgency and such a state of crisis that universities will be lacking in essential maintenance. Facilities for students will be neglected because no new non-academic staff can be employed. Universities are letting their establishments run down.

The University of Queensland is in the worst position of any Australian university vis-a-vis Commonwealth funds not only as regards the running costs for the University but as regards capital costs. Per capita per student the University of Queensland is worse off than any other university and is paying this penalty partly as a result oi having a more open policy than have other universities. Having held out to the last against imposing quotas, the University of Queensland has been forced this financial year to impose them in many faculties. Students doing research are cooped up, 4 in one little room about as big as one oi our offices here in Parliament House. A bit of masonite separates them into a yard square area equipped with a desk. People are working in more than one library where an extra floor has been put in between the ceiling and the original floor and you have to bob your head before you can get into the upper storey to do some study. Students are sitting on stairways to study. In fact the whole set-up smacks of overcrowding, under-financing and understaffing. Therefore while the Opposition welcomes any move towards remedying some of the problems of the universities we do not think, by any means, that this Bill represents a marvellous sign of generosity on the part of the Government. We urgently draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) to the problems in this regard, particularly in the case of the University of Queensland.

This position is not confined to one State. It applies to every university except the Australian National University. It is apparent, when you compare the affluent and well equipped situation of the Australian National University with universities in general, that the AN (J is far ahead as regards the amount of floor space per student, the ratio of staff members to students, the salaries spent on academics in proportion to students, the amount of money available in proportion to student fees, or any other criteria. It ought to be the aim of a Commonwealth government, a national government, which has the long range national welfare at heart, to see that every university comes up to the ideal standard that we have at the Australian National University. Nobody is complaining about the amount of money being spent at the ANU. What we find regrettable, however, is that this Government looks at its function with regard to State universities as one of minimal handouts and not one of maximum assistance to reach optimum levels.

The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) referred to the positions dealt in this Bill - the senior academic staff - as being perhaps more than any others positions of conscience, in other words, that men in those positions could please themselves to a large extent whether they did a conscientious job, just how big a part they played in voluntary activities outside the regulations laid down and so on. To my mind there is one job even more dependent on the conscience of the person concerned whether he works hard or whether he loafs, and that is the job held by a member of Parliament in a safe seat

The essential point I wish to make is that while academic salaries are being updated, in a sense, by this Bill they are not being updated and adjusted according to needs as between universities. The University of Queensland is still lagging when compared with other universities. There is still the lag at State universities in comparison with the Australian National University, and something should have been done about redressing this imbalance when this Bill was being drawn up. The opportunity should have been taken to reduce the problem of the 6 per cent wage rise in non-academic as well as academic salaries. While not opposing the Bill I commend these observations to the House. I trust that the Minister will see that something is done in the Budget this year to correct this urgent situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The schedule to the States Grants (Universities) Bill includes the sum of $3,860 as the Commonwealth’s share of the cost of establishing external studies at the University of Tasmania for 1971 and 1972. Of course this is a minute sum. It hardly represents a weekend’s expenditure by the Commonwealth Parliament on lots of other matters. But it introduces an important principle into Australian universities which I think is being shed rather than taken up as a major academic exercise. In the past one of the features of Australian universities has been the ability to give correspondence courses for external students as they are known in this case. Before World War II Melbourne University accepted many external students. A large number of students, particularly in the teaching service, did their university courses, perhaps except for the last two or three years, through external studies.

I believe the external studies system is an important contribution to education and it should not be neglected. As I recall, when the Martin report came down one of its recommendations was that external studies in universities should be gradually phased out. It is not often that one agreed with the right honourable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies but to his credit he rejected that recommendation. He was very good at rejecting recommendations in reports, particularly if they were useful and progressive. But on this occasion I believe he rejected a regressive recommendation. I appeal to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) to examine the question of external studies. I believe that this is a question to which the Commonwealth ought to turn its attention. My friend, the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) - as honourable members know I am a broad minded Socialist and I even regard Liberals as friends although I wish there were not so many of them in this Parliament - raised the general problems of staffing and other matters. These problems are admitted. I believe that in a modern society the university is much more than simply an institution of buildings, books, staff and students. It is also true that universities supply much more than the opportunity to go to class. In fact, the actual mingling of people at universities is part of the contribution to the development of a person’s personality and education.

Throughout the world there has been great expansion in this area. There is the open university system. I think the latest venture in this field is happening in Great Britain with the use of radio, television and correspondence courses. Obviously this can give many people the advantage of university courses which would be otherwise denied to them. As I understand it at the moment in Australia - I am subject to correction - only the University of New England at Armidale and the University of Queensland are conducting external courses. I think that in both those cases courses are restricted to people who live within the State, unless they happen to be servicemen. Countless people are disadvantaged because of the failure to extend the external studies system. The honourable member for Denison mentioned that he thought that scholarships would overcome this situation. I do not think that is adequate enough. For instance, scholarships will not do anything for the teacher who is teaching 200 or 300 miles from the university. The teacher may well have acquired a couple of subjects while at the university in the city but he is then transferred to the the bush. Countless people have done all or most of their university courses through external studies which has been the traditional avenue for teachers. My first step in my not very distinguished academic career was achieved as a result of the benefits of army education while I was still soldiering on, defending Australia against the surging hordes from the north. My feelings are that I received an advantage and I would like to see this advantage available to others. The academics and the bureaucracy of universities are inclined to deny this. They say that external studies are not part of a university’s business. I believe that this is part of the proprietorship with which people in these positions endow themselves. Universities belong to the community. The university system as a whole has a great deal to contribute apart from preparing people for the function they might fulfil in society. Therefore, we ought to expand the external studies system.

I believe that an area in which the system could be useful is in the studying of foreign languages. The Australian Broadcasting Commission currently has been quite adventurous in teaching people Indonesian and teaching people overseas English. This is done in a very ad hoc way. I believe that with the use of radio and television ample resources are available to use to overcome some of the disabilities. My colleague and friend from Capricornia (Dr Everingham) mentioned the overcrowding at the university in Brisbane. Again, this is a feature of most Australian universities and senior educational institutions. There might be a lot of advantages in having people do more work at home. I hope the Minister will take up this question of external studies and, once again, make it a feature of Australian university work. In this instance I make an appeal on behalf of the Parliament. In another place numerous select committees and standing committees are operating. I believe that the opportunity for universities to expand external studies might well be a subject which a select committee of this Parliament could examine. As the Minister is no doubt aware a large number of people in this House have been intimately involved with education over many years. This is probably a bipartisan subject and the resources of this Parliament might well be gainfully employed in examining the scope of external studies in the Australian university system. I give a guarantee from this side of the House that we will be happy to participate in any exercise of this nature.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– 1 should like to show broad mindedness equal to that of my honourable friend from Wills (Mr Bryant) - to describe him as such - and take up the point which he has made concerning the question of external studies which is relevant to this Bill. It is true that on the surface it appears to be a very just work to make available external studies in various outlying centres to people who are resident well outside capital cities in whichever State they might live. But the superficiality of the situation needs to be looked at underneath. I think that if we investigate the matter more closely-this is something which on the whole has not been done - we will find that in some cases quite a number and even a majority of the people who are offering for external courses in outlying centres are people who have become teachers. Before doing so, they have attempted university courses on a full time basis and have failed.

Nevertheless, my friend from Wills may wish to proceed with that operation but it is not the same operation as that undertaken by people who have passed some basic test or standard of entrance but who have failed in the first year or two of their course. By the decision of the institution or by their own decision they are excluded from continuing those courses. In other words a different standard of judgment is being applied. It may be a very humanitarian operation. It may be a helpful operation to the ultimate education of the community and, not least of all, if the people involved are teachers. But the fact remains - and as I say, the fact is not totally established in quantitative terms - that a great number of the people applying for university external courses have already had a go in the full time sense.

One could make a case for not wishing to spend money unduly in that area, if in fact one believed one was short of money, in establishing alternative courses, new schools or whatever else is desirable, whether it be Asian studies or any other going business. The situation is not quite as simple as it looks, however desirable it may be to give every member of the community a chance and, if necessary, a second chance, at the possibility of university education. The opportunity still remains for other forms of tertiary education if the people concerned do not happen to prove themselves entirely adaptable to the particular demands of university classes and courses. I think that is the only point I need to make in response to the contribution of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). I trust it will be borne in mind when we are considering the extension of university courses in the future.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I confess from the start that I have made no extensive study of this Bill, but I am interested in clause 3, which pertains to academic salaries. I note with approval that salaries are to be increased and that the increase resulted from a review of salaries which followed the 6 per cent national wage case increase. I note also that the salaries are at what 1 regard to be a fairly reasonable level with professors getting $15,264, associate professors $12,593 and so on down to a lecturer who starts on a salary of $6,697 and progresses to $9,286. I wish to comment on the very basis of this legislation which provides for these salaries. The Government has decided to support the new levels of academic salaries and to contribute towards the cost its usual share of SI for every $1.85 provided from fees, plus State grants. It seems to me to be a fairly iniquitous basis for the payment of academic salaries. The extent to which the Commonwealth is prepared to underwrite these provisions is geared to the extent to which fees are struck for university students.

One could fairly interpret this situation as indicating that the State governments could well have a vested interest in keeping fees high because every time the State raises $1.85 by way of fees or in any other way it gets $1 from the Commonwealth

Government. On the other hand, the Commonwealth might have a vested interest in keeping fees down because it is the Commonwealth, more than any other authority, which has an obligation and a prerogative to meet the cost of fees through scholarships. If this is the case, and I think it is clearly the case, we have these contradictory forces pulling against one another. I do not know whether recent increases in fees were supported by the Commonwealth Government or whether they were instigated by the State governments, but I know that their effect has been to attract considerable financial assistance for academic salaries. I do not think the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) would deny that fact. Fees have gone up to an enormous extent and as a result the degree to which those increases in academic salaries are to be supported by the Commonwealth has risen quite dramatically. I want to express my displeasure with the basis for this legislation. Recently the former Minister for Education and Science supplied me with an answer to a question which 1 asked about these and other things. My question, number 277, in part was:

Which universities and university colleges increased fees to take effect in 1970, and what was the increase in each case?

J would not dare to give an account of this question in any detailed way because I was provided with an answer which comprised 6 or 7 pages detailing faculty courses where fees had been increased in 1970. Compared with 1969 they had increased by very large amounts of money. For example, a Sydney University arts pass course increased from 1969 to 1970 by some $312. An economics pass course at Sydney University increased by $210. And so the answer goes on covering faculties in every university in Australia. Most fee increases in 1970 compared with fees in 1969 were in the vicinity of $200 to $300. Some were even in excess of $300. 1 hate to think that this might be happening because of the provisions of this legislation which provides that the extent of the Commonwealth’s contribution to academic salaries relates to the amount of fees raised from students.

I want to make the point that it would not cost a large amount of money to eliminate fees altogether. Estimates of the amount vary. We are told that fees represent about 2.5 per cent of the total running costs of universities. It was not long ago that an answer was given to the effect that it would cost a miserable infinitesimal $14m a year to eliminate fees altogether. If that is the case I think fees should be eliminated. I fail to understand why this country is not trying to keep abreast of the trend in other parts of the world. When I was in Canada in 1966 I learnt that a number of Provinces took the view that academics should be paid a wage to learn their profession, just the same as a boilermaker, carpenter or fitter and turner gets a wage while he is undergoing his apprenticeship. Why should we uphold an attitude which places an economic barrier to young people who desire to fulfil their academic potential? We have surely reached that stage now. The fact of the matter is that many young people in this country are unable to go on to university when they are qualified to do so because of the fee structure operating in universities. Such a structure does not operate when people go off to learn a trade. It does not apply to girls learning to be hairdressers or shorthand typists. They can get a job and do their technical course. However, when we come to professions taught at universities, one has to pay a high fee.

I think the basis of the legislation is absolutely absurd and in regard to clause 3 - I take this opportunity to make the point the Minister if he has not recognised it before should do so now and act upon his understanding - that State governments have this vested interest in keeping fees high and will maintain this interest so long as this Government perpetuates an arrangement which means that the Commonwealth’s contribution to academic salaries depends to a large degree upon the extent to which students are taxed for fees. I think we have identified a matter of very great significance. I know that the fees for some 300 faculty courses were increased last year. A survey was conducted by a university students’ organisation recently into 34 courses. It established that the fees for 25 of these courses rose over a 19 year period at an incredible rate and at a rate which was much faster than average earnings, which placed these courses out of the reach of people. I ask the Minister to take this matter into account because I believe the whole basis of the legislation is absurd and inequitable. As it stands at the moment it provides an incentive to State governments to put universities beyond the reach of many young people in this country.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2392

ADJOURNMENT

Apartheid - Army Medical Standards - The Parliament - International Trade Agreements - National Service - Japan - Civil Defence: Fire Brigade Equipment - Woollen Textile Industry - Australian Broadcasting Commission

Motion (by Mr Fairbairn) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– The motion that the House do now adjourn has been moved tonight somewhat earlier than I anticipated. I desire during the course of the debate on this motion to speak about a speech that was made in the House on Tuesday, 27th April 1971, by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). The honourable member made one of the most disgraceful speeches that I have ever heard in this House. I should think that those honourable members opposite who are honest enough will agree with the view of honourable members on this side of the House that his speech was disgraceful. I understand that the honourable member is a minister of religion himself. He stood in this chamber last week and condemned the World Council of Churches over its deliberations in the United Kingdom and its report on the facts in South Africa as it saw them. The World Council of Churches made a pronouncement against apartheid and, in addition, the Smith regime in Rhodesia. During the course of his speech the honourable member referred to the British people in a somewhat similar vein to that in which another member of the Australian Country Party referred to the people of the United Kingdom during the course of an earlier speech. If I may, I would like to quote the words used by the honourable member for Lyne.

Mr Giles:

– If the honourable member can find them.

Mr FOSTER:

– I have in front of me the Hansard report of the speech made by the honourable member for Lyne. He said that the British people had changed their character and that there was something wrong with them. The honourable member went on to say that he thought their attitude to Rhodesia was disgraceful. He went on to say that the people of Great Britain had more or less gone around the whole world appealing to the lower elements of the world to support the British Labour Party’s policy towards Rhodesia. He inferred that Wilson was a liar and a scoundrel all along. The honourable member should have made sure of his facts before going off in the manner in which he did because, at about the time that he was making his speech, reports of some of the meetings that had occurred between Mr Wilson, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Mr Smith of Rhodesia were being published in various London newspapers. These reports show quite clearly that, if there was any liar or scoundrel insofar as the negotiations were concerned, it was Smith, who had gone so far as to advise the then Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, that he had not and could not meet the British Prime Minister over the matter of Rhodesia and independence when he had in fact done so. A further illustration of the type of person Smith was, and is, is the fact that later on the vessel HMS Tiger’, on which the whole of the differences should have been resolved, Smith adopted much the same attitude.

I also want to make some reference to the fact that, during the course of his speech, the honourable member for Lyne described Ramsay MacDonald as being the great British boneless wonder. Honourable members on this side of the House have no quarrel with the honourable member on that aspect because of the fact that at the time Ramsay MacDonald forsook his principles - at the time he forgot where he came from and he joined the Tory Party - he was regarded as the boneless wonder of the United Kingdom. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Lyne to the fact that he belongs to a political party of similar complexion to that to which Ramsay MacDonald belonged at the time he was referred to as a boneless wonder. It seems to me that during the course of the last 2 weeks the Country Party - at least 2 of its most senior members, at any rate - has taken it upon itself to attack the British people.

The honourable member for Lyne went on to say, during the’ course of his attack on the British people, that he had done a short turn in Rhodesia in an air training corps and it was a wonderful place. He must have a short memory if he thinks that things have not changed in Rhodesia since he was there over 20 years ago under an Empire air training scheme. If the honourable member wants to condemn the World Council of Churches it is his business, but I would point out to him that in condemning the Work) Council of Churches he is supporting the 10 hangings or so a week that go on in South Africa where the lives of many people are being snuffed out at the end of a rope. The honourable member even went so far in his speech as to condone the Sharpeville massacre by saying that the murder of scores of people at Sharpeville was more or less justified because a group of people was endeavouring to bring about the overthrow of the government of that country. That is just so much rot. If the honourable member is so imbued with those views he is entitled to them, but at the same time he is entitled to be well and truly condemned- for them and told that he is wrong and completely out of step with the majority of world opinion, expressed when sanctions -vere imposed on Rhodesia because of the manner in which the Smith regime came to power in that country.

I turn to another subject which should be of concern to the House, namely, the question of Army standards. If I had known that the adjournment debate was coming on so soon 1 would have informed the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) that I was going to mention this matter. I refer to an article that appeared in a Western Australian newspaper on 28th April to the effect that the Department of the Army was soon to meet to consider medical standards generally. I have raised in this House on a previous occasion the question of Army standards. I was not aware that another complaint similar to the one I had mentioned, had been drawn to the Minister’s attention. On an earlier occasion I drew his attention to the most unfortunate death of a soldier of my electorate who had been inducted into the Army. After going through a number of medical board examinations and what-have-you this person was finally declared to be fit. Apparently the reviewing authority of the Army is such that it can veto completely medical examinations which have been conducted by medical boards which consisted of 2, 3 and in some cases 4 medical officers. One would think that, because of the fact that in some of the regulations the plural is used, the reviewing authority would consist of a number of doctors. One would think that, if a person is being examined as to whether he is physically fit, from the point of view of his eyesight, there would be an opthalmologist or a specialist in that field on the reviewing authority. Apparently this is not always the case.

It pleases me to see - I do hope that the report in the Western Australian newspaper is correct - that Army standards are to be reviewed for a number of reasons. I would like to ascertain from the Minister whether what has happened in Vietnam with regard to standards is the reason for the review. At the same time, I would like also to state in this House that it is not good enough that the reviewing authority should consist only of a person who, although he may be a specialist in a particular field of medicine, is not a specialist in the field which he is considering. I do not think that such a person should be able to veto specialist medical advice on a subject on which he has not a great deal of medical knowledge.

In addition we have the situation that the Department of Labour and National Service carries out the initial examination. Apparently all sorts of things happen in this regard. Once the Department of Labour and National Service has secured the body in the ballot, has expressed an opinion that he is fit and sends him on to the Army, it seems to me that there is reluctance on the part of the Service, after having carried out a second and subsequent medical examination, to make a correct medical decision of fitness or otherwise that would indicate that the medical examination carried out by the Department of Labour and National Service was wanting in a number of respects. I conclude on that note. I hope that the honourable member for Lyne will rise in this debate later on in the evening and correct some of the shocking statements he made in this House at approximately this time last week.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I wish to speak briefly about the misunderstanding which took place tonight with respect to the International Wheat Agreement Bill. This Bill is a most important one, but due to a misunderstanding it was not debated. The Opposition was under the impression that the International Wheat Agreement Bill would not be debated before 9.30 tonight because the Minister for Trade and Industry and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) would not be here until 9.30 p.m. Apparently this was quite wrong. There was obviously a misunderstanding and a breakdown somewhere along the line. I was at an executive meeting and my friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) said he thought that wheat was coming on but he did not know which Bill it was. I strolled into the House and sat down. Mr Speaker asked me whether I wanted to speak - I think it was on wheat. I was completely perplexed. I did not know what wheat Bill he was talking about and said: ‘9.30’. Then I found that this was the International Wheat Agreement Bill and it had gone straight through the second and third readings.

Mr Robinson:

– What other wheat Bill was there?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The point is that this is what we were told and I am trying to make an explanation.

Mr Robinson:

– Who told you?

Dr PATTERSON:

– We are told through the Government liaison service and our own liaison in what order and at what time the Bills come on. Not only was I told this, but also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). When we were told this obviously we took it to be a fact. Strictly speaking, there was a mistake and I believe the mistake was on our side, not on the Government side. 1 believe that the mistake occurred through some misunderstanding along the channels which come back in a devious way to the speakers. I informed the Opposition speakers, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) and others that the Bill would not be debated before 9.30 p.m. because the Deputy Prime Minister who was handling the Bill would not be back until then. I repeat that this was obviously a mistake. The Deputy Prime Minister was back at 6 o’clock or thereabouts.

There was an attempt by the Opposition - I understand that the Government was in agreement - to have this Bill recommitted. Unfortunately the message had already been sent, under this system of ours, across to the Senate which was not sitting. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) approached the President (Sir Alister McMullin) who was quite willing to let the Bill come back into the House of Representatives to be recommitted and debated. I understand, however - I could be wrong - that according to the advice of the Speaker and the Clerk this was not possible. One can imagine the precedent it would set. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that it was not possible because the message had been sent, that the Bill had already gone through the House of Representatives and could not be recommitted. That is what we were told. I understand now from the way in which Mr Speaker shakes his head that this is not so, that it could have been recommitted. Here again there has been a further misunderstanding.

Mr Martin:

– You may still get it on.

Dr PATTERSON:

– If that is the case, the Opposition hopes that the Bill may still come on. I certainly wanted to take part in the debate. I wanted to talk about China and a few other things which are most important to the international wheat trade. Unfortunately the Bill went through before any of us - not only on the Opposition side but also apparently on the Government side-

Mr Turnbull:

– No.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Apparently the Australian Country Party did not even want to speak on the International Wheat Agreement Bill.

Mr Giles:

– Our job is to answer you.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Your job is to answer us? Not to make any constructive comments, but just to answer us? Something is wrong with the system when a genuine mistake takes place with an important Bill and it cannot be recommitted to the House of Representatives to be debated intelligently. Here we are at 9.35 p.m., the Parliament has closed down for business and we are told - perhaps this again is a misunderstanding - that we might be sitting until 6 o’clock in the morning on Wednesday and Thursday. Have honourable members ever heard of such a shemozzle as has taken place in this Parliament tonight? 1 cannot see any reason why this important Bill - one of the most important Bills as regards primary industry - the International Wheat Agreement Bill, and all the ramifications of it could not be recommitted and debated.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

– I appreciate the explanation made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Shortly before 6 o’clock, rather than start the next item on the list, . the Minister in charge of the House suggested that it was a convenient time to rise for dinner. To my knowledge, no-one thought other than that at 8 o’clock the next business on the sheet would be the International Wheat Agreement Bill. I was here ready to take part in it. As the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) had explained the Bill in his second reading speech, obviously there was no occasion for Government members to say anything further about the Bill. I was waiting to speak after the honourable member for Dawson. I thought that the Speaker was pretty considerate, because he put the question and then he saw the honourable member for Dawson come into the chamber. He waited and said to the honourable member for Dawson: ‘This is the wheat Bill. Do you want to speak?’

The honourable member might have been confounded, but the Speaker was pretty considerate. Since no other Opposition members apparently wanted to speak on the Bill, I wanted to help the Govern ment to get the business through. I did not rise, and the Bill went through. That is the position, Mr Speaker. I thought you were very considerate in giving the honourable member for Dawson a second chance.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise also on the debate on the motion that the House do now adjourn to say that I am extremely disappointed and regretful that a measure as important as the International Wheat Agreement Bill came before the House and was passed without debate as a result of a misunderstanding. I am not in a position to go into the details of the misunderstanding. As far as I am concerned, the Bill would come on at 9.30 p.m., due to the absence of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony). I understand - and I accept - the statement made by the right honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), who has just resumed his seat, that as far as he was concerned he was acting in good faith. There is no argument in regard to that. I express my regret and my sincere concern that this Bill should have been passed. I am also concerned about the arrangement of the business of the Parliament. I seem to recall that in the early hours of last Friday morning a measure involving the voting of $48m for foreign aid projects came before this House. We were asked, after many long hours in this chamber and in the Parliament generally, to apply ourselves to this. Against that background there is the fact, I remind honourable members, that we were due also to deal with several other matters. What happened was that we voted for the expenditure of $48m with scarcely a look at the Bill. A protest was entered on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) who felt very keenly about the matter. He said that we should be reviewing the whole gamut of international aid in a decade that he referred to as being a decade of dismal failure and not of development. We had no opportunity to debate that matter sensibly.

As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has pointed out, it has been made known already that we are likely to sit for 2 sessions till 6 a.m. I do not lay the blame for this sin - the sin it is to my way of thinking - at the door of the minor functionaries of the Government but at tha door of the Leader of the Government. I have not seen the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in this chamber after 9 p.m. I have no objection to his going home to bed at 9 p.m. I think it is a very commendable thing to conserve your strength for the battle next day, but I object very strongly to an order of business which sentences all members of the House to apply themselves to great and international measures, important and of concern, at a time when nobody is fit to deal with them. This week we have coming before us measures such as the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill which could very easily decide the fate of thousands of people. This Bill was introduced into the House at about 2 a.m., if I remember rightly. It could have been 1 a.m., but it was in the wee hours of the morning. The difference between 1 a.m., 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. is not very great. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) introduced it almost like a thief in the night. He presented it to us and then left. Having read it, I do not blame him. It is disgusting. That is beside the point, but that is when it was presented to us. I am wondering when we will get a chance to debate it in detail - perhaps at 4 a.m. on Wednesday or Thursday. Is that when we will deal with it? Perhaps we will deal with it at 5 a.m. on Friday. Is this the kind of situation with which we will be confronted this week? I do not mind the Prime Minister being in bed at 9 p.m., but I object to the House being used in this way. Not only is it being used as a rubber stamp but it is also being used as a pretty weak rubber stamp. On one day we will be sitting for 20 hours if the Government’s present proposals are implemented - 20 hours of straight deliberation. This is absurd.

The incident tonight indicates that all is not well. The minor functionaries of the Government are not at fault in this. They are doing as they are told. Therefore I do not think it is important to debate it with them. I suggest to the head of the Government and to those who are responsible, that this Parliament should not be asked to legislate by exhaustion. It is an obscenity. If it is necessary to sit next week to deal with things in a proper way, let us do so. What is so important about next week? It is not the Ides of March. That has passed. Where is the concern? Are the Ministers dispersing to the 4 corners of the world or have they some conclave somewhere to which they wish to retreat?

Mr Reynolds:

– Sunday is Mothers Day.

Mr GRASSBY:

– It might be a matter for levity if it were not so serious. I enter my protest at the programming of the House if it involves this kind of procedure.

In regard to the International Wheat Agreement, it is all very well having international agreements, but they are only as good, as strong and as viable as those who enter into them make them. Australia, through its then Deputy Prime Minister, was led a merry dance a couple of years ago. I do not want to see that repeated. The Opposition stands for orderly marketing across the world - international co-operation. That is part of our fundamental dictum. At vital times, when matters touch on the future of our industries and our people, we do not want to be taken as fools. This happened 2 years ago when I seem to remember that the then Deputy Prime Minister went to Washington. He told the people of the countryside that he was going there to save orderly marketing across the world and to prevent the wheat growers from being thrown into a state of penury. I suppose that is what he had in mind. What he was doing was building a monumental alibi for this Government to impose a wheat rationing system in the middle of a season. In the preparation of that political alibi he went to Washington. He used the device of sending to as many people as possible in the community advice that he had instructed that there be an abatement, I think he called it, of wheat selling. That meant a pulling back in our marketing, a reduction in our marketing effort.

There has been much criticism of the Opposition’s references to wheat. I have noticed that whenever anything good happens the Government takes credit for it. Whenever anything bad happens it seems to be the inadequacy of the Wheat Board that is the cause. In this instance there was an inference by the Government in the operations of wheat trading as practised by the Board. At the tune members of the Board said this. They said that if the Government did not stop its policies and did not cease interfering in the wheat trade, as they saw it, we would be in more trouble than we were at that time. Why were we in trouble? We were in trouble because although we had secured an additional 2 per cent of the world market, the United States of America and Canada had lost 10 per cent - not to us but to Russia and eastern Europe. So we stepped down to help the poor stuggling United States farmer who, incidentally, receives about $3m annually in subsidies. We stepped down. We abated our effort, in the words of the previous Deputy Prime Minister, so that those countries would be able to recover their position. It was an interesting exercise. The leaders met in Washington. The Wall Street Journal’ of the next day said:

We understand a gentlemen’s agreement was reached, and this was at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. We have no doubt that an agreement was reached, but we suspect there will be a stave shortage of gentlemen.

And so there was. The French, for example, sold the whole of their crop by March that year. This was 1970. We were hamstrung by Government interference. All that the Gaullist gesture made by the then Deputy Prime Minister did was to disadvantage ourselves, lt did not stop anyone. If honourable members have any doubt about that, at the time when our Government was saying: ‘Save the agreement’, the Canadian Minister for Agriculture said that it had been decided to suspend it. The West German Minister said that the agreement was a plucked chook and that nobody was observing it. The only people who observed it were ourselves - to provide a political alibi in the country side and to disadvantage our nation and the growers concerned. This was what happened. Honourable members should have been reminded of that tonight. So I say on behalf of our industries and our people: International agreements, yes; surrender, no.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I will not detain the House for long, other than to say that J think it is a shameful thing for the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) to condemn the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) for working flat out, as those of us who know him know that he does, and for insinuating that he should have to suffer by being present and listening to the twaddle that comes from that section of the Opposition benches. Thank goodness Prime Ministers do not yet have to do that. The second point I wish to make, and I make it very firmly, is that the honourable member for Riverina dared to suggest to this House that it was being misused because the other day we pushed through the debate on a Bill giving approval for the spending of $48m of Australian taxpayers’ funds in aid to developing countries. Although the honourable member seems to have forgotten about it, it was the debate on the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), dealt with this matter.

Mr Grassby:

– And protested.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina will restrain himself. This is the third time he has interjected while the honourable member for Angas has been on his feet.

Mr GILES:

– It is compulsive. 1 was about to say that his colleague rose to his feet at exactly 9 minutes past 11, if my memory serves me right, and completed his speech well prior to the time that the House suspended its sitting for supper at 11.30. No attempt was made to deny honourable members the right to debate this issue, as the honourable member for Riverina would like to suggest. If the honourable member remembers, there was at least 2 hours debating time left after the honourable member for Melbourne Ports spoke. Nobody would suggest that 11 o’clock at night was too late to give intelligent and properly considered opinion in relation to the IDA. In other words, what the honourable member for Riverina has suggested is completely fallacious and gives quite a wrong impression of what occurred in that debate. I know because I was in the position of being second speaker foi- ‘ lowing the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, and I did not get up because we had the chance at that time to give the Opposition 4 times as much time as we, the Government members, took. To be fair to the Opposition and because we had had a long night, I did not speak in that debate. Other members of the Opposition could have spoken. There was nothing to stop them. The third point I wish to make is that tonight we could have moved to bring on other Bills.

Mr Grassby:

– Why did you not?

Mr GILES:

– I do not know why we did not. If I had been running the House I would have been very inclined to have them called on, but the reason for not doing so is that the Labor Party has fallen so far behind in putting Bills to Caucus that, without offending Opposition members, if that is worth consideration, we could not go on with any other Bills tonight.

Mr Daly:

– Mr Speaker, I take the point of order that the assertion made by the honourable member is completely incorrect as there is generally at least a week’s adjournment after a Bill is introduced. The Bills he speaks of were introduced only a day or so ago. It is quite unfair and quite improper to say that of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not use the taking of a point of order to make a debating point.

Mr GILES:

– I am not in a position to affirm that in every case I am correct or that in every case the honourable member is incorrect, but I will say that the Bill listed has been high on the Government business sheet. The Wool Industry Bill, from memory, was introduced to this House a week and a half ago. If it has not been considered by the Labor Caucus, I do not understand why. The third thing I want to say is that I think everyone can understand-

Dr Patterson:

– I raise a point of order. The Wool Industry Bill was introduced on 28th April.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. If the honourable member wants to deny a statement by another honourable member he has the chance of being called, of asking to make a personal explanation or doing something of that sort. But there is too much of a tendency to take points of order to make a debating point, as has been shown in the last few minutes.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker, can you give me some guidance? When an honourable member states deliberate untruths and makes false statements in this place that cannot be borne out by fact-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member is referring to the speaker who is on his feet and is not taking a point of order, I ask him to withdraw the words false statements’.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I withdraw that statement. I do not wish to be provocative, but I want the record to be kept square. The honourable member made a statement that the Wool Industry Bill was introduced prior to our Caucus meeting-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Charles Jones:

– I am not taking a point of order; I am asking for guidance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member is asking for guidance from the Chair, I think he knows the Standing Orders as well as most people in this place. It is not within the province of the Chair to decide whether a statement is correct or incorrect. That is a matter for the House to decide and to be used in debate.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Then we have no other redress in order to correct the record than to take a point of order; so that is what we will do in future.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am sorry, but that is the situation.

Mr GILES:

– I hasten to withdraw my statement. I have been given a chance to check and I find that what the Opposition members have said is quite so. I apologise. The Bill was introduced to our Party some time ago. I certainly withdraw in justice to the Opposition. Of course, the International Wheat Agreement Bill was introduced on 22nd April. With the greatest respect to members of the Opposition, I say that they cannot stand in this House and blame us for pushing Bills or business through when they do not rise to speak. The Opposition spokesman was present when this Bill was before the House tonight, and I accept his explanation about what happened. But it must be remembered that the Opposition did not divide the House on the motion for the second reading of the Law and Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Bill. A principle is involved. Surely that principle is that it is up to members of this House to know when Bills are passed and when debate on new Bills is likely to be entered into. If it had not been for the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) - I give him credit - who had the quickness of mind to call for a quorum tonight, more damage might have been done from the point of view of the Opposition than was done. I hope that a bit of fairness applies to debates in this House. The honourable member for Riverina suggested that things go all the one way; but of course they were crocodile tears. I will certainly play fair with members from the other side who play fair. I apologise, in passing, for my inaccuracy.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I rise to express my great concern that this House is to adjourn at the end of this week. It has been a very short sessional period. We know that the Government will’ push through certain legislation by the use of the guillotine. I do not think that it is in the best interests of this Parliament, democracy or the nation as a whole that this should happen. No matter on what side one sits, one must show this concern. Because this will probably be the last adjournment debate when one will have an opportunity to express an attitude, I want to express my attitude about 2 aspects that have concerned me greatly over the last month. The one I want to mention particularly relates to the gaoling of Geoffrey Mullen, the young objector to a particular war, namely, the Vietnam war. This young nian is opposed also to conscription. He was gaoled in Berrima Gaol. I visited him there before my own incarceration. I went there on Good Friday and spoke to him in front of the superintendent of the gaol. The superintendent said that if there were any demonstration outside the gaol Mullen would be moved to another place.

I have stated before in this Parliament, and I want to reiterate it, that I received a letter giving me information that in fact Mullen had been intimidated within the prison; that 2 warders of the names of Unicomb and Motley had said that if there were demonstrations outside the gaol privileges would be taken away from the other prisoners and that the other prisoners had said that they would take retaliatory action against Mullen. Within 24 hours of my revealing this information in Parliament the New South Wales Justice Department moved Mullen from Berrima Gaol to Newnes farm which, in fairness to the New South Wales authorities, I must say is probably the best prison in New South Wales apart from Silverwater. But what concerns me is the attitude in this day and age of taking action against such a man under such circumstances because he is morally opposed to something because of conscience. The young man is opposed to the war in Vietnam. He will not serve in Vietnam. He is against conscription. I am led to believe that senior authorities of the Berrima gaol were prepared to condone these actions by the prisoners if people exercised their democratic right as individuals to demonstrate outside the gaol. This is deplorable and I hope that the House takes note of the situation.

Mullens is a Commonwealth prisoner. He has been put in gaol by honourable members on the Government side. He is a political prisoner. Because he is a political prisoner, we want this young man to be released from gaol before this Parliament reassembles for the Budget session. I will be demonstrating outside gaols and in a number of places because to have a political prisoner in this country in this day and age is utter stupidity. The stupidity of this Government is illustrated by the fact that, although 43,000 young men have refused to register for national service since 1964, only a handful have been prosecuted while the slate has been wiped clean in respect of 23,000. At least 10,000 cases are being examined now. This shows the hypocrisy of this Government. Why should one young man be locked up for this offence?

In addition, this young man suffers certain restrictions. He wishes to carry out post-graduate studies while he is in gaol. Restrictions are placed on his undertaking a post-graduate course even though the University of New England will permit him to do it. We see here an example of the conservatism of the prison authorities in New South Wales. It is about time that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) and his Department joined with the Department of Labour and National Service and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department to give this boy at least an opportunity if the Commonwealth Government intends to keep him in gaol.

I wish to raise another point. As I stand in this Parliament tonight I say to honourable members on both sides that I am shocked and ashamed to think that not one word of criticism or concern has been uttered against the re-arming of Japan. Within the last week, a decision was made by the Japanese Diet to double Japan’s defence expenditure in one year. I know that many people will say that this is a good thing and that a balance of power in the world will be achieved; that it will counter balance the power situation following the withdrawal of United States forces from South East Asia, and that the armaments of Japan will be needed following the United States withdrawal. This has been said before. As I am reminded by a colleague, it was said about Germany.

We will roe the day when . Japan rearms. We know that, at this stage, our future to a great extent is tied up with Japan. I have lived under the tyranny of Japan. 1 am all for a peaceful Japan and I am all against a re-militarised Japan. This country can only fear and view with great concern a remilitarised Japan. Two of the great powers during the second World War - West Germany, on the one hand, and Japan on the other - because of the technology available to them could produce within a short time intercontinental ballistic missiles. They could produce nuclear weapons and all the other weaponry possessed bv the United States of America and the Soviet Union. We are told that the People’s Republic of China is at least 2 to 3 years behind the United States and the Soviet Union. I believe that Japan in its weapons development could outpace such countries as the Soviet Union and China. Australia can benefit and develop only from peaceful cooperation with Japan. But I feel that the remilitarisation of Japan is a danger to Australia because within Japan and within Germany still remain the roots of Fascism. Fascism and militarism still remain and if anyone has seen Japanese Fascism, as I have seen it, he will speak out against Japanese remilitarisation. I completely condemn Japanese remilitarisation.

I am greatly concerned at and disappointed with honourable members on my side of the Parliament because for one week we have nol raised our voices and expressed our condemnation and concern about the doubling of Japan’s defence expenditure overnight. As for honourable members opposite, I know their negative anti-Communist approach and their reference to the threat of the downward thrust of Communism. But now that the United States is withdrawing from South East Asia honourable members opposite have to look for new allies and, of course, the new ally will be remilitarised Japan. What in the hell did we fight for in the

Second World War? What did we rot for? What did we go through the suffering for? The Japanese want to remilitarise. We are giving away a great deal of our nation to the Japanese at 5c a ton. Now we are asked to agreed to Japanese remilitarisation. I say that it is not in the best interest of Australia and that every Australian should show his concern at the doubling of Japanese defence expenditure overnight. The Japanese are moving quickly to become a military power again, and I do not think that it is in Australia’s interests.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I will take the time of the House for only a few moments. I should like to say to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) that he is not the only one who suffered under the Japanese. Many people suffered under the Japanese, and there are many people in Australia whose loved ones suffered under the Japanese. I take the view that the Japanese must be given the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no particular love for the Japanese.

As I have said, 1 will take the time of the House for only a few moments. What I have to say has nothing to do with wheat, wool or the Japanese. In fact, normally I would raise this matter at question time, but I think there is a very good chance that I might not get the call to ask a question at question time tomorrow because I was given the call to ask a question today. In view of the fact that we have only a few days in which to ask questions and to receive answers, and in view of the fact that this may be the only opportunity to speak in an adjournment debate, I wish to raise a small matter which I think is probably of significant national importance and which I would hope the relevant Minister will consider. I am not even sure which Ministry has the responsibility for civil defence, but I believe that it is the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth).

Mr Bryant:

– It is the Minister for the Interior.

Mr McLEAY:

– The question refers to civil defence, and I ask the relevant Minister - whether it be the Minister for Social Services or the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) - to have a look at this problem and I hope he will give me a reply before the Parliament rises. I am referring to a rather odd problem which will concern Australia only in times of national emergency. I refer to the civil fire brigades of the States of Australia and, in particular, to the couplings of the instruments that are used in cases of fire. As I understand the position in South Australia, the couplings that are used to connect the water supply to the fire appliances are measured in terms of the number of revolutions which the couplings are turned. In South Australia the couplings are turned 1 i times.

Mr Garrick:

– They are called ‘screw threads’.

Mr McLEAY:

– I thank the honourable member for the interjection. ‘Screw thread’ is the technical name. In South Australia the couplings are turned H times in order to connect them to the water supply. I understand that in Victoria they are turned 5 times and in New South Wales 7 times. This seems to be an almost laughably unimportant subject to be talking about, but I put it to the House and to the people of this country that this matter would be important in the event of a national disaster. For example, there could be a serious fire in Melbourne in which the whole of the city could be under threat. Such a threat could extend into the suburbs of Melbourne. If this happened there would be no way in the world that fire appliances from South Australia or New South Wales could be used to assist the Victorians in putting out such a fire. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), who is interjecting, should speak up so that I can hear him. My experience of his interjections suggests that what he is saying is completely juvenile and incoherent.

This is an important matter. Let us take Mildura as an example - some honourable member in this House represents the city of Mildura. Let us assume that there is a disastrous fire in Mildura and that city does not have enough fire appliances to fight the fire. Because of the differences in couplings fire appliances from Renmark, which is across the border, would be unable to assist in fighting that fire. The same thing would apply to the city of Wentworth. Likewise, if Victorian border towns such as Dimboola and Nhill had a fire the fire brigade from Bordertown in South Australia would be unable to help to fight the fire because the couplings are of the wrong size. I heard about this problem only an hour or so ago and I believe it is sufficiently important to bring before this Parliament.

I realise that we have the problem of State governments but overriding this is the national interest. There is what is known as an international coupling. I ask the Parliament and the various governments of Australia to give serious consideration to introducing the international fitting, which I believe should be fitted to every fire appliance in Australia. The Commonwealth has an interest in the airports of Australia. The couplings at Adelaide Airport are international couplings which embody an instantaneous fitting. I understand that the South Australian Fire Brigade has spare couplings which could be used at Adelaide Airport in a time of emergency. I do not know what the position is at other airports in Australia. 1 put to the House a situation that could arise where a jumbo jet crashed at, for example, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The local authorities would be unable to assist in putting out a resultant fire simply because their fire brigade fittings are of 1874 vintage. This matter is a long way out of my sphere of interest. It is something which I would normally bring up at question time. However, there may be no opportunity to bring it up again because there may be no more debates this session on the motion that the House adjourn. Therefore I have raised this matter tonight. I ask the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay), who is at the table and who is listening so attentively, to take this matter to his colleague, the Minister for Social Services, who I believe administers this department and ask him to attempt to persuade the States to introduce international standard couplings in fire brigades.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I have not spoken in the debate on the motion that the house adjourn since I have been in Parliament. But on this occasion I intend to speak because I am concerned at the contempt which the Government is showing for the parliamentary institution. The Government is showing complete contempt for this institution.

Mr Robinson:

– The voice of experience.

Mr MARTIN:

– I should like to quote factually in respect of a particularly complex matter. Three Bills have been introduced into the House - the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971, the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971 and the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971. I challenge the honourable member who has just interjected to speak on them if he is capable. These measures were introduced between 4.22 p.m. and 4.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th April 1971. The House sat until 12.59 a.m. on the Thursday. On Thursday, 29th April 1971, the House met at 10.30 a.m. and sat until 2.16 a.m. on the Friday. 1 repeat that these are 3 complex measures. Few honourable members in this House could debate them intelligently, and that includes the Treasurer (Mr Snedden).

Mr Robinson:

– The honourable member thinks he is an expert.

Mr MARTIN:

– At least I class myself as sufficiently expert, having served for 34 years in the Taxation Office in the technical field. I think that answers the honourable member who interjected. I regard it as my duty as a member of the Parliament to spend as much time as possible in the Parliament to understand the measures that are dealt with here. As I pointed out previously, we sat until 2.16 a.m. on Friday. I had discussions with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and arising from those discussions and discussions with the Treasurer it was arranged that senior officers of the Taxation Office would come to Parliament House this morning in order to discuss the measures with us. It is the first occasion since I have been in this Parliament that measures have been discussed in depth with us. At 11 a.m. today 2 high level officers of the Taxation Office - one of the Second Commissioners and the Senior Assistant Commissioner (Legislation) - came over and discussed these measures in depth with us until 12 noon. Yet, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) stood and announced - I shall not quote him exactly - that we were caught on the hop on these measures. We were not caught on the hop on theses income tax measures. I defy any honourable member in this

House, without expert assistance which is available from senior officers of the Taxation Office, to understand completely and absolutely these measures and, here and now, I challenge any honourable member on the Government side, other than those who have been briefed by senior members of the Taxation Office, to rise and debate them. I throw out that challenge here and now.

My information is that these 3 complex Bills will be discussed some time tomorrow, possibly through the early hours of the morning until 6 a.m. It is bringing the parliamentary institution into disrepute to expect honourable members to discuss and debate Bills of this nature intelligently in those circumstances. It makes a travesty of our position in this Parliament. As my friend, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) reminds me, the Government will use the guillotine. In other words, come what may, complex and important legislation will be guillotined through the House. The Government is treating this Parliament with contempt, and in so doing it is denigrating the principles of democracy which I firmly support.

Mr Grassby:

– It is treating us like parliamentary peasants.

Mr MARTIN:

– As the honourable member for Riverina says, it is treating us like parliamentary peasants and I object to that sort of treatment. It is not of our doing that the Parliament will not sit next week. We should be sitting longer. The Government has decided for some reason or another that we shall not sit beyond this week. I do not know whether it is because of the onset of winter. I felt the cold winds coming down the street this morning when I walked from the Hotel Kurrajong to the Parliament. To my mind that is not sufficient reason to close down the Parliament. The Opposition rightly feels that it is being treated with contempt. I finish on this note, and it gives me pain to say it: For all the use that this Government thinks that we on this side are, I may as well send my vote by post and not even come here.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) said that the Opposition had been caught with its pants down because it had not prepared itself to debate any of the Bills which are on the notice paper. I suggest to the honourable member that as he is the Deputy Government Whip he is entitled to know exactly or approximately when legislation is to be introduced in this House and as he has some responsibility to this House he ought at least to give responsible information to the House. Listed under ‘Government Business’ on the notice paper are 32 items, 14 of which were introduced into this House on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. A further 11 of those items were introduced in the previous 4 sitting days, making a total of 25 measures introduced into this House in the last 2 sitting weeks.

On the notice paper are only some 8 items - some of which were dealt with today - which have not been introduced in this Parliament within the last fortnight and of those items at least 4 will not be dealt with during this session because the Government is not prepared to debate them. Perhaps the honourable member for Angas could explain why the Government is not prepared to debate the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971, the Senate Elections Bill 1971, the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Bill 1971, the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill 1971 and also a number of other notices which are relevant to this matter. They have been on the notice paper for some time. Also on the notice paper are other matters which have not yet been dealt with but which have been on the notice paper since last year, and the Government is not prppared to debate them. But the honourable member for Angas said that we are tardy because we are not able to deal adequately with 25 Bills in a fortnight. I suggest that any Opposition which considered or claimed that it could deal with 25 measures including a number of highly complex measures in a fortnight would be an irresponsible Opposition and it would be almost as irresponsible as this Government is.

Mr Foster:

– Oh, that is impossible.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Well, if we said we could deal with those Bills in that time we would be. The fact is that supporters of the Government, especially back benchers, have totally abdicated their responsibility to this Parliament and they have no re spect for the position which they hold in this place. They are not fit to be members of any parliament in any democratic society. They are prepared to allow-

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

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member that the statement that he has made should be withdrawn. It is a reflection on every Government supporter.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I withdraw the remark, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the course of the debate last week you said that on this side of the House we were yellow and you did not withdraw that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! J suggest that the honourable member for Sturt take note of some of the interjections and comments he has made. It is fortunate for the honourable member that at this moment I happen to be in the Chair. The reflection made by the honourable member is completely unfounded and I suggest that he consider some of the comments he has made. As to the remark made by the honourable member for Corio, honourable members should appreciate that contrary to the Standing Orders he cast a reflection on Government members by saying that they are not fit to be members of this House. In my opinion that is an offence against the Standing Orders. I suggested that the honourable member lor Corio withdraw the remark and he has done so.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would not the honourable member for Corio be in order in saying that they were pretty-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I suggest that it is extremely dangerous to our democratic system and disastrous to the respect in which this Parliament will be held by the community for the Parliament to race headlong into a recess of about 3 months without any justification. Last year during the autumn session the Parliament sat until 12th June without any severe inconvenience to the Government or to honourable members. When we seek election and are elected to this Parliament we should be prepared to spend as much time in this

House as is necessary to conduct its business in a proper manner. Tonight a list of measures to be guillotined was read out. The measures are to be guillotined for no better reason than to ensure that Parliament can rise this week. No honourable member opposite has explained why Parliament cannot meet next week and the week after that. If people outside Parliament fail to respect it and the laws it passes, that is the responsibility of Parliament itself.

I have entered this debate to raise a matter that probably I will not have another opportunity to raise during this session. It is of great importance to the people in my electorate. After this week it seems that as a member of this Parliament I will not for some months have an opportunity to participate in the affairs of government which obviously are to take place outside this House rather than inside it. About 6 weeks ago I contacted the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on a matter of urgency relating to the woollen textile industry in my electorate. I indicated to him then that within a few weeks about 250 people would be retrenched by woollen textile mills in my electorate. I have subsequently received an acknowledgment of that correspondence from the Prime Minister. I again wrote to him and sent him a telegram. 1 also raised the matter in this chamber on a previous occasion. Now, 6 weeks after 1 originally contacted the Prime Minister, about 270 people have been retrenched by 3 woollen mills in my electorate but I have not received a direct reply from the Prime Minister. As I pointed out that the matter was urgent and asked that it be so treated, some consideration should have been given to the matter by the Government.

A large number of orders for textiles are to be placed by the Government with woollen mills. Some of the orders have been tendered for by the mills within my electorate, and if the Government were to accept those tenders the jobs of the employees of those mills could be saved. This matter may seem funny to some honourable members opposite, particularly those members of the Country Party who appear to be amused now, but it is not funny to the people who have lost their livelihood and are trying to find alternative employment.

Mr Turnbull:

– We do not think it is funny. What makes the honourable member say that?

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member should stop his colleagues behind him from laughing, because that is exactly what they are doing. I understand that the honourable member for Mallee would take this matter seriously. It is an extremely serious matter. We have heard that legislation dealing with the problems of farmers is to be guillotined through the Parliament, but many industries and business people in country areas and provincial cities are suffering disabilities just as great as farmers are suffering because of the decline of rural industries.

In my electorate one industry which deals almost exclusively with the manufacture and supply of farm machinery has reduced its employment from 134 to 34 persons and is in danger of folding up. Another very large employer is now employing about half the number previously employed. People who were working in these industries are still living in my electorate and, in my opinion, they are just as entitled to the urgent consideration of the Government as are any other people in the community. I believe that the period of time that has elapsed since I originally raised this matter with the Prime Minister should have been sufficient to enable him to reply to me. I do not ask for any magic solutions to problems because I am realist enough to know that such solutions do not exist, but at least I expect that when a matter of some urgency affecting the employment of a large number of people is raised the Government will show courtesy and reply to the matter so that the people concerned will know exactly where they stand. In the case of these woollen mills-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I wish to refer to a matter which has been raised already by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). On Wednesday, 28th April, the ‘West Australian’, under a heading ‘Department, Army to meet soon over medicals’ carried this report:

The heads of the Department of Labour and National Service and the army will meet soon to adopt a set of medical standards for conscripts.

The meeting, to be held in Melbourne, comes after a disagreement over medical standards.

Several Western Australian conscripts who were passed as fit by the department failed to measure up to the medical requirements of the army.

They were returned to Western Australia and discharged.

Although the spokesman could not give an exact figure, he said it had been estimated that about 100 conscripts were similarly rejected every year.

This had cost the Commonwealth Government about $100,000 annually.

The conflict on medical standards came to a head last week when the army refused to induct four young men approved by the department.

I hope that report is correct because this year alone the cases of 4 young men who had been accepted by the Department of Labour and National Service and ultimately rejected by the Army have been referred to me. I had taken up their cases with the Department of Labour and National Service before they had been inducted but after they had been passed as medically fit. One of the young lads had very poor eyesight. It was not he who approached me but his employer, who was gravely concerned about what might happen to him if he were inducted into the Army, who referred the matter to me. The medical officers who examined him in the first place were concerned lest he should be wrongly inducted. They would not pass him as fit without the approval of a specialist ophthalmologist. He was sent to a specialist - an ex-Army colonel, who I imagine would wish to see in the Army as many young people as possible - and he was passed as fit.

As I have said, I put his case to the Department of Labour and National Service not only in Perth but also in Melbourne, and a couple of days before he was due to be inducted I rang the Department to get a ruling. I was told that he would have to be inducted. I reminded the officer at the Department of the case that was brought before this House by the honourable member for Sturt, who told us about a chap with very poor eyesight who was inducted into the Army and eventually killed in Vietnam, probably because of his faulty eyesight. I said that I would be watching this case with interest and hoped to see this lad in a clerical position or some other position where he would not be in danger because of his poor eyesight. On induction into the Army he had the mis fortune to break his glasses. He then had to be tested by the Army doctor for new glasses and when he was being examined the doctor asked him how the dickens he had got into the Army. The doctor said that he should never have been inducted and would have to be discharged forthwith. That was only 6 weeks after his induction.

The second case was that of a lad who came to Australia from Europe. Before leaving Europe he was told by his doctor that he could come to Australia only on the condition that he could enter without receiving a smallpox injection because if he was subjected to one it would endanger his health. He was told that should there be an outbreak of smallpox in Australia he should apply immediately to be put into isolation in a hospital to avoid the need for inoculation. On being inducted into the Army he was sent for inoculation and refused to have it. He told the Army that he had been warned by his doctor in Europe that he should never undergo such inoculation. In spite of the fact that he had an unstable medical record and was subject to periods of severe depression, this lad was warned that if he continued to refuse to undergo smallpox inoculation he would have his pay stopped and be confined to barracks. I continued to press his case after his induction and his psychiatrist in Perth, on hearing that he was in the Army, wrote immediately to the Department saying that it was his opinion that this lad should not be in the Army because that would be extremely detrimental to his health and welfare. He was thereupon released after 8 weeks in the Army.

Because my time is running out I wish to refer to one other case which has come recently to my notice. A person who does not live within my electorate has appealed to me to try to assist him because he is facing court proceedings for failing to enter the Army under the National Service Act. His doctor has said that the court proceedings themselves will have an extremely detrimental effect upon his health. He is a most unhealthy individual, again a person with bad psychiatric tendencies, and the doctor has said that it is impossible for him to go into the Army without it having an extremely adverse effect upon him. The Army cannot need people who are so ill and so unfit for Army service, and yet apparently the Department of Labour and National Service persists in having them inducted into the Service. I think it is to the credit of the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) that when these cases are referred to him he acts with expedition and takes a sympathetic interest in them and has the people concerned released from the Army in a very short space of time. But I think that such situations should never arise. The Department of Labour and National Service should apply the same medical standards to men being inducted as conscripts as are applied to those men who are inducted as permanent servicemen.

Of course, I believe that the whole question should not arise. I believe that conscription is iniquitous and should not be introduced into any country except in a time of extreme emergency as was done by the Curtin Government during the Second World War. I agree with those members of the Opposition and of the community who suggest that perhaps the best course for young men to take is to not comply with the Act and to refuse to register. If they did that with unanimity then, of course, the whole thing would fail. Unfortunately, that is not done and, therefore, I hesitate to advise young people as individuals not to enrol. But I think that it is an iniquitous Act and is not good for Australia. The need for it has not occurred since it was introduced in the Second World War. I think we would be better training men for the service of peace than for the service of war, and that we should do all we can to humanise our people and not to dehumanise them.

I think that it is a waste of human resources that we take some of the best trained men of our community at a time when they are about to apply those things they have learnt at universities, teachers’ colleges and in their trades and professions and put them into the forces to carry out tasks which are altogether different. As was reported in the ‘Canberra Times’ some weeks ago we have school teachers acting as flunkies at Duntroon and other places when the country is lacking in trained teaching staff. As the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) said tonight, we have a trained scientist languishing in jail because he will not comply with the provisions of this Act. I think that the Act and the whole question of national service is one that deserves early examination with a view to its repeal. Until it is repealed I think that there is need for the examination referred to in the West Australian’. It is correct that the Department of the Army and the Department of Labour and National Service should come to an agreement about what the medical standards should be.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I was pleased to find after my speech on an adjournment debate recently that the manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Western Australia subsequently issued statements that the ABC was an autonomous body and had the right to select its programmes in the same way as any other organisation. This verifies my opinion that the ABC should be able to provide what the public wants which is direct telecasts of important football matches played in city areas of Western Australia on Saturday afternoons for the benefit of the sick, the aged and the shift workers. Therefore we were pleased to hear the statement of the manager of the ABC in Western Australia that he hoped the deadlock would be resolved in the future and extension of telecasts to country areas this week has provided us with some relief in this matter. However, I believe that the ABC should make a little extra effort and have the matter resolved this week and provide telecasts in the city areas because the matter has dragged on too long. I believe that the spirit of honesty and common sense of which the Western Australian manager of the ABC spoke should prevail. The argument put forward with regard to perimeter advertising is finished because if telecasts can be made to any country area the same picture image could be made available to city dwellers. The question now is one of service to the public in the city areas.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

page 2407

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Housing Commission of Victoria (Question No. 3044)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. Can be say whether the Housing Commission of Victoria has (a) increased its interest rates on low cost dwellings since January 1970 from 4½ per cent to 6 per cent, (b) added an administrative charge of i per cent and a death benefit cover of i per cent making a total interest charge of 7 per cent on dwellings constructed by the Commission and (c) raised the cost of a three-bedroom flat to $22 per week.
  2. Can he supply details of the cost per week for a three-bedroom flat or dwelling controlled by other State housing authorities.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) The Housing Commission of Victoria increased ‘ its interest rates for house sales from 4½ per cent to 6½ per cent with effect from 1st January 1971.

    1. The new rate includes a component of ½ per cent for administration. Where a house purchaser has availed himself of the death benefit cover a charge of i per cent is added, making a total interest charge of 7 per cent.
    2. Rents charged by the Housing Commission of Victoria for three-bedroom accommodation (houses and flats) in the Melbourne metropolitan area range from $10.40 to $12.30 per week. These charges have applied since 20th September 1970.

  2. Weekly rentals charged by State housing authorities for recently completed three-bedroom brick-veneer houses in metropolitan areas, are:

F111C Spare Parts (Question No. 3164)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. What is the value of F111 spare parts at present located in Australia.
  2. When were these spare parts brought to Australia.
  3. Are unwanted spare parts being returned to the United States.
  4. If so, (a) what is the value of the spare parts being returned and (b) is the Commonwealth to be credited with their purchase value and transportation costs.
Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. The value of F111C spare parts presently stored in Australia is about $US37m.
  2. Progressively, since 1968.

  3. There are no unwanted spare parts but some spares having a finite storage life have been returned to the United States for use by the U.S. Air Force. Additionally, a larger quantity has been returned for rework due to the modification changes to the aircraft rendering the existing spare parts unsuitable. Certain parts to cover shortfalls in the USAF inventory have also been returned. (4)(a) The value of the limited storage life spare parts returned for us by the U.S. Air Force is about $US690,000. The Commonwealth has been credited with full acquisition costs and transportation costs were met by the U.S. Air Force:

    1. The value of the spare parts returned for rework or updating due to modification changes is about $US2.2m. The question of crediting of purchase value does not arise as these spares will be returned to Australia when modified. Transportation costs are being met by the Commonwealth.
    2. The value of other parts referred to in (3) above is approximately $US115,000 which has been credited to the Commonwealth.

Air Force Personnel (Question No. 3225)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Air, upon notice:

How many Air Force personnel are at present in civilian gaols.

Mr Holten:
CP

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

As at 20th April 1971 there were no Royal Australian Air Force personnel currently serving terms of imprisonment in civilian gaols.

Education: Post Graduate Fees (Question No. 2423)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

By what amount and percentage will the fees payable for each post-graduate course’ in each university in 1971 exceed the fees payable in 1970.

Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Education and Science · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is shown in the following table:

Education: University Fees (Question No. 2424)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

By what amount and percentage will the fees payable for each degree course in each university in 1971 exceed the fees payable in 1970.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is shown in the following table. The information provided relates to undergraduate courses. The relevant information for postgraduate courses is provided in my reply to Question No. 2423.

International Labour Conventions (Question No. 2639)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Are all of the guidelines set out in International Labour Convention No. 121 being applied by the Commonwealth (a) within the Commonwealth and (b) within the Territory of Papua New Guinea.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. ‘The Review of Australian Law and Practice Relating to Conventions Adopted by the International Labour Conference’, published by my Department in October 1969, sets out the current position within the Commonwealth in relation to the Convention.
  2. My colleague, the Minister for External Territories, has informed me that workers’ compensation in Papua New Guinea’ is a matter of local responsibility. The Ministerial Member for Labour in the House of Assembly has advised that the guidelines set out in International Labour Organisation Convention No. 121 are being applied in the Territory to at least the same degree as in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 2656)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: - (1) Is he able to say how many State inspectors in New South Wales, ‘ Western Australia and Tasmania are not authorised to inspect under federal awards. .

  1. Why are State- inspectors in .Queensland, South Australia and Victoria not authorised to inspect under federal awards.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I would invite the . honourable member’s attention to the answer given to part (6) of his question No. 1218. (Hansard, 2nd September . 1970, page 906).
  2. No reciprocal inspection arrangements exist between the Commonwealth and the 3 States mentioned by the honourable member. However, as to Queensland, exploratory talks between the Commonwealth and State Labour Departments are taking place.

National School of Business Management (Question No. 2896)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What developments have occurred in the establishment of the proposed post-graduate National School of Business Management at the University of New South Wales.
  2. When is it expected that the School will commence courses.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. The honourable member will recall that in July 1970, the Commonwealth decided that the report of the committee of experts which had recommended the establishment of a National Graduate School of Business Management in the University of New South Wales should be published. At the same time, the Commonwealth announced that, while accepting the recommendations of the report in principle, it would proceed to discussions with the business community concerning the proposed new school.

My colleague, the then Minister assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry, organised consultations with prominent and representative people engaged in business and industry. Those consultations are still proceeding. When they are

concluded, I shall be in a position to carry the matter further.

  1. I shall not be able to answer the second part of your question until after the consulations to which I have referred have been completed.

Milling: Northern Territory (Question No. 3071)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been invested by the Commonwealth in capital equipment for mining development in the Northern Territory during the last 10 years.
  2. What mines, with which Commonwealth facilities have been associated, have closed down during the same period.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. $600,000. If capital investment in roads servicing mines ($2,060,000), the iron ore bulk handling facility at Darwin ($3,200,000) and facilities provided by Commonwealth Railways ($6,000,000) is also included, the sum is $11,860,000.
  2. Rum Jungle.

Employment Training Scheme (Question No. 3159)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

When will the Government introduce its Employment Training Scheme for Persons Displaced by Technological Change which his predecessor announced on 23rd March 1971.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The details of the Government’s Employment Training Scheme for Persons Displaced by Technological Change were announced in a statement I made in the House on 20th April; I have arranged for a copy to be sent to the honourable member.

Roadworks: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 3169)

Mr Enderby:

asked. the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

In view of the many warnings made by responsible conservation authorities that serious detrimental environmental consequences will follow the construction of the proposed Parkes Way extension along the Lake shore and Black Mountain area of Canberra, will he request the National Capital Development Commission to investigate the possibility of bringing forward the construction of the free-way at present being proposed for the eastern side of Canberra so as to relieve the traffic pressure on the western side of Canberra and perhaps make the Parkes Way extension unnecessary.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The timing of the construction of major road works in the A.C.T. is continually under review by the National Capital Development Commission. This review includes consideration of the matters raised in the honourable member’s question.

University Degrees. (Question No. 3186)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon, notice:

  1. Which Australian universities are allowing graduates holding the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science to use the tide ‘Doctor*.
  2. Have these universities any stated policy on this matter.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– I wish to answer the second part of the honourable member’s question first:

  1. Australian universities themselves accord the title of doctor only to those who hold doctorates.
  2. No Australian university authorises persons not holding a doctorate to use the title of ‘Doctor’. When such individuals use the title ‘Doctor’ they do so of their own initiative..

Northern Territory (Question No. 3214)

Dr Gun:

asked, the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What is the area in square miles of (a) Victoria River Downs Station’ and. (b) Wave Hill Station.
  2. How many smaller stations are grouped in each of these Stations.
  3. What is the annual rent payable in respect of each Station.
  4. Are the profits of each Station free of taxation?
  5. When does the lease of each Station expire.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. (a) Victoria River Downs Station- 4,772 square miles, (b) Wave Hill Station - 6,157 square miles.
  2. On the Victoria River Downs Station thereare 3 outstations (Moolooloo, Mt Stanford and Pigeon Hole) and on the Wave Hill Station there is 1 outstation at Cattle Creek.
  3. Victoria River Downs Station- $3,817.60 per annum, (b) Wave Hill Station- $7,388.40 per annum.
  4. No.
  5. (a) Victoria River Downs Station - 30th June 2013. (b) Wave Hill Station- 30th June 2004.

Productivity: Non-farm Sector (Question No. 3058)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department established any indices of productivity for the non-farm sector.
  2. If so, will he make these indices available.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to question (1).

Tariffs: Man-made Fibres (Question No. 2772)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Following upon changes in tariffs on manmade fibres and yarn in 1970, did the Textile Council of Australia and firms in the industry made representations to the Government.
  2. If so, who were these firms.
  3. Was a liaison committee consisting of members of the Textile Council and officers of his Department established shortly after the new tariff rates were introduced.
  4. If so, how many times has this committee met.
  5. What business has it considered. <6) Has it considered any evidence or proposals related to a review of the new tariff rates.
  6. What decisions have been made by him, or by his Department, about any proposals this committee may have made or considered.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It would not be proper for me to name the individual firms which have made representations.
  3. and (4) The Textile Council established a committee of industry representatives to liaise with Departmental officers. On several occasion the committee has held discussions with Departmental officers. (5), (6) and (7) To date the Committee has submitted no proposals which would require a decision by me or by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department, however, has furnished advice to the committee and has made arrangements for a joint detailed watch on the import situation.

Nuclear Power (Question No. 2832)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Is the generating cost of enriched reactors considerably lower than those of natural uranium reactors.
  2. Will he supply a table showing the comparative generating costs of (a) enriched uranium and (b) natural uranium reactors.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No, generating costs are not ‘considerably lower’. As explained in the answer to Question 1288 the fuel cost of enriched uranium fuelled reactors is normally higher than that of natural uranium fuelled reactors. This difference, however, is roughly counterbalanced by the higher capital costs of natural uranium reactors. (Annual capital charges are normally included in generating costs.)
  2. It is not practicable to tabulate comparative generating costs of reactors established throughout the world to provide a valid comparison based on the fuel used. Many factors additional to fuel are involved. If, nevertheless, we were to consider costs of two hypothetical reactors to be constructed in Australia on the one site, of identical sizes and having the same interest rates, one being designed for enriched and the other designed for natural uranium fuel, it is thought that the difference in generating costs would not be considerable unless there was a marked difference in the keenness of the competitive attitudes of the tenderers.

National Development (Question No. 3119)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. When was the report on forward national development, covering particularly minerals, forests, water and energy, first commissioned.
  2. How long was the report in preparation.
  3. When was it completed.
  4. How long has it been under interdepartmental consideration and what departments are involved.
  5. When will the report be tabled in the Parliament.
  6. Will he arrange for the House to debate the report.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Preparation of the report was commenced at the beginning of 1970.
  2. Approximately 10 months.
  3. October 1970.
  4. It is not the usual practice to disclose details of the considerations of interdepartmental committees or of the composition of such committees.
  5. and (6) No final decision has been made regarding this matter.

Yugoslav Migrants (Question No. 2680)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many applications by (a) male and (b) female Yugoslav migrants were processed in (I) Vienna, (U) Belgrade, (iii) Rome or (iv) some other country during the last 12 months.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The Department has no statistical record of the male and female content of applications for admission to Australia. Many applicants do not proceed with their applications and such statistics would serve little purpose. I am not therefore able to provide the honourable member with the precise information he has asked for.

The Bureau of Census and Statistics does maintain statistics of settler arrivals by sex and nationality and by sex and country of last residence. “For the calendar year 1970 these figures are:

The Bureau also maintains statistics of settler arrivals by country of’ birth and country of last residence. The latter classification is limited to a relatively small group of countries which does not include Austria. For the financial year 1969-70 the figures (the latest available) were:

Citizenship Status (Question No. 2922)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it the proclaimed intention of Australian Citizenship Acts to ensure there is no difference in the citizenship status of a natural-born or naturalised citizen.
  2. If so, does the provision in the Commonwealth Crimes Act whereby Australian citizens born outside Australia may be deported in certain circumstances violate this situation.
  3. Does this provision apply not only to naturalised migrants but also in cases where children of Australian parents who are overseas on business or as tourists, are born outside Australia.
  4. Does the provision apply equally to British migrants.
  5. Is it a fact that many migrants resent the provision and feel that they are second-class citizens and treated differently to Australians born in this country.
  6. Has the provision ever been successfully used; if so, in which cases.
  7. Will the Government consider repealing the provision on the grounds of doubtful legality and because it contravenes the spirit and intention of Citizenship Acts.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The following answer’s have . been prepared , in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department which is responsible for the administration’ of the Crimes Act.

It is the intention, that naturalised persons should have the same status as persons who become citizens at birth.

, (3) and (4) The provisions of the Crimes Act are expressed to apply to all persons born outside Australia and not solely naturalised., persons.

There has been .no indication of resentment by many migrants in relation to the provisions in question.

and (7) See the answer given- by the AttorneyGeneral to Question No. ..1791 (Hansard of 30 October, 1970. page 3158).

Migrants: Assisted Passages (Question No.. 2818)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the .British Government has contributed only $A324,000 each year since 1952, a total of $A5,800,000 towards’ assisted passages for emigrants from the United Kingdom to Australia.
  2. Has Australia’s payment for the same ‘purpose over the same- period amounted ‘to $229,000,000.
  3. If so, will the : Government inform the British Prime Minister that’ Australia will offer no objection if the British Government decides to save itself from being further embarrassed by the actions of its own Race Relations Board by discontinuing any further assisted passage payments after 30th June next..
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The contribution made by the British Government is £stg 150,000 per annum. At the current exchange rate, this would be the. equivalent of approximately $A5.8 million, over ‘the period since 1952. Taking account of variations in the exchange rate, the actual equivalent of the British contribution would be approximately $A6.6 million:
  2. Yes.
  3. Any such initiative would be matter for the British Government.

Hospitals: Nimmo Committee Recommendations (Question No. 2433)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Minilster for Health, upon notice:

On what dates since their first meeting on 2nd April 1970 have Commonwealth and State officials met to consider the cost and method of carrying out the hospital recommendations made by the Nimmo Committee on 18th March 1969 (Hansard, 14th April 1970, page 1032 and 23rd April 1970, page 1553).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The meeting on 2nd April 1970 involved joint discussions between Commonwealth officers and officers representing all States.

Following that meeting, Commonwealth officers had discussions with officers of individual States on the following dates: 29th April 1970- Tasmania; 1st May 1970- Victoria; 6th May 1970- South Australia; 7th May 1970- Western Australia; 14th May 1970- Queensland; 15th May 1970- New South Wales.

Drugs: Teratogenic Compounds (Question No. 2577)

Mr Uren:

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

  1. Has 2,4,5-T been responsible in any way for teratogenic (foetus deforming) effects in humans as well as animals.
  2. Has the production of this compound caused chloracne in workers.
  3. If so, does this disease cause excessive skin eruptions, liver damage, disorders of the central nervous system, chronic fatigue, lassitude and depression.
  4. Is he able to say whether this disease has been recorded in the United States of America, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan.
  5. Can he say whether 2,4,5-T has (a) been linked to an increased incidence of respiratory diseases in Vietnam and (b) caused the death of many small mammals, including pigs, poultry and ducks and paralysis of many birds.
  6. Is production of this compound in Australia strictly controlled.
  7. Is the dumping of 2,4,5-T in this country an indication that control of its use is less rigid than in the United States of America.
  8. What steps are being taken to ensure that (a) this discrepancy is removed to ensure the full protection of the Australian public, (b) further dumping is prevented and (c) Australian production and use of 2,4,5-T is rigidly controlled.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. High doses of 2,4,5T have caused teratogenic effects in animals in laboratory experiments in the - United States of America. Reports of teratogenic effects in humans due to 2,4,5T have not been confirmed.
  2. Yes. However, it has been shown that impurities in the product known as dioxins have been the contributing factor. Australian-produced 2.4,5T contains less than 1 ppm dioxin impurities whilst overseas formulations contain 20-30 ppm.
  3. Yes.
  4. Dr J. Verrett’s testimony to the United States Senate Sub-committee on Energy, National Resources and the Environment on 15th April 1970 indicates that chloracne has occurred in the United States of America, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan in association with the manufacture of chlorinated compounds similar to ones occurring during the production of 2,4,5T.
  5. (a) Not to my. knowledge, (b) Reports of 2.4.5T causing the death of many small mammals, including pigs, poultry and ducks, and the paralysis of many birds, have not been confirmed.
  6. I am not aware of any restrictions applying to the quantity of 2,4,5T manufactured in Australia.
  7. and (8) Dumping of 2,4,5T in Australia is a matter for the Minister for Customs and Excise.

In Australia, 2,4,5T is mainly used by Government and semi-Government authorities who are well aware of the precautions to be taken when using this compound.

The National Health and Medical Research Council at its Seventieth Session in April 1970 recommended that the use of 2,4,5T should not be permitted in areas where water contamination could occur. In addition, Council recommended precautionary measures for persons engaged in the manufacture and use of 2,4,5T and that special precautions should be taken to avoid the exposure of women, especially those in the child-bearing age group to 2,4,5T.

All pesticides, including 2,4,5T, are kept under a continuing review by expert committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Dentists (Question No. 2440)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many dentists were registered in each State and Territory in 1970.
  2. How many persons graduated as dentists in 1970.
  3. How many dentists (a) settled in Australia and (b) left Australia in 1970.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

(1)-

  1. and (3) The acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following information:

In 1970, there were 175 bachelor degrees conferred in Australia in the field of dentistry: 77 Bachelor of Dental Science degrees, and 98 Bachelor of Dental Surgery degrees. The number of settlers who arrived in 1970 and whose occupation was recorded’ as dentist was 81. There were in the same year 19 Australian residents classified as dentists who left Australia with the intention to reside abroad permanently.

Commonwealth and Territory Laws (Question No. 2470)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-Gen eral, upon notice:

What progress has been made with preparing the list of the Commonwealth and Territory laws which render the consent of the Attorney-General a necessary prerequisite to a prosecution for an offence (Hansard, 5th May 1970, page 1640).

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

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

As indicated in the answer given on 5th May 1970 by my predecessor to Question No. 139 asked by the honourable member, my Department will undertake the preparation of a list, subject, however, to the requirements of other work of a more essential nature. Because of those requirements it has not yet been possible to prepare the list requested.

Multiple Marriages (Question No. 2694)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Under what conditions are those persons who, under existing customs in their country of origin, have entered into multiple marriages eligible to enter Australia as permanent residents.
  2. Are all spouses in such marriages of equal standing under Australian law.
  3. Are these persons eligible for Australian citizenship.
  4. Do Australian divorce laws apply in full to these marriages.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Department very rarely receives applications for entry as migrants from such persons; and the circumstances of each case would need to be studied; but in general where polygamous marriages are still continuing the parties would not be eligible for entry to Australia as migrants.
  2. and (4) As the information sought would involve legal opinion, it is not possible to provide answers to these questions.
  3. When a person has been lawfully admitted to Australia as a migrant and applies for citizenship after completing the normal period of residence, the applicant’s marital status is . not in itself relevant to the application.

Acts Interpretation Act (Question No. 2472)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-Gen eral, upon notice:

What progress has been made since his predecessor’s answer to me on 25th February 1969 (Hansard, page 53) towards introducing the new Acts Interpretation Act.

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

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

It has not yet been possible to allot to the task of the general revision of the Acts Interpretation Act the priority necessary to enable progress to be made with it.

Australian Agricultural Council (Question No. 2757)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in Melbourne in February 1971 for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The following matters requiring legislative or administrative action were considered by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in Melbourne on February 8th 1971.

Drought- Commonwealth, Territory and State action.

Egg Production Control- State action.

Tobacco- Commonwealth and State action.

Wheat Quotas - Commonwealth and State action.

Stored Grain Insects - Resistance to InsecticidesCommonwealth and State action.

Canned Fruit Industry - Commonwealth and State action.

Commonwealth Grape Advisory Committee - Commonwealth and State action.

Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Review Conference - London July 1970- Commonwealth and State action.

Standing Committee on Soil Conservation - Commonwealth, Territory and State action.

Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides - Commonwealth, Territory and State action.

Plant Quarantine Publicity Campaign - Commonwealth Territory and State action.

National Beef Recording Scheme- Commonwealth, Territory and State action.

Eradication of Screw Worm Fly - Commonwealth, Territory and State action.

Brucellosis and Tuberculosis - Commonwealth Territory and State action.

Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Programme - Commonwealth and State action.

Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia - Common wealth action.

Migrants: Assisted Passages (Question No. 2818)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the British Government has Contributed only $A324,000 each year since 1952, a total of $A5,800,000 towards assisted passages for emigrants from the United Kingdom to Australia.
  2. Has Australia’s payment for the same purpose over the same period amounted to $229,000,000.
  3. If so, will the Government informthe British Prime Minister that Australia will offer no objection if the British Government decides to save itself from being further embarrassed by the actions of its own Race Relations Board by discontinuing any further assisted passage payments after 30th June next.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The contribution made by the British Government is £stgl50,000 p.a. At the current exchange rate, this would be the equivalent of approximately $A5.8m over the period since 1952. Taking account of variations in the exchange rate, the actual equivalent of the British contribution would be approximately $A6.6m.
  2. Yes.
  3. Any such initiative would be a matter for the British Government.

Wool (Question No. 2881)

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What quantity of wool (a) has been purchased to date and (b) is still held by the Australian Wool Commission.
  2. What sum has been outlaid by the Commission on the purchase of this wool.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Because of the depressed state of the wool market the Australian Wool Commission has purchased or has had passed-in to it fairly large quantities of wool as a result of its reserve price operations.

Early in March of this year the Wool Commission commenced to make available for publication the percentage rate of its day-by-day purchases in wool auction rooms around Australia. For commercial reasons, however, it is the policy of the Commission not to release full details of its stocks of wool nor of their purchase cost.

Colour Television (Question No. 3026)

Mr Enderby:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice

  1. What stage has been reached in preparation for the introduction of colour television to Australia.
  2. What difficulties stand in the way of the introduction of colour television now.
  3. Is he able to say what countries have already introduced colour television.
  4. When is it expected that colour television will be introduced to Australia.
Sir Alan Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) As the honourable member will appreciate, the question of the introduction of colour television in Australia is one of some magnitude in which both technical and economic factors are involved. On the technical side the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has determined standards which have been made available to the industry. Concerning the possible introduction of a colour service, the matter was, late last year, the subject of a most exhaustive examination by the Government having regard to the wide range of information available to it, including a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As I announced on 14th December 1970, the outcome of the Government’s examination of the matter was that it was decided not to declare any date for the introduction of colour television at that stage. I also said that when the Government subsequently agreed to the introduction of colour television, 3 years notice would be given in order to allow industry to prepare adequately. In the circumstances, I cannot say when colour television will be introduced to Australia, but the question will be kept under review.

  1. From the information available to me, which may not necessarily be complete, the following countries operate television services in colour:

Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America and USSR.

Australian Wool Commission (Question No. 3059)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Has the Australian Wool Commission the power to negotiate directly with governments of other countries for the sale of wool at present stockpiled under existing legislation.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Yes. The Australian .Wool Commission Act 1970 does not ‘ impose .any restrictions on the. Commission in regard to the manner in which it can dispose of its stocks of wool.

Sugar Industry: Loans (Question No. 3060)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the. total amount of Commonwealth loan funds made .available to the sugar industry in the last 10 years.
  2. What is -the total amount, including interest, which will be finally repaid to the Commonwealth by the sugar industry.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Two loans totalling $23,327-590 were made to the State of Queensland, to assist the sugar industry in respect of 1966 and 1967 seasons’ No. 1 Pool sugar returns. The loans were made under the provisions of the Sugar Marketing Assistance Agreement Act 1967 and the Sugar Industry Assistance Act 1967.
  2. The total amount due to the Commonwealth is. $30,210,296.’ This amount, which includes interest from July 1970 at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, is payable in 10 equal annual instalments. The first payment was made on 1st July 1970.

Kangaroos (Question No. 3154)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the. estimated number of kangaroos slaughtered each year for the meat and fur market.
  2. ls the preparation and packaging of kangaroo meat carried out under conditions conducive to the provision of a disease-free product capable of being safely consumed by humans and pets.
  3. What regulations govern the preparation of kangaroo meat
  4. What was the (a) tonnage and (b) value of (i) canned and (ii) uncanned kangaroo meat (A) consumed in Australia and (B) exported during each of the last 5 years.
  5. ls he able to say which countries ban the import of kangaroo meat, and what is the stated reason for the ban in each case.
  6. Are there known cases where kangaroo meat has been infected by salmonella; if so, what are the details.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. No reliable estimate of numbers of kangaroos slaughtered each year for the meat and fur market is available.
  2. and (3) In respect of kangaroo meat for export for human consumption the Australian Kangaroo Meat Exporters’ and Packers’ Association voluntarily undertook not to export kangaroo meat unless it had been packed in establishments and inspected ‘ by a commercial organisation approved by the Association.

The sale of kangaroo meat in Australia is subject to State control within the conditions of the respective Pure Food Act.

  1. Information on the quantity of kangaroo meat consumed iri Australia is not available.

Exports of kangaroo meat during each of the last 5 years were:

Exports statistics do not show separately canned and uncanned kangaroo meat.

  1. The undermentioned countries have placed a restriction on the importation of kangaroo meat for human consumption:

United Kingdom- In 1969 the United Kingdom authorities introduced the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations which prohibited the importation of meat for human consumption unless such meat was supported by a certificate issued by the prescribed authority in the exporting country that the meat is fit for human consumption. As kangaroo meat is not subject to the provisions of the Australian Exports (Meat) Regulations the Department of Primary Industry is not able to issue the necessary certificate. Kangaroo meat for pet food is, however, being shipped to the United dom.

Hong Kong - Because of the presence of parasitic worms and worm nodules in exports of kangaroo meat to Hong Kong, the authorities condemned considerable quantities. Subsequently the Hong Kong authorities decided that, as from 1st April 1970, the importation of kangaroo meat would be prohibited unless the meat was accompanied by a certificate from the Department of Primary Industry certifying its fitness for human consumption. For the reason stated above the Department was unable to provide the required certificate.

Germany - In April 1964 an Ordinance was introduced in Germany prohibiting the sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption except when in hermetically sealed containers. The reason given for this action was the incidence of salmonella in kangaroo meat imported.

  1. During the past five years there have been no official reports from overseas countries in respect of the finding of salmonella in Australian kangaroo meat The only country, other than Germany, from which reports have been received concerning salmonella in kangaroo meat is the United Kingdom. Details of cases reported are:

Germany -

Hamburg 1962 - salmonella found in consignment of 111 cartons - no other details provided.

Hamburg 1964 - salmonella found in 38 per cent of samples taken from one consignment.

United Kingdom-

London July 1964 - one consignment 41 positive out of 45 samples taken from 1773 cartons.

Hull- July 1965-8 positive out of 11 samples taken from 373 cartons.

London - March 1966 - 67 positive out of 173 samples taken between 1st January and 18th March 1966.

It is probable that the finding of salmonella in kangaroo meat and other game has not always been reported officially to Australia. For example, a Netherlands newspaper in May 1963 reported the finding of salmonella in a consignment of Australian kangaroo meat

Information concerning the incidence of salmonella in kangaroo meat sold in the Australian market is not available.

Papua New Guinea - ILO Conventions No. 99 and 131 (Question No. 2357)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that International Labour Organisation Convention No. 99-Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture), 1951 was ratified by Australia on 19th June 1969.
  2. Is it also a fact that Convention No. 131 and Recommendation No. 135 - Minimum Wage Fixing, 1970 were adopted on 22nd June 1970 with the support of the Australian Government delegates and that the convention and recommendation are expressed to have special reference to developing countries.
  3. If so, on what dates and with what results have his Department and the Department of Labour and National Service consulted about the application of these instruments to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. A declaration extending the ratification of Convention No. 99- Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) 1951, to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea without modification was registered with the International Labour Office on 31st March, 1971.

As regards Convention No. 131 and Recommendation No. 135 - Minimum Wage Fixing 1970, the usual procedures are being followed. The Department of Labour and National Service has brought the texts of the instruments to the attention of my department. My department is examining, with the Administration of Papua and New Guinea, the extent to which there is compliance with them in the Territory and the extent to which effect might be given to their provisions.

On 17 th March 1971 the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea passed legislation to establish a Minimum Wages Board. The Board will have responsibility for making determinations on matters referred to it by the Administrator, including matters relating to minimum rates of pay, deductions for food, accommodation etc., deferred wages, allowances, penalty and overtime rates, hours of work and leave. In establishing the Minimum Wages Board, the legislation takes account, to the extent considered appropriate, of the provisions of ILO Convention No. 131 and Recommendation No. 135.

Vietnam: Exchange of War Prisoners (Question No. 3205)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether spokesmen of the Hanoi regime have rejected the offer of President Nixon for an unconditional exchange of those war prisoners asking to be repatriated.
  2. If so, has this rejection been made in part on the grounds that there is no proof that a particular prisoner would wish to stay with his captors if he were sure they would not detain or intimidate him longer if he asked for repatriation.
  3. Will he take steps to arrange for the International Red Cross or outer mutually agreed upon body to take custody of all prisoners in a neutral zone and to decide on and. carry out repatriation where desired after interviewing prisoners who could be assured of the confidential nature of the proceedings.
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. North Vietnam has consistently rejected all offers, made either in public statements or at the Paris Peace Talks, by the Governments both of the United States of America and of the Republic of Vietnam for the exchange of prisoners of war.
  2. There is no evidence to suggest that the North Vietnamese rejection of. any of these offers was made on the grounds stated. Indeed the North Vietnamese regime has always denied, and continues to deny, that it has troops fighting in the Republic of Vietnam, even though members of the North Vietnamese armed forces have been captured in the Republic carrying papers identifying them as such. It is presumably for this reason that Hanoi has always been reluctant to agree even to the unilateral repatriation by the Republic of Vietnam of North Vietnamese prisoners of war, including injured prisoners.
  3. Not only the International Red Cross but many Governments and non-governmental bodies from many countries have made repeated representations to Hanoi about the treatment of prisoners of war, including proposals for the repatriation or the mutual exchange of prisoners of war, or for the transfer of prisoners of war to a neutral zone or country. North Vietnam has consistently repudiated all such approaches.

Consulate-General of Yugoslavia, Melbourne (Question No. 3217)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

To. what extent have neighbouring property owners -

sought; or

received compensation for the damages they suffered in the attack on the ConsulateGeneral of Yugoslavia in Melbourne on 21st October 1970.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

I am not aware of any claims made by property owners against the Commonwealth for compensation for damages suffered as a result of the attack on the Consulate-General of Yugoslavia on 21st October 1970.

Human Rights Conventions (Question No. 2303)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the legislation of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory yet satisfy the requirements of the 1950 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others and Fina) Protocol (Hansard, 19th March 1970, page 719).
  2. Which States replied to the Commonwealth letter of 18th July 1968 seeking some information which would assist in enabling a reply to be sent to a request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations for information in regard to the implementation of the 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women (Hansard, 29th May 1969, page 2556 and 19th March 1970, page 719), and when did they do so.
  3. When did the Commonwealth send the information to the Secretary-General.
  4. On what dates, at what level, by what means and with what results have there been discussions with the Queensland and Western Australian Governments on the laws of their States which do not satisfy the requirements of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Hansard, 6th May 1970, page 1961 and 23rd September 1970, page 1583).
  5. Have consultations with the relevant Commonwealth authorities been completed and discussions with the States resumed on the 19666 International Covenants on Human Rights (Hansard, 19th March 1970, page 719 and 18th August 1970, page 114).
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The legislation of Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory now satisfies the requirements of the 1950 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others and Final Protocol.
  2. All of the States replied to the Common-‘ wealth’s letter of 18th July 1968, in the months of July and August 1968.
  3. 12th June 1969. Economic and Social Council resolution 961 (b) (XXXVI) requests that this information be provided on a two-yearly basis. Following further inquiries of the States, information was again submitted to the Secretary-General on 3rd December 1970.
  4. Discussions about legislation in Queensland and Western Australia have dealt specifically with provisions which discriminate against Aboriginal Australians rather than generally with laws which do not satisfy the requirements of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The issue was discussed generally with all States at the meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers and officials in Sydney in March 1970. It was then agreed that the matter should be pursued in bilateral discussions between the Commonwealth and the two States concerned. The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs met the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Brisbane on 8th June 1970 for preliminary discussions. In accordance with the agreement reached then, and after an exchange of correspondence, discussions were held in Brisbane at the level of officials on 11th November 1970. It was then agreed that the Queensland authorities would discuss proposals for changes in the legislation at meetings with representatives of Aboriginal and Islander communities. Consultation is continuing at the level of officials. The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs corresponded last year with the Minister for Native Welfare in Western Australia about the amendment of discriminatory provisions in legislation affecting Aborigines. Consultations will be continued.
  5. The position remains as set out in my reply of 19th March 1970.

Papua New Guinea: Radio Stations Election Broadcasts (Question No. 2415)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

  1. What is the statutory basis for the standing instructions to all Administration radio stations in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea that no candidate for the House of Assembly elections (Hansard, 7th April 1970, page 786) or for local government council elections (19th August 1970, page 211) may broadcast for political campaign purposes.
  2. Has consideration been given to requiring the stations to afford reasonable opportunities during an election period for the broadcasting of election matter to all political parties contesting the election, being parties which were represented in the House at the time of its last meeting before the election period (Cf. Broadcasting and Television Act, section 116(3.)).
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. There is not statutory basis for the arrangement referred to. Prior to the elections for the second House of Assembly the question of whether candidates could use Administration radio for political campaign purposes was referred to the then Administrator’s Council. The Council’s advice, which was adopted by the Administration, was that candidates should not be permitted to broadcast. The main reason was that there were many areas without coverage by an Administration radio station so that it was not possible to provide a similar opportunity to all candidates throughout the Territory.
  2. The question of political broadcasts will again be referred to the Administrator’s Executive Council for consideration before the next general election.

Papua New Guinea: Security Services (Question No. 2365)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Has bis attention been drawn to the article Special Branch’ in the May 1968 issue of Kumul’, the official organ of the Police Association of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What’ laws regulate the installation of microphones and tape-recorders, tapping of telephones, postal and telegraph interceptions, eavesdropping and long-range photography mentioned in the article.
  3. What changes have been made in the direction and co-ordination of security and intelligence services in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea since he was last asked about them (Hansard, 14th April 1970, page 1111).
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The article purports to describe the activities of Special Branches of Police Forces in general, and not the activities of the former special branch of the Royal Papua’ and New Guinea Constabulary. It is assumed however, that this question refers to laws applying in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

There are specific provisions in the Criminal Codes and Posts and Telegraphs Ordinances of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea dealing with interference to Postal, Telegraphic and Telephonic services. There are no other laws dealing specifically with the activities referred to, but the laws and Courts of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea - like those of many countries - provide remedies against invasion of privacy.

  1. With effect from the close of business on 16th April. 1971, the role and functions of the Special Branch, Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary were taken over by the Intelligence and Security Division of the Department of the Administrator, the Division having been created on 28th January 1971.

Papua New Guinea: Tertiary Education (Question No. 2402)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What number of (a) indigenous men, (b) expatriate men, (c) indigenous women and (d) expatriate women are (i) sponsored by the Administration at each tertiary institution in the Territory of Papua New Guinea and (ii) assisted to attend tertiary institutions in Australia. ‘
  2. What is the (a) nature and (b) cost of the (i) sponsorship and (ii) assistance, respectively.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

(1)

  1. (b) The cost of the above awards is as follows:

Papua New Guinea: National Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 2416)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What experience or qualifications in broadcasting inside or outside the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are possessed by each of the members of the study group set up pursuant to the motion passed by the House of Assembly on 4th September 1970 calling upon the Administration and the Australian Government to establish without delay a Papua and New Guinea National Broadcasting Commission to take over and extend the broadcasting facilities now operated in the Territory by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Administration, to promote the Territory-wide dissemination of entertainment and information and to provide a forum for the expression of a variety of views on the social, economic and political problems of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Why is it that, despite its experience in Australia and overseas and its involvement in the Territory, the ABC is not represented in the group.
  3. Why is it that, despite its provision of all radio technical facilities in Port Moresby and Rabaul, the Australian Post Office is not represented in the group.
  4. What amount does the Department of Information and Extension Services pay for the Australian Associated Press news service.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1, (2) and (3) An internal study group comprising officers of the Administration and Department of External Territories with functional responsibilities for broadcasting matters in the Territory has been set up to advise the Administration and the Department of External Territories on the House of Assembly motion of 4th September 1970.

It became clear once the study group started its work that the important policy issues involved would need to be considered by the Administrator’s Executive Council and the Australian Government before a reply to the House of Assembly motion could be formulated. It became apparent too that any new arrangements would need to be considered against the background of a quicker movement towards internal selfgovernment and independence. The central questions to be considered were the future responsibility for broadcasting and what would be an appropriate organisation for an independent Papua and New Guinea. It was therefore decided that a draft proposal should be prepared for consideration by the Administrator’s Executive Council and the Australian Government.

The study group has held discussions in Canberra and there have been high level discussions between the Department of External Territories and the ABC. Further discussions will be held with the ABC, the Postmaster-General’s

Department and other interested parties in Australia and the Territory before proposals are prepared for the Administrator’s Executive Council and the Australian Government A reply will then be prepared to the House of Assembly’s motion. Final decisions will not be taken until the House of Assembly has fully considered all the issues involved.

  1. Approximately $4,550.

Papua New Guinea: Trading with Natives Ordinance (Question No. 2384)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many local government councils have been authorised to grant or refuse a licence under the Trading with Natives Ordinance of the Territory of Papua New Guinea.
  2. In how many cases (a) in the last year and (b) in the previous 10 years have councils refused a licence to (i) indigenes and (ii) expatriates.
  3. In how many of those cases has (a) the applicant appealed to the Administrator against the refusal (b) the Administrator confirmed the refusal and (c) the Administrator ordered the issue of a licence.
  4. In what circumstances did the Administrator in 1970 reverse the Kiriwina Council’s decision, backed by councils throughout the Milne Bay District, to refuse a licence to an expatriate.
  5. What consideration has been given to introducing new legislation which will permit councils to protect or promote indigenous trading enterprises.
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 Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government has provided the following information:

128 councils.

(a) (i) Nil.

Four.

(i) Nil.

Nil.

(a) Two.

One.

One.

The Council’s stated reasons for refusing the licence were not in accord with accepted legal grounds for doing so. The stated reasons clearly indicated that the applicant’s expatriate racial status was the major determining factor.

The proposed Licences to Trade Bill 1971 is in the later stages of drafting for tabling at the June sittings of the House. This Bill is specifically designed to make Local Government Councils the licensing authority for their area and to give them wide discretion in granting licences in order to protect and foster established and prospective indigenous enterprise.

Papua New Guinea: Administration - Air Fares (Question No. 2978)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Can the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea readily dissect its expenditure in 1970 on air fares (a) within the Territory and (b) between the Territory and Australia.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

No. Expenditure records do not readily disclose the cost of fares by destination. The position is similar to that explained in reply to Question 2531.

University of Papua New Guinea: Married Students (Question No. 3126)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What number and percentage of the married students at the University of Papua New Guinea have been unable to find accommodation for their wives in Port Moresby.
  2. What action has been taken on the submission by the United Church that the absence of married accommodation for students can permanently damage the structure of the families and handicap the wives of future leaders.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The University of Papua New Guinea Council has appointed a committee to report on the provision of married student accommodation. It has been able- to ascertain that there are 23 indigenous married students who would desire married accommodation. The committee has not yet been able to settle on the exact number of students who are married according to native custom and whose wives reside outside Port Moresby in their home villages.

There are 2 students whose wives are full-time students of the University and are provided with single accommodation in the University’s female dormitories. The Committee is expected to make a full report to the University Council during June, 1971.

  1. I have received a letter from the General Secretary, of the Australian Presbyterian Board of Missions informing me of a resolution . by the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Boards of Missions to the effect that the University be requested to provide married accommodation.

I have requested the Administration to take up the matter with the University.

Papua New Guinea: Wage Fixing Machinery - ILO Convention No. 99 (Question No. 3284)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 99 - Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture), 1951, which she ratified on 19th June 1969, to New Guinea and Papua whereas New Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands and ‘Niue as far back as 1st July 1952’ and Britain applied it with modifications to the Solomon Islands on 8th May 1963.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 99 - Minimum Wage Fixing- Machinery (Agriculture), 1951, was extended to the Territory . of Papua New Guinea without modification on 3.1st March 1971.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710503_reps_27_hor72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant