House of Representatives
5 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 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2543

PETITIONS

Education

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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 die 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 DOBIE:
COOK, 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:

The Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State eduction 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.

Commonwealth Employees Compensation

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned employees of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth that the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act is inadequate in as much as it fails to:

Provide for no loss of wages for an employee on compensation.

Compensate for all ilness or injuries arising during employment.

Provide for fair and open judgement of compensation claims.

Remove many other existing anomalies.

We further submit that the proposed amendments would do little or nothing to improve the Act.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will respond to our plea for more enlightened legislation and act to make the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act a most beneficial piece of legislation in this field. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Employees Compensation

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned employees of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth that the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act is inadequate inasmuch as it fails to:

Provide for no loss of wages for an employee on compensation.

Compensate for all illness or injuries arising during employment.

Provide for fair and open judgment of compensation claims.

Remove many other existing anomalies.

We further submit the amendments already proposed by the Government would do little or nothing to improve the Act. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will respond to our plea for more enlightened legislation and act to make the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act a most beneficial piece of legislation in this field.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Use of Chemical Substances

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, 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 certain electors of the Commonwealth of -Australia respectfully showeth:

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XX11/ A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits ‘ the use in international armed conflict of any chemical “agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed foi their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

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. more than 300,000 children suffer from serious lack of equal opportunity.
  4. Australia cannot afford to waste the talents of one sixth of its school children.
  5. only the Commonwealth has the financial resources for special programmes to remove inequalities.
  6. nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have shown that the chief impetus for change and the finance for improvement come from the National Government.

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

  1. a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities.
  2. the immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.
  3. the provision of preschool opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically ‘ disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Eduction

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 of 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:

That 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, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

page 2545

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT: SITTINGS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to statements by 2 Government members supporting the Opposition’s claim that the Parliament should sit for another 2 weeks? Did the schedule of autumn sittings promulgated by the former Prime Minister show that the House would sit until at least 20th May? In view of the obvious dissatisfaction of members of the Government and the impossibility of adequately considering important legislation before the House rises tomorrow night, will the right honourable gentleman revert to his predecessor’s schedule of sitting days?

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

– I have not seen the schedule to which the honourable gentleman referred. The guillotine has already been approved and I have no intention of requesting the Leader of the House to attempt to alter it.

page 2545

QUESTION

ESSENDON AIRPORT

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask the Minister what, if any, decision has been made concerning the use to which Essendon Airport will be put after the domestic airlines transfer their operations to Tullamarine Airport. Further, what, if any, estimate has been made of the cost of operating Essendon after the transfer and will that cost justify the continuance of an airport at Essendon?

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

– No decision has been made regarding the future use of Essendon Airport although this matter has been carefully discussed at great length over recent months and indeed perhaps going back further than that. It has been in mind that when regular public transport operations are finally transferred to Tullamarine - I think the honourable member knows that international operations have already commenced at Tullamarine - greater use could be made of Essendon by general aviation. There have been strong demands from, the general aviation industry to use Essendon Airport but no decision has yet been made on this matter. It is subject to a very close and careful review not only in relation to the future use of Essendon Airport, which must of course conform in all respects to Government aviation policy, but also in regard to costs. These matters are under very careful study at the present time. I understand that my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation in another place will, when he is in a position, tb do so, make an announcement regarding this matter.

page 2545

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Treasurer. Will he give sympathetic consideration to the financial , burdens borne by parents and the next of kin of lifetime invalids for whom they have accepted the responsibility for their maintenance and wellbeing? Will the Treasurer take action to allow such expenditure as a deduction for income tax purposes?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I will take the matter into consideration in the formulation of the Budget.

page 2545

QUESTION

MIGRANT SERVICES

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. I refer to the concern the Minister expressed yesterday about the development of migrant education and welfare programmes. In pursuit of this objective will the Minister consider locating skilled advisers in the urban and suburban areas of high migrant concentration?

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

– It is true that the reduced immigration programme for this year will provide an opportunity, as I said in my statement on the size of the programme, to extend and develop our welfare and education activities amongst migrants. I point out to the honourable gentleman that already a considerable amount has been done in this field. In the State branches of my Department there are social workers who look after the interests of migrants, and there are translator and interpreter services provided. This applies also in some of the major regional centres. The Government also pays for social workers in community organisations which work amongst the migrants. This has proved a very successful scheme since its introduction. There is also the Good Neighbour Council which employs social workers who are paid by the Government. There are also contact workers in that movement who work extensively amongst migrants throughout Australia. A great deal of care is taken to see that, where possible, these activities are concentrated in areas of greater migrant concentration. But I think it is true to say, in the light of the honourable gentleman’s question, that the reduced size of the programme will enable the activities of all these organisations and people to be more effective and more concentrated and to achieve more.

page 2546

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT: SITTINGS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him by my Deputy. Are honourable members to gather from the right honourable gentleman’s reply that he himself never saw the schedule of prospective meeting weeks and days which all private members were given back in February and which stated quite clearly that the House was expected to sit next week and the week after? Does the right honourable gentleman expect the House to debate tomorrow at the latest the 3 money Bills which are listed on today’s programme under the heading ‘When stocks of Bills are available’, such Bills, one would expect, covering allocations of some $200m?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the document to which the honourable gentleman refers. But the Leader of the

House has informed me that it was a forecast and was not intended to be definitive of the actual sittings of the House. I also remind the honourable gentleman that, first and foremost, we intended that there should be 2 sitting weeks, a week up and then another 2 weeks or 1 week if necessay. I discussed this with my 2 Parliamentary parties. It was felt that it would be better to deal with the Bills and other matters on the business paper over a course of 3 weeks. I also discussed with them the timetable for the course of the present week’s debates. I emphasise to the honourable gentleman that if he cares to look at the facts he will see that the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill and its associated Bills, which I think are 5 in number, did not need to be dealt with this session but were put on at the explicit request of the honourable gentleman who is now nodding his head.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is right.

Mr McMAHON:

– He admits it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Stirling that they refrain from interjecting. If they are compelled to interject, I suggest that they might interject in a lower voice.

Mr McMAHON:

– If these Bills were taken off the business list and we were assured-

Mr Charles Jones:

– I raise a point of order. So that the House can be quite clear on what the real position is, may I table this document which was circulated to honourable members-

Mr Whitlam:

– By the previous Leader of the House.

Mr Charles Jones:

– By the previous Leader of the House. It clearly discloses that what the Prime Minister is saying is untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr McMAHON:

– I will take responsibility for the decisions that have been made during the time that I have been the Prime Minister. I go further and say that had it not been for the unbelievable waste of time that took place yesterday-

Mr Charles Jones:

– Do Turner and Killen agree with that?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will cease interjecting.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bryant:

– 1 raise a point of order. Is that not a reflection on the decisions of the House? Is it in order for the right honourable gentleman to cast aspersions upon the procedures of this House while he was home slothfully in bed?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not aware of that, I take it. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr McMAHON:

– If the time comes when any member of the Opposition does as much in 10 days as I do in 10 minutes, I will take action to see that the retiring allowances are increased, as members of the Opposition are so persistently asking me to do. It is obvious that the Opposition is not a scrap interested in the answer to this question. It is more interested in taking points of order. Honourable members opposite do not like the facts when they are pointed out to them. I put it that the guillotine has been imposed and has been passed by the House. I repeat what I said in answer to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: I have no intention of asking the Leader of the House to change the time table. I might mention that those who have been in the House for the last few days and who have listened to question time must realise that the Opposition has run its course and has not got very much that is useful to do at question time.

page 2547

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Trade and Industry advise the House as to the present position of meat exports to the United States of America? Does he visualise any problems in Australia fulfilling her meat quota to that country? Will he take all practical steps to see that the quota is met if possible so as to maintain Australia’s position in that market, particularly in view of the proposed levies on meat imports to the United Kingdom and the possible entry of the United Kingdom into an enlarged European Economic Community?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Exports of Australia’s meat to the United States market for the first quarter are down quite considerably on the previous year. For the period from November to March last we exported 62,500 tons as against 96,000. tons for the same period last year. In other words, it means that in the balance of the year we will have to export 75 per cent of our quota as against only 60 per cent for this period last year. The reason is that the amount of beef and veal coming on to the market is not the same as for last year. It is also reflected in the heavy demand for meat from other countries. Our exports to Japan, the United Kingdom and particularly the Soviet Union are up on the previous year. How. ever. I certainly hope that we will be able to fulfill the quota that has been allocated to us by the United States. The Department of Primary Industry, my Department and the Australian Meat Board will be meeting next week with exporters to see. what arrangements can be made to increase our supply to the United States market. We feel that more beef will be coming onto the market as a result of the commencement of operations at the northern meatworks shortly. II is from these works that quite a considerable amount of our meat is , exported to the United States.

page 2547

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT: SITTINGS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question substantially similar to thai which I asked him before, particularly those parts which he has not answered. Does be take responsibility for the proposal that the House should debate tomorrow at the latest 3 money Bills which presumably provide for the expenditure of some : $200m and of which were not available at the time when the daily programme was given to honourable members just under an hour ago? I also ask him whether he will check with the preceding Leader of the House concerning the terms of the programme which that honourable gentleman, now the Treasurer, distributed to all honourable members last February.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– My answer, too, will be in substantially similar terms. The 3 Bills to which the honourable gentleman refers are money Bills, including provision for an appropriation to the States. 1 understand that each of the. second reading speeches will be delivered tonight.

page 2548

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr HOWSON:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I should like to direct a question to the Minister for External Territories concerning the dam and power project in the upper Ramu Valley in Papua New Guinea. While 1 welcome the extension of electric power supply to these people in New Guinea, I ask the Minister what investigations have been carried out to ensure that the revenue from users of this power will be sufficient to service the 7 per cent interest on the loan and the repayment of the loan, a matter that has been referred to by several honourable members in this House and particularly by the Opposition. Will the charges for power be able to be kept at their present level and is there any risk that the Australian taxpayer will be called on to meet part of the guarantee that this House has given to the Administration for this loan?

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– No feasibility or economic study has been earried out on this scheme but this is not required by the World Bank. The World Bank first of all makes a study to decide whether there is a need for a power supply. I think the World Bank is in a very good position to make a decision in this regard because, as the honourable member will recollect, the mission of the World Bank advised us on the economic development of the whole of Papua New Guinea. From our own studies of the power needs of Papua New Guinea, power needs are rising by 20 per cent per annum. I understand that in the area which the Ramu Valley operation will serve the power needs are even greater. Examinations have been undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and the Commonwealth Department of Works, apart from the Administration, and they have all indicated the need for this sort of operation.

The honourable member will appreciate that the alternative source of power is thermal power and this is an area in which the World Bank did carry out a study of the technical and economic benefits of such an alternative source. The World Bank decided that the hydro-electric scheme was far more efficient than a thermal scheme. In fact, on the studies it made, a hydroelectric scheme as against a thermal power scheme over the 25-year term of the loan would lead to a saving of $30m. In reply to that part of the honourable member’s question relating to the possibility of increased electricity charges, on present indications, owing to the economy and efficiency of the hydro-electric scheme, there will be no increase in charges for power. Generally I believe this will be a most acceptable operation in this area. After all, it will service the areas of Lae, Madang, Goroka and Mount Hagen which all are very rapidly advancing areas. The operation has the support of the House of Assembly and the Administrator’s Executive Council.

page 2548

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he has seen the report in which Mr Bruce Gyngell, a very distinguished commercial television executive, has described the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s current affairs programme This Day Tonight’ as the best contribution to Australian television. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that a cut back in this programme is now contemplated. If this is so, why is this being done to a programme that enjoys popular support to the extent of an audience of almost 1.5 million? If this decision is to be made, is it not a reflection on the ability, integrity and capacity of officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission not only to compete with their commercial competitors but to surpass them in this field of television programming in informing the Australian people with regard to very important issues?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Once again, I appreciate the comments which are made by the honourable member in regard to television and in relation to how it conducts its operations. He knows that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is almost completely autonomous in relation to programming. He knows, probably as well as anybody in the House, the capacities of the ABC in relation to programme generation. But I think that it must be said that in all these areas there is what I might term an ebb and flow of popularity with certain programmes. From time to time a programme which has had a very high rating will find that its rating tends to reduce. I do not know the circumstances of the programme to which the honourable member has referred. I will make inquiries of the Australian Broadcasting Commission on this matter and the other comments that have been made. If it cares to make a reply to me, I will pass the information on to the honourable member.

page 2549

QUESTION

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT: EFFECT OF SHIPPING STRIKE

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Can the Treasurer estimate the loss in gross national product caused directly and indirectly by the recent 3-week shipping strike? Can he also estimate the consequent loss in Government revenue - revenue which would be used to the benefit pf the whole community, including such purposes as health, education and social services?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Had the strike continued, the effects on Tasmania would have been _ crippling. Fortunately, it is not to continue. To that extent, we can be very thankful that the financial position of Tasmania will not deteriorate as it otherwise would have. There is a bounce back as to demands on Commonwealth financial revenues in respect of difficulties that Tasmania may have found itself in. However, I have no doubt that’ the economic effects on the rest of the economy will be quite serious.

What will be lost in gross national product I cannot assess at this time. What I can draw to the attention of the honourable member is the fact that goods and services were not provided. To the extent that that can be recovered in the production of goods, no doubt this will need to be done by working overtime and/or other means which will add to the cost of production, therefore add to the price, and therefore add to the cost of living. In this sense I am conscious of the fact that we do have a Commonwealth deficit in our Budget this financial year. The extent to which we forego revenue will make that problem more difficult. It will make it more difficult for government, for all parties in this Parliament and for the community as a whole to face up to the inflationary pressures which exist today. Altogether, this strike was a most unfortunate incident.

page 2549

QUESTION

WHEAT

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the

Government will never again initiate offensive political tactics to embarrass the Australian Wheat Board in negotiations with China? Where are the written facts which the Prime Minister promised me by a deadline of the middle of this week, which is noon today - high noon, if he likes - regarding the serious allegations that I made concerning the Government’s most offensive policy note handed to China via the Wheat Board? Will the Prime Minister say who authorised the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to crudely attempt to interrogate certain members of the Wheat Board regarding China during the period in question? Is it a fact that, because of the insulting Australian political behaviour, China has declared the General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board, Mr Doonan, persona non grata? Finally, which Minister authorised ASIO .tq try to arrange for listening devices to be placed in the office of the China’ National Resources Corporation in the Bank of China while Chinese-Australian wheat negotiations were in train?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I understand that the honourable gentleman himself .was to pay a visit to China and to come back to give .us detailed information about its operations and its political activities. But I have had no record whatsoever of . his movements either in or out of Australia or what information he may have received from Mr Hill in the interim. I informed the honourable gentleman verbally that I would give him an answer to his question in the middle of this week. Perhaps I can do 2 things now and show how irresponsible his question was, because he ought to know that the substance of his question was totally wrong. The contract that he referred to that was being negotiated at. the time the discussions were taking place was in fact consumated. He admits that. If he admits it I cannot for one moment understand why he asked the question, because if he admits this, it means that the assumptions on which he based his question were false.

Dr Patterson:

– Rubbish. Do you want me to produce the notes?

Mr McMAHON:

– I am not interested in what you have got surreptitiously. The next point is that since that date over 4 years ago - and he is still furrowing through the past - the Wheat Board has in fact consummated contracts for the sale of over 200 million bushels of wheat. Finally, if he refers to the Wheat Board itself, I have made it clear in the House that at the last meeting the Wheat Board had with the NgFung Hong company that now does the official transactions on behalf of the Chinese Government, the Wheat Board was in fact welcomed, and the representatives were asked to keep in touch so that when the opportunity arose they could proceed to an attempt to negotiate contracts. Now, the honourable gentleman ought to have made known again and again that already this year in 4 months we have shipped over 3 million tons of wheat. The biggest sales we have ever negotiated before are something of the order of 2.46 million. He should also know, if. he cares for the truth - and truth on which he can back his assertions - that in the case of the People’s Republic of China it has had 9 good crop years, and has adequate supplies of wheat at the moment.

Mr Grassby:

– That is why it bought wheat from Canada.

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, small quantities, and for one year - very small quantities of high protein wheat, and that gives me the opportunity to answer the interjection. What has to be made clear about the People’s Republic is that because it has a carry over of wheat and because rice is in abundant supply in the world it is not necessary for the People’s Republic to purchase wheat and to be able to sell rice at a premium. So, when ail these facts are looked at, no notice whatever can be taken of the implications of the honourable gentleman’s question. Nevertheless, I will get an answer for him. I think it is deplorable that he should be taking action now to try to discredit the Wheat Board, to prejudice its opportunity to make sales and, in a narrow, mean political interest, to try and affect the interests of thiscountry.

Mr Martin:

– I rise to order under Standing Order 145, which states that an answer shall be relevant to the question. Mr Speaker, my submission is that the answer that the right honourable gentleman is giving is not relevant to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would think that the right honourable gentleman’s answer was relevant and I rule that way.

page 2550

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to an answer which he gave last week concerning the judgment delivered against the plaintiff, Yirrkala Aboriginals, in the Gove case, and the question of costs. Has he now considered the judgment, and is he in a position to say anything further on the matter?

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

– Yes, I have had an opportunity to consider the judgment, but I do not think that I should make any comment on it at this stage. However, further consideration has been given to the question of costs and, in view of the very special character of. this case and in order to prevent the possibility of any suggestion being made that there has been any difficulty placed in the way of the Aboriginal plaintiffs pursuing their legal remedies by way of appeal, should they wish to do so, I now state to the House that the Commonwealth will beprepared to give legal assistance in the event of an appeal being taken, on the same basis as it gave legal assistance in the Supreme Court proceedings in the Territory. Of course, it entirely rests with the Aboriginal plaintiffs and their advisers whether they do or do not wish to pursue their legal remedies further.

page 2550

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration. By way of explanation I refer to the Minister’s statement advising that the Government has decided to reduce the immigration programme by 30,000 next year, reducing the target to 140,000 settlers, including 100,000 assisted migrants and at least 40,000 unassisted migrants. I ask the Minister whether he will advise the House of the actual reasons for this sudden reduction in the programme. Is, it prompted by the failure to attract migrants, by economic considerations associated with the former Prime Minister’s statement on the state of the economy, or by recent public demands for an inquiry into and curtailment of the programme? Will he also state whether the Government proposes to phase out the immigration programme and that this is the first instalment in the process? Will he also state the nationalities of those most likely to be affected by the reduction in the programme and the savings in costs?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– In relation to all except the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, T would refer him to my statement in which I set out quite clearly the reasons for the Government’s decision. I think it would be unduly trespassing on question time in the House for me to repeat them, lt is not a very long statement and indeed, if th» Opposition had not adopted a certain attitude, I would have read it in the House. The Opposition adopted the policy of refusing leave to make any statements in the House and I had to make my statement outside. But broadly the Government’s reasons were set out in my statement which I have in front of me. I said:

The continuing economic buoyancy in Europe and other factors which influence migration make the prospects for obtaining suitable migrants during 1971-72 less favourable than in the immediate past, if we insist, as we must, on maintaining an acceptable standard of selection and a reasonable national balance in the programme.

That was the first reason. I also pointed out the second reason which I will read to the honourable gentleman. I stated:

The Government is pursuing in co-operation with the State governments a declared policy of restraint in public spending. To set against the many benefits of immigration there are costs in education, housing and transport which are real factors for State governments even though the cost of immigration itself is a minor element in total Commonwealth expenditure.

Other points were made in this statement. That broadly answers the honourable gentleman’s question as to the reasons for the Government’s decision. As I say, he could have got them from the statement itself.

In relation to the latter part of the honourable gentleman’s question, that is as to where savings in costs will be made, what countries will be involved and so on, the final details have not been worked out, but I. am in a position to say to the honourable gentleman that broadly there will be a proportionate percentage cut across the board from all the source countries from which we take migrants.

page 2551

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, relates to jumbo jets. Does he know whether the Minister for Civil Aviation has noted a report to the effect that traffic controllers in

London are concerned at the fact that some jumbo jets have passed check points thousands of feet lower than they should have been? For example, these aircraft passed over Birmingham and London at 12,000 feet when they should have passed at 22,000 feet. Has the Department of Civil Aviation carried out similar tests here? What is the result? Can the Minister ensure that the Minister for Civil Aviation makes a statement to the public which must be apprehensive at this apparent defect? -

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I will see that the honourable member’s question is referred to my colleague in another place. However, I think I can take the opportunity to say categorically that air traffic control procedures in Australia are the strictest in the world and the most rigidly applied. If there exist any problems of this type in which air traffic control procedures are hot observed in other countries, they will be observed in Australia. I think that on behalf of my colleague, I can give an assurance in that regard. However, I will see that the question is referred to my colleague and that, any additional information will be given- to the honourable member.

page 2551

QUESTION

RECALL OF DEFECTIVE CARS

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Has his attention been drawn to the United States National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that’ requires automobile manufacturers to recall cars that have safety related defects and that this has resulted in 7,918,184 cars, both foreign and locally made, being returned to the factory for the correction of the defects? In view of the importance that the United States National Highway Safety Bureau places on the recall programme in its attempt to cut the road toll, will the Minister explain why the Australian Government’ has not found it necessary to introduce similar legislation?

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

– I recognise the serious consequences that can arise from unsafe cars travelling along our highways and roads. But I have to say. to the honourable gentleman in all fairness that State governments have a responsibility in the registration of cars and in the recognition of this basic problem. I am not conscious of the statement to which the honourable member referred in respect to American regulations. I will have a look at the statement and if possible have it discussed at the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

page 2552

QUESTION

JAPAN: MILITARY EXPENDITURE

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has it been drawn to his attention that the amount of expenditure by Japan on war or defence has been more than doubled? Is his Government in any way concerned at this dramatic increase in war spending by Japan, the only country that has ever attacked Australia? Will he state the attitude of his Government towards this matter?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– There are several considerations that have to be drawn to the attention of the House. We deplore increases in military expenditure anywhere. This includes the Soviet and Continental China- the People’s Republic of China - just as much as any other country.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– What increases?

Mr McMAHON:

– Be patient. The honourable member will get his answer. We deplore this increase because we believe that it reduces funds that can be made available in order to help the more necessitous countries of the world, and funds that can be applied - and very well applied - to See that the less fortunate members of the community can have their prospects of life improved.

The second point is that we have in Australia no influence whatsoever over the amount of money that is spent by any other country, and that includes Japan. If the honourable member cares to look at the percentage of gross national production that is applied by the Japanese Government to internal defence by the Defence Agency, he will find it is about 1 per cent, which is not a large amount when compared with that country’s gross national production. Also, what the honourable member will see is that most of its operations or activities are concerned with defence requirements. The Japanese are not building an offensive fleet, but have ships to use if necessary to protect their homeland. So, the Government keeps looking at the problem.

I remind the honourable gentleman that Japan is close to the People’s

Republic of China, which has nuclear power, and what has to be remembered is that in no circumstances would Japan bc able to engage in operations that involved nuclear warfare against that country, because Japan is so small in area that a few thermo-nuclear bombs would immediately destroy all of its productive capacity. I repeat: Of course we watch this carefully, as we watch the unnecessary intrusion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s fleet into the Indian Ocean. The Government will keep this matter under close consideration and it hopes that Japan, which is ‘ becoming increasingly mature and sophisticated, will play not only an economic but also a political role in the interests of the whole of the countries of Asia. Having said that, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 2552

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 1

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does’ the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? . Dr PATTERSON- Yes. The Prime Minister, in his reply, implied that I had been in consultation with a Mr Hill. I have been informed that Mr Hill is a secretary of one of the Communist parties of Australia. I can assure the House that I have never met Mr Hill, I have never contacted Mr Hill and he’ has not been in contact with me. I think that this is typical of the smearing tactics of the Prime Minister and other members of his side pf the House, and I shall not even bother to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his implication.

page 2552

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as will prevent the honourable member for Hindmarsh moving a motion for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon proposals made by employees and employers organisations and other interested parties for the modernisation of the Commonwealth’s industrial laws.

It is now quite obvious that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has no interest in this subject and that he does not intend to allow the Parliament to have any interest in it. He will not allow us to debate the matter and he will not bring down a Bill himself. He will not allow me to have the necessary staff and parliamentary counsel to prepare a Bill that 1 could bring down.

Mr McMahon:

– When have you asked me?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wrote a letter to the then Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) on this matter some time ago.

Mr McMahon:

– If you let me see your letter, I shall get you a reply.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, at least that is a start. So far, he has done nothing about this. This is a pretty important matter. I could produce, on behalf of the Opposition, an amendment to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act that would give us a system of industrial laws which would enable employer interests and employee interests to work in harmony. Apparently, the Government cannot do this or, if it can, it will not do it. I think the sincere hope of the Government is that there will erupt in this country a confrontation between the employers and the employees so that the Government can gain, or so it thinks, some political mileage from the climate that will follow such a confrontation. lt is unfortunate for the Prime Minister that the Opposition has foreseen the plan that the Government has put in motion. The Opposition has alerted the Australian people to what the Government is proposing. The employers are not laughing at the idea of having a strike just for the sake of allowing the Government to create a climate that will assist it to be re-elected, because the employers figure it out this way: ‘If the Government’s laws are responsible for the present chaos, and we re-elect the Government that is responsible for the unworkable laws, we can resolve nothing by reelecting it. They could only resolve the situation that has crept upon Australia by putting into power another party that will have some new, modern ideas for dealing with industrial relations’.

I will give some examples of how this Government has neglected its duties to the people of Australia. More than 10 years ago the Commonwealth Industrial Court found that the section of the law dealing with the victimisation of employees by employers was defective. The Court pointed out that it was illegal to threaten to sack a person for being a member of a union but that it was perfectly lawful to sack a person for being a member of a union provided the sacking was not accompanied by a threat. It was such a ridiculous proposition that one would have thought that this Government which has altered the Act several times since that judgment was made, would have taken the first opportunity at least to amend that section of the Act. Nothing has been done.

The High Court had occasion to draw attention to another defect in the Act concerning the registration of eligibility rules of unions where the eligibility rules which were sought to be registered conflicted with the description of industry for which the union was registered. No less an authority than the High Court drew the attention of the Government to what appeared to be a defect in the law. Nothing whatever has been done to correct that defect in spite of the fact that the Government has had ample opportunity. Many years ago the Industrial Court held that it was illegal for a union to include a rule in its rule book which required a member to give written notice of his intention to resign from the union. The Court pointed out the ridiculous situation that would flow from the law as it then stood - and as it now stands - by saying that a person could purport to communicate by telephone and later declare on oath that he spoke to somebody announcing his intention to resign. Provided that was done the union had no further claim upon the employee.

These matters have been brought to the attention of the previous Minister for Labour and National Service but he was so busy fluttering his eyelashes on television that he did not bother to attend to them. I hope that the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) is taking more notice of what I am saying than he appears to be.

On the question of demarcation the High Court has ruled that as the law now stands there is no power for a State industrial court or the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to settle a dispute arising out of demarcation between the members of a State registered union and members of a State branch of a Federal union. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Government by me by way of questions on the notice paper but still nothing has been done about it. The question of dealing with management policy has caused more lost time than most other issues. More time has been lost through non-wage disputes than through wage disputes. Although I have pointed out this fact to the Government by way of questions on the notice paper nothing has been done about the matter. In 1969 about 750,000 man hours were lost over disputes concerning the penal provisions. Fewer than 600,000 hours were lost over wage claims and some 500,000 man hours, were lost over the question of management policy. But the law as it now stands, according to the High Court, does not permit Arbitration Commissioners or the Arbitration Commission to settle any dispute that relates to management policy.

Disputes over management policy amount to about one-third of all disputes. If there is almost as much time lost over disputes on management policy as there is on wage disputes surely to God we ought to get on with the job and correct that defect in the law. The High Court has spent the last 60 years telling the Arbitration Commission what it cannot do. It has brought down scores and scores of ridiculous restrictive interpretations of the industrial powers of the Commonwealth to the point where this Parliament is now no longer able to legislate to deal with disputes in a. sensible manner. It has interpreted ‘industrial matters’ to mean that the person who sells fire insurance can be covered but the fireman who puts out the fire cannot be covered. A school teacher employed by a private school can be covered, but not a school teacher employed by a state instrumentality. Policemen cannot be covered. A nurse cannot be covered if she is employed in a government hospital, but she can be covered if she is working in the first aid room of a private factory. How much longer are we to have this ridiculous situation?

Let me refer to interstate disputes. A demarcation dispute cannot be dealt with if it happens in South Australia unless, at the same time, another State is called out in order to make it an interstate dispute.

Even then the difficulty is not overcome, because the High Court has made yet another decision stating that a dispute does not exist unless the matter was referred to in the original log of claims served on the parties when the dispute was first created. What does this mean? It means that, if unions prepare sensible logs of claims that represent a reasonable approach to a problem and the cost of living goes up and the standard wages are increased in the meantime, they are no longer able to bring the original log of claims within the scope of the new situation and must serve a fresh log of claims.

In the pastoral industry, where there are 18,000 employers to be served, the cost of service and printing and all the other incidental expenses would be quite astronomical. What a ridiculous situation it is. What do the unions do now? There is only one thing left that they can do, and that is to make their original log of claims in regard to wages so high, the standard hours so low and all the other conditions so extravagant that, no matter what happens in the meantime by way of trends in industry or as the result of Arbitration Commission decisions, they will still , be within the ambit of their original. claims. This is the reason for most of the .trouble today. A union that is forced to put in a claim for $200 a week, for a 25-hour week and for other things, such as . treble time for overtime, in order to keep its .original claim within the ambit, finds that its members become dissatisfied when they are not able to get from the Arbitration Commission the things which the. union was forced to claim in the first instance; otherwise it finds itself out of ambit.

The Arbitration Commission is not to blame for a lot of the trouble we have today. A lot of our trouble is to be laid at the doorstep of the High Court rather than of the Arbitration Commission. How can anybody blame the Arbitration Commission if discontent follows when a union is forced to claim $200 a week and a 25- hour or 30-hour week in order to keep within ambit and to avoid finding itself out of court when some change in events takes place? When the 40-hour week.. was introduced every union that had a claim for the previous 44-hour week to be continued had to serve the respondents afresh. Nobody can justify that kind of situation.

I want to turn now to other matters. In this country we need more conciliation and less arbitration. What we need is the establishment of conciliation committees, once proposed by the Scullin Government but declared by the High Court to be illegal, thus preventing this method of settling disputes from being introduced. What we need in place of the adversary system which our present arbitration laws impose upon us is the face to face frankness which can come only from conciliation committees. But it has to be remembered that, when the High Court decided in 1930 that conciliation committees were illegal or unconstitutional because they became part of the Arbitration Court as it then was, it pointed out - it was correct in doing so - that a conciliation committee could not exercise judicial powers without being outside the scope of the Constitution.

This Government has allowed the boilermakers case of F956 to change drastically the set-up of the . Arbitration Commission so that the Commission is no longer a judicial body. There has been no excuse since 1956, when the Court was separated from the Commission, for not reintroducing the conciliation committees as proposed by the Scullin Government in 1930. What the present Government ought to do is make provision for the appointment of arbitrators agreed upon by both parties to a dispute who are prepared to agree in advance that they will accept the decision of the arbitrator. What we have had in the past, however, is people like Dunphy deciding what the award rates shall be and what the decision shall be. Is it any wonder that employees are not prepared to accept that kind of so-called arbitration? Of course not.

Now I want to refer to another matter of tremendous importance. If the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) will stop writing and listen to what I have to say on this matter we might all derive some benefit. More than 2 years ago there was a famous case, known as the Moore v. Doyle case, in which the Commonwealth Industrial Court held that where a union was properly registered in a State court it could not purport to be a State branch of the Federal union. In the case of Moore v. Doyle it was found that what was always believed to be the New South Wales Branch of the Transport Workers Union - that is, the Federal union - was not a branch of the Federal union at all but was a separate State union with its own separate personality and corporate status. The union, as a consequence, lost the whole of its New South Wales Branch. The New South Wales Branch took all the property which had previously been thought to be the property of the Transport Workers Union’s Federal body.

The same position was found to exist in the Steuart case. The Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union is quite clearly now not a member of the Federal body but is a State body with its own standing. The same is true of the West Australian and South Australian branches of that organisation. The only 2 States where this sort of situation can be avoided are Tasmania and Victoria, where there are not any means by which a State branch of a Federal body can secure State registration. Unless this matter is settled quickly the whole structure of the trade union movement will collapse, and with it must collapse the arbitration system as. well. Does the Government not care what happens to the structure of the trade union movement? If it does not care, I have some news for it: The employers do care. The employers want a representative body of employees to be operating and functioning in a healthy manner and so able to deal with the employers in a responsible way.

The last major overhaul of the arbitration system took place in 1947 when Ben Chifley introduced the conciliation commissioners, streamlining arbitration for the very first time. He gave us a system that worked better than it had ever worked since the days of Mr Justice Higgins. Nothing further was done until the boilermakers case in 1956 forced the Government to separate the functions of the Arbitration Commission from those of the Court and established the Commonwealth Industrial Court in place of the old Arbitration Court. Apart from doing that and introducing the penal clauses in 1951, this Government has done nothing to look at the arbitration system and examine it in depth. The penal clauses will not work. We know that they will not work. The penal clauses are supposed to work not only against strikes but also against action by the employers in committing lockouts. What happened in Broken Hill where there was a lockout recently? What happened with the lockout at Mount Isa? Nothing at ali was done.

Indeed, the Minister has told me in reply to a question on notice that not once since the arbitration system was introduced into this country in 1904 has an employer been fined or prosecuted in respect of a lockout. This does not mean that there have hot been lockouts. What about the famous lockout by J. A. Brown and Co. in the coalfields? Nothing was done. The Minister admitted, in reply to a further question I asked him, that there is no way by which the anti-lockout laws that now exist as the counterpart of the anti-strike laws can be used to force an employer to employ a person at rates of pay which the employer considers to .be uneconomic. If the Arbitration Commission fixes rates of pay which any employer believes to be uneconomic, that employer can close his factory completely, close a part of it or retrench some of his employees, and there is nothing we can do about it. Indeed, there is nothing we ought to be able to do about it, because the Arbitration Commission has no right to impose upon an employer rates of pay that are’ uneconomic, and similarly, it has no right to impose upon unions and employees rates of pay that are below the market value of thenlabour.

If it is not to be possible in practice to force employers to employ people at rates of pay that they consider to be uneconomic, no attempt ought to be made to force employees to accept employment at rates of pay which they consider to be uneconomic or at least below the market value of their labour. If the employers have the right to get the maximum market value for the things they sell, the employees have the right to get the maximum market value for the things that they sell. We have heard talk about strikes creating an unnatural demand for the things that the employee has to sell, but there is no difference between strike action and the restrictive trade practices used by sellers of goods to get the highest price that the restricted market will yield. What is the purpose of all the takeovers of Australian companies by foreign companies but to create an unnatural restriction of supply?

There are 4i million employees in Australia who rely directly or indirectly on the decisions of the Arbitration Commission. If those decisions are not sound decisions and are not working- in a way that will guarantee peace in industry, 4i million people, their families and people dependent upon them will suffer. Every time this Government attempts to collect the fines that it insists upon, imposing upon unions for merely seeking to obtain the market value of the things they have to sell, it cannot blame anybody but itself if, as a consequence of its blind, pigheaded and mule-like determination to create industrial unrest, there is a loss to the Australian gross national product each day of anything up to $100m.: If the whole work force’ becomes regimented behind the demand for the repeal -of the: penal clauses, a general stoppage by- the work force of Australia will cost $100m- for each day it is in operation. Can the Government justify this sort of chaos and this kind of economic ruin in order just to. try to create deliberately the kind of political climate that it thinks might assist it in winning a few votes?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I rise to second the motion, so ably proposed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that a motion can be moved for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon proposals made by employers and employee organisations and other interested parties for the modernisation of the Commonwealth industrial laws. All members in this chamber realise that our industrial laws are not working efficiently. I think this is admitted on both sides of the chamber. Employers and employee organisations are suggesting amendments to improve such laws. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, through its President and through some of the Commissioners, have made suggestions for amendments. Some of them have been mentioned by the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review back in 1959 advocated a widening of the economic powers of the Commonwealth for the specific purpose of reforming our industrial laws. But what has been done? Employers and employees have called for an early reform. The Australian Labor Party has asked the Parliament to remain in session for this very purpose. That request has been refused. Almost everybody interested in this problem wants early reform and wants something done very urgently. The Government is the laggard. The Government is the body that does not want to do anything at the present time. It wants the Parliament to go into recess for approximately 4 months and to allow the present situation to continue. It wants to sit back and attack the unions and the Commission if its decisions do not suit the Government. Vicious attacks have been made upon the Commission by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bury), the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), all for the purpose of influencing the Commission. The criticism has been particularly harsh when the decisions of the Commission have not suited the Government.

No responsible person is happy with the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is worse now than it has ever been before. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh said, it is an Act that has been responsible for a lot of controversy over the years. It is one of the most important Acts on the statute book. It has been subjected to over 50 amendments since 1944, and it is still not working satisfactorily. It is so controversial that it creates as many disputes as it solves. It is interesting to have a look at the Act, particularly the first 2 sections. Section 1 states that the Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act It should be noted that Conciliation’ is the first and most important word in the Act, but largely it is ignored by the powers that be and particularly by this Government. More conciliation is required. That means bringing the parties to a dispute together in harmony. One point I would like to see a select committee investigate is the question’ of more conciliation. Commissioner Winter, on his retirement, had something to say about that point which is most interesting. He said:

The fact that the work of the Commission places overwhelming emphasis on conciliation is largely ignored.

An examination of the annual reports of the President, Sir Richard Kirby, make the position quite clear.

I firmly believe that the only pathway through the morass of industrial disputation in a time when the whole Western world faces economic uncertainty lies in the direction of conciliation and compromise.

But what does the Government do about it? It lets things drift and is prepared to let them drift. Section 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act sets out the objects of the Act as follows:

  1. to promote goodwill in industry;
  2. to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes;

These are great objectives but they are objectives that have not been achieved. Why have they not been achieved? It is because the Act places obstacles in the way of such achievement. That is why we are anxious to have a select committee appointed so that the ambiguities and anomalies in I he Act can be rectified. A select committee could inquire into the views of all interested parties.

Why did the Government fail to act on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 when the report of that Committee was tabled in this Parliament? It was a specific recommendation for the widening of the economic powers of the Commonwealth so that the industrial laws could be amended in such a way that they could work more efficiently. Why is it that a dispute has to extend beyond the borders of any one State before the Commission can act? Why is it that disputes have to be created in some forms? Why is it that disputes have to be created before the Commission can act? The Act needs many changes, some of which have been mentioned by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. But the Government continues to sidestep its responsibilities despite the industrial troubles that face the nation and will face the nation until the Act is amended in the way that it should be. We want the Standing Orders suspended so that we can discuss the appointment of a select committee. Why would the Government want to leave things as they are? Is it because it does not want the system to work? Does it want to use industrial trouble throughout the nation for its own political and election purposes? Is that why it hesitates to act at this point of time?

If the suspension of the Standing Orders is refused, the answer is quite clear and should be made clear to the nation. The Australian Labor Party wants a select committee to consider ‘ the desirability of the court setting down minimum standards after which the parties, as a result of collective bargaining, could arrive at agreement binding on both parties for the term of such agreement. There is nothing outrageous about this. As a matter of fact, it is already laid down in the Act but there are so many other obstacles that it does not work properly, and this Government is opposed to it. For instance, after the minimum has been established by the .courts we come to the area which is referred to by the President of the Commission as the collective bargaining area. On page 18 of his 1966 report, the President said:

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

On page 19 he said:

The problems and difficulties should not obscure the fact that there is no real incompatibility in the mutual existence of a system prescribing minimum rates by arbitration tribunals and of bargaining on occasion about over-award payments.

The Government frowns upon this. It wants the minimum to be the maximum all the time, whereas the court prescribes only the minimum. That is its attitude towards this matter and, I repeat, that is why the Opposition wants a select committee to be set up to look at this matter and to get a satisfactory wage-price relationship as was proposed by a conciliation commissioner on the eve of his retirement. Briefly, this is what Commissioner Winter said on that occasion:

Unless a satisfactory wage-price relationship can be secured, I am not optimistic for the future of any kind of reasonable industrial relations.

One cannot expect wage earners to have their real living standards suffering erosion from the very moment an arbitrator sets what he considers to be a fair and reasonable standard in the economic environment in which he’ determines the standard.

The system is one-sided. The Government believes that the price of labour should be controlled and all the force of the legal machinery is used for that very purpose. But there is no control over prices. They are decided in the shelter of the board room without the hearing of any evidence or any argument. There is no question of public interest. That is the way in which prices are arrived at. If the Opposition can get the select committee that it wants, these things could be ironed out. If ever a government has shown prejudice against the workers, this Government has done so. Every Minister who opens his mouth on this subject, including the Minister for Labour and National Service who is now at the table, places the blame on the workers for any industrial disputation.

The Arbitration Commission in its 1964 judgment emphasised that there was no control over incomes other than the incomes of those whose employment was covered by awards. The Commission said there was no authoritative control of prices although there was a tight control of wages. Mr Justice Moore on page 66 of his reasons for judgment pointed out that the previous statement of the Commission that increases in prices are determined by those who fix prices is a truth that cannot be emphasised enough. Did the Government take any notice of that statement? No, of course it did not take any notice. It did not bother about it. Naturally the interests of employers and employees are not the same on all matters. If the select committee is set up the employers will have an opportunity to outline their views in the same way as the employees will. The employers have already outlined some of their views in the Press. I have a Press cutting in my hand now. While we on this side of the House may not agree with those views, at least we indicate that we want this committee to look at what the employers want in relation to this Act just as much as we want it to look at what the employees want.

The employers want an open discussion aimed at the reform of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, according to Mr Noakes, President of the Australian Council of Employers Federation. I do not want to quote too much of his statement, just enough to indicate that the employers are on side in this. The employee organisations would want the question of sanctions considered by that committee, as well as the repeal of sections 109 and 111 of the Act.

Their repeal would not mean that other penalties under the Act would not apply. If the injunction and contempt provisions were deleted, section 119 which applies to both employees and employers alike and does not just single out the employees would remain. It provides for the enforcement of awards and agreements. The suggestions by the President of the Commission and Conciliation Commissioner Winter for amendments could also be considered by this select committee. Commissioner Winter has mentioned already the very thing I have just said. A newspaper report quoted him as saying:

  1. . industrial problems would not be solved by attempts to whack anyone with a big stick.

The national character was outraged by bullying,, be said.

He did not think industrial penal legislation had been an overwhelming success in Australia - ‘anything but that.’

An effect of penal legislation had been to drive trade unions away from attempts at reconciliation.

There is a man who knows his job and who has done bis best to make the Act work. Penal provisions psychologically are bad. Better industrial relations are not possible while they exist. We have to realise that our arbitration system is dealing with questions on which the community is divided into 2 camps. Workers and employers have their own views about what is just and reasonable in this field. Important as arbitration is, it is ridiculous to think that it could usher in a reign of absolute peace in industrial relations. No-one would deny the value of international law, but conflicts still arise between States and are so severe that all observance of law is swept away. Hundreds of issues are settled successfully by the Commission but it cannot settle all of them. If the system were amended it would be strengthened, and if the Government accepts the realities of the situation this select committee could be the first step towards that objective. A select committee could make recommendations to this place for the necessary amendments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

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

– The motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) is in these terms:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as will prevent the honourable member for

Hindmarsh moving a motion for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon proposals made by employees’ and employers’ organisations and other interested parties for the modernisation of the Commonwealth’s industrial laws. (Quorum formed).

I say at the outset that the Government completely rejects the motion which the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved. I have no doubt that the Australian people will see this motion for what it is - that is, a political gimmick.

I say without provocation to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that this is a device on the part of the honourable gentleman to seek to capture some semblance of initiative in the Labor movement which the honourable gentleman well recognises has been effectively taken from him by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Perhaps the honourable gentleman believes, as do some other members of his Party, that the President of the ACTU is ‘flying too high*. As I recall them, I quote the words of the longserving and respected honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) who used that comment in a radio broadcast given in Canberra quite recently. That sense of disquiet echoed by the honourable gentleman doubtless may have found its way to the honourable member for Hindmarsh who, by moving this motion, would seek to contain the debate within his own area of influence and so prevent the President of ACTU from having any effective involvement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Did the Minister see the gallup poll support for Mr Hawke?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman would listen for one moment, he would learn that he ought to be aware, as this House is well aware, that what the honourable gentleman is seeking is already under way. I refer to the review of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The honourable gentleman does not need to be told but, for the record, this debate should show the facts, which are that at the special and last meeting of the NLAC on 21st April, the employers - -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What does that stand for?

Mr LYNCH:

– I would have thought that, after his years in the House, the honourable gentleman might well have known what those intials stand for.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You don’t.

Mr LYNCH:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one political device after another!

Mr Foster:

– Do you think that it is a powdered milk product, or something?

Mr LYNCH:

– Just for the benefit of the honourable member for Sturt I indicate that it is the National Labour Advisory Council.

Mr Foster:

– Ah, he thought of it!

Mr LYNCH:

– One of these days the honourable member may know something about the workings of that Council, as I hope the honourable member for Hindmarsh does, because if those honourable members knew something of the workings of that Council they would well understand that it is that forum in which this review should properly be conducted. The NLAC met on 21st April. In terms of a report of that meeting the employers and the ACTU members agreed on a Press statement. I quote from the actual Press statement. It states:

That representative tripartheid discussion concerning the operation of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act should begin as soon as possible and should embrace the question of sanctions, including the ACTU suggestion of the desirability of investigating the adoption of a system of voluntary agreements to regulate the regulations between employers and unions outside the legislation, including, if desired by the parties, provisions for their enforcement.

The 2 Ministers - that is the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and myself - acknowledged in the same statement that because of that agreement between the 2 parties concerned, representative tripartheid discussions should proceed although of course without commitment on the part of government to acceptance of the outcome.

What is being emphasised here1 - and this seems to have completely escaped the honourable member for Hindmarsh - is that a review is under way already. That review is accepted, acknowledged and welcomed by the Government. That review is taking place in the forum in which this discussion ought to be initiated - that is, among the 3 parties, the Government, the employers and the employees. Any suggestion by the honourable gentleman and by other honourable members opposite that there ought now to be established a select committee to inquire into this matter completely cuts across the understanding which the Government has with the employers and the employees. The Australian people will not regard as a matter of irrelevance that this motion which the honourable gentleman professes is of some importance should come before the House during the last 2 days of the parliamentary sitting.

Mr Foster:

– Let it sit longer.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is your fault.

Mr LYNCH:

– It is a pity that honourable gentlemen opposite will not listen because if they will they may learn something for the first time.

Dr Gun:

– We have been waiting for a fortnight for the Minister to bring it up.

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

– Order! The honourable member . for Kingston will cease interjecting.

Mr LYNCH:

– It is a fair observation that if honourable members opposite were interested in the industrial relations of this country they may well have sought the opportunity during question time to raise the basic matters of industrial relations.

Mr Foster:

– We do not get the answers from you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We cannot get the call.

Mr LYNCH:

– Has the honourable member for Sturt asked a question of me in this sphere? Has the honourable member for Hindmarsh asked a question during question time about this subject? In fact, as far as I can recall during the last 5 weeks of the parliamentary session during which I have been Minister for Labour and National Service only one question has been asked of me by a member of the Opposition front bench of this Parliament. Does that seriously appear to the Australian people to be evidence of any concern about industrial relations? If honourable members of the Opposition are concerned about these matters, would not it have occurred to them to raise the matters before this time - perhaps at the time of the NLAC meeting? Are we seriously asked to believe that a motion moved in this fashion, not foreshadowed and of which the Government was given no notice but introduced at this time 2 days before the close of the session-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is not our fault. Who is closing the session?

Mr LYNCH:

– It is a clear indication to me that the Opposition is not serious and that this motion is a mere device. I simply respond in those terms. The Government, as the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) suggested - and I use his phrase - is not a laggard and is not sidestepping the question. He seems completely to have overlooked the arrangements which have been made with the principal parties concerned. Does the honourable gentleman seek to jeopardise those arrangements by having simultaneous discussions in progress in various parts of the country, or is this a simple but deceptive technique by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, as I have mentioned before, to seek to recapture the initiative in the area of the Labor movement from the President of the ACTU? ; In the time remaining to me, let me emphasise: The Government is very concerned about the industrial situation in Australia. I have quoted in this House the figures regarding the number of strikes that have taken place. In 1967, the number of working days lost as a result of strikes was 700,000. In successive years this figure rose. In 1968 it was 1 million working days; in 1969 it was 2 million working days; and last year the figure was 2.4 million working days lost as a result of industrial disputes.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. Liberal Party and Country Party members are not here to- -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Wills will not debate the issue. (Quorum formed)

Mr LYNCH:

– It is quite obvious to the House that the Opposition cannot take the points that are being handed out in this debate. I have said before that this motion is motivated by that purpose which I have outlined but the Government is concerned, in relation to the operation of the Act, with the number of man days lost by strikes. I have quoted the figures; I will not restate them at this stage. In the 2 minutes remaining to me, I wish to say this: The Government firmly believes that a statutory, system of conciliation and arbitration is essential for the orderly resolution of industrial disputes in this country, and we do so for many reasons which time does not allow me to elaborate at this stage. In recognising that responsibility, we completely reject any system of collective bargaining in this country, a system such as has been invisaged in part, although the final details have not been made public by the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

The House should be aware that, in terms of collective bargaining, the industrial record of countries operating under that system is far worse than has been the case in Australia in recent years. The honourable member for Hindmarsh shakes his head, but during the period 1965-69 Australia lost 456 man days per 1000 workers. In the United States’ of America, Canada and Italy the figure was 3 times as great. The Government completely rejects this motion, which seeks to cut across the discussions which are to be ‘initiated through the forum of the National Labour Advisory Council. That is the proper, body to consider this question. We can only assume, as I have mentioned before, that the honourable gentleman is seeking to recapture the initiative which the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has so effectively taken from him in the public forums of this country. I believe that that is certainly a point which will impress itself on the Australian public. This is a political gimmick, introduced 2 days before the close of the sittings of the Parliament, against the background that no major questions about industrial’ relations policy have been raised with me in this House during the 5 parliamentary weeks in which I have been the Minister for Labour and National Service. I do not suggest that tomorrow the Opposition should react by raising them, although it may well do that. We reject the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put: That the question be now put. -

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-

60 56

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-

56 60

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority -Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in negative.

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD Mr SINCLAIR (New England- Minister for Primary Industry) - Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965- 1966, I present the 5th Annual Report of the Australian Tobacco Board regarding the operation of the Act for the year ended 31st December 1970, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements.

page 2563

MARGINAL DAIRY FARMS AGREEMENTS ACT

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Act 1970, I present a copy of an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria in relation to the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme.

page 2563

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENTS BENEFITS BOARD

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

Pursuant to section 14 of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1970, I present the 22nd Annual Report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial accounts and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those accounts.

page 2563

COMPANY LAW ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the 5th Interim Report on the Company Law Advisory Committee. The report is dated 12th October 1970 and it deals with the control of fund raising, share capital and debentures. The 1st, 3rd and 4th Interim Reports of the Committee were presented by my predecessor on 19th March 1970 and I presented the 2nd Interim Report on 20th May 1969.

page 2563

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) ACT

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1968, I present a statement describing the arrangements in accordance with which payments under this Act have been authorised in 1970.

page 2563

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE

Report of Australian Delegation

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

– I present the report of the Australian Branch Delegation to the 16th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Canberra during October 1970..

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper

Debate (on motion by Mir Crean) adjourned;

page 2563

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment -

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1970-71 “.

Without requests -

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1970-71.

page 2563

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S DEFENCE PROGRAMME

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The continuing waste of public money, frustration of skilled personnel and disruption of the defence programme in Australia due to the Fill contract.

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

Mr BARNARD:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Bass

– It is almost a year to the day since the Fill aircraft was the subject of debate in this House. This seems remarkable in retrospect. In the preceding years there was incessant debate on all aspects of this controversial programme. The debate may have been cooled by the measures announced in May last year by the former Minister for Defence, Mr Malcolm Fraser. These were embodied in the so-called Laird-Fraser minute of 14th April 1970. In essence this provided for a lengthy delay in procurement of the aircraft. According to the former Minister, the aircraft fell substantially short of Royal Australian Air Force technical requirements and would have to be submitted to an exhaustive process of testing. When those tests were completed the aircraft would be submitted to a process known as ‘Inspection and Repair as Necessary’, usually abbreviated to IRAN. Only when those processes had been resolved to the satisfaction of RAAF scientific and technical advisers would delivery be taken of the aircraft.

The former Minister outlined a number, of options open to the Government which I do not intend to repeat in this debate. They added up to the overall conclusion that Australia could opt out of the deal if tests were not satisfactory, though at quite a substantial cost. As a consequence 24 F4 aircraft were obtained from the United States Air Force on an interim basis. The time scale put to the House by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was an interesting one. He said that at the earliest it would be the end of this year before Australia could make a reasonably confident estimate that the Fl 11C would meet requirements. However the IRAN programme would not begin before July 1972. This would involve a process of dis-assembly, detailed inspection and testing, and then reconditioning and refurbishing. The Minister did not put a time limit on those procedures but he said that Australia would be without strike aircraft for more than 3 years. On this basis it would have been at least the middle of 1973 before the planes were operational with the RAAF.

Earlier this year the former Minister revised this estimate and said that the Fill could not be operational before some time in 1974. According to an article published in the technical journal ‘Aircraft’ in February this year, the honourable gentleman is quoted as saying that the IRAN programme would not begin before the end of 1972. This would mean that the RAAF F111C aircraft, if accepted, would not be fully operational before some time in 1 974. The honourable member for Wannon then relinquished his portfolio and was succeeded by the present Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton). The present status of the Fill relative to Australia is, as I understand it, as follows: We will not know until at least the end of the year whether the plane fulfils RAAF requirements. It may be rather longer before anything definite emerges. Even if the Fill comes through the extensive series of tests in a satisfactory way, it will not be operational before 1974. This was the situation when the Minister for Defence went to Washington a week or so ago. It was raised in the Press during the Minister’s visit that he would be seeking to speed up the decision on the future of the Fill aircraft.

According to a report in the ‘Age’ on 21st April the RAAF was unhappy with a number of aspects of the test programme and wanted it to be accelerated. If the Minister did indeed raise this issue with the United States Government he has not made public any of the results of the discussions. The right honourable gentleman may be able to refer to these aspects in his reply this afternoon. On the evidence available there does not seem to have been any marked progress in overcoming the technical difficulties experienced by the’ Fill. The plane is still plagued with serious metallurgical difficulties. These were referred to by the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Colin Hannah, in a recent address at the Academy of Science. According to Sir Colin, metallurgical problems of the Fill remained to be overcome, and until they were overcome they could not be accepted by the RAAF.

The most recent accident involving an Fill in the United States has raised additional technical complications. It seems that in that accident the escape system which has been accounted one of the most satisfactory features of the plane failed to work. According to Press reports, a metal door enclosing a parachute failed to blow off when the pilots ejected the bail-out capsule. The capsule fell to the ground with the crewmen trapped inside it. In previous crashes when the bail-out capsule had been activated, the system had worked correctly. At the moment the plane is grounded for the sixth time in 3 years - a much too familiar pattern. Undoubtedly, this latest crash has implications for the Australian programme. It should be possible for the Minister in his reply to give the House some assessment of this latest accident, how the RAAF technical and scientific advisers see its importance, and what impact it will have on the F111C testing programme.

In a broader context there are other questions raised by the state of the F111C programme which should be answered. The first is the question of a replacement aircraft if the deal is scrapped at the end of this year or during 1972. Until recently, it seemed the logical replacement would be the Phantom F4E aircraft which had been obtained as an interim aircraft. The whole tone of the statement by the former Minister for Defence on the FI 1 1 to this House in May last year was that the Phantom would replace the F111C if the deal were cancelled. Now the possibility of replacement with a non-American aircraft has been raised. It would have been unthinkable at this time last year that anything but an American replacement for the F111C would have been considered. Now the former Minister for Defence has raised the possibility that a European aircraft might replace the Fill. Admittedly this option may have been implied in his statement to the House last year. But it represents such a radical change in . the Government’s attitude to procurement from the United States that it was easy to overlook.

I quote again from ‘Aircraft’ magazine of February this year the Minister’s assessment of alternative aircraft. The Minister is quoted as follows:

It has almost passed unnoticed that Australia is not restricted to the procurement of United States aircraft in the event that the F111C proves unsatisfactory for the RAAF. - If a better aircraft became available from another country, Australia would not be inhibited in any way from acquiring it under the terms of the buy-back arrangements negotiated with the United States last April.

If this implication has passed largely unnoticed, it is largely the fault of the Government and of the former Minister. This raises the possibility that the multi-role combat aircraft now being jointly developed by the United Kingdom, West Germany and Italy could be considered as a replacement. It has been reported that a joint British-German mission is to come to Australia in July to put a submission to the RAAF about this plane, the Panavia 200. The Panavia is the biggest multination aerospace project at present under development in Europe. It is being developed by the Fiat Co. of Italy, the Messerschmidt Co. of West Germany and the

British Aircraft Corporation. Little has been revealed of the Panavia’s performance but on what has been disclosed it seems to be an extremely versatile aircraft priced at a relatively low cost. Certainly it is substantially cheaper than the F111C, and on the facts available its performance seems in many ways comparable.

The honourable member for Wannon has hinted that an aircraft of this sort could be seriously evaluated and considered by the RAAF. If this is so, there is a responsibility on the part of the Government to outline how such an aircraft could be financed in terms of the buy-back arrangements with the United States. According to the figures supplied by the former Minister in May last year, it would cost $US414m to obtain a fleet of Phantoms equivalent to the 24 F111C’s. This would entail .procurement of 40 F4E’s, 8 reconnaissance planes and 8 tankers. To this basic cost df $US414m would have to be added the loss involved in scrapping the Fill. According to the former Minister, Australia could expect to get back under the buy-back arrangements somewhere between $US130 and $US150m. Based om a total, cost of $US300m this means a loss of the order of. $US150m to $US170m. Under this sort of buy back arrangement, and assuming that better terms could not be negotiated, the total cost of scrapping the F111C and replacing it with Phantoms would be at least $US564m. This is spending of an order that takes the breath away; it seems impossible to contemplate at the moment. Spending of similar magnitude would be involved in cancelling the F111C and waiting for the F111F which is still being developed.

If serious consideration is to be given to a non-European aircraft such as the Panavia 200 then the Government should be able to outline to the House what planes would be needed and what they would cost, assuming the buy back arrangements could be invoked. It was possible for the former Minister to indicate to the House the cost of possible American alternatives under the . buy back arrangements. If new alternatives have emerged and are being given serious consideration, then similar estimates should be made and supplied to the Parliament. There are other important aspects of the possible replacement of the F111C by the multi-role combat aircraft which should be amplified by the Government. It raises the possibility of a much more substantial share for the Australian aircraft industry in procurement of a replacement. European aircraft manufacturers seem much more willing than American companies to permit local manufacture under licence. Certainly, it was impossible for the F111C to be built in Australia. If, however, it were to be replaced by a cheaper and relatively simpler aircraft, then the prospect of substantial local content arises. This is particularly significant in the light Of further retrenchments announced this week by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

These are aspects of the F111C crisis which should not be glossed over by the Government. It is likely that there will be further reassessment of the relevance of such an aircraft to Australia’s defences in the years ahead. The RAAF is unlikely to have as much independence in determining its aircraft and weapons systems in the years ahead. There will be increasing pressure from the other Services for much needed items of military equipment, particularly from the Navy. This is likely to produce much closer co-operation between the three Services and much greater interdependence in the hardware they require. These trends are evident at the moment and they will intensify. If the RAAF has to tie in more closely with the Navy and the Army in its procurement policies, the F111C would prove increasingly irrelevant to our defence posture.

In summary, the Opposition has raised this matter this afternoon to allow the Government to clarify the present status of the F111C before this sitting ends. The Minister for Defence has had recent contact with United States Secretary Laird and the higher echelons of the Pentagon. It is a great pity that the Minister will not have the opportunity before the Parliament rises tomorrow to discuss some of the important matters that are relevant to the defence situation of Australia as a result of his visit overseas. The Opposition invites him to give the House the benefit of these discussions on the F111C and update the comprehensive statement made by the former Minister in May last year. There were many features of this statement that were not acceptable to the Opposition but in its way it was a frank and enlightening document. However, many aspects of this statement have been supplanted by events.

The present Minister has the knowledge to outline to the House the present state of the testing programme and the anticipated schedule for delivery of this belated aircraft. If other alternatives are being considered then the Minister has the additional responsibility of telling the Parliament how they are to be financed and what participation can be secured for the Australian aircraft industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr GORTON:
Minister for Defence · Higgins · LP

– The matter of public importance which the Opposition has raised is worded thus:

The continuing waste of public money, frustration of skilled personnel and disruption of the defence programme in Australia due to the Fill contract.

In the whole of the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) there was no attempt to argue that there was any frustration of skilled personnel as a result of the Fill contract.

Mr Barnard:

– I did not say that there is.

Mr GORTON:

– The terms of the matter of public importance say so.. Nor was there any attempt to argue that the defence programme was being disrupted due to the FI 1 1 contract. I think that in a few words I should refer to both these matters which are mentioned in this matter of public importance which has been raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is nothing short of sheer nonsense to claim that skilled personnel are being frustrated because of the Fill contract. It is clear, and I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may know it is so, that skilled personnel in the Royal Australian Air Force are working on the Phantoms which have been brought to Australia as interim replacements for the Fill. I am informed that their morale is extraordinarily high. Is it argued that their morale is bad or that they are frustrated if they are working on anything but an Fill? Is it argued that it would be all right if they were working on an Fill, because if that is the argument it is surely an argument for getting the F111. Yet the argument seemed to be designed to be against it. There is not and cannot be any truth in the suggestion that skilled personnel are in any way being frustrated because of the F111 contract

The matter we are discussing states that there is disruption of the defence programme in Australia due to the F111 contract but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, interim strike aircraft have been brought to Australia pending the delivery of the F111. Those strike aircraft are here. Those aircraft are assisting and not disrupting the defence programme of Australia and while they will not, in themselves, do as much as the F111 will do, nevertheless until the F111 is presented they are an extremely good aircraft for the role for which they are required. As the former Minister for Defence indicated in his statement, sufficient arrangements have been made for tanker aircraft to enable them to fulfil the role the Air Force wishes them to have. Any suggestion that there is a frustration of skilled personnel or a disruption of the defence programme because of the F111 contract cannot be, in any degree whatever, sustained. Indeed, I believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must have been aware of that because he did not even attempt to sustain it.

That being so, what is the gravamen of the charge that there is a continuing waste of public money due to the F111 contract? Let us examine what arguments were advanced in support of that contention. As far as I could follow the argument of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition it was that if we were to cancel the F111 at this point of time there would be very great cost to Australia because we would lose the benefit of what we have already paid for the F111 and would have to expend large sums of money on some replacement. This was the argument as I understood it, and I believe this is so. If it is true, and it is, that cancelling the F111 contract now would lead to the great expenditure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said it would lead to, surely it is not a continuing waste of public money to continue with the contract. Rather would it be a gross waste and an inexcusable waste of public money to cancel that contract at this stage and involve us in all the expenditure which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, quite rightly, we would be involved in.

It seems to be a very strange form of argument to say that there is a waste of public money because we are following a course which is likely to save rather than increase our expenditure. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised certain matters concerning the F111 itself. One of them was related to the recent crash in which the crew was killed. I think I should make it clear that the aircraft were not grounded, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. There is a technical difference between the grounding of an aircraft and the suspension of an aircraft. If it is grounded it is unable to be flown under any circumstances - I refer to the United States Air Force regulations. If it is suspended it is able to be flown if there is an emergency or if it is required, and this in fact was all that occurred - a suspension. I do not believe that the failure of the parachute on the ejection capsule will affect in any way the approach to the purchase of the F111 aircraft. I speak, subject to the full report on the reasons why the cartridges - if that is the proper word - which were supposed to send the parachute out after the capsule had separated itself from the aircraft did not operate, but this is not as significant as the other problems still to be overcome on the F111.

When the former Minister for Defence spoke in this House previously he pointed out quite frankly and quite rightly that it would not be until December 1971 at the earliest - I emphasise that - that we would be able to make a decision on the F111. He added:’I have indicated it could be much later’. The House was therefore put fully in possession of the facts at that stage, and those are still the facts. We cannot yet make a decision and indeed we did not indicate we could. We have not sufficiently overcome the technical problems which still remain. It could be that it would be later that a decision could be made than the end of 1971. But if the F111 aircraft can overcome those technical problems which still remain then its operational performance will be that which is required by the Royal Australian Air Force; that which the Air Board has said it wishes to have. It will be a strike aircraft with a range that the Air Force wanted, with a capacity to drop accurately its bombs by day, by night, through cloud, on seen or unseen targets, which the Air Force said it wanted. It will have a capacity to come in low under enemy radar which the Air Force said it wanted and indeed it will meet the specifications which our military advisers said they wished to be met, according to the advice given to us, better than would any other aircraft now flying.

So the operational benefits from this aircraft are not, I think, in question. I do not even think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition questioned that. What is in question - what still does remain to be resolved - is the capacity of this aircraft in its operational role to be able to fulfil the requirements of the Air Force and not to be restrained to only part of its performance envelope because of technical difficulties relating to steel and other matters of that kind. Surely it is wise and proper that the Government, having made, through the former Minister for Defence, an arrangement with the United States that if this aircraft did not overcome its technical problems to a degree where it could meet the operational requirements of our Air Force, should say that we would not have to take delivery of that aircraft. That is a great step forward. Surely that is wise and surely, having that safety factor, it is also wise for us to say that while there is a continuing improvement in overcoming technical faults we will maintain our contract, our contract being to accept these aircraft only if these technical faults are fully overcome. If it should turn out that there may be a greater delay in the delivery of the aircraft, as it well might, than was previously thought to be the case, then at least the aircraft will still be amongst the best in the world for the job for which they are required by our Air Force, and their operational life will in fact be extended by that amount of time by which the delivery may be delayed.

All I can say in conclusion is that there has been no indication and no argument that there is a waste of public money in continuing the Fill contract under the conditions of the agreement between Laird and Fraser. Rather there has been argument advanced to show that it would be a waste of public money to scrap that contract at this time. There has been no argument advanced to show that skilled personnel are frustrated, and indeed they are not. There has been no argument advanced to show that there has been a disruption in the defence programme of Australia, but rather an argument showing that we now have good strike aircraft the possibility of getting better. So there is no significance whatsoever in the arguments advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I add only this: I am not responsible for completely incorrect reports which may appear in the Australian Press. If some newspaper wrote that I was going to the United States to conduct discussions on the Fill, that is not my fault. The newspaper must have invented it or been told by someone who did not know the facts. The facts are that I was definitely not going to discuss the Fill for the technical matters in issue - the question of the testing of certain parts and the question of the steel involved - are not matters which I am competent to discuss. Neither, I would think, are they matters that the United States Defence Secretary is competent to discuss. These are matters for experts from our own Air Force and scientists and for experts from the United States Air Force and scientists. These are the levels at which these discussions are now taking place. I cannot undertake that this Fill aircraft will overcome finally all the technical problems we wish it to overcome, to a degree where it will fill the operational requirements laid down by our own Air Force. But I believe I can say that if those technical disabilities are overcome to that extent - I hope and believe they will be but I cannot be sure - we will have in operation an aircraft which completely meets the requirements of our own Air Force, a good strike aircraft and one which it would be folly to jeopardise at this stage by cancelling the contract as is suggested by the Opposition.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– We are debating a matter of public importance which is in these terms:

The continuing waste of public money, frustration of skilled personnel and disruption of the defence programme in Australia due to the Fill contract.

The particular matter about which I want to argue this afternoon is that which is contained m the words ‘The continuing waste of public money … in Australia due to the Fill contract’. I believe that this programme must be viewed in context. We have to look at it in the context presented from the time when Australia first ordered these aircraft until the present day. The arguments put forward by the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) are very similar in character to those which have been advanced in this House during that period of time. We have had assurances from each of the Ministers of Air and Defence in turn from 1963 up to the present that what was done was right and that the right decision was made for this country. I intend to show that that is not so and cannot be sustained.

The Minister for Defence is known for his specious arguments. I believe that the argument he put forward here this afternoon was as specious as the one he put forward at the time he disagreed with the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), when he played on semantics.. I need only refer to what has been said in the United States by the Chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee. The ‘Australian’ of 28th March 1970, referring to a statement made in Washington by Senator John L. McClelland, the Chairman of the subcommittee, stated:

He said at a committee bearing that the plane’s erasing range was only 2,750 miles as against 4,180 miles called for in the performance specifications.

Australia bought the aircraft believing that it had a range of 4,180 miles, and now it is found that it will fly only 2,750 miles. The report continues:

Its maximum, high altitude speed - originally specified at 2.S times the speed of sound - was 2.2 mach, Senator McClelland said.

He also told the committee that -

The plane’s supersonic dash distance - its capability of diving under enemy radar and surfacetoair missiles, flying at supersonic speeds to attack, and then climbing back to high altitudes - was 30 miles as against 210 miles in the contract specifications.

They are the specifications under which Australia placed the order -

It would require al least 3,350 feet to take off, instead of 2,780 feet-

When we ordered the aircraft it was claimed that the aircraft would require 2,780 feet to take off.

It would need 4 minutes to accelerate from .9 to mach 2.2, compared with the 1.45 minutes specified.

So it meets none of the specifications on which it was ordered. That would be bad enough if we were paying the same price for the aircraft as that quoted when the contract was made. When we ordered the aircraft in 1963 we expected it to cost $US125m. It is believed in 1971 that the cost will be $US300m. That is more than double the price, and the aircraft has fallen way below the specifications. If those facts do not illustrate that there has been a total waste of Government money and mismanagement by this Government, then I do not know what is needed to prove it. The situation would be bad enough if Australia was doing as others who had placed orders for the aircraft have done or are doing. The British Government, which placed orders at about the same time as we did, withdrew from the contract in 1967. It withdrew because it knew at that stage, 4 years ago, that the aircraft was falling far short of the specifications laid down at the time the order was placed. I believe that that action was an indication of responsible and careful government and the protection of public moneys, in marked contrast to the attitude of our Government.

We must know why the Government did not withdraw when United States forces and other world governments were cancelling their orders. The answer is contained in the speech made last year by the then Minister for Defence which reads as follows: the practical effect of these documents was that, taken together, they gave the United States the overriding authority to modify or downgrade the aircraft’s specifications if for some reason it felt that it became necessary or unavoidable. It followed that, when the United States authorities did this, Australia was bound to accept any aircraft delivered in accordance with such downgraded specification, provided of course similar aircraft were accepted by the United States Air Force.

The only proviso in the contract was that the United States Air Force should accept some of the aircraft, no matter how far they fell short of the specifications. The then Minister continued:

In other words these 2 documents gave Australia no assurance against degradation of performance.

Later he said:

In short if General Dynamics failed to produce an effective aircraft, we would lose our Australian expenditure without remedy beyond any which the United States could pursue on behalf of both of us with the company. This then was the Australian position and the extent of our rights as they existed prior to my visit to the United States.

That shows the sort of decision making that was indulged in by the LiberalCountry Party Government on behalf of this country. The Government entered into an agreement which contained no ceiling above which the price might rise and no floor beneath which the specifications might fall, provided the Americans accepted a few of the aircraft. That shows a gross dereliction of duty. I believe that the Government is culpable and that it ought to face severe censure. It would be bad enough if this were an isolated incident, but I believe that the Fill incident epitomises the sort of decision making that is indulged in by the Government, especially in the field of defence.

The Fill can be taken as a symbol of the Liberal and Country parties. It ought to be placed on their letterheads. It shows to us in a material form what the Liberal-Country Party Government is and what it stands for. It stands for hasty decisions at election times. It stands for all sorts of tricks, as this was. The contract was something which Sir Robert Menzies entered into in 1963 to convince the people that they were in danger of imminent attack and to show his seriousness in preparing us for that eventuality by preparing to protect and defend us. That is the sort of defence we have had under Liberal-Country Party governments. It is a sham and a show. Unfortunately it is a very costly one. I believe that it is a luxury that this country cannot afford.

I believe that the Liberal-Country Party Government is a luxury that this country cannot afford. As I said in a question, the Fill has the propensity to crash with the frequency of Liberal Ministers and Prime Ministers. In that way the Fill symbolises the Government. It is prone to cracking, friction and breakup from within, as is the Liberal-Country Party Government. It is an apt symbol of the Government. As I said, this is not an isolated incident. It is one that epitomises the sort of thing that has happened on the opposite side. It is not something that has happened only in recent years. I remember the former honourable member for East Sydney rising in this House and asking about HMAS Hobart’. It was discovered, after many continuous denials, that £2m had been spent on refitting that ship. It did not go to sea again before it was sold to the Japanese, for thousands of pounds, for scrap.

Australia has spent about $60m on conscription. That was a hasty and bad decision. It has not given us the sort of Army that we require. We have spent in excess of $200m on our intervention in Vietnam. I believe that that was a wrong decision, a waste of public money and a waste of manpower. We learnt from the Press recently that it is costing us $100,000 a year for mistakes that are made by the Department of Labour and National Service in inducting into the Army men who are not medically fit and who then have to be released by the Army. It is costing us $100,000 a year for those administrative mistakes. We learn that we are paying $100,000 a year in repatriation benefits to men who are wounded in Vietnam and who will continue to draw benefits for the rest of their lives because of the wounds they have suffered. It will be a continuing expense for something that we indulged in, that was utterly wrong and that has caused a gross waste of money, manpower, life and ability.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise to participate in the debate on the matter of public importance which has been submitted to the Parliament by my honourable and gallant friend, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I point out to the House that the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), in speaking first for the Government, mentioned the 3 aspects of the motion which are, firstly, the continuing waste of public money; secondly, the frustration of skilled personnel in the Royal Australian Air Force; and, thirdly, the disruption of the defence programme. (Quorum formed) I thank the honourable, gallant and gracious member for Sturt (Mr Foster) for his effort to provide an audience in this House. I was making the point that the 3 factors put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had not been justified by the arguments that he submitted to the House. The point he established was that if the Fill contract were cancelled at this time there would be an enormous cost in terms of public money to the people of Australia. I felt that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in making references to the programme for the delivery time for the F111C, failed to indicate to the House that the testing programme that has been going on over the last 12 months has been devoted to the F111A aircraft which are in the inventory of the United States Air Force.

I point out to the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that at this time squadrons are entering into the United Kingdom, based at Upper Heyford, which are squadrons of FI IIA aircraft acceptable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command. I feel that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seriously believed that the commanders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air forces were likely to approve of operational aircraft that were not fit in every sense, he would be putting before the Parliament an absolutely absurd contention. He must admit that there is an established fact, of which the House can take notice, that these aircraft at the present time are operating from Upper Heyford, and the wings of aircraft will be within the next 12 months brought to full operational establishment and they will be then functioning from the United Kingdom, as I have said, under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command.

The reference that was made by the honourable member for Forrest to other world governments withdrawing from contractual arrangements again was misleading. I point out to the House, as I have done on many occasions previously, that the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand were the only countries that were considered by the United States Government to be possible purchasing powers for the Fill aircraft. Whilst it is true that the naval aircraft was not acceptable to the United States Navy, it creates an entirely false impression for the honourable gentleman to imply that there were other world governments to whom the aircraft had been offered but who had withdrawn from any contractual arrangements. This is simply not the case.

As I have said here repeatedly, this aircraft is 1963 technology and the F4E Phantoms are 1953 technology. The problems that have been traversed in this Parliament could be repeated again and again, the Minister himself said that it is the metallurgy problem that is causing the greatest difficulty. As the testing programme is brought to completion, our 24 F111C aircraft eventually will go through the testing programme and be available for Australia. If there is any frustration on the part of skilled personnel in the Royal Australian Air Force I would be very surprised. I would think it not unreasonable to say that there would be some disappointment, because I hold the view that there are quite a lot of members of the Royal Australian Air Force who would be happy indeed to see the Government make a decision to accept the aircraft immediately.

As at 7th December 1970, 179 of the aircraft had been through the retesting programme and the re-equipment programme with the heavy wing box and had been returned to the United States Air Force inventory. At that time 65,000 hours had been flown, and only recently we had the eighteenth aircraft loss. As I have said repeatedly in this House, when an aircraft is lost it does seem to be a remarkable and almost a political innovation that the assumption is made immediately that this is the fault of the aircraft itself. Let me assure the House - after all I am living testimony to this fact - that it is probably true that 96 per cent of all aircraft accidents are the responsibility of the human beings responsible for the controls of the aeroplane. We do not know even in this latest case whether the aircraft itself was responsible for the accident. A comparison with the other F100 series aircraft like the F104G Starfighter, for example of which more than 100 have been lost by the West German Air Force, would be a not unreasonable safety comparison for me to make. I hold the view that, with the order of 70,000 hours having been flown by the aircraft and with 18 aircraft losses, we have every reason to expect that within the next few years our aircraft will go through this testing programme and that the F111C will be available within the Royal Australian Air Force and happily accepted by those people who are going to fly it.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– It gives me very much pleasure to support the Opposition on this matter of public importance and to say a few kindly words about the Fill aircraft and the tragic saga that it has been for this Parliament and the people of Australia since 1963. Basically it. was purchased as a cynical vote-catching decision taken by the Menzies Government to capitalise upon the Australian Labor Party’s opposition to the establishment of the North West Cape United States Communication base in Western Australia. To make the 1963 election an election on the question of defence, Sir Robert Menzies hastily raced in to purchase the Fill on the advice of the Royal Australian Air Force. The evaluation period by the RAAF would not have extended beyond 3 months. We went into a contract that so far has cost us $230m for the aircraft, $3 1.4m for ground support facilities and an additional $10m for aircrew training.

The aircraft does not meet the specifications which were laid down when we originally ordered it. The design is unsound, and the aircraft has just suffered its eighteenth crash in its short period of life since it became operational in the United States Air Force about 1965. The Opposition has raised this matter to illustrate the dilemma which is facing the Parliament and to point out that the defence preparedness of this country has been hampered severely by the fact that the delivery of our most strategic weapon, a strike bomber, has been delayed for so long. A period of 11 years will elapse between when the aircraft was ordered and when it will be delivered in 1974. In a major statement to this Parliament last year, the then Minister for Defence, Mr Malcolm Fraser, virtually apologised for the hash the Government had made of the Fill project. He completely exposed the realities of the purchase and virtually denounced the previous Ministers for Defence - Athol Townley, Sir Shane Paltridge and Sir Allen Fairhall. He was not going to take the blame for the stupid decisions they had made since 1963 in continuing the purchase of this aircraft.

The whole fiasco is symptomatic of the Government’s cavalier approach to defence. The Liberal approach is for the Government to put its hand in the Treasury purse, pull out a great fat cheque, go to any country in the world that can offer us equipment and, whether it suits Australia’s needs or not, buy it, and then say to the Australian people: ‘We are looking after your defence’. This is the root cause of the problem. The Government is selecting military equipment without first ascertaining the effectiveness of the equipment or whether it suits our requirements. In relation to the role of the Fill, the former Minister for Defence said:

The Fill has a prime requirement of being a strategic deterrent, a long range bomber whose mere presence in Australia would ward off aggressors.

The Fill is a strategic strike bomber. It was primarily designed to have an operational radius of some 2,000 miles and a dash capability at supersonic speeds of 230 miles, which meant that with its ground tracking radar it could travel under enemy radar and place an atomic bomb in a strategic position. That is the real role for the plane. We are not even in a position to utilise it for this purpose. We intend to use the Fill, with all its sophistication, to drop iron bombs - the sort of bombs that can be dropped from B52s which we can still purchase from the United States Air Force for a song. We have on order a Rolls-Royce to do a job on a T model Ford would be able to do. This is the true position.

I come back now to the performance of the aircraft and compare its capabilities with the features outlined in the specification at the time of order. I would like to go over a few of the specifications. The range was supposed to be 4,180 miles; it is now 2,750 miles. The speed at high altitude was supposed to be 2.5 mach; it is now 2.2 mach. The supersonic dash capability, which is its real strength as a terrain tracking aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon under enemy radar, was supposed to be 210 miles; it is now limited to a mere 30 miles. Its take-off distance was 2,780 feet originally, which is reasonably short and quite an advantage for a military aircraft when operating on unprepared fields; it is now 3,550 feet. Its take-off weight has increased by 20 per cent. It was originally intended to be 69,122 lb; it is now 82,500 lb. The cost escalated from the original estimate of $3m per unit to $12m to $ 15m per unit, and the aircraft will not become operational for 11 years. What sort of a government would enter into an open-ended contract with no limit on the research and development costs or the unit costs, and sign a memorandum of understanding for an aircraft like this?

Mr Duthie:

– It was a political decision.

Mr KEATING:

– Yes, it was political. Basically the aircraft was bought as a political ploy rather than to meet the requirement of our armed forces. The Royal Australian Air Force says that it is the best plane in the world. It is the best plane in the western world at the moment for a particular job but when one compares it with the Russian Foxbat - the aircraft which the Russians now have operational and are supplying to the Egyptians, with a speed of about 2.5 mach it is only just comparable. But for our situation the Fill is vastly inadequate. It has a range radius of 900 miles with a dash capability of 30 miles. Where does 900 miles from Amberley take us? It takes up out into the Coral Sea and back. That is about its limit. Honourable members on the Government side have said: You cannot criticise the Government. We bought an aeroplane and we were not to know the problems that were to eventuate.’

When one analyses the situation, it is clear that the main problem that has been encountered with the structure of the aircraft has been the wing carry through box which is constructed of D6AC steel, a new type of steel which the General Dynamics company has incorporated in the Fill in preference to duralium, titanium or aluminium alloys. There has been absolutely no testing of the fatigue characteristics of D6AC steel in the wing carry through box of the Fill. The only testing that has taken place in this respect took place at our own Aeronautical Research Laboratories at fishermen’s Bend. The Laboratories are part of our Department of Supply. The General Dynamics company was aghast at the technological capacity and know-how of our people in relation to fatigue and structural testing. It may be as well to remind the House that in relation to the whole aspect of fatigue testing of materials, air frames and wing structures of aircraft, the specifications and criteria for testing were laid down by the Aeronautical Research Laboratories when it was testing aircraft which became redundant after the war. These testing criteria are universally standard.

I saw the wing carry through box being tested at the Aeronautical Research Laboratories at Fishermen’s Bend. A special jig was made up to test the strength, tautness and capacity of the material to withstand fracture. But the D6AC steel continues to have these hairline cracks appear throughout the section. All Fill aircraft have the wing carry through box and all the boxes are fabricated from D6AC steel. They will continue to crack under normal circumstances and the aircraft will continue to crash. So where is this Government left? Will it go to the extra expense of changing the whole construction of the aircraft and take out the existing material in the wing carry through box and replace it with aluminium alloys or other suitable material? Or will it do what the previous Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said, namely, consider the options to get out of the FI 11 contract? That will cost $150m because the United States will buy back our 24 Fills for $150m. A comparable replacement of 40 Phantoms and 8 reconnaissance aircraft will cost $414m. Add to this the $150m the Government would lose on the FI 1 1 and we have a total of $560m. So the replacement of the Fill with 40 strike aircraft - the Phantom, which is now becoming a superseded aircraft - seems to be the only option we have left. It would cost $560m, and the Government says that we should not be raising such matters as matters of public importance. It would squander $560m, but it gives the pensioners only 50c. We are talking about half a billion dollars.

Let us look at the only other replacements there are. The McDonnell-Douglas F15 is worth about $11.5m. The only aircraft that looks like coming on the market is the Panavia multi-role combat aircraft, the development of which is a joint project of the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany. The project appears to be producing an aircraft with a greater air superiority than the FI 1 1 - and at one-third of the original cost, that is, $1.5m each. This may be the only way we can get out of our predicament. The Government talks about Australia’s defence, but we have not had a defence debate in the House since the major statement in March last year. Even then there was not a debate and now the statement has been taken off the notice paper. We have ordered 24 planes that are not worth a cracker for our purposes and the Government has the hide to say that it is the Party that cares about defence. This Government foolishly got us into an open-ended contract by buying an expensive military aircraft which does not suit our needs and which has structural defects. There is no ceiling on the costs of the aircraft and there are no penalty provisions on the manufacturer in relation to performance or lack of performance. Australia’s Liberal-Country Party Government bought in haste and this country has to repent at leisure.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– Whenever the subject of the Fill has been raised in the Parliament it has always been interesting to me to note the number of experts on military tactics, aircraft and armaments who emerge. All sorts of statements are made by people who have never flown the Fill aircraft and who have never flown an aircraft at all. I admit that there are problems with the aircraft. Of course there are; everybody knows that. It has certain technical problems, but as far as its flying capabilities are concerned there is one group of people to which I like to speak and that is the pilots in the United States Air Force who fly the aircraft and the pilots in the Royal Australian Air Force who have flown the aircraft not once but for a great number of hours.

Recently, I took the opportunity of having a long talk to the American pilots who were here with the Fill aircraft that was on ground display as part of the visiting force of Fill aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force celebrations. Those pilots made some most interesting comments about the Fill. I certainly do not intend to repeat them in full but I wish to mention some of the comments made to me by these fellows who fly the aeroplane. Tremendous competition exists in the United States Air Force among pilots to join the FI 1 1 squadron. As an all weather fighter bomber, the Fill has no superior in the world today. The TFR sysem which gives it an automatic low level flying capability at high speed is without equal and its general radar system also is without equal in any aircraft flying at present.

I turn now to comparisons between the Fill and the F4, that is, the Phantom. In some respects the Fill will carry approximately twice the load that the F4 will carry. The range of the Fill is much greater. The F4 has not the automatic low flying capabilities of the Fill. On the question of the future of these aircraft in the United States Air Force, these pilots were of the opinion that it would last the USAF for another 10 years. No aircraft likely to equal the Fill was on the drawing board. These pilots said that the Fill was indeed a fine aircraft. These pilots are the people who are actually flying these aircraft every day. We have heard arguments as to the serviceability of the Fill, One pilot pointed out to me that he had flown his aircraft twice a week for 6 months and had had no unserviceability problems with it. This was a strong point in his comments.

A number of statements have been made by various Opposition speakers about the purchase of this aircraft. The Government entered into the contract to purchase this aircraft on the advice of its technical experts. Would the Labor Party have ignored such advice at that time? If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), had been Minister for Defence in a Labor Government at the time would he have ignored the advice of his technical experts in the RAAF.

Mr Barnard:

– I would have listened very carefully to the dissenting report. It was not a unanimous report at all.

Mr HOLTEN:

– The expert advice from the RAAF was that the Government should buy the FI 1 1 aircraft.

Mr Barnard:

– It was not a unanimous report.

Mr HOLTEN:

– The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) dealt completely with the accident record of the aircraft. He pointed out to the House quite correctly that each aircraft crash is not necessarily the fault of the aircraft involved. In fact, those of us who have been connected with flying over many years know very well that pilot error was the cause of over 90 per cent of accidents, during the 1939-45 War, anyway. The crash of an aircraft is not necessarily the fault of that aircraft.

Honourable members opposite have talked about the cost of the aircraft. Of course it is expensive. Any aircraft or any modern weapons system with such capabilities is naturally very expensive. As I said, the Government has never hidden the fact that the Fill has been troubled and is still troubled with technical problems, particularly the wing carry-through box. But it must be remembered that a wing carrythrough box has never failed in the air. It has failed on the ground. It must be remembered also that the RAAF has ordered a different type of aircraft. At present the USAF is actively flying the FI IIA, the type that was in Australia, day after day, and week after week.

Mr Keating:

– It is not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will cease interjecting.

Mr Keating:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He has made his speech.

Mr Foster:

– He is taking a point of order.

Mr HOLTEN:

– And has a total-

Mr Keating:

– On the point of order: There is not one operational Fill aircraft in the United States of America at this time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland has been in this House long enough to know that there is no substance in his point of order. It was pointed out to honourable members by Mr Speaker previously that too many points of order that were debating points were taken in this House.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Dealing with the terms of the matter of public importance which has been raised for discussion on behalf of the Opposition, previous Government speakers have pointed out that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not advance any arguments at all to support at least two of the major proposals contained in the matter. My information, contrary to what is stated in the motion, is that the skilled personnel are not frustrated. My information is that morale is at a very high level amongst the pilots and the associated crews who have undertaken training courses on the Fill aircraft. This attitude has been influenced by the Government’s decision to lease 24 F4 Phantom aircraft. Morale is at a high level. That takes care of one aspect raised by the Opposition.

I turn now to the alleged disruption of the defence programme. It is the Government’s belief that the RAAF requires this strike aircraft to provide a balanced Air Force. With the prospect that delivery of these aircraft would be delayed until nearly 1973, the Government decided to lease 24 F4 Phantom aircraft from the United States, to cover any gap in our total defence capability for the time being. I consider that in taking this action the Government has been prudent. It has the protection in the Fraser-Laird minute which states that until all tests enabling us to make a decision have been completed we do not need to make a firm decision to buy the aircraft. Combining my comments with those of other Government speakers, I reject the proposition put forward in the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The debate is now concluded.

page 2575

APPROVAL OF WORK- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Construction of Community College at Darwin

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

– 1 move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a Community College at Darwin.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– 1 rise to support the motion. In so doing, I commend the Public Works Committee for presenting its report on this proposal so quickly. I commend also the Department of Works in the Northern Territory for putting the work through so expeditiously. When this proposal was introduced initially into the House, the construction of these residential blocks was delayed as a result of a division in the

Public Works Committee until the proposal was reviewed. That happened a very short time ago. Now the work is to go ahead at a cost of $4m. I might add that the construction of a community college at Darwin was part of the original platform on which I was elected to this House. So, I am more than gratified to know that, finally, this college is to be built in Darwin. I commend the Public Works Committee and have pleasure in seconding the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Construction of Domestic Accommodation, No. 2 Stores Depot, Royal Australian Air Force, Chester Hill, New South Wales

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of domestic accommodation No. 2 Stores Depot, RAAF, at Chester Hill, N.S.W.

The proposal involves construction of an officers mess and sleeping quarters, a senior non-commissioned officers mess and sleeping quarters, Women’s Royal Australian Air Force sleeping quarters, airmen’s sleeping quarters, and airmen’s mess and recreation centre, a barracks group comprising workshop, stores, offices and garages, a gate control building, and associated engineering services, roads and footpaths, car parking and sporting facilities. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $2,950,000.

The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the facilities and has reported favourably on the proposal. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations. The Minister for Works has asked that the House be advised that the accommodation study requested of the Department of Works, as outlined in the Committee’s report, is proceeding. The information gathered and conclusions reached will be discussed with all civil and services sponsoring departments concerned with provision of living accommodation in relation to their present codes and standards.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2576

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Dawson from moving a motion to enable the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971 being considered without limitation of time.

Mr Barnard:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The action of the Government yesterday in moving the guillotine, with the objective of putting a time limit on the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill, illustrates the deplorable deficiencies of the Government. I do not think that any honourable member in this House will disagree with me when I say that this is one of the most important primary industry Bills we have ever had in this Parliament. Yet this Government wants to limit the debate to 4 hours for one reason only, so that the House can go into recess some time tomorrow night or Friday morning. There is no need for me to emphasise too much why there should not be any limitation of time in relation to this Bill. We should be allowed to debate the Bill at length, to go through the agreement and schedules at length, and to cross-examine the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) or other Ministers on the Bill. Yet the number of speakers is limited.

This is just one more example of the deliberate implementation of a ruthless policy; it is government by the Executive with absolute contempt for the Parliament and with no thought whatsoever of the members of the Parliament who represent rural electorates and who for months and months have had deputations from primary producers with respect to this very Bill. I would class it as one of the most important Bills to be considered by the Parliament, certainly during this session. As I said before, in my opinion it is one of the most important Bills on primary industry ever introduced and set down for debate in this Parliament. The Bill affects twothirds of Australia, when we consider the vast ramifications of the arid and semiarid zones, of the wheat and sheep zone, of the high rainfall zone - I am talking of wheat growing and sheep raising areas - and of the specialised fruit growing areas in Tasmania and Victoria and in certain parts of New South Wales. It affects the drought areas of western Queensland, where there are almost whole regions of people virtually moving to the coast because of bankruptcy or threatened bankruptcy. It affects people in Western Australia.

For example, 3,000 farmers are in a hopeless economic position, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics; in fact, they cannot be saved by the provisions of this Bill. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture states that another 4,000 farmers, in addition to the 3,000 farmers to whom I have referred, are also in a serious economic position. This gives an idea of the seriousness of this position in Australia today. Yet we have the Government having the temerity to limit the debate to 4 hours. What I cannot understand is the complacency of the Country Party, whose members should be speaking not as I am speaking but who should have been speaking in their own Party room and condemning the Government for allowing it to put this over them. Honourable members opposite say a lot in their Party room but they do not have the guts to get up and say it here.

Mr Giles:

– Stop time-wasting.

Dr PATTERSON:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, are we to have interjections such as this? The honourable member for Angas who is supposed to uphold the procedures of this House, is not even sitting in his own seat. He is sitting on the front bench chewing in a way that you would know in the bush.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! I want the call for order to apply to the whole of the House and not just to the honourable member.

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to procedure. Would it be by arrangement that a Country Party member, such as yourself, is generally in the chair when the Country Party is under attack?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Dr PATTERSON:

– There is a crisis in rural Australia, and it is my intention to force this motion to a vote principally to see whether the Country Party, especially, is going to put up with this Government curtailing the debate on the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill to 4 hours. There has already been an interjection from the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) about what was said in the Party room. Let him put his attitude into action when the division is called. Let us see whether he will support the proper forms of debate in this House in connection with what will be one of the most important debates to come before the House. Let him support the Opposition as it attempts to ensure a full and free debate in respect of the Bill. Before I was interrupted by the honourable member for Angas-

Mr Giles:

– Why are you wasting time?

Dr PATTERSON:

– That interjection once again shows the mentality of the honourable member for Angas. He mentions time-wasting, when I am talking about one of the most important Bills to come before this House. Yet he purports to represent people from a rural area. One of the principal reasons why there should be no restriction on the time allowed for debating this Bill is that the Bill is important.

Before I was interrupted, I was trying to give an example of its importance. For example, in about 1967 the assets of the wool industry were calculated to be worth from $9,500m to $ 10,000m. That was the 1967 value, not the current value. Since 1967 there has been a drop in the net farm income of the sheep industry by the incredible figure of around $450m. Honourable members may think that I am exaggerating, but these are the best estimates. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) himself has given the estimate that in 1967 the net farm income of the sheep industry was approximately $770m. It has now dropped to approximately $300m. That illustrates the gravity of the situation and the importance of this Bill to the sheep industry alone.

To those who have been to western Queensland there is no need to say very much about the situation. There is possibly no area in Australia today which is in a more critical economic condition than that area. It has been devastated by years and years of drought, by rising costs and by ruinous wool prices. Almost the whole area is on the verge of bankruptcy. I have mentioned the position in Western Australia. Almost the whole of the future of fruit growers in Tasmania depends on the export market, which is a shaky market. Recently it has shown all the signs of cracking, and it certainly will crack if Britain joins the European Common Market. Whole areas in Tasmania will be affected if Britain joins the Common Market. Honourable members from Tasmania are vitally concerned with this Bill, but some will not be able to speak on it.

A Bill which is supposed to come before the House later tonight authorises the granting of a loan of more than $4m to the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd because that company is almost on the verge of bankruptcy, and if it cannot pay the farmers then of course moneys cannot be advanced to the farmers. Viable areas in the Riverina and in Victoria are vitally affected by the State Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. In fact, every rural area in Australia, with the exception of the beef and sugar producing areas, is seriously affected by this legislation. Every primary industry with the exception of the beef and sugar industries, is in a serious economic condition. I think it is an intolerable situation that this House is to guillotine one of the most important primary industry Bills ever to be introduced into this Parliament.

My reason for moving for the suspension of the Standing Orders is that I want to have a vote on this issue, as I said before, to test the members of the Country Party, to see how genuine they are. If they believe that 4 hours is sufficient time in which to debate this Bill, all I can say is that they are not being fair dinkum to their own constituents. Every member of the Country Party should rise to his feet and talk on the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill and its 3 components - debt reconstruction, farm buildup and rehabilitation. These matters are vitally important to every member of the Country Party, just as they are vitally important to every member of the Australian Labor Party and of the Liberal Party who represent rural electorates.

Mr Sinclair:

– There are very few over there who would know anything about it.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I point out to the Minister for Primary Industry that there are more Labor members who represent rural areas than there are Country Party members.

Mr Turnbull:

– That is incorrect.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Opposition Whip will tell the honourable member for Mallee that 33 rural and semi-rural electorates are held by Labor members. If he does not want to argue the question with me, he may argue it with the Opposition Whip. In conclusion, I want to say that yesterday this House witnessed scenes which I believe will go down in history as indicating the way in which this Parliament, particularly the House of Representatives, is deteriorating in terms of government by democratic processes. It is quite obvious that the Government wants to close the Parliament as quickly as possible before the cracks in the ranks of the Government parties widen. We saw this happen yesterday, and the cracks will widen further every day this Parliament sits. The Government says that there is a Cabinet, that that is the Government, and to hell with every Government back bencher and Opposition member in this Mouse; it does not want anything to do with them. The Government tells members of the Country Party and Liberal Party that they should follow the leader like poor innocent sheep and do whatever the Government says. Why do not honourable members opposite get up in this House, like the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) did yesterday, and say their piece? I am giving members of the Country Party an opportunity now to ;ay what they really think about applying the guillotine to one of the most important - if not the most important - primary industry Bills which have been introduced into this Parliament for a very long time.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I second the motion moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). In a sense, this debate is a continuation of the debate that we had in this House only yesterday. 1 think that every honourable member can recall the events and the discussion which took place in that debate. The Government has made its attitude quite clear. In relation to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) must accept full responsibility for the decision which has been forced on both Government and Opposition members. The Australian people and those who have the responsibility to express their opinion - I refer to the Press media - have clearly stated that they cannot condone the Government’s attitude.

Today when the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was questioned on this matter he ran for cover. He knew that under the original agreement this House was to sit for another 2 weeks. Yet the Minister for Primary Industry, throughout the whole of the speech of the honourable member for Dawson, made inane interjections. I think that the honourable member for Dawson has completely stated the position. The States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill affects a very large section of the Australian community. Whilst I personally have never made any claim in this Parliament to be an expert on primary industry, the plain fact is that I can appreciate, as can all honourable members, that this Bill affects a great proportion of the Australian people who, to a very large extent, depend upon the initiative and enterprise of this Government while it remains in power. Is there any honourable member opposite who denies that a crisis exists in primary industries today? Yet, as the honourable member for Dawson has stated, every member of the Australian Country Party refused to participate in the debate yesterday. They refused to stand and be counted and to express their opposition to a limitation of the opportunity of honourable members to debate this Bill.

The Government has allotted - again the Minister for Primary Industry, one would expect, would accept some responsibility for this - 4 hours for the second reading debate and 5 minutes for the debate on the remaining stages of the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. I venture to suggest that if every member of the Country Party wanted to speak on this extremely important measure he would not be able to speak for more than 15 minutes. I think it ought to be clearly understood by this House - no doubt it is understood by the Minister for Primary Industry - that shortly we will be debating proposals which did not originate in this Parliament only 2 or 3 days ago. As I understand the position, this question of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States has been under discussion for 2 or 3 years. We are to consider legislation which will affect many farmers engaged in primary industry in Australia, but the Government has decided that the debate will be limited to 4 hours. I endorse the challenge issued by the honourable member for Dawson to members of the Country Party to stand up and speak on these matters. They are completely disinterested. When those whom they claim to represent in this Parliament are affected in this way, members of the Country Party make no protest. The Minister for Primary Industry is the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party. Surely one would expect that he would be able to endorse the opinions that have been expressed by members of his own Party on other occasions. It is not good enough for members of the Country Party merely to state their opinions outside the House. We want to hear them speak up either for or against this Bill in this Parliament.

This is an extremely important piece of legislation. The honourable member for Dawson has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the time limit on this debate to be removed, that is, that the guillotine which the Government has predetermined should apply no longer in relation to this Bill. I believe that all honourable members, and particularly honourable members on this side of the House, are agreed on the importance of the legislation. For this reason one would expect that those who sit on the Country Party benches, in particular, would be prepared to support this motion to ensure that there is reasonable and adequate time for honourable members to debate the legislation.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I have been amazed by the 2 speeches which I have just heard. I am sure that no-one would doubt, if he looked at this in a reasonable way, that this matter has been brought up just to try to get some advantage over the Australian Country Party. I want to refer to one or two things that have been said. Firstly, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that the Australian Labor Party had more rural seats than did the Country Party. That statement is just a trick, nothing else. It is a trick for the simple reason that although members of the Labor Party represent a certain amount of primary industry areas, the vote they get comes from a densely populated area within the electorates. Take the case of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy), who I notice is in the House. What chance would he have of winning the seat of Bendigo if the city of Bendigo was not part of the electorate?

Mr Kennedy:

– What chance would you have of winning without a few towns in your electorate?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Well, my majority is so much more than the honourable member’s that he should not draw attention to that. What chance would he have? I suppose the honourable member would say: I represent a rural electorate’. However, the point is that he cannot get votes from many primary producers. This is the case in other areas where Labor says that it represents so many primary producers. However, the vote that Labor candidates obtain comes from the densely populated areas that are contained within the electorates. The moment they go out into the country their vote dissolves like the mist in the morning.

Dr Gun:

– What point are you making?

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am making a point in reply to what was said by the honourable member for Dawson that Labor members represent more primary industry areas than do Country Party members. The honourable member for Dawson also asked why members of the Country Party did not get up as the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) did and say their piece. The honourable member for Moreton is entitled to speak. But what about the Australian Labor Party? I have been here for 25 years. In that time, how many members of the Labor Party have got up and said their piece? I have heard about 3 of them speak out but they disappeared from here at the next election because they could not get the endorsement of their Party. One man to whom I refer is Cyril Chambers who was the Minister for the Army. He was a good Minister and an excellent man. He spoke out and that was the end of him politically. The parties on this side of the House are such that a member can get up and speak as the honourable member for Moreton did and still remain in his Party. If an honourable member opposite gets up and speaks against or about the Labor Party machine he knows that he will not be endorsed at the next election. Honourable members opposite are just like mice; they follow along and try to escape traps.

The honourable member for Dawson said that this would test the Country Party. Surely he knows that the Country Party has stood the test of time. The Country Party has been established for 40 or 50 years and it still represents the major part of primary industry after all those years. The honourable member also asked why all members of the Country Party did not get up. He said that every man in this House is interested in this vital legislation. All right, so they are. Members of the Country Party are intensely interested. They represent areas that are suffering from world conditioned prices for certain primary products. We know that there has been a drought in Queensland for many years. On the other hand, the Labor Party represents chiefly secondary industry. There are not 6 members of the Labor Party who are capable of speaking on this Bill. The honourable member for Dawson has said that all members should have an opportunity to speak and that they should be able to take their full time. The 125 members?

Dr Patterson:

– I said rural areas.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Oh no, you did not.

Dr Patterson:

– I did say that.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member said that all members should be able to speak on this Bill. The rural areas are calling out for assistance. As the Whip of the Australian Country Party I can say that we have had meeting after meeting to try to bring forward something that will be in the best interests of the country people.

Mr Foster:

– You are telling fibs.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I ask the honourable member to withdraw that. I do not want to be called a liar. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you ask the honourable member to withdraw that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett) Order! If the honourable member did say that I will ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Foster:

– I did not direct it to him, I directed it to all members of the Country Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The words are unparliamentary and I ask the honourable member to withdraw them.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise on a point of order. From time to time in this Parliament the use of the words have been unparliamentary. However, when they have been directed to a body of people rather than at an individual, the ruling has been given that the words are not necessarily unparliamentary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-In this case the honourable member for Mallee did take it that the remarks were directed to him. If they were not directed at him the honourable member may have something in his point of order. But I hope that honourable members will try to maintain a degree of order which will enable this debate to gb on without interruption. The honourable member has said that he directed the remarks generally, so I will accept that.

Mr Foster:

– I take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have directed those remarks to the honourable member for Mallee as well as to other honourable members?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You did direct it towards him?

Mr Foster:

– No. Have you directed the remarks that you just made towards the honourable member for Mallee as well as to other honourable members?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No, I was asking you whether the honourable member for Mallee took them as being directed to him. If the honourable member did direct those remarks to him I would ask the honourable member to withdraw them. The honourable member for Dawson has taken a point of order that the remarks had a general application. If that is the case I will let the matter go. But if you directed the remarks to the honourable member directly I will ask you to withdraw them.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. Would it not be better for the harmony of the House and the goodwill that it generates if you took yourself away from the Chair and let a supporter of the Liberal Party take it while the Country Party is under such fierce attack by members of the Labor Party?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is the second reflection that the honourable member has made on the Chair. It does not do the honourable member any credit because those who arc in the Chair try to maintain, as I do, an impartial attitude. I understand that the honourable member has withdrawn his remark so there is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Daly:

– On a further point of order, there was no reflection on you at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was thinking of the approach that has to be made, and in fairness to you I made that suggestion. I was not doubting your impartiality.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Remarks like that are a reflection on a Chair and I take them as such. When a person is in the Chair he is obliged to be impartial, and the suggestion that someone else should take the Chair is a reflection on the Chair and I resent it

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise on two points of order. Firstly, the honourable member for Mallee is speaking to Sturt Desert over there and we cannot hear over here. The second point of order is that the honourable member for Dawson has claimed that 33 Labor members hold country seats. Since the beginning of this debate there have not been more than 5 of them in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the points of order. I request the honourable member for Mallee to direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Over the last 5 or 6 minutes I have not had a chance to direct my remarks to anyone.

Dr Patterson:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect to you, Sir, it is obvious that you did not hear what the esteemed honourable member said. I am quite certain that no member of the House should be allowed to refer to the honourable member for Sturt as the ‘Sturt Desert’, as the honourable member for Griffith did. If the honourable member for Sturt does not want that remark withdrawn, where do we finish up? We can start calling each other nicknames. There are a few for me, I know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– -Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Griffith comply with the forms of the House and not reflect on an honourable member. Honourable members know how other honourable members should be addressed, and they should conform to that procedure.

Mr Martin:

– I take a point of order, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is offensive to me, and it is offensive to the honourable member for Sturt to hear him referred to as the ‘Sturt Desert’, particularly as he has spent more time in the desert, fighting for this country, than any other honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Sturt regards the remark as offensive I will direct the honourable member for Griffith to withdraw it. If he does not so regard it I will call the honourable member for Mallee.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Referring to what was said recently, it is on record that I objected to something that was said by the honourable member for Sturt and he very rightly apologised.

Mr Foster:

– I did not apologise. I withdrew the remark. What is wrong with you? Get your facts right.

Mr TURNBULL:

– All right, I accept what the honourable member has said. He withdrew the remark. This reminds me of something that I read about during the First World War, of the Kaiser and the scrap of paper. When he did not carry on with what he said he would do, the Kaiser is alleged to have said: ‘one can always apologise’. The point is that apparently in this House a member can say what he likes as long as he apologises.

Mr Barnard:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the progress of the House, but I think this has gone far enough. The plain fact is that the honourable member for Mallee should be addressing himself to the motion which is before the Chair. For the last 5 minutes he has engaged in a crossfire with members of the Opposition and has ignored the Chair and other honourable members. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to direct the honourable member for Mallee to confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would appreciate it if the honourable member for Mallee would address his remarks to the Chair. I cannot hear the honourable member, nor, apparently can the honourable member for Griffith.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am a great cooperator, Sir, and I will co-operate with you. There has been much laughter and levity during the discussion of this important motion but it is obviously Labor policy to prevent me from speaking and honourable members opposite have been fairly successful as I have only 2J minutes remaining in which to debate the motion. Members of the Country Party have been meeting day after day trying to find means of assisting primary industry. I say ‘primary industry’ deliberately, as distinct from primary producers’, because if primary industry is prosperous the provident and efficient primary producers share in that prosperity. The motion, if successful, would make it possible for this debate to continue almost indefinitely but members of the Country Party are anxious for aid to be provided to primary industry as soon as possible. The number of speakers in the debate on rural reconstruction may be limited to 12. Surely the chosen speakers from the Opposition and the Government Parties can put all the salient points concerning this Bill because during the last quarter of a century that number of speakers has been able to put all the salient factors about any important Bill.

What a ridiculous remark it was that the Country Party is not interested in primary industry. Honourable members can take it as they like, but those men who have engaged in primary industry were, like myself, born in the country and not in the city. The Country Party represents primary producers. Rural reconstruction is not a means of securing votes for the Country Party; it is a matter directed towards the survival of primary industry from which vital income is gained. Wool growing and wheat growing are vital to Australia. The main factors in our national wealth are tied up in primary production. Furthermore, the primary producer, by exporting his produce, builds up Australia’s overseas balances which make it possible for secondary industry to secure from overseas raw materials which cannot be obtained in Australia. This enables secondary industry to function satisfactorily and to progress. No-one can say that members of the Country Party are not worried about the position of primary industry. We are seeking every possible way, through meetings day and night, to bringing forward measures that will give relief, if relief is possible, through legislation.

The chosen speakers from all parties should be able to explain the legislation which we will be discussing soon, and they will explain it. Country Party members will be speaking as will be members of the Liberal Party and if there are 3 or 4 members of the Opposition who know anything about primary industry, let them speak too. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said: ‘I have never claimed to know much about primary industry’. Of course, I do not think any honourable members opposite have, but the point is that our specialty as members of the Country Party is that we represent people in country towns - employers and employees - who know that their living depends on the products of surrounding farmlands and the prices that can be obtained for those products. The members of my Party are flat out doing everything they can for the greatest force in Australia, namely, primary industry which has built up this nation, not only the rural part of it but also the cities which depend largely on primary industry for future stability.

Mr BARNARD (Bass)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said that during the course of my remarks I made the statement that I did not claim to have any knowledge of rural matters.

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That is what you said.

Mr BARNARD:

– I said that I was not an expert. I had never claimed to be an expert on rural matters.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I do. I was misrepresented by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) who, in the course of his remarks, said that no member of the Opposition who represented a rural seat represented, in fact, anyone in the real country areas and that members of the Opposition relied for their strength on the major towns in country areas. For the record of the House, I point out that the smallest and most distant community in my electorate gives me a 3 to 1 majority in elections.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a personal explanation.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– We are currently considering a motion that has been moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and which suggests that the Standing Orders should be suspended iri order that we might have a debate on the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill without limitation as to time. The debate during the last threequarters of an hour would have been far better had it been concentrated on the factual problems of reconstruction with which members on this side of the House are profoundly concerned. Over the last few days - indeed, over this session - the processes of the House have been used in such a way as to enable discussion of matters that have little relevance to what I see as the critical economic issues which surround the whole question of rural reconstruction. For that reason I do not believe that this motion has substance. I see it only as a delaying devise in order to ensure that there is more delay in concluding the Government’s business and, accordingly, I move:

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 56

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Dr Patterson’s) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 56

NOES: 62

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 2584

STATES GRANTS (RURAL RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2335), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SWARTZ:
Leader of the House · Darling Downs · LP

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill, as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection, I will permit that course to be followed. (Quorum formed.)

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Bill before the House this evening is called the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971. It and the ancillary Bill deal with legislation relating to the pre-war reconstruction scheme. As I have said before, there can be no doubt that this is one of the most important Bills introduced in the history of this Parliament in regard to primary industry. Its consequences are far reaching. The paradox of it is that it is one of the shortest Bills that could be introduced into the Parliament. It contains only 4 clauses. Strictly speaking, the principal objective of the Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament of the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of agreements between the Commonwealth and individual States. The actual details of the scheme are set out in the Agreement, which is contained in the Schedule to the Bill, and in the schedule to the Agreement. In summary, the total amount of funds involved at the present time is approximately $100m. It could be more or less.

The Opposition wishes to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the Bill bc withdrawn in order that the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States be amended to make provision for more detailed criteria on eligibility and to ensure that every bona fide producer, within an acceptable means test, is eligible to receive assistance which will enable persons (a) to remain in primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability can be achieved within a reasonable time, (b) to move out of primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability cannot be achieved within a reasonable time and (c) to participate, with their family, in a fully co-ordinated rehabilitation programme including technical college education or at least its equivalent’.

One might ask: What is the difference between that amendment and what the Bill attempts to achieve? The basic difference is that by this amendment the provisions of the Bill will apply to all bona fide producers within a limited means test. Under the legislation before the House there will be a very considerable number of primary producers who will be ineligible to receive any financial assistance. In the main these are the ones in a hopeless, critical financial condition. If they are lucky they will receive perhaps $1,000 to help them in rehabilitation; or if they can participate in an amalgamation or a farm build-up scheme they may receive some assistance. If they cannot qualify on these 2 criteria under the provisions of this Bill it could be that they will receive nothing. This is the principal difference between the Opposition’s objective in the amendment and the Government’s objective. It is possible to argue against my point on the basis of the Schedule to the Bill, which refers to the farm build-up method of operation. It says:

None of the foregoing would prevent the Authority from purchasing an uneconomic property in advance of arrangements having been made for the property to be added to an adjoining property or properties, where the programme of farm adjustment could not otherwise be achieved.

What this means, I suppose, is that the Authority could purchase every unsound property if it wanted to on the basis of some future possibility of amalgamation. But I suggest that this is not the objective that the Government has in mind. That is why I argue that there will be a very large number of producers, particularly in Western Australia, who will not qualify under this scheme. They are the ones who are in the most hopeless economic condition. The basic objective of the Bill, as I see it, is to assist farmers who, although having sound prospects of long term commercial viability, have used all their cash and credit resources and cannot meet their financial commitments. This is as outlined in the Bill. There are 2 broad categories of primary producers affected by the Bill. The first category includes those I have mentioned, who in the future could be viable. Therefore there is a case for helping them. The second category includes the ones I have also mentioned before, who are in a hopeless economic condition and who will receive little or no assistance.

Let me deal with the major deficiencies in this scheme. Speaking purely from the economic viewpoint, I say that no attempt is made to recognise the deep-seated problem in rural Australia today. There is not time to deal with all of the problems, so I shall deal only with wool. The future of wool is basic to this whole scheme. According to the Schedule to the Bill, the purpose is to assist a farmer who has sound prospects of long term commercial viability. How on earth are we to establish whether a farmer in the wool industry will have sound prospects of commercial viability? I believe this is the basic problem. If anybody suggests that wool prices will increase significantly in the future he is an optimist because practically all the evidence suggests the reverse or that, if they do increase, in real terms the increase will be a negative one because increases in costs will continue. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has stated officially that there should be no decrease in the rate of increase in costs. In other words, costs will continue to increase. Wool producers, irrespective of how big they are, will eventually be put into a hopeless economic condition if the present trend of rising costs and static wool prices continues. This is particularly so of those producers in the arid and semi-arid areas; they cannot increase productivity’ because the scope to do so is just not then.

Let us look at the real problem involved in this rural reconstruction scheme. I am now arguing economically and not politically. Let us grasp the nettle. If the Government believes that synthetics will become more efficient, that costs will go up and that wool prices will not increase, what is the point in propping up producers who in the end will get further and further into debt? It would be far better to take a more progressive view and to phase these people out of production. Let us give them a chance to get out now before it is too late. The cold facts with respect to wool are that up to the present time no authoritative organisation has expressed the conviction that a state of chronic overproduction exists in the wool industry or at least amongst certain types of wool. The present Government refuses to consider this position. Most industry leaders take the view that there are many serious problems affecting the production and marketing of wool, including collusion. The Government still refuses to admit that over-production in relation to a satisfactory price may in fact be the basic cause of all wool problems. It may be a simple matter of overproduction in relation to market demand.

I again say that I am arguing purely on economic principles. This again is taking the ruthless approach. If what I have stated is so, and if the future of the wool industry is so critical, what is the good of pouring millions and millions of dollars into an industry which in the end will sink because of the effect of synthetics and rising costs? Do we all agree with that? I do not agree with it fully. I agree with a lot of it. It is basically an economic argument. But we are parliamentarians and we have political arguments and political criteria. If we judged everything on economics and, say, a laissez-faire policy, instead of having 12 million people in Australia we might have only 3 million. We must take other welfare and social aspects into account. We consider welfare, protectionism and qualitative aspects also. Therefore we come into the field of politics. This is where we find the paradox. Are we deliberately to phase these people out of production or are we to help them to stay in production? Obviously the Government has adopted a policy. As regards wool it is going to phase out ruthlessly those people who cannot service loans and give money to others on the assumption that there is a sound future in wool. I suggest to the Minister that this Government should prepare a White Paper on the future of wool for presentation to this House. Let us not get the International Wool Secretariat or the Australian Wool Board to write it; get some competent independent authority, an international authority if necessary, to tell Australia on the best possible evidence what is the future of wool, because I can assure the Minister that producers want to know these facts.

What I am saying about wool is just as applicable to every other primary commodity. But wool is in a worse position because there are effective substitutes for it. This is something we cannot exclude from our minds. The approach of the Australian Labor Party is as stated in our amendment. As can be seen, we believe that all primary producers are entitled to be eligible under the provisions of this Bill and not only some primary producers, as the Government says.

Mr Sinclair:

– I do not wish to interrupt the honourable member, but I do not follow his argument.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Let me take one minute to explain. The Bill makes no real provision for people in a hopeless financial situation, that is those who cannot reach commercial viability. They cannot get assistance unless it is through amalgamation or rehabilitation. The chances of amalgamation, of course, depend on the tests of eligibility set out in the Schedule. They could be remote. Certainly the deliberate reduction of farms is a good economic argument. This has been possibly drawn up by economists, but the Australian Labor Party’s point of view is that if bad policies have caused the present crisis the Federal Government must accept responsibility. After all the Government must take full responsibility for the encouragement of the wheat industry and the wool industry over the years, particularly when the economic indicators were showing dangers. If the Federal Government has encouraged producers in Western Australia to expand wheat production tremendously, I believe and the Australian Labor Party believes that the Government has a responsibility to help those people to move off the farms if necessary or, if it considers that they are viable, to help them.

Mr Maisey:

– New South Wales had the biggest expansion in wheat

Dr PATTERSON:

– New South Wales did have the biggest expansion in wheat, but I would think that many of the people who expanded in wheat mostly there would not be eligible for assistance under this Bill. They were mainly the big companies and large absentee owners. I am not even directing my remarks at those people because our amendment seeks to lay down a means test.

Mr Maisey:

– It was done with foreign capital.

Dr PATTERSON:

– 1 agree. They are the basic differences between the objectives of the Opposition and those of the Government. If I have misinterpreted the position 1 will be most pleased to hear from the Minister. But I have studied this Bill carefully. As I say, except for those 2 possibilities and the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that the Authority under this scheme can purchase any property, no matter how uneconomic some farmers are there is no chance of their getting any assistance under this Bill because under the Schedule they have to be able to repay loans. Paragraphs 2(b) of the Schedule, under the heading Tests of Eligibility’ on page 7 of the Bill, is really the crux of the whole matter. It states:

There is a reasonable prospect of successful operation with the assistance possibly under the scheme, the prime requirement being ability to service commitments, and to reach the stage of commercial viability within a reasonable time.

So capacity to repay and service the debt is the major criterion - a banker’s criterion. A farmer who cannot satisfy this test is not eligible unless he qualifies for amalgamation or rehabilitation.

How bad is the position? In Western Australia over 3,000 farmers are in a hopeless financial condition and have no chance of being considered viable under this scheme. There are 3,500 to 4,500 more who are in a very difficult position and who could be eligible. In the western areas of Queensland there are hundreds of producers who will not qualify because their present debt structure is such that they just cannot service any further loans. There is only one way to describe this $100m - it is a lousy figure. I cannot understand why the Government has adhered to this figure of $100m in view of the distribution of that sum amongst the States. I think it is a disgrace. Let us consider the wool industry alone. The total indebtedness of industry is estimated today at $800m, but look at the assets of the wool industry. Its assets are estimated to be $9,500m. The export income earned by wool over the last 10 years has been about $6,000m yet all this Government can do to assist not only the wool industry but all industries is to advance $100m by way of interest bearing loans.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– You should speak fact instead of fiction.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is quite obvious you have not even read the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I understand that the 3 honourable members on my right who have interjected recently will be speaking in this debate. I ask them to keep their comments until they speak in the debate.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we are all looking forward to hearing the speech of the former Minister for Defence on this subject. It will be the first time I have heard him speak on primary production since I have been in the Parliament.

Mr Cope:

– It is his main source of income now.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That is true; it is his main income now. I am speaking now about how bad the position is in regard to wool. The drop in the net income of wool producers over the last 4 years is estimated to be in the vicinity of more than $400m. It has dropped within a period of 4 years from $770m to $300m. If anybody says that that is not serious, he is really not looking at the facts. All that the Government has been able to find is $100m. Let us now look at the Schedule to the Bill. I mentioned before that the crux of the Bill is concerned with those who are eligible, but to be eligible they must have prospects of long term commercial viability. I ask the Minister: Who determines whether a producer has long term viability? I would like to know what assumptions are made. I have been referring specifically to wool. Who determines this question? Obviously the States do, but what criteria do they use? These are some of the reasons for our amendment. The Opposition wants to know more about eligibility because it is quite obvious from reading the Schedule that there is not a sufficient definition of ‘eligibility*. When we look to the tests of eligibility set out in the Schedule, the following words appear:

The applicant is unable to obtain finance to carry on from any other normal source. . . .

What is the definition of ‘normal source’? Is it determined by the rate of interest? We know that many primary producers today are in the grips of the back alley money lending sharks and are being forced to pay 14 per cent and 15 per cent interest. Is that a normal source within the Government’s definition? After all, a lot of the hire purchase companies are simply subsidiaries of the private banking system. These are questions I hope the Minister will answer. Are hire purchase companies normal sources of lending? As everybody knows, 2 of the main beneficiaries under this Bill will be the major private banking system and the pastoral companies. They will get a major portion of their loans repaid under this scheme.

Let us now look at what is said in the Schedule about the ability to service commitments. To my mind this is perhaps the most serious aspect in the Bill and it is the one that is being condemned throughout Australia by State Ministers. If a producer cannot service his debt he is not eligible for assistance, unless, of course, he can sell through amalgamation. Part II (3) (d) of the Schedule, dealing with debt reconstruction, states:

Where the State legislation so provides, a protection order against any creditor who has threatened action for debt, to apply . . .

I ask the Minister: To what States does this apply and to what States does it not apply? If there is no such legislation in the States it simply means that those who have the first mortgage can tell the authority to jump in the lake and can go ahead and foreclose on the property. This is not referred to in the second reading speech and the Opposition wants to know more about that aspect. Then there is the rate of interest. There is a very cunning expression inserted in the Schedule which I hope will be debated tonight by most honourable members. What does it mean? Part II (4) (e) in part says

The Authority will ensure that the average interest rate over all loans made will be not less than 4 per centum per annum.

Not less than 4 per cent could mean 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 7 per cent or any percentage providing it is above 4 per cent. What the Schedule should say is that it should not be more than 4 per cent, which puts a ceiling on it. I think this is a very grave error in the Bill. What it means is that State authorities will be able simply to make a judgment and charge varying rates of interest which is not less than 4 per cent. Similar words are used in the Schedule under Part III dealing with farm build-up. Paragraph (3)(c) states:

Advances, at an interest rate not less than 6i per centum per annum . . .

In English that means 6i per cent or higher. If the Government means that it should be a maximum of 6i per cent it should say so by simply making it read: Not more than 6i per contum’. This aspect has to be made very clear in the House because it is a very important point. The rate of interest is crucial to the operation of this scheme. I have examined the Schedule where it deals with firm build-up. It is no good the Minister saying that its purpose here is not to say to the owner to get big or get out. Who is kidding whom? Of course that is what it means. It means marginal farmers have to amalgamate to make their properties bigger and if they cannot qualify for financial

Assistance by amalgamating they have to get out otherwise they will go bankrupt. What the Government is saying to this category of people who have the smaller farms and whose costs are going up while wool prices are static and net cash income is diminishing is: ‘Unless you fellows amalgamate and get big you have to get out’. That is what the Government is saying and it is of no use saying it is not.

Let us be practical about it: There is nothing wrong with the principle of amalgamation if it will mean greater efficiency in the use of resources. The Opposition, however, does not agree with the Government on ohe point. We do not agree with getting out in the sense of becoming bankrupt and getting out by their own means. They should be helped out and not just by this miserly $1,000 for which they may qualify. 1 turn now to Part IV of the Schedule dealing with rehabilitation. This should be one of the most important items in this agreement because it deals with the people who are going to be hurt - the farmers and their families who, under the Government’s policy, will have to get out. Can honourable members find anything in the Schedule to indicate what ‘rehabilitation’ means? The Minister has said that it is under consideration by the Department of Labour and National Service and the State departments, but what does it mean? The only thing that is positive in this BUI is that section of the agreement which states:

A loan on such conditions as to interest rate, if any, and repayment as are determined by the Authority up to a maximum of SI, 000 in any one case.

I submit this argument to the Minister: What will a loan of $1,000 do for a farmer with 2 or 3 children who is in a hopeless financial position? That farmer cannot obtain any cash or any more advances. Some doubt exists whether he can sell his property. But all the Government will offer him is a loan of $1,000 to rehabilitate himself and his family.

What the Opposition wishes to see written into this Bill very speedily is that such people and their children will be given the opportunity to learn a trade or be employed profitably somewhere else. Certainly the children of these farmers ought to be sent through technical college so that they may learn a trade in order to fit themselves into society. Many of these children have left school at an early age. Farming is the only life that they know. Not only is it degrading for them if they must go into the cities to try to find an unskilled job. These children are used to a way of life different from city life. They should be given the opportunity to attend a technical college and to learn a trade. Such a provision is not written into this Bill. I believe that this is one of the major deficiencies in the present agreement between the Commonwealth and the States.

In conclusion, I say this: It is quite obvious that this Bill is not complete. Because of the time factor, it has been rushed in to the House. One needs to look only at the various sections to see this. The eligibility of people cannot be determined precisely. According to the second reading speech delivered by the Minister, it seems that the responsibility to determine who will qualify and who will not will be passed on to the relevant State. It is quite obvious that, when one reads the section on rehabilitation, there is nothing constructive in it. Yet, this section is supposed to be one of the most important parts of the agreement with the States.

How can we be asked to ratify this agreement? We do not even know how many States have agreed to this agreement. The Bill does not state anywhere whether all of the States have agreed to it. Until a week ago, I believe that 3 States had not. Have all the States agreed to it? Have all the States agreed to the rate of interest proposed in this Bill? Have all the States agreed to the rehabilitation proposals? 1 ask those questions because I say that there are no rehabilitation proposals. Yet. we, as representatives of the people in this Parliament, are being asked to ratify this Bill. All I can say is that there aTe certainly some sound principles in it - do not get me wrong on that point - but the Bill does not go far enough. The Opposition wants to know what conditions will go into this rehabilitation agreement. The Labor Party is most concerned about the future of the people and their children who will be displaced from farms. If the Government has no concern for children, we have.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Grassby:

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

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– Before I make my own contribution to this debate, I should say that it has been drawn to my attention that a very well known Canberra political commentator, whose broadcasts are transmitted to other States, tonight said, and I am informed repeated it 3 times, that the Government would allow 5 minutes only for the passage of this Bill. I make it quite clear that the time allowed for the second reading debate on this Bill is not 5 minutes but 4 hours.

I refer now to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). It is worth noting that the first third of the amendment, section (a) deals with a means test which, I have always understood, was anathema to members of the Opposition. The second and third portions of the amendment, sections (b) and (c), relate to -people moving out of the industry and rehabilitation for them. I think that it should be noted by this House that the entire content of the amendment moved by the honourable member on behalf of the Opposition is concerned with means tests and people moving out of the industry.

I .wish to comment on a few other points mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson. He said that it was the intention of the Government ruthlessly to phase out some producers. I think that the honourable member must have forgotten that consultations even now are going on to introduce a retraining scheme for farmers along the same lines as the recently announced retraining scheme for those displaced from their jobs by technical change. The honourable member also alleged that the Government was following the policy of get big or get out. Of course, this is quite untrue. I would like to remind the honourable member that this Government recognises that size of itself is not and has never been a guarantee of the efficient use of resources. This Bill is an extremely important one not only because it refers to such a large section of the Australian community but also because it announces a new approach to the problems of primary industry. For the first time that I can remember this measure is designed to attack the causes of the problem with which we find ourselves rather than the effects of it.

I think it should be pointed out exactly why such a proposal to attack the causes of the ills facing primary industries is necessary. The answer is to be found in a fairly simple set of figures which carry a devastating message for many people. Those figures represent the Net Farm Income of Australia. Net farm income declined from a peak of over $ 1,400m in 1964, to $l,000m last year and to an estimated $900m this year. Of course, $900m today does not buy as much as $900m did 7 years ago. So, not only has a drop occurred in actual money terms but also tremendous erosion has taken place in the purchasing power of primary producers in this country. It is an erosion which to my knowledge has not been suffered to anything like a similar degree by any other section of the community.

What are the implications of this decline in net farm income? I think that the implications are because this has happened so rapidly that whereas in the past the rural community was able to adjust to a fairly gradual rate of change and was able to cope with it, this rate of change is galloping at such a rate now that without special assistance the industry will be unable to cope with it. In Australia, as in other advanced countries, the number of people engaged in farming has been declining over the years. This is inevitable as capital replaces labour in the farm enterprises. As I say, this situation is not unique to Australia. It is happening in all advanced countries. Although the figures that I am about to cite are probably out of date even now, we have reached a stage where 30 per cent of all farmers in Australia are earning below $2,000 a year. Certainly, over 40 per cent of all wool growers are earning under $2,000. So obviously in this situation something must be done.

The alternative courses of action which may be open to us had to be considered. The first course, and perhaps the easiest one, would be an improvement in the prices of primary products. As many speakers have said recently, I think that we would be unwise to rely on this to a major extent. One fact highlights why we would be unwise to rely on this. To my knowledge, it has not been mentioned. It is that the rate of growth of the world population at present is about 2 per cent. But world agricultural production is increasing at 2.8 per cent, which is 40 per cent faster. In many countries, this is highly desirable. It is wonderful to see those countries getting to the stage where they are’ more selfsufficient and more able to feed themselves. But the fact is that in this situation we are unlikely to get an increase across the board in prices for world agricultural products; in fact, we are more likely to get a decline. This single fact is reinforced, of course, by the continual substitution of synthetics for the natural product, and by the many trade barriers that we face to potential profitable markets for our products. Therefore, I cannot imagine that the problem will be solved by increased prices received.

I suppose that the second way we can tackle the problem is by a system of price support which, unless it was to get out of hand completely, would have to be allied to some sort of system of negotiable quotas. It would pose colossal administrative headaches. While it can certainly be argued on the grounds of equity, quite apart from its being costly, would it solve the problem? Here I think that for a while we have to forget about playing politics. What we are trying to do is to restore the primary industry of Australia to a situation in which it reaches something like parity with the rest of the community. That is what we are trying to do, and I am certain that all honourable members in the House have that common objective. So let us forget about politics for a while and try to find the right solution to this problem. I do not think that the price support solution, allied to some negotiable quota system, would be the right solution. As my example, I take the industry which has been quoted many times in this debate - the wool industry. In that industry, the plain fact is that 15 per cent of wool growers produce 67 per cent of the clip. If that percentage is increased to 25 per cent of growers, we find that they produce 75 per cent of the clip.

Down at the bottom end of the scale, we have 30 per cent of growers producing 6 per cent of the clip. Certainly these growers are probably not depending solely or even mainly on wool as their source of income.

However, the fact is that, if we talk about the wool industry as an export earner for Australia, we are probably talking about only something like 20 per cent or 25 per cent of growers. Therefore, I suggest it is vitally necessary to distinguish between the very important social and political measures needed for many growers and the measures needed for the health of the industry itself.

A very disturbing picture is emerging in Victoria, where the first applications for assistance under this legislation are starting to be analysed and where the results are becoming available. In round terms, about 800 applications have been received, something like 200 have been processed, and the number eligible is about 20. This scheme is a lender of last resort and, as outlined in the Minister’s statement, on the debt reconstruction side of it, to obtain debt reconstruction assistance an applicant must be unable to obtain finance to carry on. Regarding farm build-up paragraph (2) (b) of Part III of the Schedule of the Bill states:

The purchaser is unable to obtain the finance applied for from any other source.

Because of these and other criteria, it seems that on those Victorian figures only about 10 per cent will be eligible for assistance. Here I think that surely consideration must be given to widening the terms of eligibility to some extent to include those farmers who are excluded because they have access to credit. Why have they access to credit? Presumably it is because they are in a reasonably sound financial position and because the lending authorities regard them as fairly sound financial operators they are able to get the money. These are potentially the best and most valuable farmers Australia can have. In his speech, in referring to the object of the legislation, the Minister said:

It is a policy of concentrating the assistance that is available on those cases which have the best hope of weathering the present adverse circumstances.

I quite agree with that but under the terms of the legislation, we are excluding a lot of people who are potentially able to meet the object of the legislation. Yet we are forcing these people, who have access to credit, to pay high rates of interest - perhaps on overdraft or on short term loan - while giving very substantial concessions to those in a worse financial situation.

Of course, the third solution to the problem is to have fewer farmers amongst whom to divide this declining net farm income. Let us make sure that, if this is to be the solution, these fewer remaining farmers are the best farmers. Whatever policies we hammer out in this Parliament, let us try to get to that result, because surely that is in the best national interest. To achieve that result, there are 2 specific proposals that I would like to mention. The first one is not referred to in this legislation, but I certainly hope more attention will be given to it. It has been mentioned by the Minister and other Government spokesmen on other occasions. I am referring to the formation of a Rural Loans Insurance Corporation - or some title like that - that would operate on much the same lines as the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation operates, whereby the traditional lenders to the farming community - the first mortgage lenders - are encouraged to keep their money in the industry, if they are prepared to lend it on a long term basis, say a 20-year term, which is the same as the term referred to in the Bill. At the moment, because of the uncertain situation in primary industry, this money is tending to leave the industry; this puts even greater pressure on the Government to provide more funds. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Government will give very close attention to the formation of this corporation, because it would give access to longer term credit to those who are excluded from the scheme itself.

There is another matter to which I would like to refer, and I am surprised that the honourable member for Dawson did not mention it. If he did mention it. I am sorry if I missed it. I refer to the welcome change that has been announced in the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank. I am quite certain that this is something that all spokesmen for primary industry have been urging for some time. Until now the Development Bank has had to lend for development; it has not been able to lend for amalgamation. We are now to see this charter changed and the sum of SI Om immediately made available through the Development Bank - a sum separate from the $100m to which this Bill refers - for the purpose of farm amalgamation. As 1 understand the change in the charter, it is also welcome that this additional money will be made available to those who are already engaged in making a living from primary production, but it will not be possible for those who are, although perhaps engaged in some form of primary industry, maybe for taxation purposes, not dependent on primary industry for their living, to get this money on preferential terms. I congratulate the Government for making this change in the charter.

Sir, the circumstances have changed rapidly since this scheme was first thought of - even since last year - and the bases on which it was calculated have changed greatly because, since the proposal was first hammered out, wool prices have fallen drastically, and I would say that sheep prices have fallen to an even greater extent. While at the time it was envisaged that quite a substantial proportion of those who applied would be eligible under the criteria which the scheme lays down - and I do not disagree with the criteria - people now find themselves excluded from the scheme. I feel that the Government should be giving thought to an interim measure of some kind so that we can have a breathing space until a clearer picture, of wool prices particularly, emerges. We need more information before we start to make specific, irrevocable decisions in this matter because this legislation will have tremendous social as well as economic implications.

I think that the breathing space, such as that which I have advocated, would give the Government a chance - I am speaking in a non-Party political way now - to get across to the Australian people and to the primary producers themselves the fact that we are living now in a rapidly changing situation; that this scheme is, in effect, what it is said to be - a reconstruction scheme; that we have reached the stage in our development where it is no longer possible to maintain the status quo in rural industry; and that quite substantial structural change is inevitable unless our rural population is to be reduced to a peasant level, and surely no-one in this national Parliament, irrespective of Party affiliations, wants to see that happen. If this is our objective and if we can reach the correct solution rather than one which is merely attractive in political terms, we will be doing Australian primary producers a great service.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– There is an old saying about doing too little to late. There is another saying about the curate’s egg being good in parts. The States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill is an excellent illustration of both those sayings. The amount of finance to be provided under this Bill will quite definitely be insufficient to play any significant part in solving the problems presently besetting rural industry, and because of its insufficiency and the time it will take to determine an applicant’s eligibility, and if he is eligible his amount of entitlement, it will undoubtedly be too late to save many would-be applicants from disaster.

Many farmers and other rural residents have already been forced to leave the rural areas, as I will point out in a moment, and this scheme will do little, if anything, to save many others from following the same course. The Government should immediately declare a moratorium, and allow it to remain in force at least until the Government’s reconstruction scheme is complete in all its operations, in order to protect all farmers against any foreclosures or other enforcements which could force them off their properties. That would allow a space of time during which a much closer look could be taken of the situation and more realistic action could be taken to overcome many problems. A large number of farmers would be protected during that time. Far from being like the curate’s egg, this Bill has very few good parts, as can be seen from a reading of the Schedule.

The Bill provides for a total amount of $100m, spread over 4 years, to be made available. That amount is broken up as follows: A sum of $32m for New South Wales, $22,070,000 for Victoria, $16m for Queensland, $14,630,000 for Western Australia, $12m for South Australia and $3,300,000 for Tasmania. The first thing to bear in mind is that only $25m will be provided as a grant, the other $75m will be provided as a loan, and the interest rate of 6 per cent which is to be imposed will ensure that the Commonwealth will recoup not only the $75m but also the $25m plus some unknown amount which will depend upon the spread of years over which repayment will be made. So by no stretch of the imagination could the Commonwealth be described as being Father

Christmas. It would be more appropriate to refer to the Commonwealth as Mr Scrooge.

The second thing to bear in mind is that the States will have to determine who shall or shall not receive assistance and also what the amount of the assistance will be in each case. So in that respect the Commonwealth accepts no responsibility at all. It will be in the happy position of avoiding any criticism or odour that is raised in that regard. It must also be remembered that the object of the Bill is to ensure that onehalf of the amount received by the States shall be applied to what is termed in the Schedule as farm build-up, and to be eligible for any assistance with regard to farm build-up there must be a seller and a buyer of property. This means that one-half of the $100m will be used to assist some farmers or pastoralists to increase the size of their properties while at least an equal number of farmers will be obliged to give up their properties.

In fact, the number of farmers who will be obliged to move out could be considerably more than the number who enlarge their properties, because under the terms and conditions of farm build-up, one owner, providing his original property or a purchased property under this scheme is within reasonable distance of another property which he wishes to purchase, can, if other requirements are met, acquire that other property with the help of assistance from this scheme. So despite what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has said to the contrary, I would suggest that this could and in fact will be a significant step towards implementing the Government’s policy of get big or get out.

The scheme also has a rehabilitation section. Under that section assistance to a maximum amount of only $1,000 can be made available on loan under certain conditions to a farmer who is obliged to leave his property. This section falls short in at least two respects. Firstly, the amount of $1,000 is a ridiculously low amount and would be unlikely to rehabilitate anyone. Secondly, unless the property which the farmer leaves is purchased under the conditions of the farm build-up section of the scheme, he cannot qualify for assistance. So if a person cannot sell his property to an adjoining property owner, or if a bank forecloses on him, or if the local authority purchases the property, he would not be eligible to receive any rehabilitation assistance. Therefore, the scheme is not properly based on actual needs, and many very deserving cases could miss out on receiving assistance while less deserving cases could be successful in their applications.

Many of those who could be ineligible to receive any assistance under the rehabilitation section of the scheme will be men such as new land farmers who, just a few years ago, were encouraged by people holding responsible positions to open up new country or to take up farming properties in areas recently thrown open for selection. The Western Australian LiberalCountry Party Government was one which gave such encouragement and threw the land open. There are also honourable members in this House who, by speeches which they made just a few years ago, must have undoubtedly caused people to think that wheat farming, at least, was secure. I refer particularly to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett). I want to quote a couple of things that they said. I am sorry that they are not in the House at the moment. Perhaps this is not surprising because I note that on the Government side 2 Liberal members will speak before a Country Party member enters the debate. So it would appear that, perhaps, they are . not greatly interested in this matter. However, on 13th May 1965 - only 6 years ago - the honourable member for Mallee said: 1 believe that the present sale conditions have put a stop, if not definitely then for a long time, to a restriction of acreages of wheat, which we had at one time. 1 do not wish to go into this, but when wheat can be grown it should be grown because there is no doubt that a drought may happen at any time and at present at least the country with wheat can sell it.

On 23rd October 1968 - less than 3 years ago - the honourable member for Canning said:

When I look at the world’s production of wheat, as I have, and look at Australia’s production, with our marketing system I do not think that we should have great difficulty in selling our wheat. For years people have been saying that we are growing too much wheat. As I see it, the time to start worrying is when we have not enough wheat. This is the time when most countries really get a headache.

I do not refer to those speeches in order to be critical of the honourable members con cerned: I refer to them for other important reasons. The first is to show how quickly the situation can change because, unlike what the honourable member said in 1965 and 1968, Australia today cannot even sell the wheat she produces under a system of delivery restriction, let alone what she would produce if those restrictions were lifted. The second reason is that we must accept that what the honourable members for Mallee and Canning said represented the actual thinking and attitude of the Country Party as a whole. This being so, we can safely assume that all members of the Country s Party were expressing those same views all around Australia. As a result of that, coupled with actions such as the throwing open of large areas of land by the Liberal-Country Party Government of Western Australia, many men such as share farmers, farm employees and others were encouraged to branch out on their own, and that is actually what happened. Despite the fact that such encouragement was given, despite the fact that this Government and State Liberal governments were largely responsible for so many people getting into difficulties, those are the very people who could not obtain a reasonable wheat quota and who now are to be denied any worthwhile assistance under this scheme.

Those people, who in many cases are newcomers to the industry, set themselves out with the idea of producing 10,000 or 12,000 bushels of wheat each year and went into debt purchasing machinery and so on to do just that. Then they found they had a wheat quota of only 1,500 bushels. This was the main cause why they found themselves in trouble. The number of rural holdings in Australia in 1968-69 stood at 254,270. While I am not suggesting that they all require assistance, the Minister did tell us that 40 per cent or more of the wool growers of Australia had net farm incomes of less than $2,000 a year to cover servicing of debt and living expenses. Unless one had very substantial assets or unlimited borrowing arrangements one could not last for very long on that type of income. The Minister also told us that there are some 89,000 wool growers running flocks of 200 sheep or more. While there may be only 40 per cent of them with net incomes of $2,000 or less a year, I would be very surprised if there are not a great number more, both wool growers and others in the rural industry, who are in very severe financial difficulties. I would imagine that at least 20 per cent of those engaged as owners of properties in rural industry today are in financial straits with very little possibility of escaping those difficulties without substantial outside assistance. Not all of those in difficulties are in that position simply as a result of not being able to sell what they produce or because of a slump in price. Many of them are in difficulties because of the combination of those things and also because of the cost of production which this Government has done nothing to halt, and which has risen above what is an economic figure compared with the price that they can receive for the goods that they produced.

If we add to the wool growers in difficulties those other farmers growing something other than wool and who are also in financial trouble, we can expect to find a number totalling, I would suggest, at least 50,000. If we take just the wool growers alone, it would appear from the figures given by the Minister that there will be 36,000 persons requiring assistance in that section of the industry, some requiring very substantial amounts and others less substantial mounts. The important thing is the number who can expect assistance of a sufficient amount from this scheme. As I said earlier, $50m are earmarked for farm build up, that is, for the sale and purchase of property. If the assistance granted is, say, $10,000 per property - it could hardly be less - it will mean that not more than 10,000 wool growers or others will be involved; 5000 buyers and 5000 sellers, or perhaps 2500 buyers and 7500 sellers. One does not know, of course, what the ratio will be. However, if 10,000 is the total number involved it will mean that after half of the $100m is exhausted there will still be at least 26,000 wool growers in difficulties. This is, of course, if the selling and purchasing is amongst wool growers only.

The rehabilitation scheme will require only a very minor amount because the maximum amount per applicant will be $1000. Therefore, the most that will be expended under this section will be from, say, $500,000 up to $750,000. To make it easier to calculate, let us say that we still have $50m available for assistance in the debt reconstruction area. The Minister told us:

  1. . to obtain debt reconstruction assistance an applicant must be unable to obtain finance to carry on and thus be in danger of losing his property or other assets if he is not provided with assistance.

I would suggest that a wool grower or any other type of farmer in circumstances such as those stated by the Minister would require a very substantial amount of assistance, and in the first year at that, to have any chance of . getting back on his feet. Certainly, nothing less than $5000 would be sufficient. If he needed only, say, $2000 he surely would not come into that category. Therefore, if we use $5000 as the minimum figure in each case, it would mean that not more than 10,000 applicants could be accommodated under the debt reconstruction section. This, in turn, will mean that when the total $100m is exhausted there will still be 16,000 wool growers desperately in need of assistance. To that number we would need to add those other 14,000 in other sections of the rural industry to which I referred earlier, giving us a total of 30,000 farmers unassisted and who. unless assistance is provided, will be obliged to move out. That number would be a minimum. It could remain that low only if the rural situation in relation to markets, price and cost of production does not worsen. If it does worsen, the number will increase considerably.

Therefore, the amount of money being provided by way of this scheme at the very best will be sufficient to assist in a reasonably adequate manner only some 55 per cent of the wool growers which the Minister told us were in real trouble, or on the other hand, approximately 40 per cent of all farmers, wool growers and others who are also in serious difficulties. Certainly, a greater number could be helped if the average amount of assistance were reduced considerably. But it cannot be disputed that where assistance is given it must be of a sufficient amount as will permit the borrower getting back on his feet. To do otherwise could mean only that in the long run the money would all be wasted simply because the borrower would rapidly be back in the position that he is in today. Also, of course, unless the farmer or pastoralist can see some value in the amount he can borrow he will not saddle himself with a further debt on which he has to pay at least6¼ per cent or at least 4 per cent as the case may be. Therefore, if the $100m is sufficient only to meet the requirements of some 40 per cent of those in dire need of assistance, it is obvious that not less than $250m, and very likely much more, would be required if the job is to be done properly.

If, because insufficient assistance is available, 30,000 farmers are obliged to leave the industry, it is not only those persons we are concerned about; we must be concerned also about many more who will be involved. For instance, there will be also the families of those farmers. There will be some - not a great number perhaps - farm employees and their families. There will be some businessmen, such as shop keepers and their families and employees of those business people and their families. So, in all, there could well be another 75.000 persons in addition to the 30,000 farmers adversely affected and have to leave the rural industry.

Between March 1965 and March 1969 the number of persons referred to in the statistics as being permanently resident on rural holdings - events prove, of course, that they are not - had been reduced by just on 33,000. The reduction in total population in rural areas was considerably more. The reduction by now, 2 years later, will be much greater still because it has been during the last 2 years that the real pinch has been felt. Surely the possibility and, in fact, the almost certainty that a further 100,000 or so will be forced away from rural areas and into the cities, even after this scheme is in operation, is more than serious and would indeed be a complete catastrophe. Therefore, in turn it becomes obvious that this Bill and the scheme it proposes are inadequate with regard to both the amount of assistance and the eligibility to claim. Our great problem with regard to wheat is to find markets which will absorb large quantities of wheat and which will permit wheat growers to produce an amount which will give them a good living and, at the same time, allow them to clear their debts. That is our great problem. If we could do that, the wheat growers would need no other assistance. Therefore, it is not only logical but indeed imperative that we pursue mar kets wherever they may be. The Government by failing to do this, by allowing politics to raise obstacles and barriers to trade, is not only doing the wheat growers a great disservice but is also placing a further unnecessary burden on other taxpayers as’ well.

I want to read to the House a communication which I have received from a branch of ‘The Farmers’ Union of Western Australia (Inc.)’. The communication read:

At a recent meeting of the above branch of the Farmers’ Union the following motion was carried unanimously;

This Branch urges the Federal Government to show full political recognition of Mainland China.

The members of that branch realise, of course, that recognition of mainland China could play a significant part in solving the wheat problem, and I would hope that other branches with the same views would make them known to the Government as soon as possible. I was rather disturbed, from carefully reading the Minister’s speech, to find that he made no reference at all to the plight of the wheat farmers. He had a deal to say about wool growers, and certainly I would agree with him, as my remarks would show, that many of them - in fact, the majority - are in real trouble and need help. But I feel it was rather neglectful of the Minister that he did not do the right thing by the wheat growers when he completely neglected them in his speech.

In only one part of the Bill do I see a reference to wheat. I suggest that his concluding remarks emphasising the need for assistance would not cause wheat growers to feel that he had any great concern for them. Once again the Government has introduced a patch-up scheme that will do little to solve the rural problem. It can and will bring about a situation where the farmers will have no alternative but to get big or get out.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who led for the Opposition on this measure, have, as is the prerogative of the Opposition, criticised the proposals of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Government but have offered in return no objective analysis of the problems of the wool industry and no objective suggestions which might turn in to solutions of an immensely difficult and serious problem. Indeed, the honourable member for Dawson has moved an amendment which, if it were accepted at its face value, would make the scheme put forward by the Government infinitely more restrictive. It proposes a means test to those who might be eligible for assistance. We must bear in mind that those who are eligible for assistance must already be in a position in which they cannot get additional assistance from traditional lending or borrowing sources and without some further help will not be able to carry on. That is one of the conditions of the scheme. But in addition to that, the honourable member for Dawson, and the Australian Labor Party, would apply a means test. They want to make the provision infinitely more restrictive than it now is and help a smaller number of people.

Quite apart from that, the Opposition amendment is concerned not so much with trying to keep the wool industry operating but trying to get a large and significant number of people out of the industry. If this is the Opposition philosophy, it is one that has a degree of emphasis that I do not think is shared by many people. The seriousness of the present problem confronting the wool industry cannot be overemphasised. It is difficult for many people to understand. The only similar circumstances in the history of the wool industry are probably the circumstances that prevailed in the 1930s, but then the whole of Australia was in depression with the hope that became an eventuality that that depression would end and matters would improve. But the world has marched on since then and we now have a situation of an Australia very largely prosperous except for one great industry - the wool industry - challenged not because of the intrinsic economic problems of Australia but because of changed technology, changed demand and the changing patterns of trade.

This inevitably raises questions concerning the future of the industry and whether there will continue to be a world demand for wool at the sort of prices which will make the industry viable at the sort of production levels which we have seen in recent times. I have not met anyone who can answer this question confidently in the affirmative. But the Minister when he spoke, pointed to the fact that the industry is trying to operate on 1947 prices and 1971 costs, which is an impossible situation for any industry. He has pointed to the fact that in about 2 years receipts have dropped by $270m, that 40 per cent of growers have an income of less than $2,000 a year, that there is a decline in expectations for the future and that a revaluation of assets has wiped off S2,000m of wool growers’ capital funds in the last 2 or 3 years. In 5 years the debt has gone from li times the net income c.f growers to 4 times the net income of growers, and one-third of net farm income now has to go each year to pay interest on debt.

This is indeed a tragic story and these are the facts used by the Minister. Those who understand them realise that this is an industry that is struggling to survive without any certainty of being able to survive. Exports still remain at nearly $600m a year, even in this year, and therefore the industry is of significant value to Australia. I point out that there are 89,000 growers with more than 200 sheep, the standard taken for that figure, and that in the past they have gained their livelihood from the industry. In some parts of Australia whole communities are dependent upon the prosperity of wool, so it is not only the growers but also the communities, towns and especially those parts of Australia in which alternative means of production through using natural resources are just not available, which will be and are being most heavily hit.

Many areas in western Victoria have been significant wool growing areas. In my own electorate is the highest density of sheep population anywhere in Australia and a very painful process of transition is being undertaken there - some with resources to turn to other means of production, and a large number without the resources. A few years ago 12 ewes could be exchanged for one cow but now we have the position in which about 100 ewes would be needed to be able to buy a cow. This shows the change in relative values over perhaps 3 or 4 and not more than 4 or 5 years.

The Minister has emphasised that this rural reconstruction proposal is one of a series of measures. It involves - and I will not recapitulate - debt reconstruction and farm build-up. It is hoped that 50 per cent of the funds will be used for farm build-up purposes. It will be quite vital in the operation of the scheme for clause 20 to be interpreted broadly, flexibly and as loosely as possible. If the States choose to interpret it narrowly and meanly then that interpretation alone will be able to kill the scheme. It is still open to the States, if they wish to interpret the clause broadly, so whatever they may have said in the past or whatever they may say in the future the position of the States in relation to clause 20 will be significant especially as it affects the number of people who will get assistance under this scheme.

This particular proposal is a useful measure, but I could not describe it in more glowing terms than that. It will be a useful measure for, I think, probably a small proportion of those who would like some form of assistance. It will help some growers. It needs to be remembered that when it was initially conceived sheep were probably valued at $6 and wool at 38c per lb. Now sheep have fallen to $2, one-third of that value, and wool, which the Australian Wool Commission has propped up, to 30c. Quite clearly there are fewer growers who will be viable under the operations of this scheme than would have been the case when the previous Minister for Primary Industry originally conceived it.

One consequence of the introduction of this scheme needs particular attention and that is the fact that banks, stock firms and lending institutions generally, because of the very existence of this scheme will tend to say to clients: ‘You are no longer a case for us. You should go to rural reconstruction’ and there will be a tendency for rural reconstruction to say, to perhaps a significant proportion of those people: ‘No, the banks and stock firms should continue to carry your debt’. I see here a necessity to watch closely the activities of stock firms and banks, otherwise a large number of growers could be in the limbo between rural reconstruction funds and traditional sources of funds and not getting the support they need from either.

The question that must concern the Minister, the Government and this Parliament - and certainly it concerns the industry - is whether more can or ought to be done than is now being done to assist this industry. I was glad that the Minister suggested that this is one of a series of measures. He mentioned other measures that have been introduced in the past. He did not say that this was the last of a series of measures. I think therefore that his choice of words was deliberate and important.

You cannot help someone if their debt is greater than the value of their property, but that is taking an extreme case. I know people who fall into that category. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has advised me that there is one man employed or working in this industry for every 1,000 dry sheep equivalent. Some of the most efficient people in the industry by their own labour can probably run 5,000 dry sheep equivalent, so if there is one man or one owner in this industry for every 1,000 dry sheep equivalent this would point to an over-supply of labour within the industry, indicating some of the great problems that will arise and which are arising with the restructuring of the industry at the present time. But we basically have a significant shortage of information concerning the future. I do not know of any modern industry in the world that tries to operate without some form of forecast of future price trends or without some form of forecast of future demand. Yet the wool industry has tried to operate in this way with 100,000 growers individually making their decisions. An industry cannot operate in that fashion.

Since 1966 the number of sheep has increased from 160 million to 180 million. That is a tremendous increase in the number of sheep and there has been a tremendous increase in the production of wool. Production has been up but the demand for wool last year fell by 8 per cent and prices have fallen by 22 per cent, indicating a significant elasticity in the demand for wool. If the future price of wool is to be about 30c, rural reconstruction proposals will probably help very few people because very few people will be viable at that price level. I do not know anyone who can grow wool profitably at that level but if you have that level of price and you have a mixed enterprise the total concern can be profitable. Therefore the future price level will be quite vital.

I would like to add again to the thought I put in a question I asked yesterday of the Minister for Primary Industry. I suggested that the Australian Wool Commission for one, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for another and an independent overseas concern with the expertise to do this kind of task should each independently make assessments about the future demand for wool and the future price for wool. Depending upon the results - results which I know will not be perfect or exact; will be subject to error but will provide some guidelines for future decisions - further decisions would then need to be made. Growers in need of help and who would want help could probably be divided into 3 groups. One group is the growers who even now you can say could be viable, and you can help them now. There will be a large middle group and whether the growers in this group will be viable will depend upon some knowledge or prediction about the future price of wool. They may not be viable at 30c per lb but they might well be viable at 35c a lb.

There will be other growers for whom you will not be able to provide assistance because their debt levels will be too high and they will never have a chance of being able to pay off the debt and establish a viable and independent enterprise. What you can do for the growers in the middle group will depend on the price of wool and if you cannot help them now, if you are not prepared to make a judgment now about future price levels, and if you are going to ask people to’ give you this judgment in 3 months, 4 months or 5 months, you do not want them to go out of business before that judgment is made. The only way to keep some of them in business - perhaps a lot of them - would be to provide additional bridging finance in the short term until a forward estimate can be made to see whether they can be brought within the ambit of the reconstruction proposals. This can be done. It is nonsense to suggest that the future of this industry has to depend on the independent judgment of 100,000 growers. This has always been one of the tragedies of rural industries.

In any rural industry in any country when the price falls each individual tries to maintain his income by increasing his production and an over-supply position is then made worse and the price falls even further and the grower finds his position even worse than it was. But if every grower restricted his production and reduced total supply they might well end up by having less work to do and be significantly better off into the bargain. So it does need somewhere somehow a device to give to the growers better information about forward prospects. The nature of the judgment that will be made about price and demand will open up another range of decisions.

Let me take the extremes to indicate what I have in mind. If the world does not want wool, if it is prepared to buy it at only 15c per lb, quite clearly it is not an economic proposition for this Government or for Australia to support this industry. This is one extreme. If the price was to be 40c per lb, and if that became a reality, the industry could probably survive with this scheme very much as it is and a great number of additional people will come within the ambit of the proposals as the price rises this vital 10c from 30c to 40c per lb. But if the price more realistically lies within the 25c-30c-35c range or if it lies between 25c and 30c you are then in a grey area where industry can still earn very significant export funds - still nearly $600m a year - but where very few people would be viable without additional measures of one kind or another. If you made a judgment that at that price level - the present level of 30c - production would fall over 3 or 4 years to reduce export income from $600m to $200m or $300m, what is it worth to Australia to maintain an export level of $600m? Or is the judgment now that those export funds are of no consequence? I cannot believe that that is the judgment that this Government or this Parliament would reach. Quite clearly if a judgment about the long term price of wool rests on this difficult 25c-30c-35c range the Government will be faced with a range of difficult decisions which will open up a fundamental analysis of the nature of government support for rural industries. It may well mean that more direct support would be inevitable and necessary but if that does become necessary - I will not argue the reasons for it now - it would need to be accompanied by negotiable quotas.

I want now to turn to a quite memorable speech made by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) a few days ago in setting out the guidelines for tariff protection in the major Tariff Board review. In the early part of his speech he said:

Many Australian industries face costs higher than those of their overseas competitors for reasons beyond their control arising from the Australian natural and social environment. I have in mind such things as wage costs arising from our policies of full employment and our high living standards, high transport and power costs …

All these things apply to primary industry - to the wool industry - as well as to secondary industry. The Minister went on to say:

It is because of them - meaning these factors - that we must have an effective system of protection for the manufacturing sector. . . .

It would have been better if he had just said ‘industry’ and embraced all industry because these principles apply to both. In pointing to the special circumstances that might justify protection the Minister, who is the Leader of the Country Party, said:

For example, an industry may make a significant contribution to the employment of special classes of labour. . . .

The wool industry does. Further on he said:

  1. . it may make a particular contribution to export earnings. . . .

The wool industry does. Giving another example of a different kind the Minister said: . . Examples are where factories in decentralised locations provide major employment opportunities. . . .

The wool industry in many areas provides the only employment opportunities. The principles enunciated by the Minister in that speech could be applied equally to rural industries as they could to secondary industries. But there is one additional reason that makes the application of those principles to the rural sector significant. The rural industries face an escalation in costs. Wage costs will probably escalate 7 per cent or 8 per cent a year. It faces rises in other costs, created because of policies of full employment, because of policies of rapid development, because of policies of industrialisation, every one of which is right for Australia but every one of which places additional costs upon the export industries, especially those with an insignificant domestic market. These are additional reasons to examine the circumstances and the future of the wool industry. I hope that the Government will accept the fact that these principles apply to the rural sector and not merely to the industrial sector, about which the Minister for Trade and Industry was speaking on that occasion.

The Minister for Primary Industry has mentioned the crisis - to use his word - in the wool industry. In his speech introducing this legislation he gave figures to demonstrate the fact of that crisis. It is not a word used idly. It is not a word used in an emotive sense. It is a word used in a factual sense, with an implication for the industry but also with an implication for tens of thousands of individuals, which cannot be ignored and cannot be judged merely and harshly on economic factors alone. We do not judge other things in other industries on economic factors alone. It is not realistic to expect that we should make an economic judgment alone for the wool industry in this year of 1971. We need the estimates of forward price and forward demand, as I have indicated. Once we have those estimates, other decisions will need to be made and faced by the Government. Until we are in that position, bridging finance of the kind I have indicated should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The significance and importance of this problem cannot be over-emphasised.

The wool industry is facing a depression as significant to it as the depression of the 1930s. Unless the Government, working in co-operation with the industry, can devise a way through this problem we will have perpetuated in Australia one section belonging to one industry with a very low standard of living and the rest of Australia with the kind of standard to which we have become accustomed over the last 10 to 20 years. This kind of dichotomy in the Australian economy is just not acceptable in this year of 1971.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The debate from the Government side so far has featured an apparent silent protest by the members of the Australian Country Party, who have not yet spoken, and 2 Liberal speakers making apologies, including the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who seems to have misunderstood completely the amendment which I am now seconding. The purpose of the amendment is not to restrict but to widen the provisions of the Bill, as I will show. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) stressed that the amendment seeks to cover all Australian family enterprises although it will not be covering the new absentee landlords of New York, London and Tokyo who have already moved into the countryside and the nation so widely. The best that the honourable member for Wannon could say about the measure was that it is a useful measure, and nothing more. In fact the Bill is the Government’s proclamation that in the next 5 years 80,000 Australian farmers must leave their farms and seek new lives, homes and jobs in the overcrowded seaboard cities.

It provides a blueprint which, if implemented, will make possible the phasing out of 120,000 farmers in this decade. The measure affects 1 million Australian men, women and children. It is a blueprint for a massive national phase-out operation. I em delighted to see the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) enjoying himself, because the measure has already become known as the ‘Anthony-Sinclair blueprint for rural Australia’. It has been eagerly awaited. For the past 2 years I have been receiving letters, and applications have been made, on the basis of repeated statements from every member of the Government from the Prime Minister down - both of them - that help would be forthcoming for the rural sector. Day after day in latter times Press and radio have repeated the sweet words of promise from Ministers of the SI 00m reconstruction scheme. It has become almost a litany.

This was to be the one big helping hand extended by the Commonwealth to people in more trouble than we have seen in rural Australia for a whole generation. It has taken the Government 2 years to produce its rural blueprint. Apparently, it has bludgeoned the States into acceptance of the scheme, but not without protest. The Vicorian Farmers Union, the Graziers Association of Victoria and the New South Wales Graziers Association have warned of the dangers of the scheme. The President of the Victorian Farmers Union, Mr P. B. Leach, said that his organisation feared that the foreshadowed collapse in land values could attract foreign capital, thereby removing the last major resource in Australia from Australian ownership. He said that the Victorian Farmers Union wanted the land to remain in the hands of Australian farmers. The Liberal Minister for Lands in Victoria, Mr Borthwick, said that the scheme would involve the States in the worst rural disaster in Australia’s history. What a warm welcome for this great helping hand that has taken 2 years to produce.

It is little wonder that the Minister introduced the Bill in a nigh deserted Parliament in the early hours of one morning and hoped to God nobody was listening. The Government has attempted even to prevent any Committee deliberation of the Bill, having provided 5 minutes for the Committee examination of $100m - a rate of deliberation of $20m a minute. Surely this is some kind of new record in legislative deliberation. Why has the Government adopted this tactic? The answer might be found in the Bill. Even the Minister (or Primary Industry tended to apologise for it in his second reading speech. I suspect that the real father of the Bill was the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), who told a Queensland conference that it was not really the whole scheme; it was only a start and there would be more to come. But the Bill does not say that. The Bill contains no provisions for any further action. There is no indication at all of anything more than what is being provided in this piece of legislation and its quite ruthless provisions.

The Government has delayed and procrastinated for 2 years. It has brought in this measure at a time when thousands of farmers with assets on paper have no equity left, and when a man with a property valued at $100,000 in theory is called upon to pay rates and taxes on it and yet is not making 1 per cent on his capital and if he tried to sell his so-called assets there would be no buyers. The situation is the result of the- twin disasters of drought and Government policy. The Government waits for 2 years until we are reaping the whirlwind sown by its policies, and then it unveils its philosophy. The basis of the legislation is to be found in the report on the current rural crisis commissioned by the Government. Both the Minister tor Trade and Industry and the Minister for Primary Industry have been associated with its commissioning and its adoption as the basis for this legislation. An attempt was made to keep the report secret. In fact it was tabled only after it had been leaked to a Canberra gossip publication.

The Government wanted guidelines for rural reconstruction. It got what it wanted, and it has tried to hide them ever since. The Government has sought to hide behind sweet words of sympathy and reassuring phrases. But the report clearly spelt out the Government’s attitude in. the following points: Firstly, large numbers of Australian farmers are to be helped off their farms; secondly, company ownership will tend to replace the family enterprise; thirdly, higher rates of interest will ensure that loans are not made to uneconomic farmers and that land values will not rise; fourthly, the socalled hopeless cases are to be helped to sell their properties at what are called normal market values. These are the guidelines for rural reconstruction. The Bill now before the House is based on the Government report enshrining those guidelines. I am sure that some Government members are ashamed of the measure, because either the Government is totally unaware of the magnitude of the problem or the honourable members who have been silent have discerned the real intention of the AnthonySinclair blueprint, which is to close down large areas of the countryside.

The very sum involved is ludicrous - $100m over 6 States in 4 years. This comes down to a paltry $3m or $4m in a full year for Western Australia and Queensland, $8m for New South Wales and $5.5m for Victoria, with Tasmania receiving a hatful of coins amounting to a few hundred thousand dollars. This means in practical terms that in New South Wales help will be limited under tough conditions to perhaps an additional 90 or 100 farmers in a full year. Applications are coming in to the Rural Reconstruction Board at 10 times the rate of 2 years ago. So we have a measure that will help perhaps 90 farmers in a very limited, select category. But the final absurdity of the $100m can be gauged from the fact that wool income alone is falling at that rate every single year. We will spend $4,000m in 4 years on defence, including foreign aeroplanes that do not fly. In the same period we will spend $100m on a couple of new buildings at Circular Quay in Sydney. Yet the Government can find only $100m in 4 years to deal with the crisis in half the nation.

This surely represents a victory for those who want to phase out primary industry in Australia. It is a strange alliance indeed to find the suburban lobby triumphant with the aid of honourable members drawn from a countryside in trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that the suburban lobby has captured both the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Primary Industry. They have accepted the phaseout of the rural sector which provides more than 90 per cent of the food and fibre needs of the nation, which provided 75 per cent of all export income for a long time and which still provides half the export income of the nation. What have they applied themselves to there? Imports are rising at 7 per cent a year, and interest and dividends to foreign investors are now exceeding $860m a year and they are rising at the rate of SI 00m a year.

We are short in our national accounts by S900m annually. How do we bridge the gap? We do it by selling up our national assets or by building more foreign assets with even heavier commitments to interest and dividend repatriation in the future. This was summed up by the predecessor of the Minister for Trade and Industry, who has now retired. He bitterly said in a moment of honesty: ‘What do we do to balance the books? We sell a bit of the farm every year.’ We are doing it better than we ever did it before. Yet in this situation the surburban lobby is hell bent on the phaseout of half the countryside. They do not realise in their foolishness and pseudoeconomic theories that they are striking at the very roots of national stability and balanced development. The nation is running all the way to the pawn shop.

But let us examine what the Government intends to do with a hatful of coin that it has made available. Thousands are holding paper assets, without even carry-on funds in some cases; some are getting out; many are just hanging on; the banks are as tight as the rear end of a whale; the wool firms have virtually frozen credit operations. And the Minister for Primary Industry tells us in his second reading speech that he is basing the Bill on the needs of the wool grower on the current price of 30c a lb. Even in this he is miserably out of touch. The price of wool on average is not now 30c; it is between 26c and 27c. So his calculations are already invalid.

Let us look closer at the measure. In one fell swoop the Government has set aside the experience of the Rural Reconstruction Board in New South Wales, although the Commonwealth said it was to be used as a model, and doubled the interest to be charged. The respective rates are not less than 4 per cent and 6i per cent. The Bill compounds this treason to the people by actually making these higher interest rates minimum, not maximum. They may well be 10 per cent or 12 per cent under this measure. Why have reconstruction rates deliberately been doubled? The Government told us in its report. It is to get the so-called uneconomic farmers off their properties. In practical terms it means that a man who is not making 1 per cent return at the moment is to be asked to pay 6i per cent. This is unreal.

Let us compare this pretended rescue operation with the Canadian Farm Credit Act. It has been many years in existence and it provides loans to farmers of up to $40,000 for the purchase of farm land, buildings, livestock and equipment. Supervised loans can be made by young Canadian farmers with low equity up to 90 per cent of the appraised value of land, livestock and equipment. The loans can be for 30 years, and for most of the life of the Act 5 per cent was the interest rate. This was for farmers who had no problems, who had not been blasted with high impartiality, drought and destructive government policies. But what is this Government doing? As set out in the Schedule to this Bill, not only does the Government provide for higher interest rates but it wants appropriate security and repayment in a reasonable time that may go as long as 20 years. Can one imagine the gaggle of

Commonwealth-State banking institutions involved in all this trying to determine what it all means and each trying hard to be tougher and more practical than the other, because the Government has laid down the guidelines in a way which puts a premium on tough action for farmers in trouble?

Because the Government has virtually abolished the time for debate in the Committee stage, I have here to refer to the provisions for the transfer of debt. I ask the Minister what will happen to a widow who is left a property, who has no working sons but who has a young family to maintain? Who will pay the probate and death duties on an assisted farm the owner of which dies? Incredibly the Bill also indicates that only in exceptional cases will advances be made to someone who is not in immediate danger of bankruptcy. This is against every good business principle. The Government should assist now and not wait until the farmer has gone broke and then tell him that if he can meet higher interest rates and all the stringent conditions of repayment he may apply for some help.

But we have not finished the chapter of errors which comprise this miserable legislation. When we come to the build-up provisions we find that the transfer price will ignore the Valuer-General’s figures. The man has paid rates and taxes on this figure; he has gone broke on this figure; but the Government then reserves the right to come in and say: ‘This figure is false. We will take over or buy up at what we call productivity value.” What does that mean when the man has been running sheep and selling at prices less than for rabbits? Not only will the Government lead him to bankruptcy but it will rob him of even the remnants of his property value. Also there is no indication that States will set aside legislation to enable even recommended build-ups. Western land leaseholdings in New South Wales could be cases of difficulty here. It might be said that the States will not take any notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to betray a million of our own people with a scheme like this; they will surely go their own way. The tragedy is that they cannot. The States are tied to repayments of 6 per cent for threequarters of the amount advanced by the

Commonwealth. The Bill even instructs the States that they have to repay 34 equal half-yearly payments.

The Commonwealth even insists that each State pledge itself to operate this scheme - to hit the farmers for the money, in other words - to enable the State to repay principal and interest to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will make a million dollar profit from this scheme. It will be profit bought at the price of misery and dispossession. The surburban lobby of which the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Primary Industry have become not only prisoners but exponents have triumphed in this. Their economic nihilism is enjoying its shining hour. The Bill does not even recognise that in many cases categories of help could be widely extended by providing for a rescheduling of the first mortgage. The Rural Reconstruction Board has not the means to meet all first mortgages and pay them out in full, but if there was a means of rescheduling them over a reasonable period it could double the number of people, even if the Commonwealth gave nothing but a guarantee in relation to that first mortgage.

What should be done? The first earnest of the Opposition’s attitude was a pledge in New South Wales by the Labor leader, Mr Pat Hills, that with the support of a Commonwealth Labor government $50m would be guaranteed in New South Wales alone at the subsidised interest rate of 3 per cent. The Treasury would not have to find the money; the banks would find it. The banks would love to find it with a government guarantee. The only cost would be the difference between the prevailing interest rate and the 3 per cent limit which was set by Labor policy in the State. This money would be available not only to those who were facing bankruptcy but to those who needed a helping hand before they reached that stage - this is the right approach - together with funds for the Rural Reconstruction Board to be dealt with on the basis of 30 years experience, low interest, long-term loans, debt consolidation and a moratorium where necessary while this is achieved. The countryside does not want charity, nor the miserable handouts envisaged. It wants access to credit on the same basis as every farmer in the Western world. The primary producer needs a new deal and it must start now. We are pledged to give him that new deal.

Mr Sinclair:

– You?

Mr GRASSBY:

– We in the Opposition, I say with great pride. I would not want to be associated with the Minister for Primary Industry, or his colleagues, in this measure. It is his Bill and his measure. He can stand by it and go to the country with it, and good luck to him. The purpose of our amendment is to force the Government to reveal its real policy. We want to know how many farmers have to go, where they have to go from and who takes over the land? It is stated that the land that is empty is to be made available for build-ups. It cannot be done physically in all cases. Perhaps it is intended to appoint a Commonwealth auctioneer to sell to the highest bidder from Tokyo, London or New York the million acres left empty. But the inkindest cut of all, perhaps the true measure of the Commonwealth’s concern, is to be found in the provision for rehabilitation. For those who it decides have to go the Government will make a loan of $1,000 at such interest as may be determined. This amount is just enough to move the furniture to the city and pay the first 2 weeks rent on a flat. The insult is obvious and the degree of concern is painfully apparent. No matter what happens in the Parliament today, I will serve notice that there will be continuing opposition to that callous provision.

The Government has the impertinence to accuse us of some delay. It has kept us waiting for 2 years. It has produced a blueprint for destruction, not reconstruction. We say that the Government should spend a little time and tell us the truth and spell out a proper scheme with adequate sums of money. This Bill represents a high water mark of betrayal in the countryside, and I appeal to every member who has families facing ruin to reject the blueprint and join us in a call for a new deal for the countryside which has been exploited for a generation with the blessing of a government to which they have largely given their support. If ever there was a time to stand and be counted, this truly is the time. I say to my far sighted friends in the metropolis: Sad will be the day when the countryside is deserted and sold, when the money lenders’ auctioneers have disposed of it around the world and Mrs City relies on the decisions of the board rooms of New York, London, Tokyo and other capitals for the daily bread of the family. The Government has betrayed us all. That is obvious in this measure. It should and must go if the country is to survive.

Mr MAISEY:
Moore

– It is perhaps appropriate as we debate this Bill today to note the text on our desk calendars. For those who have not I will quote it It reads:

Our spiralling cost of living can turn a nest egg into chicken feed.

It is unfortunately true that this piece of philosophy has direct application not only to the people designed to be assisted by this legislation but also to the many industrious senior citizens who, over the years of their working life, have strived and saved to provide a little extra for their retirement. It is also true that whilst we must use every device at our disposal to contain inflation, inflation in association with limited marketing opportunities and declining prices has now rendered necessary a major rescue operation in most of our primary exporting industries. This Bill is one of several pieces of legislation which, when regarded in their totality, represent a formidable policy package with an unambiguous basic intention. The other components of the package are the new provisions for retraining displaced labour introduced by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) the other night.

Finally, and closely allied to all of this, is the statement by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) on the Tariff Board signalling a new emphasis in more rational tariff policy. That these three things have failed to be linked and that the totality of their impact has not been appreciated, is something that literally amazes me. What the Government is doing, and doing deliberately, is introducing a far reaching programme to help economic change to take place. This Bill helps to minimise the losses of farmers who have to leave the industry. The new emphasis in tariff policy means an active attempt to close inefficient manufacturing industries. The labour retraining legislation then looks after the ex-farmer and the worker released from economically inefficient factories subject to closure under our new approach to tariffs. It trains both for new jobs.

But I see much more in this. I see a vast canvas transformed into a scenery by a talented artist who moves with patience and deliberation towards a grand conception to which he is privy. We now see the broad brush strokes clearly identifying the intention. The details will still evolve, but the universal design is there for all to see. I recognise the design, I recognise the style, and I recognise the mastery. Those who do not should cast their minds back a little while and ask themselves what the Treasury was talking about only a few years ago when a certain determined gentleman was at its head. What were those battles about? Was there not on one side the argument that the vested interests, especially in manufacturing, be protected indiscriminately, while the other side wanted to help the economy adjust in such a way as would benefit all?

The totality of these measures proves 2 things. One is that truth ultimately prevails. The other is that McEwenism was but a peculiar little ripple atop a great deep ocean.

While I applaud the grand design and see in it the steady, patient and thoughtful influence of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), I am not entirely happy about some of the details of the Bill before us. Presently I will look at these details, but prior to doing so I want to make one point. Opposition members would be well advised to look at these various pieces of legislation more closely. The States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill is a social measure. The retraining legislation was a social measure. The first public act of the Prime Minister, the increase in pensions, was a social measure. Very soon the Opposition will have only Mr Hawke’s leg to stand on, and it is a rather wobbly leg at that. To picture the McMahon Government as a big business government, as some of the 7 day wonders who got themselves elected to this place the year before last would maintain, rings as hollow as the copy of ‘Pravda’ where they read it. I suggest to these members that they roll up that newspaper, stop listening to Mr Carmichael and Mr Hawke, and pay closer attention to what is really happening in this chamber because the next election will be a bloodbath, and the oncers should at least take away sufficient memories to entertain their grandchildren. At least let them be able to recount properly to them the magnificence of the remaining members of the old guard, and their valiant stand in the interests of a migration policy which historically has preserved our working standards.

I would describe the reconstruction scheme as generous in concept but deficient in detail. The scheme provides for two uses of funds. The first is debt reconstruction and the second is farm build-up. In the first case, funds will be lent to the farmers who are in trouble but have the potential of being viable once they have been helped over their temporary difficulties. They can receive 20-year loans at interest rates between 4 per cent and 6i per cent. The farm build-up part of the scheme is designed to lend money to farmers who want to and, but for the lack of proper finance, are able to buy out their smaller less efficient neighbours. In the case of Western Australia, those farmers have to pay at least 6i per cent and have 25 years to pay back the loan.

In Western Australia, applicants must fill in an 11 -page booklet, which is the application form, and send it in through their own trading bank. This last proviso is a sound one. The farmer deals through the people he knows and the people who know him. The real practical problem is that neither the debt reconstruction nor the farm build-up provisions is of any use in areas where farmers are all in bad straits.

The outline of how the scheme operates, circulated in Western Australia, highlights this fact. It prints in bold letters the following words:

  1. . the prime requirement being the ability to service commitments.

This practical problem has arisen already and has attracted much attention. Something has to be done about it because the uniformly depressed areas are the very places where help is most urgently needed. Although the farm build-up part of the scheme is the more interesting part, it is of much smaller significance in my State than the debt reconstruction part. This is because farms are mainly large and very efficient in Western Australia. The average wheat property in Western Australia is more than twice as large as the average wheat property even in New South Wales.

The problem of the debt reconstruction part is that in the wheat-sheep areas farmers have been hit from both sides. Many are unable to service any debt at all, which simply means they cannot gain access to the cheap finance under this measure to refinance dearer loans

I believe that the same thing is happening substantially throughout Australia. Similarly, the build-up provisions will be of limited merit in wheat/ sheep areas even though the proposal has much to commend it. For example, where a farmer buys out a neighbour, the redundant buildings may be written off following Government subsidy. This is sensible and sound.

The philosophy of a CommonwealthState partnership in this scheme is also sensible. The States usually have a more complete knowledge of local conditions and the closer the administration is to the site of operations the better. However, the amount of money provided is minute when set against the size of the problem. When, however, we look at this in the light of the inflationary problems plagueing the country, the amount begins to look realistic. After all, the Government has to try to balance the economy as best it can and therefore must limit its outgoings in any one year. I think that in principle the Commonwealth has behaved generously towards the States in this scheme. It has given them an interest margin for one thing. For another, and very importantly, it has undertaken to underwrite any losses that the States may incur in administering the scheme and which result from circumstances beyond their control. I think that the Minister was being a little coy in justifying the scheme to the public. He said that people should not begrudge the wool growers this assistance as the growers had not been assisted in any way in the past. What the Minister did not say - and what needs to be said - is that the wool industry has paid for a big share of the tariff protection accorded to the manufacturing industries and it is getting very little back. I sincerely trust that as the Government gets on top of the inflationary problem - as it no doubt will now - it raises substantially and progressively the amounts under these provisions. In the interim, I hope that the detailed application of existing provisions be so liberalised as would permit them to reach where assistance is most urgently needed. I support the Bill.

I turn now to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and perhaps more particularly to the remarks made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and his discussion of a moratorium and a stay of proceedings in respect of debt and hire purchase commitments and other things of a like nature. I can well remember standing on a platform some 3 or 4 months ago in Wyalkatchem in the heart of the wheat belt of Western Australia. As some honourable members will recall, this is the home town of my predecessor in this House, the former honourable member for Moore, Mr Hughie Leslie. 1 and other speakers were cm this platform to be present at a meeting called by a new organisation in Western Australia known as the Rural Women’s Association of Western Australia. This new organisation was established substantially by farmers’ wives who, despairing of the efforts of their husbands to do something effective about the rural situation, decided to have a go at the situation themselves.

On the eve of the State election in Western Australia the members of that organisation invited all the representatives of the political parties to be present on the platform to deliver to a very substantial gathering of women from rural areas the policies of their parties and what they proposed to do in respect of the rural crisis. As well as myself, the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of Western Australia, John Tonkin, and Mr John Rogers, general president of another new organisation established in Western Australia known as the United Farmers and Graziers Association, were present on that platform. This new association which is political as well as industrial but which claims to be non-party political proposes that on the eve of each election, both Federal and State, it will direct its voting preferences in certain directions in exchange for commitments and obligations by leaders of the major political parties.

Mr Duthie:

– It sounds like the DLP.

Mr MAISEY:

– It sounds a little like the DLP, but some of its actions may not sound quite so much like those of the DLP. In fact, I do not know whose actions they sound like. But I will tell honourable members about this association in a minute. The representatives of a number of other political parties were present also. During the course of these discussions the present Premier of Western Australia, the then Leader of the Opposition, was asked what he was prepared to do about the rural crisis. The present Premier of Western Australia said - the honourable member for Kalgoorlie could have been repeating the words spoken by the present Premier of Western Australia-

Mr Armitage:

– Well, he won the election.

Mr MAISEY:

– That is right. He won the election and he promised, of course, to introduce a moratorium, and to do all sorts of things in return for the preferences of the candidates of the United Farmers and Graziers Association.

I would like to quote from an article appearing in the ‘West Australian’ of Friday, 30th April 1971. The heading is: Tonkin Accused of Breaching Pact’. The article reads as follows:

The political wing of the United Farmers and Graziers Association of Western Australia yesterday accused the Premier, Mr Tonkin, of not honouring a gentleman’s agreement made before the State election in February. It said that it gave the ALP its second preferences on condition that the ALP would take immediate action to alleviate farmers’ problems if it won the election.

Spokesmen for the UFGA independent candidates’ organisation, which fielded candidates in 19 seats in the election, said that the Parly had 2 meetings with Mr Tonkin.

Mr Armitage:

– Did it- give his name?

Mr MAISEY:

– Yes. The article continues:

On October 13th last year the Party’s Executive made the agreement with Mr Tonkin and on January 29th this year it was confirmed . . .

The agreement referred particularly to a stay of financial proceedings by banks and hire purchase firms till matters were sorted out and arrangements made for marketing authorities for rural produce.

Mr Tonkin had agreed to implement such measure immediately after the election in an early session of Parliament in exchange for the UFGA preferences.

But there was to be no early session of Parliament. It was 10 weeks since the election and little had been done.

Time was running out. Aid was needed before June. After that it would be too late in most areas.

If we had known when we gave the ALP our preferences what would happen we would have thought very hard about it’, said Mr Legge, who was a candidate for Merredin- Yilgarn - one of the 3 seats the ALP won from the Liberal-Country Party Coalition to become the government.

Incidentally, that man is a constituent of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. The article continues:

A 5-man UFGA deputation saw Mr Tonkin earlier this week, Mr Legge said. Mr Tonkin said that there would be no early session of Parliament.

He was sympathetic to farmers’ problems.

The President of the UFGA, Mr John Rogers, said yesterday: ‘We are amazed at the lethargy and seeming lack of concern by the Government at the desperate situation of farmers.

The Government says that Parliament must meet before it can implement its first 2 promises - the stay of financial proceedings by banks and hire purchase firms and the approval of marketing authorities to sell all rural produce.

This is fair enough. But the idea of convening a special session went overboard and now we are told that Parliament will not meet for 3 or 4 months.’

I reject in its entirety the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson. I support in its entirety the Bill introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), a Bill sponsored on behalf of the McMahon Government. I believe that what the McMahon Government has said it will do under the provisions of this Bill will be done, and I believe that, if its provisions prove to be insufficient, more funds will be forthcoming to finish the job. (Quorum formed)

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I assure the House that I did hot call that quorum. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) has intrigued us with his speech tonight. He was here with the former right honourable member for Murray for many years, but he never attacked him in the House until tonight, when the right honourable member is not here. I do not appreciate that attitude very much at all. The next thing I want to say about the speech of the honourable member for Moore is that he criticised the Tonkin Government in Western Australia by reading an article from a newspaper which stated that that Government had not yet fulfilled its promises to the blackmail group over there which blackmailed the Government. Yet it is only 10 weeks since the Tonkin Government was elected in Western Australia, while the previous Lib eral Government had been in office 14 years and had done little for the farmers. Therefore, Mr Tonkin has quite a while yet to go before he has to honour that promise.

The Bill before the House has 3 major sections. It provides, for the distribution of $100m, firstly, for the purpose of debt reconstruction; secondly, for farm build-up in plant, stock and the like; and, thirdly, for the rehabilitation of those farmers who will be forced off the land. Briefly, I want to state the present condition of rural industry in Australia. The situation has not been as bad since the depression years of 35 years ago. The total indebtedness of rural industry in Australia today to banks, pastoral firms, hire purchase organisations and insurance companies totals $2, 100m. In 1935, when a royal commission was held into the wheat and wool industries, the total indebtedness of those 2 industries was £500m or $ 1,000m. At present the indebtedness is $2, 100m. This proves that the rural sector today is in financial chains similar to the chains worn by the convicts at Port Arthur 120 years ago. Of the 250,000 rural producers, 80,000 are earning less than $2,000 per year.

In his speech, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) referred to the present state of the industry. I will quote 4 brief references from his statement. He said that some 20 per cent of wool growers were earning less than $2,000 a year. Farther down, as reported at page 2332 of Hansard, he said:

The industry’s net farm income in total has probably fallen from some $760m in 1966-67 to about $450m in 1969-70 and to $290m in the current year.

That is a reduction of nearly $500m in a space of 4 years. A little farther on, he said:

In the current year about one-third of the industry’s average net farm income of some $3,000 per property is required simply to meet interest payments on existing debt.

This is truly a tragic story, when $3,000 per property has to go just to pay interest and mortgage bills. The Minister is reported at page 2333 as saying:

The export of wool will earn in the current year almost $600m. Even though this is some $400m less than in 1963-64, the peak year, since 1950-51 wool remains the single largest export commodity and accounts for about 15 per cent of the total export income.

Those are a few illustrations of the plight of rural industry, mainly with reference to wool growers. I believe that other sectors of rural industry are in great trouble. For instance, in my small State of Tasmania the apple and pear growers owe Slim to exporters, banks, hire purchase companies and the like. The hop growers there are also being forced out of the industry by various factors, such as over-production, absence of guarantees and the importation by the breweries of extract hops from overseas. The apple and hop growers come within the ambit of this Bill. One could go into every State at present and find pockets of disaster such as this, with people on the brink. One wonders how farmers are able to carry on from day to day, as many of them are . burdened, worried, frustrated, discouraged, disillusioned, and weary of fighting a war that they cannot win.

Whole families are endangered. Children will have their education curtailed and their future careers put in jeopardy. The health of many farmers will be endangered, as men who sold out a few years ago or who let their sons carry on the farm now find themselves back on the farm facing health troubles, financial nightmares and work without reward. That is briefly the picture of great areas of our rural scene today. We are heading rapidly towards many conditions similar to those that applied in the depression.

The value of rural industries is immense. The total rural population working on the land in Australia is about 990,000, just under 1 million. Rural industries last year earned Australia $2,041 m in export income, or 48 per cent of our total export earnings. Therefore, this industry is well worth saving; if we do not save it, we do not save Australia.

If rural industry goes into a massive decline, the nation goes into an economic tailspin. Those critical people of the cities who sneer at the farmers will find themselves, in their thousands, tramping the streets and looking for work if the rural industries of Australia suffer a massive decline and if there is a massive walk out from them. Let us not forget that. Many of the cynics and critics will be laughing on the other side of their faces if these industries go down the drain, because city people are absolutely dependent on country people, and country people depend on city people.

The farmer, who is the grower of food, is absolutely dependent on the people in the city who eat the food, and those people who eat it are absolutely dependent on the farmer, who grows it. There should never be differences of opinion in this respect. There should be unity and a partnership and teamwork between the producer of food and the eater of food.

The rural sector supports whole country towns, of which there are thousands in Australia. Rural industries maintain decentralisation of population. They feed the cities, maintain transport arteries of road and rail, and open up new territory, but the Government has its sights fixed on the mineral explosion, with its great export income, soon to rival that of primary industry. For instance, the main mineral exports for 1970 totalled $l,067m. The estimate of earnings from the export df minerals in 1980 is $3,374m. That, in 9 years time, will be at least $1,000 more per year than is earned from the export of products from rural industry. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Government is looking to minerals to fill the gap.

The criticism of the measure is severalfold. For a start, it does not provide enough money. It is like feeding one meal a day to a person just to keep him alive. That is what this scheme will do. But in some cases that one meal a day might not be enough. It will be too little too lai for thousands of farmers. The distribution of the $100m between the States seems to me to be a very strange setup. We find that Tasmania is to receive a paltry sum of $3. 3m over 4 years, which is an average of only $825,000 a year. Although Tasmania is only small in area, there are many depressed farmers in the State. Victoria, which is one of the wealthiest States in Australia, is to receive 22 per cent of the amount allocated and New South Wales is to receive 32 per cent. Queensland, which is in a state of great distress, is to receive 16 per cent. It should be receiving 32 per cent, not 16 per cent. South Australia is to receive 12 per cent and Western Australia 14.6 per cent. I want to ask the Minister a question and I hope that he will answer it when he replies to the debate - if there is time to do so at 5 o’clock tomorrow morning. How was this money allocated between the States? What was the principle used to determine the various amounts?

Mr Sinclair:

– The States themselves determined the divison. The Commonwealth had nothing to do with it.

Mr DUTHIE:

– It was very good arithmetic if the States did this separately.

Mr Sinclair:

– No. They did it together. They went away into a huddle and then came back and said: This is how we will split the funds’.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I think that the Commonwealth got out of that matter very cunningly. The eligibility conditions will cut out at least 25,000 primary producers who will not qualify. These are the men who will be phased out of production under this scheme but who do not want to be phased out. The Government regards these men as expendable. They will not be able to meet the viability standards set out in the Schedule to the BUI. The scheme will make many big farmers bigger and will kill off thousands of small men who will be forced by banks, hire purchase firms and pastoral companies to sell out and get out. In northern Tasmania alone farmers owe $2m to one pastoral company. This company is carrying these farmers, but I wonder for how much longer it can do so. The scheme puts incredible responsibility in the hands of the State authorities set up to handle it. No other honourable members have mentioned this fact yet.

What is a viable farm? The authorities have to decide that. What standards will they lay down to distinguish the capable farmer from the incapable farmer? Here is an illustration of the imponderables which the State authorities have to decide upon. Part II of the Schedule to the Bill, which refers to debt reconstruction, states.:

  1. Purpose

To assist a farmer who although having sound prospects of long term commercial viability, has used all his cash and credit resources and cannot meet his financial commitments.

  1. Tests of Eligibility

    1. The applicant is unable to obtain finance to carry on from any other normal source -

Of course, that is the first criterion. He has to be knocked back by a bank or by somebody else from whom he is seeking money. It continues:

  1. There ls a reasonable prospect of successful operation with the assistance possible under the scheme, the prime requirement being ability to service commitments, and to reach the stage of commercial viability within a reasonable time.

That is another imponderable. Further on it states:

  1. Nature of Assistance

    1. Advances of additional funds for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development, at reasonable interest rates.

I detest these words in an agreement as important as this one. What are reasonable interest rates? Tonight we could conduct a competition on this House and we would receive about 50 different versions of what are reasonable interest rates. Why foi heavens sake could not the Bill have provided that the interest rate to be charged will be 5 per cent or 4 per cent or whatever it is, that is, to fix a set rate. A very large loophole is left in a very important piece of legislation. Further on in Part II of the Schedule to the Bill it is stated:

  1. Method of Operation

    1. In exceptional cases, advances for carry-on expenses and livestock may be made to a farmer who is not yet in immediate danger of losing property or other assets but who in the opinion of the Authority is likely to reach that position without such assistance, such cases being tested strictly against . the remaining eligibility criteria.

These are the sorts of imponderables that are written into the Schedule. The Authority has to make the vital decision. What rule will operate to decide how much a successful applicant requires to keep going under the farm build-up section? How does the Authority decide when the property is too small to be economic? This Authority will have to be a committee of supermen. They will need to be psychologists, agronomists, economists, financiers and public relations experts. They will have to assess the values of properties, the earning capacity of land, the value of stock, and a farmer’s viability. They will have to assess whether a farmer is a ‘business’ proposition and whether he has the capacity to survive even without financial help.

I believe that the interest rates are too high. For instance, this Government thinks that under this Bill it is Father Christmas, but it is not. Of the $100m being provided over 4 years to 6 States, $75m will be made available as a loan bearing interest at 6 per cent. Only $25m will be made available as a non-repayable grant over 4 years. Therefore, the Commonwealth eventually will have repaid to it by the States the whole of that $7 5m plus interest of about $500,000. So it will make a substantial profit out of the deal. The Commonwealth, under this Bill, is giving away only $25m. This is outrageous. It is an insult to primary industry in Australia. Fancy the Government making a profit out of the loan which it is to make available to help these men. The interest rate for debt reconstruction to be paid by the farmer will be 4 per cent, with advances up to 20 years. Under the farm build-up provisions the interest rate to the farmer will be 6i per cent. The States will obtain money for the cost of the administration of the scheme from the difference between the 6 per cent interest charged by the Commonwealth and the 6i per cent interest which the States will charge the farmer.

Mr Sinclair:

– No. The States will bear the administrative costs.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I thought that they were to receive something from the rate of interest charged.

Mr Sinclair:

– No. The rates will be 4 per cent and 6 per cent.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I thank the Minister. I believe that the position ought to have been reversed - that the $75m, not the $25m, ought to have been made available as an interest free grant. Farmers will not get out or seek assistance to get out until all avenues have failed. They are the last to admit that they are in desperate straits. Their whole life has been on the land. I was born on a farm and I worked on a farm during my early life. My electorate, which covers half the island of Tasmania, contains more than 20 rural industries and for 25 years I have worked as the member representing those rural industries. I know - or I ought to know - the psychology of the farmers. Their whole life has been spent on the land. It is their life blood. They have poured out blood, sweat and tears in order to keep their farms going and to seek security. Not many of them are going to admit voluntarily that they are in such desperate trouble that they will run to the Government for help.

The rehabilitation section of this Bill, which provides for the granting of a loan of $1,000 to help a farmer to get another job, is an insult. Other measures should be introduced in order to help rural industries. Firstly, the taxation concessions should be reviewed. Secondly, price control should be imposed on selected items. I would like to see control of wages and control of prices. Then we would stop inflation and the people would know where they were going. Money would be buying goods at fixed prices; the prices would not be changed every fortnight. Thirdly, a review of tariffs should be made to lift the burden off primary producers. The review should cover several imported items such as commercial vehicles, chemicals, drenches, and farm equipment which is unobtainable from Australian manufacturers. Fourthly, consideration should be given to the introduction of a mortatorium- - 1 say this quite seriously - in relation to this distressed section of the industry. Fifthly, a Commonwealth select committee should carry out an investigation into the fertiliser industry in order to dig out the restrictive trade practices that are being carried on by fertiliser manufacturers to the disadvantage of farmers.

There should be an increase in the number of farmer co-operatives by which they could control the growth, processing and sale of their own production, thereby cutting down the high cost to the consumer. I believe too that a new development of farmer organisations in a 50/50 business partnership with the Australian Council of Trade Unions should be examined further in the fields of food and fruit processing. Such a scheme could cut the costs to the consumer and lift the contract price to the farmer because there would be no profit motive. In many of these fields the difference between the price paid to the farmer and the price paid by the consumer after the product has been processed ranges from 700 per cent to 1,000 per cent. Along the line from the paddock to the plate is where the great trouble lies today for the farmer. The men in between are getting the fat and the profits out of his production. The farmer receives a low price and the consumer has to pay a high price. One illustration of this is frozen peas. The farmer receives 3c a lb for his peas and the consumer pays 30c a lb, a difference of about 800 per cent. The farmer receives 27c a lb for his wool but when his wife buys knitting wool in a shop she pays for it at the rate of $5 a lb. The increase in the price of meat from the paddock to the plate is 250 per cent. These are the areas which we have to tackle as well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– The time for consideration of these Bills is short and I shall be very brief. One must admit immediately - here I agree with the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie)- that the problems of the primary industries are great; indeed immense. Because these problems are complex the answers are not easy to find. There will be some differences of . opinion upon these. Again, one must admit that they present a human and a social problem that requires compassion as well as economic analysis. The problem is an industrial one which affects the whole of the rural industry, and the wool industry in particular. Its ramifications spread far through the countryside and into the city. It is also a national problem of great concern to all of us. It is, as the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) has made very clear, very much a political problem upon which those who practice politics will pounce with great glee in the hope of deriving some benefit from some line of argument which may be unrelated to the needs of people in primary industries.

Of course, the wool industry is important from the point of view of foreign exchange, as has been mentioned by more than one speaker tonight. If this industry means something like S600m, more or less, then we cannot with equanimity see such an industry disappear from the scene. Foreign exchange, of course, is absolutely vital to us. A dollar of foreign currency may well be worth more than a dollar of Australian money to buy it. It is something which is worth buying and something worth paying for. How much extra we need to pay for that commodity- that is a dollar of foreign exchange - and how we should do this, are problems that I will not attempt to answer in the short time that I have. I merely say that this problem does exist. If one is concerned only with foreign exchange and nothing else - for a moment let us isolate that matter - it also means that we are concerned with those who produce most of the wool. I am confining myself to the wool industry here. As I understand it - the figures may not be accurate but the point is made clear by these simple figures - about 15 per cent of wool growers produce about 75 per cent of the wool in terms of its value in money. So it is those people especially with whom we are concerned if we are thinking only of foreign exchange and the national interest, of course, in foreign exchange. This, of course, is to forget altogether about the human and social aspects of the matter.

Now, what of the future? No-one can answer this with any certainty at all. But I think that in an age of synthetics, and looking to the trends particularly in the more sophisticated countries in North America and Europe, few will suppose that wool will ever return to the situation that it occupied in the past. Whether the price of wool may be 25c, 30c or 35c a lb noone knows but one can be tolerably certain that the price will not be very much above the topmost limit that I have mentioned. So some have suggested that before doing something that may result in a number of farmers leaving the land - highly skilled people who cannot easily be restored to their former occupation if wool should recover even to some extent - we should have the best kind of survey that we can get made by competent investigators, people skilled in financial and economic analysis. The Government should obtain such a report before it does something that may result in a great shift in the structure of primary industry. I do not believe that we have time to do this. I think the outline is tolerably clear, that is to say, that wool will not return to its former position. It will remain always relatively less important or less viable than it was in the past. Therefore, we should press on with such remedies as may appear reasonable at this time.

It appears to me that 2 things have to be done. Here I would address myself to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because under Standing Orders I am required to do so. But in addressing myself to you, Sir, I hope that the honourable member for Riverina will hear me. I put to you, Sir, that not King Canute can hold back the tide. 1 put to you, Sir, that those who can be made viable should be assisted to do so. But there are those who canot under any circmstances be made viable, and they cannot remain on the land. It may be, Sir, that they wil go through much travail and this country may go through much travail not much assisted in that process by people such as the honourable member for Riverina because he is one who will say: Oh, they should stay on the land at all costs; we will subsidise them and they must stay there’. The burden of subsidisation will become so great that it will break down. Farmers may go through the turmoil of a Labor government which has promised them something that it cannot perform any more than Canute could keep the sea back. So they may go through this process until they learn that the impossible cannot be done. After some years of sorrow they may finally have to face the facts. Anyone who tells them otherwise is not their friend. There is always pain in adapting to a new situation but there is no reason why that pain should be made greater by people who are not concerned with their welfare but with some political advantage.

These are the things that have to happen. Those who can be helped to become viable must receive that help, and those who cannot must be, not moved from the land, but assisted to move as painlessly as possible because adaption is the law of life. This is why there are no brontosaurus wandering about in the paddocks here.

Mr Grassby:

– They are all in the Government.

Mr TURNER:

– They did not adapt themselves. Oh, there is a troglodyte or two over there. There was a change in the climate and they could not adapt; a change of circumstances and they could not adapt. So they are all dead. As I have said, adaption is the law of life. Here we see a great technological change and we cannot resist it. We can make the transition to a different situation easier, or by pretending that it is not there and that there is no need for adaption, we can make it a lot harder and much more painful for the people who in the long run must change, and not the very long run at that. King Canute cannot rule for very long.

How then is the pain of these people to be eased? That is really the question which those who are concerned from a national, an economic, a social and a compassionate point of view must answer. There may well be those who are of such an age that they cannot change and cannot learn some other skill or go to some other occupation. In that case I think the question of pensions should be considered. I am not suggesting exactly what should be done but I do know, for example, that old soldiers on attaining 60 years of age receive a pension that others do not receive until they are 65. We may have to consider the question of pensions in respect of those who are too old to move from their present occupation to another. For those who are younger, we must consider the question of retraining. Something has been said about this tonight - that the Government has introduced a scheme of re-training for those who, for technological reasons, can no longer pursue their old occupations in secondary industry. But exactly the same thing applies to those who must move from primary industry to something else. Although the scheme does make some provision for this, I do not remember that anything was said about primary industry at the time it was introduced, surprisingly it seemed to me. I cannot help feeling that it should be made much more a planned scheme, especially geared to the needs of this situation. It is all very well to say that people can go to a technical college of their choice or do something else to receive training but I think that we must gear the scheme specifically for this task and recognise that there is a special problem and make special arrangements for it.

Then there is the question of resettlement. It may be that some people can go from wool into some other primary industry, but perhaps not many. It may be that most of them will have to go into secondary industries. Where are they to settle? Are they to stay on the fringes of the great cities - on the fringes of Melbourne, Sydney and so forth? It seems to me that here is a first class opportunity to do something about real decentralisation of population. For years we have been toying with this, because the only schemes that were put forward were economically impossible, unviable. They meant scattering handfuls of people around the countryside and everybody who has made even the most cursory study of this matter is well aware that small communities of this kind are simply not economically viable. Indeed, this fact has been made perfectly clear by the recent research of, I think, a Dr Patterson in Victoria. This, of course, was well known, but it has now been made quite explicit. Here is an opportunity to do something about this so that country people who have to leave the land will not be forced on to the fringes of the great cities which themselves have become very unpleasant places in which to live.

Some panaceas have been proposed. The Opposition obviously has an inclination to keep on the land people who ought not to be there. I know that the terms of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) who lead for the Opposition in this debate seem restrictive and have been so represented, but at heart I believe that to win votes the Australian Labor Party would try to keep people on the land who ought not to be there. I am sure that that would be the attitude of the honourable member for Riverina. (Mr Grassby). But to do this is no kindness to people. It is no solution; it is simply putting off the time of adaptation which cannot be postponed indefinitely. Therefore, it is no answer to this problem.

We have had suggestions made about price support but I think that we would have to be very chary of this. We have seen this in other rural industries and its consequences have been, in some cases, quite disastrous and in no cases very successful. Then again, it has been suggested by some that wool is a splendid fibre and if we could exercise some monopoly power in its distribution we should be able to jack up the price. There has even been some talk that our Wool Commission, in conjunction with similar bodies in other wool producing countries such as South Africa and New Zealand could, as it were, hold the buyers to ransom. But wool has not a monopoly. There may be only one thing that is called wool, but there are many other artificial fibres that will very well serve the purpose of wool. Wool does not have a monopoly and we cannot use monopoly power in this way. Any attempt to use the Wool Commission or to enter into some arrangement with other wool producing countries would be doomed to disaster. In such circumstances I believe there would be a great changeover on the part of manufacturers of fabrics to artificial fibres.

I have spoken longer than I intended to speak but I should like to say a few words on the Bill. I regret that the administration, is to be carried out in collaboration with the States. I believe that only one State, New South Wales, has an organisation in being that can do this kind of thing. Too many concessions have been made to the States for too few advantages in return. I believe that if it had been proposed to administer this scheme through the Commonwealth Development Bank and perhaps acquire the services of some of the skilled people in New South Wales, this would have kept the matter entirely under the control of the Commonwealth and we could have had much more uniformity in administration and much more control over the rather vague kinds of criteria that have been laid down. Perhaps I can give an example here. In the Schedule, which includes the proposed agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, we find that the purpose is threefold - to provide for debt reconstruction, for farm build-up and for rehabilitation. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule states: the financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth under this agreement shall be allocated between the forms of assistance under the Scheme as the State considers appropriate . . .

That is, as between those 3 forms of assistance, the allocation shall be as the States consider appropriate with a certain exception in respect of one of the things, namely, farm build-up. Why should this be different in one State from another? I merely say that, because administration has been handed to the States, we will get all kinds of anomalies in the way this scheme is administered. Then again, we find this kind of vagueness: Paragraph 10 of the Schedule states:

The provisions of the Schedule to this agreement may be amended from time to time by agreements between the Ministers of the Commonwealth and of the States for the time being responsible for the administration of the scheme.

Although the Parliament will have approved of the Schedule, which is the form of the agreement, Ministers can alter it at any time, presumably without any reference to the Parliament. So really, we are almost wasting our time. This is just a form that may be followed or altered at will by the Ministers concerned. I believe that it would have been better had the administration come completely under the control of the Commonwealth and the States had not been involved in it at all.

Finally, there is the question of reports. Because pf this vagueness, how shall the Parliament know, how shall the public know, whether the purposes of the scheme are being carried into effect - that is to say, whether those who are viable are being helped and only those who are viable and whether those who are not viable are not being helped to stay on the land at public expense to no advantage in the end because, in the end, they shall have to leave? How are we to know this? I see no provision for reports which would enable us to determine this. Indeed, I should have liked to move- but I gathered from something that the Minister said earlier that he would not have accepted it - that the State authorities responsible for the administration of the scheme should provide to the State governments detailed reports ot assistance provided, with notes on the economic viability of each farmer assisted, and that these reports should be forwarded to the Commonwealth Government for presentation to this House each financial year. It is only by the tabling of such reports, so that they are public property, available not only to members of the House but also to members of the public and particularly to those economists and people in universities who have special expertise in these matters, that samples can be examined and some conclusion can be reached as to whether the purposes of the scheme are really being carried out or whether people are being left on the land and assisted to remain on the land, through State administration, who ought to be taken off it.

I would like to say finally that it may well be true that the amount of money to be provided under this scheme will not be sufficient and that more is needed. I want to say at once that I am not one who feels parsimonious in this matter at all. I recognise with compassion that the change to a different way of life is something that must affect all our hearts and minds. I would not be niggardly and those people who have to change should be treated generously and with true compassion. If there is not enough money under r.his scheme more should be made available. We should do the two things I have said, the two things that stand out to be done and will happen anyhow over a period of time whatever you do and however you try to hold back the tide. We should do these things so as to cause as little pain as inevitably there must be in this change.

If you are to play politics, tell all of them that they can stay on the land, that they will be wanted there, that the prize of wool will go up, that you can use a monopoly power, that you can provide suosidies and that sort of thing and they can continue with the kind of life to which they are accustomed. If you want to be unkind tell them all those things but if you are to be realistic and kind and save them unnecessary pain tell them the truth and help them to make that adaptation which inevitably must be forced upon them in the fullness of time and not a great length of time at that.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (10.51) - The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) said that the Australian Labor Party wants to keep people on the land who should not be there. He attacked the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) by falsifying his arguments. The honourable member for Riverina did not say that no-one should go off the land. He submitted that the great majority should stay. His job for 7 years was to bring to the farmers information and improved techniques. The honourable member’s job here is to expose the Government and the Government’s apathy and incompetence. In my opinion he does both. But the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) has indicated the thinking of the LiberalCountry Party coalition on the problems of rural industry. The honourable member for Moore went to a lot of trouble to prove that the new Labor Government in Western Australia has not solved in 6 weeks the problems of the rural industry which had been built up by the previous Government in that State over a period of 14 years. Of course it should be obvious to anyone that these problems cannot be solved overnight, and this is where this Government is so much at fault.

This Government should have produced many years ago a plan for reconstruction of the rural industry. But on a second thought it may be that it is just as well this never happened because if a plan had been produced and it was no better than the one now under discussion we would not be any better off in another 20 years. I believe that it is impossible to judge the merits or failings of this Bill without giving some consideration to the emergency financal assistance scheme for the wool industry. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) must have been thinking along these lines because in his second reading speech he said:

Receipts of the wool industry fell by nearly $100m : in 1968-69 and 1969-70, giving rise to the necessity for the emergency financial assistance scheme for wool growers introduced late in 1970. This was intended as a short term measure which was recognised would help only a proportion of the cases of financial hardship caused by the fall in prices.

No doubt everyone will agree that there was a necessity for emergency financial asistance, and this scheme did help only a small proportion of the cases of financial hardship caused by the fall in wool prices. As a matter of fact, many honourable members whose electorate covers the wool growing areas would know that the wrong people benefited by the scheme, and some morally most entitled and financially most in need of assistance missed out altogether. Although one must admit that the Minister and his office were trying to do something for these cases, the emergency Bill did have many shortcomings and wool growers whose only sin was to try to provide for the future by following accepted farm practices of keeping costs down by producing more wool, and who borrowed money to restock, received an increase in wool sales but an overall greater financial loss for the year. The whole operation was one that could not be avoided if these graziers wished to carry on in future years, and yet it eliminated them from assistance at the time when they required it most.

I mention these things because I believe that the emergency Bill was introduced on a take it or leave it basis and this Bill we have before us today is being introduced in the same manner. When the emergency Bill was introduced we were told that it was necessary to get some help to wool growers quickly, and everyone was aware that the country towns badly needed a financial injection. For these reasons there was some justification for the introduction of the emergency assistance, particularly when this great promise of $100m rural assistance was just around the corner. The hard pressed wool growers were led to expect something much more than the assistance received under the emergency scheme, but it is quite obvious that many have been let down and left in the same hopeless financial position as they were in before the introduction of emergency relief. The Minister states that ‘the rural reconstruction scheme provides for assistance by way of debt reconstruction, farm build-up and rehabilitation of those obliged to leave the industry when this is necessary to alleviate conditions of personal hardship’.

It is all very nicely put but it all boils down to the fact that it is a scheme of farm adjustment policies directed at low income farms by a system of farm amalgamation schemes plus a hint that measures may be taken to ease the movement of low income farmers out of the industry. But the Bill itself gives no guidelines of what may be termed a low income farm, but it is noticeable that it does mention that the survey by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1966-67 indicated that some 20 per cent of wool growers in Australia had net farm incomes of less than $2,000 per annum. It may be this is some indication of Government thinking on this point. To my mind it is not important whether $2,000 or some rather lower or higher figure is the appropriate point to distinguish low from adequate income earners. The most important thing is that a substantial proportion of Australian farmers appear to be earning incomes too low to give them a chance of financing further investment necessary to enable them to maintain parity with the rest of the community. It is not sufficient that they maintain their present income levels. Inevitably if they cannot increase them they will become uneconomic income farms. In my opinion it is not enough for the Minister to say that this Bill does not represent a policy of ‘get big or get out’ or a policy of forcing people off the land, unless he clearly lays down the guidelines of a scheme that will improve the position of the small farmer and help him to stay on the land or give him some chance to stay on the land.

It appears to me that this Bill was not designed to assist the smaller farmer! ft will benefit mainly the larger commercial farmer. At the same time the low income farmer can do little about the low income problem other than leave the industry, wilh a significant capital loss and often illequipped to earn income to house and provide for his family. This, of course, raises consideration of the last portion of this Bill -Part IV, Rehabilitation - the purpose of which is:

To provide limited assistance to those obliged to leave the industry where in the opinion of the Authority administering the scheme this is necessary to alleviate conditions of personal hardship.

In my opinion, this is the cruelest part of the Bill, which provides for $100m assistance. Here we have the section most affected by conditions in rural industry. Because of circumstances beyond their control, plus the very function of this Bill, they have become redundant. What is the great assistance these people are to receive? Many of them are farmers who have already had to wait years too long for some action from the Government.

At the discretion of the Authority administering the scheme they may receive a loan up to a maximum of $1,000. What an insult to these people. It is easy to see whom the Government had in mind when drawing up this scheme. No-one can give an answer on the percentage of wool growers who will become redundant when this scheme is operating, but some opinions vary from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the present wool growers. If we include the share farmer, this figure would be much higher, but in many cases the share farmer has already become redundant. After spending many hard working years in this industry he has already packed up and left, with great financial loss. So also have many of the farmers. This gives some indication of the thinking of the Government on how the rural problem should be solved! - at the expense of those unable to- carry on and those who have become redundant in the industry. We have been told how greatly our country has depended on our wool industry for foreign exchange. It has been said that we have been riding on the sheep’s back. Whichever way one likes to describe it, the fact is that Australia owes a great deal to the wool grower. Is this his reward when he has met hard times and is down on his knees and when he has become redundant?

Why are these people - good hardworking Australians - treated like second rate citizens? Why are they offered such an insulting redundancy or severance scheme? Redundancy schemes or severance schemes are recognised all over the world and they are part and parcel of many agreements in this country. If any trade unionist were to accept a severance scheme such as the ona in this Bill he would be tarred and feathered by the rank and file. No self respecting member of this Parliament should accept such an insult as this severance scheme for the wool growers. In the ‘Maritime Workers Journal’ we see that 120 redundant wharf labourers are to receive $400,000 redundancy payment. I am told that this represents several years on full wages. When the east-west rail service took over the section of the Silverton tramway line the employees received 12 months pay as they became redundant. Many of them did not miss a day’s work; nor did they have to move out of their homes.

The Broken Hill mine workers have a clause in their agreement which provides for $100 a year after the first year of service, up to a maximum of $2,500, plus fares for the family to a new area and other assistance should they be unable to sell their homes. These are straight out payments, but the workers also can obtain housing loans to settle in new areas. I know something about these schemes because I was at the negotiating table when they were drawn up. The Government has not provided the leadership required to establish a unity of purpose in the rural community, but we all know that it has done a better job with the overseas mining companies who have the best of our mineral resources. It has done a better job among the big manufacturers. The only excuse I have heard is that the Government was waiting for the industry to tell it what it should do. All I can say is that, it this Bill represents what the Government thinks the wool industry wants, then it has been talking to different farmers from the ones I meet and it must mix with different people from the groups from whom 1 receive correspondence. Today I have received a letter from the Lachlan Shire Council, which reads as follows:

At the meeting of the Council held on 28th April 1971 it was resolved that representations be made to the Minister for Primary Industry that to enable the rural industry to be viable and progressive, provision be written into the Rural Reconstruction legislation now before the House, for the establishment of rural loans over a term of SO years at reasonable rates to rural producers, for the purpose of land purchases and development and to establish rural industries.

Of course the rural producers need long term loans. This is what the industry is asking for. I say to honourable members on the Government side, who claim falsely that Labor members do not represent the majority of primary producers in their electorates, that unless they do something to provide such things as long term loans and unless they raise their voices against the insulting severance offer they are out of contact with primary industry and out of touch with the needs of the primary producer. I know that some honourable members opposite think that they have more in common with rural industry than have Opposition members, because they return to work on their farms occasionally; but how can they get so out of touch with rural industry? I think that they are very foolish to remind anyone of these matters, because they are the very ones that put them out of touch with the majority of primary producers.

If the primary producers in my electorate were to have a parliamentary salary injected into their annual income they would not be so concerned about the hopeless Bill that is before the House tonight. The Government has not provided the leadership required to establish unity of purpose in the rural community, and claims about the number of primary producers that an honourable member represents will do nothing to establish unity of purpose; nor will it do anything to solve the primary producers’ problems. I agree with the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) when he says that we should put politics aside and try to produce an effective rural reconstruction scheme. In my opinion, the best way to do that is to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! Before calling the hon ourable member for Murray I remind the House that this is his maiden speech, and I ask the House to show to him the usual courtesies. I call the honourable member for Murray.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

- Mr Deputy Speaker, if I believed that this Bill was the only attempt by the Government to grapple with the problems facing the rural community, both socially and agriculturally, 1 would not be very happy. If it became obvious that the Bill had shortcomings and needed amendments in its administration, in the amount of finance or in its scope, and there was no provision for consultation and amendment to it, I would still be most unhappy, because in my view this Bill by itself does not solve anything. But then it is not meant to. It is meant, as I see it, to provide a measure of social justice to people in the rural community and to a certain extent to help some farmers to obtain a more viable status for the future. When we are talking about farmers or farming we are talking about people. I am glad that this point has been made several times tonight, because through helping farmers in many areas we are also helping the people in the small country towns who depend on them. Whole regions can be helped or devastated, depending on the future profitability or viability of farming in these areas.

The debt reconstruction and build-up provisions in the Bill no doubt are of agricultural significance because they will help to restructure some farms both physically and financially. But I believe that for an adequate policy for the future we need parallel or complementary initiatives in agricultural policy and that if we do not have them we will find higher net income groups coming down into the marginal or sub-marginal sections which are at present under reconstruction and will have a continuing downward pressure of more people into this group who require salvage operations. To me, the 2 points of agricultural policy that have to be looked at urgently to make sure that this does not happen are wool and rural credit facilities. Others have made the point that the wool industry is the dominant primary industry and that its future profitability holds the key to the adequacy of the present legislation. I hope that the Government will have some measures to strengthen the wool industry either for the start of the new wool selling season or perhaps in the Budget. The other point is rural credit The drop is net farm income due to the cost-price squeeze of the 1960s, the drought situation through much of Australia and the fact that capital is replacing labour in our agricultural system, all add up to the staggering debt situation at the present time. I believe that the long term survival of the family farm in Aus-, tralia is dependent to a large extent on its ability in the future to obtain and manage capital.

Others tonight have suggested different groups of farmers and their liability ratings. I would suggest four groups. We have in the top group those who can survive on present prices and who will be able to service their debt load in the future. The second group will be people who can survive on present prices but who, if they are to continue to have an income parity with the rest of the community which the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) mentioned, will have increasing trouble in servicing their debt load. Then we have in the 2 lowest groups those who can survive only with debt adjustment and those who are rehabilitation cases. Of course, it is the 2 bottom categories that are covered by the framework of this legislation. Unless we can improve our rural credit facilities, the second group of those who can survive at present prices but who in the long term will have increasing difficulty in servicing their debt load and still have a reasonable standard of living - in turn will join the reconstruction group. The biggest single factor in rural credit is long repayment periods, particularly if this is combined with an initial capital holiday. I believe this is more important than low interest rates, but. low interest rates nevertheless are important.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that the Commonwealth Development Bank is to be allowed to provide money for build-up purposes, and that $10m has been advanced for this. I would like to congratulate the Minister and the Government on this provision. I also welcome the news that legislation concerning the Rural Loans Insurance Corporation should be presented fairly soon. I hope that this legislation will result in the institutional lenders providing loans over longer terms and also allow a higher percentage of the net assets or the sale value of the property to be loaned. One of the ironies of the present rural depression is that at a time when some people need capital to improve the efficiency of their farming they are unable to obtain it, even if they could service it, because the drop in land values has reduced their ability to borrow.

If, as a result of the rural loans insurance corporation - or whatever it finally will be called - when it is established - we still have this credit gap, then I believe we should look at what all the other advanced agricultural countries have had to do and that is, to provide specialist credit agencies outside the general commercial system of lending. If we have to do this it would not in my opinion necessarily imply criticism of our institutional lenders or special pleading for primary industry. To me it would be a recognition of the simple fact that if you want a dynamic agriculture to survive you have to have a facility such as this.

I want to refer to 2 short quotations to support what I have said. One is from the December 1968 issue of ‘Farm Policy’. It contains an article on ‘Low farm income policies in the United States’, written by Luther G. Tweeton, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University. He wrote:

The Farmers Home Administration, established to finance farmers unable to obtain adequate credit from other sources, continues to operate under the same basic framework as established in 1946. Technical management assistance is often provided together with loans. In 1967, the principal indebtedness of the farmer who was borrowing could not exceed $60,000. The maximum term was 40 years; interest was 5 per cent. Federal subsidies to the FHA to support farm and rural housing loans -

Of course, they are just a part of their overall loans system - from 1961 to 1966 ranged from $349 to $160m per year.

Just to show that there are people who are not members of primary industry organisations in Australia who support this also, I want to quote from the December 1970 issue of the same magazine. I refer to an article ‘Policy and programs for rural reconstruction’ by Mauldon and Schapper.

Under the heading ‘Debt Refinancing’ they stated:

  1. . apart from the present need to extend loans through time, institutional credit facilities in Australia to finance land purchases beyond 10-15 years are the exception rather than the rule. Farmers in most other developed countries have credit agencies which lend for periods up to 35 years, and beyond in some cases.

Some States have expressed some doubts on aspects of the Bill, particularly in relation to paragraph 6 of the Schedule. This states:

Subject to the provisions expressly made by this agreement, the financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth under this agreement shall be allocated between the forms of assistance under the Scheme as the State considers appropriate but with the general objective that one half of the financial assistance made available over the period of 4 years as hereinafter provided will be applied to farm build-up.

In other words, it would be generally a 50- 50 division between debt reconstruction and farm build-up. I hope that particularly in the initial period, the first 2 years, this scheme will be administered flexibly. This is because of the more urgent need in the initial part of the scheme for debt reconstruction rather than farm buildup. I would like some assurance that the administration will be flexible in relation to this point.

As I said before in regard to 1 particular point, it will generally need to be administered flexibly and humanely. We will have to be ready to amend it. If experience reveals certain points that may have to be strengthened, more finance may have to be made available and so forth. To me the Bill represents a genuine attempt to provide social justice to a group of people who, because of a fall in land values, probably have lost most if not all of their life investment or life savings and who, while they are on their properties, I understand, are not eligible for social service benefits. This will provide a future in agriculture for those people who qualify under the debt reconstruction and farm build-up scheme.

This is not a generous scheme by world standards. It is of interest to note that the Common Market countries, which for 3 years have been studying the Mansholt plan for the restructuring of West European agriculture, finally reached agreement in Brussels on 25th March this year. Those people developed an agricultural reconstruction policy. Admittedly they have a far greater problem and a far greater number of people is involved, but their policy does leave ours behind. At the same time, our policy is a step in the right direction and I welcome it. To conclude, I would like to draw attention to another part of the Schedule. Part I (a), under the heading ‘General Principles’, states:

It is recognised that in respect of farm build-up< the particular circumstances of some industries (e.g. apples, pears, dried vine fruits) may need additional special consideration.

I notice that the Minister did refer to the horticultural industries in his second reading speech. I understand that the canning pear industry in the Goulburn Valley is considering such a reconstruction scheme at the present time. I am no expert on horticulture or oh pears, but there are some real problems there, as some honourable members may know. With regard to reconstruction, the canning fruit growing industry, along with other horticultural industries, is involved in the permanent planting of trees and, in many cases, the word ‘reconstruction’ really means the removal of these trees so that production can be brought to a more satisfactory level in line with current market demand.

I am told - in fact, I know - that concerted action is being taken by the industry to find new markets and new products, but this is a long term proposition. New markets, particularly markets of any quantity, cannot be found overnight. It is estimated that by 1976 the 13,000 acres of canning pear trees in the Victorian Goulburn Valley are likely to produce about 140,000 tons of pears. Current market outlets, and allowing for some growth in the market, indicate a market potential of about 100,000 tons. So I believe that it is in some way a growing problem. The Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association, which is the major representative of the pear growers in the Shepparton-Kyabram area, is considering at the present time proposals for a special reconstruction scheme for the industry and is thinking of it in 4 parts. The first part relates to personal hardship assistance for pear growers, application for which is before the Government at the present time. The second part is a tree-pulling programme to reduce some of the initial over-production. This is to be followed by farm build-up, amalgamation and rehabilitation.

I would like to refer to the problems of some of these pear growers at this time. In the canning season just ended there was an estimated crop of approximately 95,000 to 100,000 tons of pears for canning in the Goulburn Valley. Of that amount the canneries were able to take only 70,000 tons. Incidentally, nobody in the industry wanted the canneries to take more because they already had quite a carry-over of pears from the previous year. But the effect on some of the growers, whose quotas had been severely restricted by the general restrictions or cannery restrictions to balance the intake of pears and peaches, has been severe financial hardship. Some of them have insufficient income to cover their daily cash costs. Those costs do not include the cost of chemicals or other variable farm costs. They are day to day living expenses for food and clothing, and so on. These people, while they remain on their farms, are ineligible I believe, for social services, as I understand the position. If they left, particularly if they left as a group, their farms or orchards would bring very poor prices on the open market now because of these restrictions. The capital value of farms and orchards would be virtually nil if a flood of these orchards came on the market. About 100 growers of the total of 600 belonging to the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association are shown, after a survey, to be in this desperate financial plight. As I said, at the present time this matter is before the Government. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) very graciously saw Mr Hugh Cope and myself on this matter. In conclusion I would just make a plea for the social welfare of these people.

Sitting suspended from 11.26 p.m. to 12 midnight.

page 2622

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aboriginals: Prospecting Rights (Question No. 3264)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there are known cases where persons who are not Aborigines have obtained prospecting rights over large areas of Aboriginal Reserves and subsequently sub-let these rights to others.
  2. If so, did this occur in the case of the Adelaide Lady and the uranium field discovered by Queensland Minerals.
  3. Does this practice have the approval of the Government.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. There are no known cases of sub-letting as such. Some prospecting authority holders, however, are known to have entered into contracts under which the other parly has agreed to undertake prospecting work and has been given an option over any mineral leases granted to the prospecting authority holder.
  2. It is understood Mrs G. Stevens of Adelaide and her 2 daughters have entered into contractual arrangements with Queensland Mines Ltd along the lines mentioned in (1) in respect of a prospecting authority held by Mrs Stevens and her 2 daughters in which a uranium deposit has been discovered.
  3. Under the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance there is no way in which prospecting authorities can be transferred or sub-let. However, the Ordinance does not preclude contractual arrangements of the type referred to in (1) and (2).

Electoral (Question No. 3289)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can’ he say which countries indicate the Party designation of candidates on the ballot papers for Parliamentary elections.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. See answer to Question No. 141 (Hansard’ dated 10th June 1970) and Question No. 1678 (Hansard dated 16th September 1970).

Commonwealth Electoral Act: Penalties (Question No. 3189)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the penalty for each offence first inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
  2. What are the (a) details of each penalty, (b) last amendments in each case and (c) amounts of the penalties at the present time.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) See attached table.

Electoral (Question No. 3288)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Why are Party designations of candidates not shown on ballot papers in Commonwealth elections.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. See answers to Question No. 1677 (Hansard dated 16th September 1970).

Electoral: Expenditure (Question No. 3190)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what expenditure is permitted for (a) candidates and (b) organisations in general elections in (i) the United States of America, (ii) the United Kingdom and (iii) New Zealand.
  2. If so, what are the provisions relating to the expenditure and returns to be made in each case.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. (a) United States of America- Unless State Legislation prescribes lesser amounts permissible expenditure for candidates is limited to-

House of Representatives: $2,500 or 3c for each vote cast for the office at the last general election but not exceeding $5,000. Senate: $10,000 or 3c for each vote cast at last Senate election but not over $25,000. No limitations of any kind are placed on the personal receipts or expenditure of candidates for President and Vice-President. United Kingdom - The maximum expenditure which may be incurred by a candidate is:

In county constituencies - £750 plus ls for every 6 entries in the register of electors and for any less number of entries above a multiple of 6. In borough constituencies - £750, plus ls for every 8 entries in the register of electors and for any less number of entries above a multiple of 8. New Zealand - The total election expenses of a candidate shall in no case exceed £500. (l)(b) United States of America- The law provides that political committees (the equivalent of political parties) may neither receive nor spend more than $3m during any calendar year. The ceiling does not apply to committees which confine their activities to nomination for federal office. It does not restrict the number of interstate committees, each of which may receive or expend funds within the designated ceiling.

United Kingdom - There is no limitation on the expenditure incurred by an organisation.

New Zealand - The New Zealand Electoral Act does not provide for the limitation of expenditure incurred by organisations.

  1. Under United States legislation every candidate for Senator must file with the Secretary of the Senate a correct and itemised account of each contribution received, and each expenditure made, by the candidate. Every candidate for Representative, every political committee and every individual mustfile with the Clerk of the House of Representatives an itemised detailed statement of expenditure. All contributions made to or for a political committee or candidate must also be reported by that committee or candidate. Neither the President nor the Vice-President are required to report their personal receipts or expenditures.

United Kingdom legislation provides that all expenditures made by or in support of a particular candidate must be made by or through the election agent of the candidate. The election agent must submit to the Returning Officer a sworn account of all the election expenditures and a statement of money or securities received by the agent for campaign expenditure.

The New Zealand legislation provides that every candidate shall submit to the Returning Officer a report of his expenses, including bills and parlicu- lary all expenditures of over £NZ2.

Electricity: Costs (Question No. 2481)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information on comparative electricity costs which his predecessor gave me on 9 June 1970. (Hansard, page 3197).

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The information sought by the honourable member is set out in the table below. Returns are influenced by such factors as climate, average consumption and the proportions of different consumer classes (e.g. commercial/industrial, domestic). Without detailed knowledge about these factors it would be difficult to make valid comparisons between the returns received by the electricity undertakings in the cities listed.

Doctors’ Fees (Question No. 2532)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Has his Department conducted a survey of doctors’ fees since 1968(Hansard, 12 June 1970, page 3580).
  2. If so, what did the survey show to be the most common fees charged for (a) surgery consultations, (b) home consultations and (c) confinements in each State and Territory.
  3. By what amount and percentage did payments of (a) Fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits to members by registered medical benefits organisations in the December quarter of 1970 exceed the payments in the December quarter of 1969 (Hansard, 16 February 1971, page 16).
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) A survey of doctors’ fees in 1970 showed the following most common fees in each State for these services:

Separate figures are not available for tho Australian Capita) Territory or the Northern Territory.

  1. The following information has been extracted from claims processed by the Department during the quarters ended 31 December 1969 and 31 December 1970: (a) Fund benefit payments in quarter -

Increase . . (b) Commonwealth quarter -

benefit payments in

Naval Dockyards (Question No. 3150)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Has the study on the requirement for naval dockyards been completed?
  2. If so, when will the report be made public?
Dr Mackay:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The report, which is a reference document for planning purposes, is confidential to the Government and will not be made public.

Canberra Hospital: Abortions (Question No. 3027)

Mr Enderby:

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

  1. How many abortions were carried out in the Canberra Community Hospial during the year ending 30 June 1970.
  2. How many abortions have been carried out in the same hospital since that date.
  3. What reasons were given for these abortions.
  4. What proportion of the total number of abortions performed did each class of reasons constitute.
  5. Was there a significant proportionate drop in abortions during the period from 30 June 1970 to date over those for the year 1969-70; if so, why.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

    1. (3)

Medical reasons included severe cardiac disease, advanced renal disease, severe hypertension, advanced diabetes and acute leukaemia.

(4)

Orthopaedic reasons (5) No.

Earth Resources Technology Satellite Programme (Question No. 3041)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Have discussions been held between the Department of Supply and other departments regarding the possibility of Australia participating in the Earth Resources Satellite Programme of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America.
  2. If so, which departments have been involved in the discussions.
  3. Which departments have expressed interest in participating in the programme and what were the names of the applicants submitted by each.
  4. When will a decision be made regarding the participation by Australia in the programme.
  5. Can the Minister say whether some countries have deckled to participate because of the potential benefits from the programme in such areas as land use surveys, communications, pollution monitoring, geological surveying and crop disease surveys.
  6. If so, what are the reasons for any delay in a decision by Australia.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. Yes. Following the visit by Dr Paine, then Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to Australia in early 1970, meetings were held between the Department of Supply and other departments to discuss possible Australian participation in the future NASA programme. Working groups were established to examine the various applications satellite projects, including one on Earth Resources. As a number of branches of the Department of National Development are directly concerned with Earth Resources, that Department agreed to co-ordinate the work of the group.
  2. The following Commonwealth Departments have been involved in the discussions of the Earth Resources group:

National Development Education and Science Primary Industry the Interior the Army Supply

  1. The following are those Australian authorities known to be interested at present in participating in the NASA, Earth Resources Satellite programme:

Antarctic Division, Department of Supply CSIRO, Department of Education and Science

Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Department of National Development

Division of National Mapping, Department of National Development

Forestry and Timber Bureau, Department of National Development

Water, Power and Geographic Branch, Department of National Development

State Departments of Mines and Environmental Protection

Universities, of Adelaide, Newcastle and Western Australia.

  1. An Australian proposal for participation in NASA’s initial Earth Resources Technology Satellite project - ERTS-A scheduled for launch in March, 1972 - was forwarded to NASA on 8th April 1971. A further proposal, this time related to NASA’s Earth Resources Experimental Package (EREP) to be carried on NASA’s manned experimental space station scheduled for launch in early 1973, was forwarded to NASA on 28th April 1971. NASA’s reaction is now awaited to these proposals, both of which relate to projects which are, of course, experimental rather than operational. It is intended that a statement be made in Parliament outlining the nature of the Australian proposals.
  2. The invitation by NASA for participation by other countries was general and is understood to have attracted the interest of many countries. It is known that two specific agreements have been reached between NASA and Mexico and Brazil on ground correlation studies.
  3. There has been no delay by Australia. Our proposals for participation in the initial experimental earth resources satellite projects were both submitted to meet the closing dates nominated by NASA.

Contract Board’s Major Transactions (Question No. 2861)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. What (a) major purchases of equipment and (b) contractual arrangements for the performance of services for each of the Service Departments have been negotiated by the Commonwealth Contract Board in each of the past 5 years.
  2. What (a) major purchases and (b) contractual arrangements for the performance of services have been negotiated by the Board for other Commonwealth departments in each of the past 5 years.
  3. What major items of surplus Commonwealth property have been disposed of by the Board in each of the past S years.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has provided the following reply:

  1. and (2) Details of all procurement contracts placed by the Department of Supply’s Contract Boards are published in the Commonwealth Gazette. A list of some of the major contracts placed during each financial year is provided in the Department of Supply’s annual report, which is presented to the Parliament. Contracts of particular interest or magnitude are generally the subject of a Ministerial Statement in the Parliament or a Ministerial Press Release.

If the honourable member has a particular area of interest, I would be happy to see whether additional detail could reasonably be provided.

  1. The following disposals realised more than $100,000 at each sale and, as such, might te regarded as ‘major’.

Travel Time Survey (Question No. 2589)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What have been the dates and findings of the Department of Supply’s surveys of the time taken to travel various distances in and’ between the capital cities.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

My Department has not conducted any surveys of the time taken to travel various distances in and between the capital cities.

Civil Aviation: Air Pollution (Question No. 3232)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many aircraft operated by (a) Ansett Airlines of Australia (b) Trans-Australia Airlines and (c) Qantas Airways Limited have been fitted wilh reduced smoke combustion chambers?
  2. What percentage of the fleet of each company has been modified in this way?
  3. When did each company begin its modifications?
  4. By what date is it anticipated that all the aircraft operated by each company will be modified?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Since engines, when removed from one aircraft, may be installed in another, it is difficult at this time to refer to the number of aircraft which have been completely fitted with engines with reduced smoke combustion chambers. However, Ansett Airlines of Australia have modified 11 Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines and TransAustralia Airlines have modified 9. Qantas do not operate Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines and no reduced smoke combustion chamber for the Pratt and Whitney JT3D engine (as installed in the Boeing 707) is available. Pratt and Whitney, the engine manufacturers, have work in hand to develop a reduced smoke combustion chamber for the JT3D but are not yet able to forecast its availability.
  2. Ansett Airlines and Trans-Australia Airlines both now have 53 Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines. Each has therefore modified about 20 per cent of its fleet.
  3. Each company began its modifications in June 1970.
  4. It was originally anticipated that all the Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines operated by each company would be modified by the end of 1972 but because of a lack of supply of the nec essary parts from the USA, it is now considered that the programme will not be complete until mid-1973.

Civil Aviation: Aircraft Noise (Question No. 3242)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. Did Recommendation No. 19 of the Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise presented in October 1970 recommend that monitoring of aircraft noise should be introduced in Australia with Sydney Airport as first priority.
  2. If so, what steps (A) have been taken and (B) are intended to be taken to implement this recommendation.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Since Recommendation 19 of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise was framed, the operational requirements for a noise monitoring installation at Sydney Airport have been completed and a detailed equipment specification has been drawn up.

It is proposed to call tenders shortly with the object of noise monitoring equipment, which will be suitable for the needs at Sydney Airport for many years to come, being installed by mid-1972. -

Road Safety (Question No. 3300)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether the Federal Government of the United States of America has set 1973 as the date for compulsory fitting of air bags on new cars.
  2. Can he also say whether these air-bags, which are built into the car under the dashboard, are regarded as a great advantage in protecting front seat occupants of cars from injury in cases of accident.
  3. Has a date been set for air-bags to be a compulsory fitting in Australian manufactured cars; if so, when.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The air bag restraint system is one method of providing protection for vehicle occupants without any action on their part, as is the case with seat belts. Such a system is referred to as a passive restraint system.

United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires the fitting of passive restraint systems from 1st July 1973. However this standard also provides for passive restraints as an optional system from January 1972 as an alternative to seat belt systems incorporating an automatic wanting of failure to secure the belts.

  1. Air bag restraints can be designed to fit in front of the occupant of the vehicle and to’ inflate rapidly and automatically in the case of a collision. They then provide a large shock absorbent cushion to protect the occupants from injury. A well designed system can provide a high level of protection in a head-on collision, but further development is required before they can provide protection equivalent to that provided by seat belts in side impact and roll-over conditions.
  2. No. At this stage air bag restraint systems are in a state of intense development, as are also alternative means of meeting the United States Standard. As the United States proposals have been modified several times since their first publication it would be prudent to watch further developments there rather than attempt to determine Australian requirements at this early stage.

Commonwealth Railways Employees (Question No. 3086)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. It is a fact that Commonwealth Railways by-laws deprive those employees, who receive compensation for periods in excess of 3 months, of pro rata recreation leave for the period of absence on compensation.
  2. If so, will he take steps to remove this provision from the by-laws.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Commonwealth Railways By-Laws Nos 61 and 68 provide that approved absence from duty, or absence on account of sickness or accident, in the course of a year shall not break continuity of service for annual leave purposes provided the total covered by such approved absence in respect of such year shall not exceed 3 calendar months. Where the approved absence exceeds 3 months, leave is granted only in respect of time worked during the year.
  2. The abovementioned by-laws are currently under review and amendment to the provision referred to above is receiving careful consideration.

Northern Territory: Annual Reports (Question No. 2982)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. When was the last annual Northern Territory Police Report tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Council (Hansard, 27th October 1970, page 2829).
  2. On what date and for what year were reports by other Departments and Authorities last tabled.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. 10 November 1970 (1969-70 report).
  2. (a) Tabled pursuant to statute -
  1. The following annual reports of Branches of the Northern Territory Administration were placed in the Legislative Council Library -

Australian Capital Territory: Inspector of Weights and Measures (Question No. 3031)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Capital Territory been without the services of an Inspector of Weights and Measures for some time; if so, for what length of time has this situation existed.
  2. What steps have been taken to secure the services of an Inspector of Weights and Measures for the Territory.
  3. Is it a fact that the salary for this position is not sufficient to attract a suitable applicant.
  4. Has the Government agreed to increase the salary of the position to an appropriate level; if so, what is the proposed new rate.
  5. What are the ordinary duties of the (a) Superintendent and (b) Inspector of Weights and Measures.
  6. Is it a fact that the Superintendent has been attempting to combine his own duties with those of the vacant position of Inspector.
  7. If so, what duties appropriate to each position have been neglected.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The position of Inspector (Weights and Measures) has been vacant since15th January 1970.
  2. Applications have been invited for the position on 3 separate occasions.
  3. A suitable qualified applicant has been selected for appointment to the position.
  4. A review is being undertaken of the structure and salary rates for positions concerned with the Weights and Measures function in consultation with the Public Service Board.
  5. The Superintendent is responsible for technical advising on Weights and Measures functions generally, including matters relating to the administration of relevant Australian Capital Territory Ordinances and Regulations. The Inspector of Weights and Measures conducts inspections and prepares reports.
  6. and (7) The functions of both positions have been carried out by the Superintendent on a reduced scale pending the appointment of a new Inspector. Some assistance has been given to the Superintendent on more routine matters by another officer of the Department.

Grain Sorghum (Question No. 3072)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What has been the total acreage planted to grain sorghum at Tipperary during each of the years that sorghum has been grown.
  2. What has been the total amount (a) harvested and (b) exported during each of those years.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

It is not the practice to make public information relating to individual commercial enterprises.

Home Care (Question No. 3113)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he consider extending the home care and delivered meals subsidies to include home nursing organisations and regional home and day care centres similar to the centre set up by the Royal Newcastle Hospital.

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

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

Under the States Grants (Home Care) Act, financial assistance may be granted by the Commonwealth to the States in relation to the provision of Home Care Services and Senior Citizens’ Centres, and welfare officers employed in connection with Senior Citizens’ Centres. The service ot centre must be approved initially by the State Government, which takes into account the needs of the area concerned and other relevant factors.

Grants under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act may be made by the Commonwealth direct to eligible organisations conducting a ‘Meals on Wheels’ service for aged and invalid persons. These grants are not payable to organisations that are not prepared to deliver meals to the homes of qualified needy persons.

Australian Capital Territory: Television and Radio Relay Tower (Question No. 3168)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to build a television and radio relay tower on Black Mountain in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. If so, is it proposed that the tower will be approximately 640 feet high and include a restaurant with a viewing platform. ‘
  3. Has his Department conducted surveys and prepared estimates of the number of people who will (a) be employed in the various facilities housed in the tower and (b) use each year the (i) restaurant and (ii) viewing platform.
  4. If so, what is the number of people in each case.
  5. .Will access to the tower and its facilities have to be given by enlarging and extending the existing road up Black Mountain; if so, will a four-lane road be provided.
  6. What approximate area will be occupied on Black Mountain by the base of the tower and its surrounds.
  7. Is the decision of the Government to include a restaurant and a viewing platform on the tower motivated by the possible financial return from each.
  8. Has his Department investigated other possible sites.
  9. If so, which sites were investigated and why were they rejected.
  10. Is it a fact that all the technical requirements for colour television and micro wave transmission can be satisfied by replacing the existing 2 masts on Black Mountain with a single somewhat higher mast of the same lattice-work type.
  11. What technical reasons exist for the construction of a solid tower on Black Mountain.
  12. What is the estimated cost of the tower.
  13. When is construction expected to commence.
  14. ls it a fact that the technical requirements for television and radio relay services can be provided by having a main transmission mast located outside Canberra, together with a number of small repeater stations within the City.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

I have conferred with the Postmaster-General and the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Government has not yet had a proposal before it to build a television and radio tower on Black Mountain in the Australian Capital Territory!

to (14) A proposal to meet the future demands of television and radio relay services in the Australian Capital Territory which could involve co-masting on Black Mountain, is being examined by Departments with a view to submitting recommendations to the Government. A statement will be made at the appropriate time, when the Government has received and considered formal recommendations.

Water Quality (Question No. 3177)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Will he ask the ad-hoc committee formed in April 1969 and concerned with water quality in waterways associated with the Australian Capital Territory, to examine urgently the levels of pollution in the Mumimbidgee River at various times of the year with a review to effecting improvements.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The Committee is watching the quality of the water, and effluent discharge within the Australian Capital Territory is being continuously monitored with a view to maintaining at as high a level as possible the quality of the water in the Mumimbidgee River.

Electoral (Question No. 3187)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) date of introduction of deposits and (b) amount required from candidates under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
  2. What was the date of each amendment and increase, and what is the present deposit.
  3. Can he say what deposit is required from candidates in any other countries; if so, what are the details.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The first Commonwealth Electoral Act (assented to on 10 October 1902) required a deposit in the sum of £25 to be made by or on behalf of the person nominated for election to the Senate or House of Representatives.
  2. By Act No. 48 e£ 1965 (assented to on 3 June 1965) the amount of the deposit was increased to £100 in the case of a Senate election and to £50 in the case of a House of Representatives election. The amount of the deposit has remained unaltered since the 1965 amendment.
  3. Deposits are required to be lodged by or on behalf of candidates in the undermentioned countries -

In the United States of America the deposit required is provided under State Legislation and varies from no deposit to $1,000 or as provided by other States up to 6 per cent of the annual salary of the position being contested.

Information regarding the amount of the deposit required of the candidates in other countries is not readily available.

Advertising Agencies (Question No. 2768)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that foreign control of Australian advertising agencies exceeds 90 per cent.
  2. If so, does the Government consider this to be a matter for concern.
  3. Will he consider following the lead of the Canadian Government and arrange to investigate the extent and implications of overseas control of advertising.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. A number of advertising agencies in Australia are affiliated with overseas agencies, but there is no official information available on the apportionment of overseas and Australian ownership in the industry as a whole.
  2. and (3) These questions raise issues of policy. The Government’s general policy towards overseas investment in Australia is well known.

Commonwealth-State Boards (Question No. 2993)

Mr Daly:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the number of existing jOint CommonwealthState boards and committees which have been established (a) under parliamentary authority and (b) by the respective Governments.
  2. What are the (a) names, (b) salaries and (c) terms’ of .office of the Commonwealth members of these boards and committees.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Question 539, asked by the honourable member, was similar in nature and the reply to that question occupied 49 pages of Hansard (Hansard, 10.3.71, pp 762-810). I regret that it is considered too much of an administrative burden to continue to supply information of this kind.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Question No. 3097)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which departments are represented on the interdepartmental committee established to study restrictive trade practices (Hansard, 31 March 1971, page 1202).
  2. What are the committee’s terms of reference.
  3. When did it first meet.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

As the honourable member will know, it is not the policy of this Government to disclose the type of information for which the honourable member asks.

Drugs (Question No. 3230)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Why is $500,000 being spent for drug education on drugs of dependence without including education to discourage the use of alcohol or tobacco (Hansard, 31 March 1971, page 1283).

Mr Chipp:
LP

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

In 1970 a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with combating drug abuse agreed to a recommendation of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence (NSCC) that it establish an Education SubCommittee to integrate, co-ordinate, encourage and advise on education activities in drug abuse.

Subsequently the Government allocated $500,000 to be spent during 1970-71 on drug education in a manner recommended by the Sub-Committee and approved by the NSCC. The terms of reference of the NSCC do not include the subject of abuse of alcohol or dangers of cigarette smoking. It was set up specifically to deal with the growing current problems of trafficking in and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for the committee to include education to discourage the use of alcohol and tobacco in its education programme.

National Service (Question No. 2994)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Is it the practice for the Minister to write personally to those who notify him of their refusal to comply with the National Service Act to inform them that it is the Government’s conviction that national service is in the national interest and that this view is by all accounts shared by the majority of Australians.
  2. If so, on what does he base his opinion of the view of the majority of Australians.
  3. Does he usually explain to these persons (a) that it is open to any registrant to opt for parttime service in the Citizen Forces as an alternative to call-up for full-time service, (b) something of the provisions relating to conscientious objectors, (c) that they may complete and sign a copy of an enclosed form so that the Registrar for National Service may take the necessary action to have determined any conscientious objection they may have and (d) that, in the case of a student who has been deferred but who ceases to be a student, deferment is not terminated immediately and it would be well over a year after the person ceased to bc a student before he would be obliged to enter the Army.
  4. Do his letters in these cases usually extend to two foolscap pages in length.
  5. Is this action taken in these cases, instead of immediately taking steps to prosecute persons who appear to have clearly and wilfully broken the National Service Act, to make it appear that fewer persons refuse to comply with the Act.
  6. Does he intend to prosecute a person who was written to in this manner on 11th January 1971.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. to (6) Men write to me or my Department regarding different aspects of their national service liability, including some who notify their refusal to comply with their obligations. The approach adopted in all cases recognises that men liable for national service have rights as well as obligations which are to be respected and in replying every effort is made to answer any questions and to explain carefully the man’s individual position. Men who state that they refuse to comply are no* less entitled to a detailed explanation of their position, including the alternatives which are open to them, than are others. There is no question of any attempt at dissimulation.

The basis of the present national service scheme may be explained where that is necessary and the view expressed that the majority of the Australian community share the Government’s conviction that national service is essential in the national interest. The maintenance of national service is a key element in the current defence policy and as such has been clearly before the electorate in elections which have resulted in return of the Government.

The question of prosecution of men who fail to comply with provisions of the National Service Act was dealt with in my answer to Question No. 2666 (Hansard, 21st April 1971, page 1853). The overwhelming majority of men have honoured, and are honouring, their obligations from registration through to serving in the national interest if required. At the same time the Government recognises its duty of protecting and maintaining their interests by ensuring that national service obligations are not avoided. Obviously no man who it appears has not met his obligations should escape prosecution if on investigation it is found that proceedings are warranted.

Industrial Relations (Question No. 3192)

Mr Wallis:

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

  1. Can be say whether unreasonable use is made of the stand down clauses in the Metal Trades Award by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at its Whyalla establishments whenever a dispute arises involving only a small section of its employees; if so, will he have the matter investigated.
  2. Do the stand down provisions allow employees not involved in a dispute to be stood down, despite the fact that sufficient work is available to enable them to carry out their normal duties.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In highly complex operations such as exist at the Whyalla establishments of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, it could be expected that industrial disputes from time to time would necessitate stand downs of labour. Should a trade union feel that the company is unnecessarily standing down employees there is ample scope for the union to test its claims under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act

National Service (Question No. 3290)

Mr Keogh:

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

  1. In which cities or towns in each State were conscripts required to undergo medical examinations in each year since the introduction of the present National Service ballot system.
  2. How many men were (a) examined and (b) rejected as medically unfit in each centre in each of those years.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Medical examinations for national service purposes are arranged at many centres throughout Australia having regard to the availability of doctors, the facilities necessary to ensure accurate determination of fitness for service and the numbers of men to be examined in the area in the particular series of examinations.

Men are directed to attend at the centre most convenient to them at the time. In remote areas, special arrangements are frequently made to ensure the least inconvenience to the men concerned. Thus all men resident in a specific place would not necessarily always be examined at the same centre. Men who are temporarily absent from their homes, especially students, would often be examined away from home.

The information sought by the honourable member is not readily available and, as will be evident from what I have said, would not in any event be particularly meaningful. However, as to the number of men rejected on medical grounds generally, I would refer to my reply to Question No. 1794 (Hansard, 20th April 1971, page 1730).

ILO Convention No. 98 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (Question No. 3335)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Did he advise me on 20th April, 1971 (Hansard, page 1736), in answer to Question No. 2700, which I placed on the notice paper on 23rd February, 1971, that Queensland was the only State which had not yet agreed to the ratification of International Labour Organisation Convengion No. 98 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949.
  2. Did Queensland, however, advise his Department on 26th March, 1971, that it now agreed to ratification.
  3. If so, what steps have now been taken to ratify the Convention.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As I indicated to the honourable member by letter on 26th April, 1971 - his question was included on the notice paper on 28 th April - during the interval between the initial preparation of the reply to his question and the publication of my answer in the Hansard of 20th

April, 1971, my Department was advised that the Queensland Government has agreed to ratification of this Convention.

  1. Convention No. 98 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1969 is closely associated with Convention No. 87 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 and a possible ratification of both Conventions is under active consideration.

Post Offices: Closures (Question No. 3103)

Dr Patterson:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

How many country post offices have been closed down in the last 3 years in each of the rural federal electoral divisions.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member in respect of the period from 1st July 1968 up to the present time is as follows:

These post offices were all non-official offices which handled only a small volume of postal business.

No offices were closed in rural federal electoral divisions not shown above.

Telephone Directory: Western Australia (Question No. 3079).

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a.½-inch single column advertisement in the pink pages of the Western Australian telephone directory taken on a Statewide basis, cost $18 last year but will cost $91.20 this year.
  2. If so, what is the reason for this 500 per cent increase.
  3. Will be review the proposed charges with a view, in particular, to allowing concessional rates where advertisers take space in more than one of the new district directories.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There are 2 inter-related reasons. First, there will be 6 directories instead of 1 in Western Australia commencing with the 1971 issue and secondly, a new charging basis is being applied.

A recent comprehensive review of telephone directory presentation throughout Australia disclosed that the areas covered by some existing directories are much larger than required to meet the actual needs of the great majority of users of the directories. It was clearly indicated that directories of a more local character would generally meet subscribers’ requirements adequately.

Telephone directories covering smaller regions than previously have already been introduced in many areas throughout the Commonwealth and the arrangement is being extended this year to

Western Australia where, as already mentioned, 6 directories will be issued, 1 for the metropolitan area and 5 covering separate country regions. Each directory will have its own fully classified Pink Pages section.

Telephone numbers of subscribers not in a local directory may be obtained without charge from the ‘Telephone Numbers’ Information Service. In addition, a Western Australian subscriber having a need for a Western Australian directory other than the one serving his own region will be supplied with it, on request, without charge.

The rates for advertisements in Western Australian telephone directories have not been increased since 1966. The new scale of rates which takes into account the circulation levels of the directories as well as the space occupied by the different types of advertisements, is being introduced progressively throughout the Commonwealth. The new charges are considered to be reasonable as they still compare favourably with the cost of other advertising media within Australia, and with the rates applied in comparable overseas telephone directories. .

While a half-inch single column advertisement in the Perth metropolitan directory will, in future, cost $28.20, such an advertisement will only cost $12.60 in each of the smaller circulation country regional directories. Although a firm wishing to obtain State-wide coverage of this type of advertisement will in future pay $91.20, a country businessman whose purposes may be fully served by advertising only in his local area directory, will, in fact, pay less than before for the same advertisement, that is, $12.60 instead, of $18. Any subscriber requiring advertisements in a number of directories will be able to exercise control over his directory advertising costs by being selective in regard to the directories in which he advertises and varying the size of advertisements in different directories if he wishes.

  1. The decision to introduce the new charging basis was taken only after a most extensive study of all relevant aspects including the possibility of concessional rates where advertisers buy space in more than one directory. However, it was considered that it would be unfair to a businessman who only required to advertise in his local directory if he had to pay more for an equivalent advertisement than a firm from outside the area which advertised in that directory as well as other directories. In the circumstances, I feel that a further review is unwarranted at this stage.

Mercury Content in Food (Question No. 2856)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report by Dr Robert E. Jervis and others from the University of Toronto, Canada, on the levels of mercury in food and human hair.
  2. If so, is a comparable analysis being undertaken in Australia.
  3. If a comparable analysis is not being undertaken in Australia and in view of the dangerous levels reported by Dr Jervis will he seek the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council on this matter;
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. I have not studied the report mentioned but I am aware of some work which has been conducted by Dr Jervis and others concerning mercury.
  2. I am not aware of a comparable analysis being undertaken in Australia. However, analyses of certain foodstuffs for the presence of mercury and other metallic contaminants have been conducted over a number of years at both State and Commonwealth levels.
  3. The National Health and Medical Research Council through its expert committees is aware of the possibility of the occurrence of mercury residues and continues to keep the matter under review.

Medical Benefits (Question No. 2794)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What is the (a) highest and (b) lowest contribution rate charged in each State by medical benefits organisations for (i) single and (ii) family cover.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The highest and lowest contribution rates charged in each State by registered medical benefits organisations for single and family cover are shown in the following table:

Doctors’ Incomes (Question No. 2870)

Mr Berinson:

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

  1. Did he state on 16th February that the incomes of doctors had increased by approximately 20 per cent since the inception of the new health scheme.
  2. If so, will he supply details of the percentage increase in income for (a) general practitioners, (b) all specialists, (c) specialists other than surgeons, (d) surgeons and pathologists.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. In answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, my predecessor stated in the

House on 16th February that information obtained from the medical benefit funds revealed that the total payments to doctors by insured patients had increased in the December quarter of 1970 by more than 20 per cent compared with the figure for the December quarter of 1969.

  1. Information is not available of the percentage increase in incomes for the groups referred to by the honourable member.

Department of Customs and Excise (Question No. 3021)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What is the average length of service of Preventive Officers in his Department.
  2. How long does it take to become an effective and experienced Preventive Officer.
  3. Can he say what are the reasons for the resignation from the service of effective and efficient Preventive Officers.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. The average length of service of Preventive Officers currently employed is 4.30 years.
  2. Officers commence to be effective after com-, pleting the initial training period and are generally regarded as suitably experienced after 2 years service.
  3. In 1970, the resignation rate of Preventive Officers was 5.4 per cent which I am- informed is lower than the resignation rate of Fourth Division staff of the Commonwealth Service as a whole. Of’ those trained and experienced Preventive Officers who did resign during 1970, I am informed that the offer of better conditions in other occupations was the main reason given.

Exports to China (Question No. 3183)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What was the total value of (a) grain and (b) grain plus other items exported from Australia to Mainland China in the last 8 years, excluding 1971.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Total value of grain exports to Mainland China for the past 8 financial years and the first 6 months of the 1970-71 financial year were as follows:
  2. Total value of all items (including grain) exported to Mainland China for the past 8 financial years and the first 6 months of the 1970-71 financial year were as follows -

Consulate-General of Yugoslavia, Melbourne (Question No. 3216)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-Gen eral, upon notice:

What success have the Commonwealth and Victoria police had in bringing to justice the person or persons who bombed the Consulate-General of Yugoslavia in Melbourne on 21st October 1970.

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

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

I am informed that the inquiries by the Victorian Police Force into this matter are still in train. The Commonwealth Police Force is maintaining contact with the Victorian Police and will give whatever assistance it can with the investigations.

Senator-elect A. Giefzelt: Bombing of Home (Question No. 3178)

Mr Uren:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Has there been any action or investigation by the Commonwealth security police into the bombing of the home of Councillor Arthur Gietzelt, President of the Sutherland Shire, and a Senatorelect for the State of New South Wales.

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

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

The attack on the home of Councillor Gietzelt was an offence against the laws of New South Wales and did not constitute any breach of Commonwealth law. I am informed the bombing has been and still is the subject of investigation by the New South Wales Police Force. I have asked the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police to keep in touch with the New South Wales Commissioner.

Uniform Home Building Code (Question No. 2445)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Housing, upon notice:

  1. When did the Victorian, Queensland and Western Australian Housing Commission make comments which the Commonwealth Department of Housing invited them to make before 31st August 1970 on the Tentative Uniform Home Building Code which it produced in April, 1970.
  2. Have any further banks and building socie ties or any insurance offices made comments on the code since the Minister’s answer to me on 16th October 1970. (Hansard, page 2365).
  3. What has been the (a) date, and (b) outcome of meetings of the Interstate Standing Committee on Uniform Building Regulations since the Minister’s answer to me on 14th April, 1970. (Hansard, page 1113).
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Housing Commission, Victoria, on 11th November 1970, and the Queensland Housing Commission on 16th November, 1970. The State Housing Commission, Western Australia took a direct part in the drafting of the code, the Commission being the Commonwealth’s agent for the design and construction of War Service Homes in that State.
  2. Yes, the Australian Mutual Provident Society.

  3. (a) 13-15th July 1970,11-13th November 1970 and 17-19th March 1971.

    1. At the meetings in July, Series 2 of the Model Uniform Building Code, dealing with fire openings, fire separation and egress was finalised. This series was forwarded to the Local Government Administrations on 10th December. At the meeting in November, Series 3 and 4 of the Code were finalised. Series 3 deals with chimneys and fireplaces, and fire fighting services. Series 4 deals with structural provisions. Series 3 and 4 are being prepared for issue to Local Government Administrations. At the meeting in March, Series 5 dealing with drainage and dampness, room sizes, light, ventilation and noise was finalised.

Pesticides (Question No. 2538)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Primary

Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there is increasing widespread concern about the effects of certain pesticides (such as DDT, DDE and dieldrin) and chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) on the reproduction of many birds and the possible build-up of these compounds in humans and other mammals.
  2. Is he able to say whether restrictions on the use of some of these chemicals have already been instituted overseas.
  3. What programmes (a) have been instituted by him or (b) are being carried out by other Commonwealth and State agencies to assess the levels and distribution of these chemicals in Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. In recent years, since sensitive chemical analysis has permitted the detection of minute amounts of chlorinated chemical compounds in the environment, concern has been expressed about the possible effects of such materials as organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT, DDE and dieldrin) and industrial chemicals on people and wildlife. Scientific evidence appears to substantiate that some of these materials can, in certain circumstances, when concentrations are high, interfere with the reproduction of certain raptorial and fish eating birds. There is no ground for believing that these materials pose any immediate or direct threat to humans or other mammals.
  2. Restrictions on the use of some organochlorine pesticides and industrial chemicals have been applied in certain Scandinavian and European countries and more recently in Canada and United States where the compounds have been used intensively and in great quantity for many years. The restrictions were considered necessary in view of the build-up of chemical pollution in rivers, lakes and marine estuaries, and the possible effect of this pollution on the ecology of the immediate environment.
  3. In 1962 all States, on the recommendation of the Agricultural Council, imposed restrictions on many uses for organochlorine pesticides, particularly DDT, lindane and dieldrin, to ensure minimum contamination to animal products. Since then recommendations for the use of organochlorine pesticides for control of insects of plant products have been withdrawn as satisfactory and safe alternatives have become available. The action in Australia was taken many years ahead of similar action in important overseas countries.

The Australian Agricultural Council in 1963 set up the Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides to maintain a continuous review of the Australian and overseas developments arising from the use of pesticides. This committee of senior Commonwealth and State officials reports to the Australian Agricultural Council twice each year and recommends action which is considered necessary.

Two Sub-committees which report to the Coordinating Committee on Pesticides viz. the Technical Committee on Agricultural Chemicals and the Technical Committee on Veterinary Drugs evaluate submissions from manufacturers who desire to register new chemicals or who desire approval for new uses for existing chemicals. These committees assess the level of residues which might occur from the uses of the respective chemicals. This information is used by the National Health and Medical Research Council in order to determine appropriate tolerances for the chemicals and also by the State authorities in deciding on the registration of the chemicals.

State legislation introduced over 20 years ago to regulate the sale and use of pesticides has proved to be a sound foundation for the overall control of pesticide usage in Australia.

Since 1963 the Department of Primary Industry, in conjunction with the Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides, hats conducted a continuous survey on the level of Pesticide residues in a wide range of commodities (meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, grain, flour, fresh and processed fruits, vegetables, fish, rabbits and honey). In recent years the programme has been maintained at about 25,000 samples per year of which about 19,000 are for the determination of organochlorine pesticide residues. The analytical work is undertaken by the laboratories of the Department of Customs and Excise. In addition, a considerable programme of analysis is maintained by State Departments as part of the production programme. There is a regular interchange of results of Commonwealth and State activities.

The Commonwealth Department of Health is currently conducting an extensive survey of the pesticide residue levels in the total diet of the community in all States during the four seasons of the year. Results of the survey will not be available until later this year but pilot studies indicated that residue levels in Australia are below those in other countries where similar surveys have been made.

State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife have made preliminary surveys and the conclusion reached is that there is no significant organochlorine pesticides contaminatioin of the Australian environment. The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife in Victoria has recently commenced an extensive systematic survey in that State.

Australia is represented at meetings of the FAO Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues which meets annually in the Netherlands and also at the meetings of the Joint WHO/FAO Committee of Experts which meets annually.

The overall level of residues of pesticides in Australian primary produce is very satisfactory and reflects the co-ordinated control which has been maintained over a number of years.

Housing (Question No. 2544)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Housing, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Prince Philip Prize for Australian Design 1969 was awarded to Transtar Villas (Australia) Pty Ltd, for the design and manufacture of a complete housing system based on reinforced plastics.
  2. Is this product considered to be economically, structurally and aesthetically suitable for Australian conditions.
  3. Would the large scale production of this transportable and expandable dwelling with its built-in thermal barrier and other unique features contribute to the alleviation of accommodation shortages at present sustained by large numbers of university students, aged people, Aborigines and persons engaged in employment in remote parts of the country.
  4. What evaluation of this product has been undertaken by the Department of Housing to determine its suitability for these purposes.
  5. Will any special encouragement be given to the company to assist in further research, development and production.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The October 1969 issue of the Industrial Design Council of Australia Delegate Report contains details of the prize-winning entry which is described as ‘a self-contained villa-unit such as one might find at a motel, mining site, temporary air-field, ski or beach resort.’ It is said that the economy of the units is not of consequence _ in city areas but cost advantages increase in relation to the distance from centres of population. The same report refers to the thermal barrier provided by the plastic construction as an advantage in both summer and winter in keeping temperatures stable. The ability to withstand very high wind loads and to remain stable has been tested by an independent authority. The manufacturer claims that construction and all other specifications are in accordance with local rules and regulations.
  3. Although the abovementioned report emphasises that the prize-winning entry was judged as a prototype for a system, rather than as a finished product, and states that it was the invention of the system which scored so highly rather than the manner in which it has been carried out, it recognises that this transportable home could have an important benefit in providing comfortable living conditions for those engaged in the exploitation of Australia’s untapped- resources. It adds that the units have a similar advantage of mobility ‘ to a caravan, with the additional fact that they are larger and of more permanent construction.
  4. and (5) The concept has been noted as a particularly interesting development, but it is not a function of the Department to engage in evaluations of, or to give ‘ special encouragement to, individual commercial activities. .

Repatriation Department: Artificial Limb and Appliance Section (Question No. 3039) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. Does the artificial limb and appliance section of his department provide appliances and prosthetics for civilians.
  2. If so, can be provide details of the costs and method of payment involved.
Mr Holten:
CP

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

  1. Yes. In addition to providing artificial limbs, appliances and footwear for Repatriation beneficiaries, Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres provide for the requirements of other Government departments and instrumentalities and, to the extent that surplus production can be allotted, artificial limbs and appliances may be provided for private patients who cannot be satisfactorily fitted elsewhere, and for State Government departments and philanthropic organisations. In addition, the care of children born with congenital deformities as a result of the drug, Thalidomide, is undertaken in conjunction with the respective State Health departments.
  2. The cost of manufacture of each appliance varies depending upon the requirements in each individual case.

In the case of limbs and appliances provided for children deformed through Thalidomide, half the cost is borne by the Commonwealth, with the other half being recoverable from the State Health departments. In all other cases where limbs or appliances are provided for private patients (including those referred by philanthropic organisations or State Government departments) the actual cost of the limb or appliance is recoverable from either the patient himself or the referring organisation.

Limbs and appliances are provided to patients referred by philanthropic organisations or State Government departments on receipt of an official order, and the actual cost is recovered on completion and acceptance of the limb or appliance. In other cases where a private patient is provided with a limb or appliance the commencement of manufacture is dependent upon receipt of payment of an amount representing the estimated cost of the limb or appliance, with the balance being adjusted on completion and acceptance.

Housing Agreement (Question No. 3224)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

What date has been fixed for the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing for the purpose of negotiating the next Housing Agreement.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

No date has yet been fixed. As I indicated in reply to his Question No. 2446 a meeting will .be arranged as soon as possible.

Homes Savings Grants (Question No. 3314)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

Which credit unions have been approved for the purposes of the Homes Savings Grant Act since the amending Act was assented to on 2nd June 1970.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

No credit union has as yet made formal application for approval.

Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Allowance (Question No. 3228)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that at least one quarter of the Commonwealth postgraduate research allowance is taken by most universities for administrative purposes.
  2. What proportion of the research grant was taken for administrative purposes by Australian universities in 1968, 1969 and 1970 and is to be taken for these purposes in 1971.
  3. Will he ask the universities to standardise and reduce this amount.
  4. Will he take steps to have the rules changed to allow students to use part of the grant for the typing and binding of theses; if not, why not.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: _ In replying to the honourable member’s question I am assuming that the information he is seeking refers to the Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards Scheme.

  1. A student who wins a Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Award is paid a living allowance at the rate of $2,600 p.a. and where applicable a dependants allowance at the rate of $450 p.a. The student may. also receive reimbursement of up to $100 for the cost of thesis preparation, and certain travel and establishment expenses. These payments are made direct to the scholarship holder. In addition, a separate amount of $400 per scholar is paid to the university each year for the cost of tuition, research and similar facilities associated with the scholar’s award. The precise use of the latter funds is decided upon by the universities. No part of the scholar’s allowances are available to the universities for administrative purposes.
  2. At the beginning of 1969 a revised system of payments was introduced. Details of the amounts provided in 1971 are given in (1). For 1969 and 1970 the amounts were the same except that the living allowance was at the rate of $2,350 p.a. In 1968 payments by the Commonwealth were confined to $1,800 p.a. for a scholar’s allowances and $500 p.a. for tuition, research and similar facilities.
  3. See answers to (1) above,
  4. As mentioned in (1) there already exists within the Scheme provision for award holders to receive reimbursment of up to $100 for the cost of thesis preparation.

Commonwealth University Scholarships: Medical Students (Question No. 3296) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What percentage of medical students (a) in first year and (b) in later years held Commonwealth University scholarships in the latest year for which statistics are available.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

Statistics collected on university enrolments do not give the numbers of students enrolled in first year of courses but rather the numbers enrolled for the first time in particular courses. It is these latter figures which are used in providing an answer to part (a) of the honourable member’s question.

In 1969, 70 per cent of students enrolled for the first time in bachelor degree courses in Medicine held Commonwealth University scholarships.

In 1969, 70 per -cent of all students enrolled in bachelor degree courses in Medicine, including courses leading to the degree of Science (Medicine), held Commonwealth University scholarships. The corresponding figure for 1970 was 74 per cent.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– No. The sum of $1,000 is lent without specified interest.

Mr HANSEN:

– Will it be offset by the State?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– No. No interest is designated within the clauses of the agreement.

Mr HANSEN:

– I thank the Minister for that information. A loan of $1,000 may be made for an unspecified time to enable a farmer and his family to carry on. I think it is important to remember that in many cases not only a farmer is involved but also members of his family who have grown up and are being helped by him. The position today is reverting to that of pre-war days when in many instances members of a farmer’s family were forced to work on the property for low wages, or no wages whatsoever, to maintain its viability. Recently I have known of cases of farmers who settled land about 40 years ago and have sought to place their sons on the properties. In the last couple of years the land has been repossessed and farmers who have spent a lifetime developing their properties have lost them. They have gone on to a pension and in some cases have incurred debts - the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will bear me out - amounting to $20,000 or $30,000 because they guaranteed their sons when they took over the properties.

I do not think that the scheme goes far enough. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) raised the point that in countries belonging to the European Economic Community when farmers are displaced assistance is given and re-training programmes have been introduced. The Minister hinted that a re-training scheme will be introduced by the Government at some future date. I do not know whether he meant that it will be introduced in the very near future. The programme will retrain farmers who are unable to continue on their land. They will be given assistance or re-trained. That is all very well, but a man in his 50s finds it very difficult to obtain a job. Men aged about 42 or 43 years have complained to me that they have found it very hard to obtain a position. This difficulty is recognised in the European Economic Community and farmers who are displaced are given assistance. I suggest to the Minister that if a re- training scheme is introduced, some heed should be taken of the reference by the honourable member for Bradfield to servicemen. I do not know whether a section of the community could be singled out.

My colleague the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) referred to redundancy on the waterfront. The honourable member for Bradfield pointed out how a serviceman who has served in certain areas within a theatre of war is eligible at 60 years, an earlier age than normal, to obtain a pension. These matters also should be considered. Having promised not to take the full time allotted to me, I do not intend to do so. I apologise if I have caused any inconvenience by not starting my speech, after the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) had concluded, in the few minutes remaining before 11.30 p.m. I thought that perhaps honourable members would like to have time to appreciate the matters mentioned by the honourable member for Murray before their supper and that, having enjoyed a light supper, they might also enjoy the nicer things, such as good wine, a cigar, or my speech. Having referred to these matters, I hope that the Minister, and the honourable members opposite who have expressed some doubts about this scheme, will join with us and support the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). With few exceptions, honourable members have acknowledged that the scheme has inadequacies, and that they would like to see a wider field covered by the funds available and an improved method of administration by the States.

Thursday, 6 May 1971

Mr Foster:

– I have not said anything, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER - If the honourable member for Sturt does not behave himself in this chamber I will deal with him.

Mr KATTER:

– I must say that the people concerned prepared excellent submissions which were handed to the Minister for National Development to bring back to the Prime Minister. It may be of interest to consider briefly who were involved. There was the Graziers Association of Central and Northern Queensland, which presented an excellent, carefully prepared and constructive submission; there was the Australian Workers Union, which was represented at that meeting and which presented a case for its members who were affected by this disastrous situation; there was the Queensland Country Women’s Association, the representatives of which were able to give the women’s point of view or the sad story that they had to tell; there was the survival group itself, which presented a combined case covering all those people; and there was the Australian Country Party.

The combined case that was presented there clearly indicates . that there does virtually exist in this area the ingredients of a complete disaster. What 1 would suggest is that the funds that have been made available or which will become available under this rural reconstruction scheme must be considered as being earmarked precisely for rural reconstruction; but to’ keep these people in business, that is. those who are viable, who are able to recover, stand their ground and come good, other funds have to be made available with all urgency, lt is not a dramatic gesture or a dramatic pronouncement to say that a virtual disaster has hit this area as it has not hit to the same extent any other part of this nation.

It is not just a matter of the man on the land, the business people in the town, the railway men, the council workers, the fencers or the other people who are involved in this, because it is the whole nation that is involved. I do not think this country can afford to see dissipated an industry which 2 years ago was worth $836m to this nation and which at its worst is worth about $600m. So, Mr Speaker, I make the point that the people involved in the interior of Queensland and northern New South Wales have been far more disastrously affected than those in any other part of Australia. I reiterate that they have had to face up to a combination of several most adverse factors. The first of those factors is the continuing drought that they have experienced, and the second is the remoteness with the disabilities in respect of freight charges and other things that exist in remote areas. (Quorum formed). Again I point out that these factors combined have created an extremely difficult situation in this area.

Only tonight - it would not be more than an hour ago - I received a telephone call from a third generation grazier in this area. He told me that he has received his marching orders and that he has to be off his land within 2 months. He does not know where he will go. He does not know where he will take his family. He does not know what will become of him. I am afraid that if this begins to snowball and these people begin to receive their marching orders to get off their land because they cannot pay their debts, they will suffer and there will be a general exodus from the area. I am afraid that not only this industry, but also the complete way of life in these areas will wane and disappear. We people who represent such areas sincerely hope that because of the limitations on the application of these rural reconstruction funds, the Government might give urgent consideration to making other substantial funds available to help people who cannot meet the requirements of the rural reconstruction scheme.

This is my contribution to the debate: Firstly, I commend the Government for introducing the Bill. I respectfully submit that the whole idea for this rural reconstruction scheme began at a meeting held in the town of Longreach at the end of 1968. Subsequent meetings were held in Queensland and finally the idea of this rural reconstruction scheme became a reality. Now the Bill is going through this House tonight. One other aspect relates to the position of those who cannot in any way diversify. People in these arid and semi-arid zones in inland Queensland and in inland northern New South Wales cannot diversify. They cannot look to any other calling. They completely depend on the wool industry.

From time to time various schemes have been suggested which might meet this situation. I know that the Government parties have worked intensely, untiringly and unceasingly over the last few months to find a solution to this most complex problem. It is most encouraging to find that our Liberal colleagues - men who normally would not be expected completely to understand the disastrous situation which exists in these areas - now are fully aware of the position. The cohesion which is being displayed and the co-operation which is taking place at the present time in order to find a solution to this problem are most encouraging to we people of the Country Party. Because the provisions of this Bill cannot be applied to a great majority of those people throughout New South Wales, Queensland and Western

Australia who are disastrously affected - and I refer to this particular group of wool growers who cannot diversify and who have to face these other difficulties - 1 would most strongly ask the Government to give urgent consideration to making additional funds available to these people without delay.

Mr Grassby:

– The richest.

Mr KENNEDY:

– The richest. Those who are hit worst of all by the rural crisis are the ones who will be ignored. Those are the people who will be involved in the accelerated flight from the countryside for which this Government is responsible. Let us look at one aspect of the problem. The Government is supposed to be concerned with the problem of rural debt. The maximum amount available to the State governments will be $100m over 4 years. But if we look at the recent report produced by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics we see that in 1970 there was a total gross rural debt of $2,086.9m. Farmers had a gross debt of 2 billion dollars. Twelve years ago the figure was less than half that. Let us have a look at some figures that have been given by the Minister. On 3rd May the Minister stated that the net debt of farmers in June 1970 was $1,2 10m. By comparison, the figure in

June 1969 was $ 1,036m. Therefore, in one year the total net debt of the farming community had risen by $200m. This is twice the amount that is to be allocated under this programme which is supposed to be spread over a period of 4 years.

To see just how seriously and how rapidly this debt problem has been accelerated, it is necessary only to look and see what the problem was in June 1967. At that date there was a net indebtedness of $63 lm in the farming community. This amount has doubled in 4 years. Yet this Government has the cheek to come here and say that $100m spread over 6 States for a period of 4 years will do something. Of course it will do something, but it will not do anything significant in comparison with the magnitude of the problem affecting country areas.

Mr SPEAKER-Order! The time alloted for the second reading stage has expired.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston) Ayes . . . . . . 60

10

AYES: 0

NOES: 50

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from ‘ the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– I would be happy to get up now.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Opposition would be willing to let the Minister get up and speak if the Government would give him time to do so. It is of no good the Minister saying that he wants time to get up if the Government will not give him time to get up.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– If the honourable member sits down and allows me to get up I will have 3 or 4 minutes in which to speak.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I intend to take my time and to ask the Minister for Primary Industry questions which, no doubt, he will not be able to answer. One of the most important questions I want to ask in relation to the Schedule to the Bill is this: How many States have agreed to it? Mr Sinclair - All of them.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Are there any qualifications with respect to the agreement?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– We have discussed the details and the formulation has now extended to all States. The honourable member has asked me to answer his questions and 1 have done so.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns - ] rise on a point of order. The Minister for Primary Industry is constantly interjecting. If he wants to say something surely he should ‘ seek the opportunity to do so by making a speech.

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

Dr PATTERSON:

– I turn now to a very important paragraph in the Schedule to the Bill, namely paragraph 10, which provides that the provisions of the Schedule to this agreement may be amended from time to time by agreements between the Ministers of the Commonwealth and of the States for the time being responsible for the administration of the scheme. This is an openended arrangement whereby the Minister representing the Commonwealth and State Ministers can virtually change anything in this Bill. What sort of provision are we being asked to ratify here? This is ari open-ended provision which allows the Minister for Primary Industry, if he is the Minister representing the Commonwealth, and the State minister, whoever he might be, to change any clause.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The provisions of the Schedule to the agreement only.

Dr PATTERSON:

– And it is a pretty important schedule, too. Does this mean that the responsible Ministers will be able to change the rate of interest? Does it mean that the responsible Ministers will be able also to change the allocation of finance between the Slates and the Commonwealth? Apparently it does. What is the point in having a schedule at all? We are being asked to ratify a schedule to an agreement that has an open-ended paragraph which provides that the Ministers apparently may do what they like. The other point I want to make is in relation to paragraph 3 (b) of Part II of the Schedule to the Bill, which relates to the negotiation of a concessional rate of interest for existing rates. Just what does this mean? With whom will the Authority enter into negotiations? Will it be with the pastoral houses or the private banking system - with respect to particular rates of interest - for loans outstanding? Does it mean that concessional rates will be granted to the farmers themselves?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)- Order! The time allotted to debate the remaining stages of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That. the Bill be agreed to and reported without amendment. . .

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 50

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment.

Mr SPEAKER-The question now is: That the report be adopted and that the Bill be read a third time’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is, That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting’.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– It has been circulated.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is not here on the table and it has not been circulated to Opposition members. What the Minister, on behalf of the Government, apparently wants the Opposition to do is to study the Bill from now until the next sitting in the early hours of the morning. Because of the way the Government is acting it is possible that the House will not rise until about dawn, and we would hope to have at least a couple of hours sleep. However, it seems, that the Government does not want to allow even that. Here we have this absurd situation of the Opposition being asked to agree to debate today this Bill in which an amount to the tune of $4.2m is involved. This measure involves a complex arrangement.

One must wonder about the presentation of the Bill. It seems to me that it is some sort of a payoff in respect of the recent by-election. Just what is going on here at this hour of the morning? I now have a copy of the Bill in front of me and I see that Sir Henry Bolte has signed the agreement which is incorporated in it. Complex relationships which are involved here. The Parliament is being requested to make money available through the State to a company because through bad management - that is what we are informed officially - the company is now in serious debt. What sort of a precedent does this establish? What about all the other private or co-operative companies in Australia that are in trouble? What about all the mining companies that are becoming bankrupt, companies with shareholders all over Australia? Is the Government going to provide money to the States for them also?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member will realise that the main question before the Chair is the resumption of the debate. The honourable member is raising questions regarding the substance of the Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I think that what I am saying is logical. The point, is that this Bill is being introduced at 1 o’clock in the morning, to be debated in the same day. About $4m is involved. Why can the House not sit next week? The Senate will be sitting next week. That would be the most sensible thing to do. We all know that honourable members opposite do not want to sit. They want to get back home and loaf for the next 3 months.

Dr PATTERSON:

– What sort of a deal? The honourable member is the only one around here who makes deals. In all seriousness, the Government’s action is just making a farce of the Parliament again. An important Bill is being introduced at 1 o’clock in the morning. When does the Government think that the executive or the caucus of the Opposition will be able to consider it - over breakfast? That apparently is what the Government expects. The Opposition will have no part of it. This is just one more example of the farce and the circus which this House has become.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member seconding the motion?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, I am seconding the motion. This is a matter of some considerable significance. Here the power of law in the Commonwealth of Australia is being used, in conjunction with the States, to provide over $4m, a substantial part of which may go to a private company. I do not know whether this private company has properly conducted its business. I do not know whether the difficulties in which it finds itself are difficulties which would justify the national Parliament’s coming to its aid to this extent. Who knows this? Does the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) know this? What information does he have about the affairs of the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

NS- There is nothing whatever about it in the second reading speech. It is a matter of trust between a private concern in the electorate of the former Minister for Trade and Industry and this Government. This is all we have to take it upon at 1.5 a.m. It is a matter of trust and I would not be prepared to take S2 on trust under these circumstances let alone S4m. I think this Parliament is com ng to the very end of the process of democracy.

I see 2 honourable members from Queensland sitting close together on the front bench looking apprehensive at the way in which democracy is moving - one smiling and the other looking serious - unaware of all the background and hoping that at some stage or other the evening will come to an end so they can go home to their warm beds confident that things will go along as they have always assumed they will. But this is not enough for me and it is not enough for the Opposition. I would like to have this Bill introduced in this House so we could have a reasonable opportunity of ascertaining whether it is fair and proper that about $4m of the Commonwealth’s funds may be made available, part or all to this private concern. I know this Bill has been signed by Henry Bolte and by Willie McMahon. I would imagine, Mr Speaker, that if we saw their signatures there would be some rather shaky forms in the letters that make up their names because we both know them very well and we know that they would know no more about this than you or I or any other member of this House.

When are those members on the other side of the House who take a stand for democratic and individual rights like the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid), the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who pretends to have some legal background, and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who has mostly background, going to really deal with matters that are of significance right here and now?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest that the honourable member for Lalor might do just that for the simple reason that the question before the Chair is whether the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am very well aware of that, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would suggest that the honourable member might come back to the motion.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– What I am saying is that we should all have a little more opportunity through another day of sitting to make up our minds whether this Bill is proper and should be passed into law by this Parliament. I submit, Sir, that even you who do not involve yourself in debate or in the details of legislation must be uncertain in your own mind whether it is proper to provide by an Act of this Parliament over $4m, a substantial part of which will go to a private company. I submit you must be in some doubt It is possible, is it not, that a little later in the morning some Minister may come in here with a Bill to provide some assistance for Mineral Securities Ltd or some other company that has been in difficulties.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

NS- Even Leopold. If this happened, Mr Speaker, how would you as Speaker of this House know whether or not the Bill should be passed? I see that you agree with me substantially. I would imagine that honourable members and Ministers who have over the years pretended that they are really concerned to exercise a proper supervision over the affairs of this House would be prepared to exercise that supervision tonight. Personally, I am not and I support the action that has been taken on this side to give the Opposition and the people who have to accede to or reject this Bill a proper opportunity to decide whether it is legitimate or otherwise. The Minister said in his second reading speech that it is, but nothing that has been said - it is mostly nothing - by honourable members on the other side of the House so far has given us any confidence that that is true, and until we have a better case to justify the provision of funds such as provided under this Bill I submit that the House must vote against the Bill.

Mr Hurford:

– I raise a point of order. I submit that the Minister is debating the Bill and not the subject before the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order!. I uphold the point of order. Although the Minister is giving some reasons for opposing the motion, I think he is getting away from the motion.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The point, of course, is that it is necessary for me to demonstrate to this House that there is within the Opposition sufficient knowledge of the Bill for the honourable member for Lalor to be able to speak with some knowledge of its contents in this House tonight. Consequently there is no validity in his request for an extension of time until Tuesday, and that is the reason why I think it is valid for this House to be asked to consider this legislation later on this day.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have just reminded the honouable members for Dawson and Lalor, and upheld the point of order raised against the Minister, about straying from the motion before the

House. I suggest to the honourable member for Riverina that he come back to the motion.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was about to make the point that the time mentioned in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson will give the Minister as well as the House the opportunity to assemble and present the facts touching not only on this Bill but also the associated measures that will have to be taken if the canning fruits industry of the nation is to remain viable, as I say it should. This is the point I wanted to make: I am deeply concerned and all I am interested in as regards this Bill is that we have the full facts and a full opportunity to debate them and then to make the correct and proper decision in the interests of a great and important industry.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– From the State House.

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, the State House, a subsidiary institution of some sort.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, you may, because 1 regard you as a subsidiary or a rubber stamp of some institution outside this place which is using you as a-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have appealed now on four occasions. The motion before the House is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’. What the Minister did before he came here or what the honourable member for Wills may think of him is not the subject of the discussion.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

irns - I rise to a point of order. I suggest that time is the essence of this matter. If we had enough time I am sure we could prove that the Minister is a-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in this point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr BRYANT:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr BRYANT:

– I was just going to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! All right. Before you do that I want to say that al) of us have had a fairly long day. Let a little reason prevail. Many honourable members are fairly tired and at this stage the Chair does not feel like being too difficult. I realise that we had an extremely heavy day yesterday and we are having an extremely heavy day today. If we are to get on in this House under these circumstances the co-operation of honourable members is required. I would like to say to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) that although I have been in the chair for a fair period of time over the last 2 days, I do not even now need a pillow.

Mr BRYANT:

– I withdraw the suggestion that the Minister is a rubber stamp. At least a rubber stamp leaves a permanent and identifiable imprint of its use. There is a long tradition of Parliament in these matters. There is a courtesy which applies between the 2 Parties irrespective of the numbers involved. When in the Senate the numbers were 33 to 3, 30 to 6 or, as in recent years, we on this side were 25 to 30 down, we were always treated with extreme courtesy in these matters. We were always given an opportunity to examine legislation in accordance with the procedures.

The issue, as I see it, involves the simple courtesies that have to apply in institutions such as this. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) are for the time being operating under a charter from this Parliament not because they own the place but because they happen to be members of the Executive Council for the time being. It is their duty to see that all the verities and the courtesies with which we ought to treat one another are always observed. Then there is the question of the finance involved. Nobody can say that $4m is a small sum. In anybody’s money $4m is a very large sum indeed. Then there is the question of introducing legislation at this hour of the night - any night - and proceeding as though it ought to be passed straight away. I resent it on all those grounds. I resent it because of the discourtesy between the 2 parties, the abdication of the Parliament’s interest in the matter and the simple fact that none of us by any stretch of the imagination can give the matter serious consideration at this time, particularly in view of the method by which it has been introduced. All those honourable members opposite who speak with great force about law and order and what people ought to do, should accept their moral duty and make the law making process at least look as though it is proceeding in some commonsense, straightforward and useful way.

Dr Klugman:

– Billy got scared.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Whatever the motives may be there has been a change, and the new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has taken responsibility for it. He has said that he takes the responsibility for the truncation of the proceedings of the Parliament. The’ Senate will be sitting next week even if this House has to put the Victorian Grant (Shepparton Preserving Company Limited) Bill and the 2 States grants Bills, which involve $200m, through today when at last we get them. The Senate will not be debating those Bills until next week; so they will not be delayed. Presumably one of the other 2 Bills will not take effect until next financial year. So we must make a stand on the introduction of this Bill. It is the first of 3 Bills, the introduction of which honourable members learned when they received a copy of the blue ‘Daily Programme’ for the House of Representatives at 1.30 yesterday afternoon.

Mr WHITLAM:

– We saw it in an incomplete form yesterday morning. One copy in an incomplete form was made available to my colleagues and me on the Opposition executive at about 10 o’clock yesterday morning. It was made available 151 hours ago. No copies of these 3 Bills were available at the Party meeting yesterday morning as were copies of the other Bills which are on the Notice Paper. All honourable members know that the 3 Parties represented in this House were to receive copies of the other Bills which were on the Notice Paper. No private members in this place have received a copy of this Bill. The Opposition executive received an incomplete copy of the programme 15i hours ago. This is just not good enough. I would expect that sufficient honourable members on the Government side would support the amendment in this case. No delay is anticipated in the allocations to be made available by this Bill or the other Bills. 1 know that at the end of a parliamentary session people become accustomed to guillotines. The guillotine has been applied in relation to 17 Bills. Frankly, Mr Speaker, I do not remember a case where the. House was expected to pass a Bill on the day of its introduction when the only time that honourable members had available to discuss it in private was between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. that Very day of introduction. Accordingly, I support this amendment because it is on this amendment that the introduction and the method of consideration of 2 other Bills hinge, neither of which honourable members have seen.

Dr Patterson:

– How many?

Mr SWARTZ:

– Three Bills- that is, the 3 that we are referring to now on the Daily Programme’. This was done. The Government was then advised that leave would be given to introduce these Bills as it was essential that they be passed during this sitting because of the implications associated with them. This was the firm arrangement that was made. It was accepted in all good faith and I take it that the Opposition will stand up to the arrangement which it has made.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– We have not been able to proceed any further than the introduction of one Bill. There are still 2 other Bills to be introduced. So, in view of the circumstances, I think that the debate on this particular issue has proceeded long enough and that we are merely taking up now time that could be devoted to the consideration of the Bills themselves. I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The question now is-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I was already on my feet before the honourable member rose to speak. The question now is, ‘that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question*.

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has the Prime Minister been given a pair tonight?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! It is not within the competence of the Chair to answer that question. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The bells are not ringing. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The motion has not been seconded.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Do you not think it is an intolerable situation and an astonishing thing that 60 men such as those opposite should stay here and behave like this while the tinpot tyrant has gone home to bed?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)-

Order! That is not a point pf order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The original question-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member is out of order and will resume his seat. I had already begun to speak. Honourable members who are interjecting will remain silent while I am on my feet. The original question was, ‘that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting’, to which the honourable member for Fremantle has moved as an amendment, ‘that the words “next day of sitting” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof “Tuesday next” ‘. The question now is, ‘that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’. I call the Minister for National Development.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs- Minister for National Development) (2.59 a.m. - Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not repeat-

Mr Bryant:

– I . second the motion. He has not said anything in 20-odd years. It is not worth the trouble listening to him.

Question put:

That the Leader of the House he not further heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! I ask the honourable member to put his motion in writing. (The honourable member for Forrest having submitted his motion in writing.)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! Is the motion seconded?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: .

That the motion be agreed to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is so. I call the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr KEATING:

– I will be brief. I agree wholeheartedly with the . sentiments expressed by the, honourable member for Forrest. That the business of this Parliament, which is virtually the business of a large public corporation, should be conducted in such a shoddy manner is an indictment of this Parliament and of the members of the Government. It is a disgrace and an affront to the people of the Commonwealth. Bills appropropriating hundreds of millions of dollars are nol being discussed. They are being enacted in a very irresponsible way. Major pieces of legislation, which the Opposition has had no opportunity to consider and in relation to which members of the Opposition have had no opportunity to prepare speeches, have been brought into the House, gagged and forced through. The whole Parliament has been discredited and disregarded. Members of Parliament have been disregarded. The whole process is a sham. I think we must consider how much longer the Australian people will tolerate such action from this Parliament. Each State parliament carries out its business in a much more dignified and a much more sensible way than does the House of Representatives.

I have been a member for only 18 months, but I think the way in which the House conducts its business is a disgrace. I have seen branch meetings of the Australian Labor Party run in a far better way. Presidents of branches in my electorate would make Mr Speaker look like an amateur. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has the members of the Government here voting this evening, but he is not in the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is in the chamber. His opposite number is somewhere else - asleep either in the House or at the Lodge. Major legislation has been introduced. The Government can take whatever time it wishes to discuss any motion or any statement on which it thinks it can gain some political capital. There is on the notice paper a motion that the House take note of papers in relation to immigration presented by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). The Government thought that it could make some political mileage out of that. A similar situation existed last year we had a debate for almost 2 or 3 days on the Vietnam Moratorium. At this time last year we had to sit until this time in the morning for 2 days, in a row to do the very same thing that we are doing now - to pass the kind of legislation that is coming in now.

The fiddling ancillary Bills that were brought in at the start of the session were inconsequential. The Government was rely. ing on urgency motions from the Opposition to keep business before the House. Now, when the Government has very important legislation, it wants to squeeze it through in the dead of the night. I believe that this is a disgrace on the part of honourable members opposite. They should be ashamed to call themselves members of Parliament. They are not adequately representing the people whom they should represent. As a Party and as a Government, they are a disgrace. I support the motion.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, before the honourable member moved his motion you had called on Government Business No. 3. It had been read by the Clerk, and you had called it on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

The honourable member cannot take a point of order while the Minister is taking a point of order. The honourable member for Dawson has been in this House long enough to know that. The honourable member will resume his seat

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I called on Government business. The honourable member for Corio at the moment is speaking on a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders for a particular purpose. I called the Order of the Day, the Clerk announced the Government Business, and I called the Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member for Corio then took the call oh the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Under similar circumstances to these last year we had the situation during the day, after the staff of this House had been forced into a situation

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes. I have already intimated that. I called on the Government business. It .was announced and it was called. The honourable member for Corio is now speaking.

Mr SCHOLES:

– That is right.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the House come to order. I do riot think that any of the interjections or comments are assisting us at this particular time. Honourable members have been speaking in this House this evening about the time and about discussion at this hour. I suggest that the House is not being helped in any way by some of the comments that are being made from both sides of the House.

Mr SCHOLES:

– At approximately this time last year, after a similar exhibition by the Government, about midday on the last sitting day - after a 1.30 a.m. and a 3.30 a.m. sitting, which is nowhere near as bad as this - we had women chaining themselves up in the gallery. I suggest that much of the blame for that occurrence rested on those persons who were responsible for the late sittings of the House. I suggest that, if this house persists with the conditions of employment under which the attendants and other personnel in this House work, it must also accept responsibility for the results of the fact that no human being can be expected to be alert and efficient and to perform his duties under such conditions.

The Clerks and the other people in this House do not have the same opportunity to rest as the members. Those persons cannot be expected to be. alert and to carry out their duties in the proper way after such an exhaustive session. Some of them in fact, are being asked to work 40 continuous hours by the Government members - the people running the House. I ask whether any Government supporter has the courage to stand up and say that these are reasonable terms of employment or any terms of employment at all. I know that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), who is interjecting, would suggest that that is about right for the workers of this country.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member has consistently voted with the Government to keep the House in session and will continue to ;do so until such time as the House rises ‘at some time on Friday morning. This motion is a serious one. I mink it is about time the Government took some cognisance ;of it. The Government is keeping the members up, which is bad enough.’ But it is also’ keeping the staff up. I think it is an absolute farce to keep the Parliament going under these circumstances. It is about time some of the members of this House accepted their responsibility to the people who.::work for them. The people who work in this Parliament give good and faithful , service, but are paid a mere pittance, ari’ absolutely disgraceful wage. 1 hope that at some time this, too, can be exposed to the public of this country.

Mr Buchanan:

– Why are you prolonging it then?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– You have already told me that I am speaking in the time that has been aliotted for Bills. I am maintaining that Bills cannot be discussed reasonably, logically, sensibly or coherently while we are in this state; so I want to debate this matter, which at least everybody knows a little about. If there is any logic, reasonableness or humanity in the people in . this House, they will vote for this motion. We are not a lot of Cardinal Mindszentys who can have our eyelids propped up until, we are brainwashed into a state of numbness in which we cannot respond and stand up for ourselves. When this is done to people in Iron Curtain countries, Government supporters call it brainwashing. When the Government does it to the people in this House, it is some sort of a madhouse that is being run by the inmates. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– And they leave here later, too.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That is quite right. As the honourable member for Barton says, they leave after us at night and they come back before us in the morning. Surely . consideration must be given to the normal humanities and the standards and conditions under which these people work. Even the Press is being kept here late tonight. I have given serious consideration to these matters. I have not spoken previously tonight. I believe that the Parliament is being made into a circus because of the activities of the Government which, as I said, is endeavouring to pass a record number of Bills through by the instrument of the guillotine - and that is all it can be called.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– As a matter of fact, the guillotine of the French Revolution could not possibly have been as ridiculous and as sharp as the one being used by this Government. If honourable members opposite had observed the gallaries tonight they would have seen an unusual thing. There have been more people sitting in the galleries until a very late stage - they are not there now - than there have been at any other late night sitting. It is remarkable that at this time of night there are 2 people sitting in the gallery. In other words, this extraordinary set of circumstances which has arisen has been observed and noted by the public. As we saw, the galleries were crowded till very late in the evening. Surely the Government, for its own sake, should note this fact. As I said, we’ are in an extraordinary position. The Parliament is being made into a circus by the Government. All the parliamentary principles have been thrown overboard. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), who together with the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) is responsible for this set of circumstances, gave up very early tonight and went home. In other words, he leaves it to all of us. As I said I did not speak earlier tonight. I have given very serious consideration to the issues placed before this House tonight and I finally find myself in a position- - -

Motion (by Mr. N. H. Bowen) put: ‘

Mr Sherry:

– In what year was that?

Mr WHITLAM:

– That was on 6th December 1962. The following month at the legal convention in Hobart Sir Garfield delivered a paper on some aspects of Australian proposals for legislation for the control of restrictive trade practices and monopolies. He detailed Australia’s proposals to apply in vertical as well as horizontal practices, He drew a parallel between his proposals and the New Zealand, Canadian and European- Common Market schemes. He also referred to some aspects of the United

States law at that time. In August 1963 Sir Garfield delivered the G. L. Wood memorial lecture at Melbourne University. Among other things he said with respect to resale price maintenance that it had 3 aspects: The reselling of a product at a price fixed by agreement .between the resellers; the reselling of a product at a price fixed’ by agreement between resellers and the manufacturer of the product; and a concerted refusal by resellers of a product to buy from the manufacturer unless he withholds, -supplies from a reseller who is offering competitive prices or terms to the consumer.

It is very clear that Sir Garfield Barwick on many occasions outlined his proposals for restrictive practices legislation and always included proposals to ban vertical resale price maintenance. He did so under the auspices of the Government, after Mr Menzies had put such proposals to the people at the 1961 election and after they had been outlined at the opening of the Parliament in 1960 and 1961. It may be said cynically that it <was> inevitable that the Government would have to do something about company legislation and something about restrictive practices legislation in view of the unanimous recommendations in 1958 and 1959 of the 1 Constitution Review Committee. Nevertheless, after Sir Garfield became Chief: Justice - and there were people who said at the time that this was a great loss to the cause of banning restrictive practices, because it was thought that the best poachers often proved to be the best gamekeepers - the next AttorneyGeneral, the present ; Treasurer (Mr Snedden), brought in a trade practices Bill which had no reference to vertical resale price maintenance.

In opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I moved an amendment to deplore the omission from the Snedden Bill of the proposals that ..had been reiterated again and again by .Sic Garfield Barwick, and especially the omission, of resale price maintenance. I quoted ,. instances from reports,- subsequent to Sir . Garfield Barwick’s proposals, by Professor Grant as a royal commissioner in Tasmania, and by another’ royal commission “ that had been appointed by the Western Australian Government in the interim, and also, from legislation on the subject had’-been introduced in the interim by Mr Ed ward. Heath of the

Conservative Government of Great Britain. At that time, I made quite an issue of the omission, especially of resale price maintenance, from the 1965 Bill. In fact, the Bill had been tabled in the House about a year before, and many persons, particularly the financial editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, had pointed out the enormity of this omission, its economic impact, and the fact that there were not the difficulties constitutionally in passing these proposals in regard to vertical resale price maintenance that there were in respect of many other aspects of. restrictive practices.

Nevertheless, every member of the Government Parties voted against the motion deploring the omission of this and other features of the Barwick proposals - the Menzies proposals. The present AttorneyGeneral (Mr N. H. Bowen) voted against them. Although he spoke in the debate, he did not mention resale price maintenance. He voted against the motion, drawing attention to it on the second reading.

Mr.N. H. Bowen - You- appreciate that horizontal price maintenance’ was included.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, and that is why I have been stressing again and again vertical resale price maintenance, which Sir Garfield Barwick had promised again and again and which was already operating in Great Britain, thanks to a Conservative Government, and in America, Canada, New Zealand and throughout the Common Market countries; it was operating in every country comparable to Australia, but was not operating here. The Attorney-General did not refer to this aspect in his speech, in fact, it was referred to by his successor and predecessor, the member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), who justified it. Naturally, enough, the present Prime Minister also voted against the motion deploring the omission of resale price maintenance from that Bill, as did the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox), and, of course, the Attorney-General of the day. Everyone was against the banning of resale price maintenance at that time.

Then, in Committee, I proposed to add to the Bill the very words of the Barwick proposals in relation to reseale price maintenance. I was giving honourable gentlemen on the Government side the opportunity to carry out their Leader’s, promise to the people and to carry out the promises delivered at many learned and commercial gatherings by the former AttorneyGeneral, who is the present Chief Justice. But everybody on the Government side voted against the Barwick and Menzies proposals at that time. The present AttorneyGeneral voted against them, as did the honourable member for Bennelong, the honourable member for Henty, the present Prime Minister and the new Treasurer, who was the then . Attorney-General. In fact, the then Attorney-General, who is the present Treasurer, used this argument for rejecting the Barwick proposals on this point: -Another point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his proposed amendment was that resale price maintenance has not been covered. In its collective sense it is covered. What is not covered is the individual will of a particular person who says: ‘I want all my articles to be sold at a certain price.’ - That individual is not assisted by the legislation to enforce that price, but if the price is not. observed he has the capacity to withhold supplies from’ the person who is selling at the lesser price. I’ think this is consistent with the philosophy of the Bill.

The present Treasurer, who was then the Attorney-General, also said:

The Government decided not to include individual resale price maintenance because it involves a situation where competitive forces are at work.

The phrase appealed to .him, because he repeated it. He said:

Individual resale price maintenance is not examinable because competitive forces are at work.

I have gone through the history of the matter because the Barwick proposals were the ‘old-fashioned and cumbersome’ proposals which the present Prime Minister now ridicules. In fact, it. is a very late conversion that he has had to the cause of banning resale price maintenance. Let the public recall that the Barwick proposals, which were put thoroughly and exhaustively to the people - which Mr Menzies, as he then was, put to the people at an election - have been described by the present Prime Minister as old-fashioned and cumbersome.

I have only one matter of detail in the Bill on which I wish to speak. There is still one escape clause. The provisions in the Bill relating to the so-called practice of ‘loss-leadering’ represent a real flaw and open the way for manipulation by suppliers to. evade the provisions of the Bill.

The Attorney-General, in his speech justified the exemption of action against loss-leadering in the following terms:

A re-seller engages in loss-leadering if he sells particular goods at a loss to attract custom or to promote his business in some way. The result of his so doing may well be to give the public an impression that the goods in question are of inferior quality, and this could be detrimental to the marketing prospects of the supplier.

As against this view, one authority, Professor Yamey, has pointed out in a publication of the United Kingdom Institute of Economic Affairs that loss-leadering postulates a poor view of the competence of shoppers. Professor Yamey says that, while some retailers use loss-leaders with the intention of trapping the unwary, many more use it as a form of advertisement - which benefits shoppers directly - without the intention of deceiving them.

Professor- Yamey argues that, even if it is assumed that the continuation of loss-leader practices is harmful to some consumers, the elimination of price competition . is worse. However, resale price maintenance cannot eliminate loss-leader tactics using brand goods unless it covers all brand goods; and even then some classes of unbranded goods can be used to defend the same tactics. That view is expressed by not only Professor Varney but also in a detailed report , of the Canadian Restrictive Trade Practices Commission on loss leader selling in 1955. The Commission recommended that no action should be taken against lost leadering. It said that evidence indicated that cases of lost leadering were clearly insufficient to warrant legislation. The scepticism of Professor Yamey and the Canadians is well justified. The possible ambiguities are an interpretation of the section relating to lost leadering, giving the supplier too much power to misinterpret normal competitive practices as lost leadering. This section provides scope for circumvention of the intent of the legislation.

There are many other shortcomings in this legislation. There are many invitations to smart operators to continue their exploitation of the public. Nevertheless, to move amendments to this legislation would delay it. We do not propose to vote against the legislation or to delay it. This is consistent with the Labor Party’s attitude that it will support any improvement in the law on this subject. It will not resist - improvements because they are not perfect or because they are not contemporary with the laws in comparable countries. We have throughout the history of this legislation and the proposals supported bans on restrictive practices. This was our attitude in the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Review. This was our attitude throughout the period when Sir Garfield Barwick was AttorneyGeneral. It was our attitude when the next Attorney-General introduced the legislation. It has also been the attitude of the Labor Party in the Federal Parliament and in the State parliaments ever since.

The original proposal, as both Sir Garfield Barwick and Mr Menzies, as he then was, told the Parliament, the people and learned gatherings, was that the cooperation of the States would be sought. The operation of the States was never forthcoming except from Labor governments. The only companion legislation which has been passed was passed by the Tasmanian Labor Government, and, to everybody’s surprise, it went through the Legislative Council as well as the Legislative Assembly in Tasmania.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Twice the Legislative Council in South Australia has rejected this proposal. Under the Walsh Government the companion legislation was passed by the House of Assembly but it was rejected by the Legislative Council. The Hall Government made no attempt to get the legislation through the Legislative Council. When the Dunstan Government was re-elected last year the new AttorneyGeneral, much to the delight of the then Commonwealth Attorney-General, proposed to reintroduce the legislation. I will quote what the honourable and learned member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) told me in answer to a question without notice on 19th October last. He said:

The Attorney-General of South Australia and I had a warm conversation - warm in the sense that it was friendly - because I was very pleased by his announcement that the Government of South Australia proposed to legislate to refer power to the Commonwealth. I had an informal discussion with at least one other of my colleagues.

That was at the meeting of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General -

Without wishing to sound any note of final doom, I think I should be realistic enough to appreciate that where the charm of my 2 predecessors in office failed to produce the result that might be desired I doubt whether perhaps I can do any better. But I do not give up hope, and I can assure the honourable gentleman that the problem has not been forgotten by me.

Since the House has been in session this year I have had a question on the notice paper for the former Attorney-General and for the present Attorney-General in these terms:

What action have the Australian and South Australian Governments taken on trade practices legislation since his predecessor’s discussion with the South’ Australian Attorney-General at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General in October 1970?

I am at a loss to know why it is so difficult, why for 3 months I have had to waif for an answer to a question of that nature. The fact is that the South Australian Government was again as good as its word. It put the companion legislation through the House of Assembly but once again it was defeated by the Liberal majority in the Legislative Council. It is unfortunate that despite the efforts of Sir Garfield Barwick - and he was backed by Mr Menzies I am sure in this matter- there was no support coming from any Liberal State leader anywhere in this country. The only companion legislation in any State was achieved by one Labor government and has been sought by another Labor government.

One can only hope that in the pending concrete pipes case in the High Court there will be a decision giving a contemporary interpretation to the corporations power in our Constitution. As I said during the inflation panic under the former Prime Minister at the time the House first met this year, if the interpretation by the High Court enables this Parliament to modernise and to strengthen the trade practices legislation, the Labor Party will certainly co-operate in that strengthening. If: the High Court’s decision shows that the Commonwealth’s constitutional power is still inadequate the Labor Party will certainly support any referendum to modernise, amplify, that power. In the meantime we support this legislation which, for the first time, will ban vertical resale price maintenance in Federal jurisdictions.

I am delighted indeed that after all these years the- Barwick proposals have at last been accepted, and in fact strengthened, by persons like the Prime Minister (Mr, McMahon) who regarded them, despite the people’s, endorsement of ;them, as old fashioned and cumbersome. In fact, the rest qf Sir Garfield’s scheme in this respect is now being implemented and improved. We may lament that in. the meantime the Australian public have .had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for their goods than they need have done. This was not Sir Garfield’s fault; it was the fault of his successors- ^successive Prime , Ministers and succesive ‘.Attorneys-General.

Mr ‘HAMER (isaacs)5. (4.49 a.m.)(Quorum’ formed) I am delighted the Opposition is being so co-operative on this Bill, as it is so important to our ‘economy. We live in a society which accepts that in the wide areas of economic life community interests are best served’ by a system of free enterprise. The interests of’ the community will be served only if the Government -sees that free enterprise is truly competitive in ways that help ‘tbe- consumer. For this reason I have supported the proposal for a systematic review , of tariffs to see that they are not excessive and, for the same reason, I support this important restrictive trade practices legislation, including this Bill, to extend its operations into vertical resale price -maintenance.

Nevertheless, the issue of resale price maintenance is not as black and white as the Leader of the Opposition. (Mr Whitlam) seems to think. Many, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, have sincere, doubts that this legislation . is in the true interests of the community;. I believe that we should, in this debate , in this House attempt to remove these doubts. Before I , deal with these doubts, I should like to deal with 2 concerns of mine. The first of these is the almost complete Jack of sta-: tistical information about . resale price maintenance. I endeavoured . to obtain ans-. wers . to 2 fundamental questions. Firstly, what is the proportion of Australia’s retail., sales subject to resale price maintenance and, secondly;’ what proportion of the sales now subject to resale price maintenance will be covered by this”’ Bill? To my astonishment, I found that no government department had even an approximate answer to either of these questions, chiefly because in -the past resale price maintenance has not been a registrable practice.

This lack of basic information concerns me. I accept that, by the very nature of public affairs, most legislation must be prepared in the half light. This is darkness at noon. Nevertheless, the Government is convinced that the practice is sufficiently widespread and damaging to justify legislative action. I support this decision.

My other concern is that initially the legislation will be restricted to interstate trade, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and States which pass complementary legislation or refer power to the Commonwealth. Tasmania is the only one to have acted so far. It has referred power. If the High Court does not uphold the Commonwealth’s case in the concrete pipes case, the legislation will not cover internal trade in States other than Tasmania. Despite the lack of statistics, it is clear that this internal trade is a substantial portion of existing resale price maintenance.

I should now like to turn to the doubts felt by manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers about this legislation. I should like to deal firstly with manufacturers. Their first concern is that, in some areas, the retention of resale price maintenance may be in the interests of consumers. Books and pharmaceuticals have been mentioned. In fact, this concern is met because proposed new section 66j (2.) provides that the Trade Practices Tribunal can exempt goods from the provisions of this Bill if it is satisfied that either the quality or variety of goods would be reduced by the elimination of resale price maintenance, that the number of selling outlets would be excessively reduced, that the retail price would ultimately rise, that retail conditions would be likely to cause danger to health or that necessary pre or after sales services would cease. If any of these effects are accepted by the Tribunal, resale price maintenance will be allowed to continue. I believe that this proposed section provides reasonable protection for the interests of the public, manufacturers and distributors.

The second concern of manufacturers is that they may be compelled to distribute to retail outlets with which they are. not satisfied - outlets that refuse to carry an adequate range, to display goods adequately or to provide adequate after sales services and so on. These fears are quite groundless. The Bill does not prevent a manufacturer from refusing to supply a retailer on such grounds. The only ground on which supply cannot be refused is that the retailer will not agree to a laid down retail price. Some confusion perhaps has been caused by the activities of the ACTU in threatening industrial action to coerce manufactuers into supplying goods to its retail store although its store does not meet the manufacturers’ requirements for supplying to other retail outlets. This action by the ACTU has nothing to do with resale price maintenance. Many of the firms threatened have hot been practising resale price maintenance. If the ACTU persists in industrial blackmail for commercial purposes it may, in the short run, increase the profits of its retail store but, in the long run, it will cause loss and damage to manufacturers’ employees and will destroy the ACTU as a credible industrial organisation. (Quorum formed).

The 2 matters I have mentioned are the principal concerns of manufacturers, but they have a number of other worries over the economic effects of this Bill. Each of these is a complex argument in itself and I shall have to confine myself to a brief statement of the propositions and a rejoinder based on what I believe will be the economic consensus. It is contended, for instance, that price maintenance may be an instrument of competition used by a manufacturer in order to influence distributors towards his brands at the expense of competing goods. But if this is done, other manufacturers are likely to follow suit, and thus neutralise the competitive advantages to any one of them. Then no manufacturer gains, and the consumer loses.

It is contended also that manufacturers use resale price maintenance to attach their customers to them, and by thus achieving a steady demand, they can reduce production and marketing costs. But resale price maintenance is only one of several ways in which this attachment can be achieved. Exclusive dealing privileges, additional discounts, limitation of the number of distributors and extra financial accommodation are other effective available methods. Resale price maintenance is not essential for this purpose.

I believe it is fair to say that manufacturers as a whole have little to lose from the end of resale price maintenance and the more efficient of them will gain from increased competition. The same may not necessarily be true of the distributors - the wholesalers and the retailers. Of course manufacturers frequently do their own wholesaling. We must consider whether the effect of this Bill will be to cause manufacturers’ to move increasingly into retailing. Vertical integration is an alternative to price maintenance. Though the possibility cannot be dismissed, it is hot likely that the abolition of price maintenance would induce much additional vertical integration by manufacturers into retailing, for the costs and risks would seem to rule out any extensive development of shop-owning by manufacturers. - .’

Many’ independent wholesalers are in favour of price maintenance for 2 reasons. Firstly, resale price maintenance is looked on as a means of protecting the business of their principal customers, the small shopkeepers, against the increasing encroachment df- larger-scale retailers’ who do not use the wholesale trade to the same extent, if at all. Secondly, some wholesalers welcome maintenance of wholesale prices because it reduces price competition within their ranks: ‘ . !

If this Bill’ succeeds in eliminating price maintenance on a national scale the effects on wholesalers will be conflicting.’ The probable decline of small scale retailing - a subject to which I shall return in a moment- and the increase of price competition in wholesaling would adversely affect wholesalers as a group. But enterprising and efficient wholesalers will be able to gain business not only from other wholesalers but also from the wholesaling departments of manufacturers who compete with them. Moreover, price competition in retail ing would increase the retailer’s . risks of holding stocks. The consequence would be more frequent, smaller purchases, which would play into the hands of wholesalers. More competition in distribution will raise the importance of entrepreneural qualities and the wholesaler is - or should be - essentially the entrepreneur, making profits by buying, holding or selling merchandise to the best advantage.

Turning to the retailers, I think it must be said that price maintenance does not put an end to competition, in retailing. It merely removes the most effective and most valuable method of competition and leaves all others untouched. Indeed, the blocking of one outlet merely directs competition more strongly into others. Any additional - benefit that retailers receive from resale price - maintenance has been lost by the provision of more service!! - which may not be wanted by all customers - the spreading of turnover over a larger number of shops, more credit, home delivery, wider assortments, more staff and. better premises. In common sense these decisions should be left to the consumers, buying goods cheaply if they wish or paying a little more if they desire, additional services. Yet we must recognise ‘that the introduction of price competition in lines now subject to comprehensive price maintenance will affect the future and prospects of most types, of retail enterprise. . The most heavily hit will almost certainly -be the small independent shopkeepers, who already are under severe pressure from the supermarkets and the chain stores. Of course, not all small shopkeepers will be destroyed, The conveniently located small shops, efficiently run, can be more flexible than the large store. Price maintenance at the moment pre? vents many such small firms making full use of their advantages. These -shops would certainly survive the abolition of price maintenance. How many retailers would fail is difficult to estimate. British experience with the abolition of resale price maintenance suggests that- not many will fail, but the British retail problem is not the same as ours. I fear we may have in the transition period - if the High Court of Australia decision gives this Act general application or if the States pass the necessary legislation - a substantial loss of income by many established small retailers and the failure of some of them.

The community accepts that the farming community, faced by changing economic conditions which it is unable to forecast or prevent, should receive assistance to reestablish itself. The. ‘ marginal dairy farm scheme and the rural reconstruction scheme are examples. I believe the Government should watch very closely the effect of this Bill on small shopkeepers and, if substantial numbers of them are failing, we should consider some form of reconstruction scheme for them - possibly rehabilitation and retraining. I commend this idea to the Minister. With these resevations, 1 support this Bill as a step towards increased efficiency in our economic life.

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

en - Which report is that?

Mr CONNOR:

– -Bannerman’s report of 30th June 1970. It is there for all to read who wish to do so, but apparently the speakers that the Government has chosen have deliberately ignored it. The Bannerman report states in paragraph 2.10: . . Agreements on discounts and discount structures often seem as important as the prices to which they apply. Agreements of this nature recognise and seek to protect the respective trading functions of companies within an established marketing structure; those outside the structure cannot get the particular goods at prices that would permit them to sell direct or to reduce, selling margins.

The whole setup - it is a scandalous one - is to keep the ins in and the outs out. So much for the legislation. We accept it for what it is worth. On this occasion we are not looking a gift horse in the mouth but we view it with suspicion in the light of. the shocking performance and the limitations of the present legislation. As the Leader of .the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said, the Barwick proposals were thoroughly emasculated. It is only recently that the Government could pluck up its courage to the point where it would actually challenge, the decision in the Huddart Parker case, and it still awaits the result. Even if this legislation goes through and there is not a favourable decision from the High Court the position will be that intrastate transactions can still go on, The price fixing boys and the racketeers can play merry hog.

What could be a more cynical attitude than for this Government at a time when the State legislatures are in fact making criminally responsible those who are rigging the share markets they choose to exculpate as far as they possibly can those who are prepared to rig the retail price markets. For many years the common law has been quite simple. An agreement by unlawful means to carry out a lawful act is conspiracy at common law. I notice the particular reference because the tender sympathies of the Government area always with its friends and supporters in this regard. The disabilities go further because, just as with the current Trade Practices Act, the Government has got into a position where the Commissioner for Trade Practices and the tribunal itself are nothing more than a secret setup. Secrecy is the essential feature of .it. We can be very certain that this Government by craft and connivance will do its very best to present a legal obstacle race for the enforcement of legislation of this type against its friends.

We can take as a typical example that where even the current legislation provides a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to 3 months imprisonment for general breaches in respect of non registration of registrable agreements and $4,000 and 6 months imprisonment in the case of collusive tendering and bidding, this Government deliberately leaves the only remedy by way of injunction. Why has not the Government done the decent thing and given the right for any compainant in a court of summary jurisdiction to hail these people before the court and give them the punishment that they deserve. This ought to be done. Instead of that complainants will have all the delays, inconvenience and frustrations of going to the Commonwealth Industrial Court to line up before an already overloaded tribunal and wait their turn. In the meantime, of course, the practices will continue and as usual-

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes, you may and you may not. What facilities will be given for a complainant to make a proper examination of the books and the record of the company against which he complains? There will be none whatsoever; and the Government has not provided it. A legal obstacle race is being created, and the Government will use that, and intends that it be used, quite deliberately. Let me take another instance. The Bill makes provision for damages to be sought. What damages can be claimed by a man - or a company - who has been denied any supply at all from the manufacturer of the goods that he seeks to obtain and retail? In cases such as that a man’s damages cannot be assessed, and the Government well knows it.

As the honourable member for Isaacs pointed out, by way of secret commissions and by way of discounts and rebates this legislation can be circumvented. If a manufacturer wants to circumvent it he has another very simple expedient. He can create franchises for the individual dealers whom he will supply. In due course he can colourably, by putting on an act, claim that these people are failing to provide an adequate service or an adequate supply of replacement parts. One could drive a horse and cart through the Bill, but the Government realises that the people of Australia are grimly determined to put an end to inflation.

Mr CONNOR:

– But unfortunately that is the mentality of the Government. It has some of the finest minds of the 19th century in it. They are actively at work in the devising of its legislation of this day. The whole of the spirit of the 19th century is there, and it always has been. For 2 weeks this House debated the Trade Practices Act in its original form. We have been given 2 hours, and no more, to debate tonight a Bill that will govern commercial transactions worth literally billions of dollars. The Government wants it that way. It took the Government 6 years even to get to the point where it was prepared to have the matter of the validity of- the Tribunal tested in the High Court.

Only 52 of the registered agreements are being investigated, at the present time. That is taken again from Mr Bannerman’s report. It is true, that they . cover, some 1,000 of the registered agreements, but as there would be undoubtedly well over 13,000 by this time it would seem, as a matter of calculation, that it will be some 13 years before even the present registered agreements can .be fully investigated. Even then the Government will fiddle, humbug, delay and procrastinate. These are the tactics of evasion. The best that can be said of this Bill is that it establishes the principle of prohibiting resale price maintenance. In point of fact, it will have very little effect indeed.

What is to be the position of the small shopkeeper who has not the money to engage in protracted litigation, but who has to appear before a superior court of record, such as the Commonwealth Industrial Court, brief counsel - and senior counsel at that - and submit himself to all the delays and frustrations that are involved. Designedly so, he has to run that obstacle race, and at the end of it there is a fair chance that an escape hatch will be provided by the Government. I will have more to say about that in the Committee stage of the Bill. The best we can say about the Bill is that it establishes the principle; but it provides loopholes in abundance for the friends of the Government and their supporters.

Mr Duthie:

– You take your time.

Mr KILLEN:

– Ob no; I would hate to see the honourable member collapse from excitement at what I had to say. This is a most important measure, and it is a tribute to the sense of endurance of the former Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), that he has been able to maintain and to sponsor this legislation, at least to the stage of its contemplation by the Australian Parliament. I do not intend to delay the House for long, and I will not be helped by insane interjections. If this measure is to be effective, that effectiveness must depend basically on its validity. When this measure was introduced I was reminded - and I suppose this is human enough - of what I had to say at the 1967 law conference in Adelaide deal-, ing with the trade practices measure, that unless the Trade Practices Act is within power, then all of these gestures are a splendid illustration of futility. On that occasion - and it sums - up my views regarding’ this measure - I had this to say:

Can I say for my part I have’ the gravest of doubts as to whether or not this Act -

That is, the Trade Practices Act - will be found to be within the, legislative power of the Commonwealth, and so in a very real sense we may, like the caravin in ‘Omar Khayyam’, be going towards the dawn of nothing:

I do not know whether that is the case and whether we are going towards the dawn of nothing. A few States have passed complementary legislation, such’ as Tasmania, splendidly represented in this Parliament by my honourable friend opposite, the Opposition Whip. If this legislation . is the dawn of realism, it will be a tribute indeed to the skill and the understanding of the former Attorney-General ‘ when he appeared before the High Court to argue this case on behalf of the Commonwealth in what is known compendiously as the concrete pipes case. I think the House should not speculate too readily on the outcome of the High Court case, but if it is within power it will be because of the skill of my honourable and learned friend that the Parliament and the country can say: ‘Well, here it is. The Parliament has power to legislate in this respect’.

On this occasion I want to say a few rather, I hope, not altogether perfunctory remarks regarding this measure. When the Trade Practices Act was introduced we went through turmoil and agony. I think we sat all night on several occasions, and I think I had about 60 or 70 amendments, all thoroughly misunderstood, by everybody. I think one was accepted; I do not know whether that was an expression of exhaustion or of glee. What I did argue on that occasion and what I do argue again on this occasion is my impatience with setting up a tribunal that has. tremendous discretionary powers. I favoured the Barwick legislation because, with great respect to the right honourable and learned gentlemen, it was far fiercer than is the present trade practices legislation. It was entirely before a court. Now this is a tribunal, and we are dealing with a tribunal. I do not want to be disrespectful to Mr Bannerman, who is a most estimable Australian and a very wonderful man, but all those who follow Mr Bannerman may not be of the same kidney. 1 notice with interest that the AttorneyGeneral has said that the Government has the legislation under review. I want to say to my honourable and learned friend that I hope that when this legislation is under review he will bear in mind some of the implorings 1 made 6 or 7 years ago regarding the Trade Practices Act. My conspicuous gripes - I hope that word does not annoy my learned friend - related to the uncertainties in the legislation, particularly in section 50 dealing with the public interest. I am delighted to see that at least as far as this legislation is concerned the provisions relating to exemptions have a greater degree of certainty than have the provisions within section 50 of the Act. In other words they are not quite so subjective. It is a very difficult task to say to a tribunal: ‘You must do a certain thing’, and to put on those who constitute that tribunal the burden, the authority, the responsibility, in effect, to carry out their own individual views. Some may say that this is the task of a judicial tribunal, but the Trade Practices Tribunal cannot, in my view, be described as a judicial tribunal.

Mr KILLEN:

– It may well be. I believe it is something approaching an administrative tribunal. When the Trade Practices Bill was passed, I said: ‘I think it is assuming, in a very real sense, a legislative authority.’ If one looks at the criteria set out in section 50 of the Act I think that one comes to this conclusion. That is the first thing that I want to say to the AttorneyGeneral, whom I know will heed what I have had to say. With great respect to my learned friend, at the Adelaide legal convention which considered this matter I said: ‘I may well have the sturdy views of one steeped in 18th century jurisprudence’, and he agreed with me, I thought, a little too willingly on the matter. I do not want to be misunderstood on this matter. What I disagreed with as far as the principal Trade Practices Act was concerned, was that enormous discretions are given to a tribunal which are not readily susceptible to judicial control. If one goes through the Trade Practices Act one finds example after example of discretion being given not merely to the Commissioner but also to the Tribunal. One finds examples such as the Tribunal as it thinks fit’ or ‘as it may consider’. These are not readily susceptible to judicial review or to judicial control, and I hope that these matters will be considered when the Attorney-General is carrying out a review.

The 2 things that I want to say with respect to this legislation - it is more of a Bill to be considered in Committee, but 1 cannot imgine any of us collapsing with excitment as we go through the provisions of the Bill in Committee at 10 or 20 past 6 in the morning - are: The criteria with respect to exemptions are tolerably specific, but I am a little disappointed that the Government has not been encouraged to go the stage of making provision for interim exemptions. I am concerned that hearing in these matters can be terribly long winded. Some of the hearing, at least by United Kingdom experience, have been very long drawn out. Company A may be able to flow down through one of the gateways of exemption provided under the legislation. That may be clearly the case. But, nevertheless, that company is put in the position where its trade, its company profitability, its circumstance and its whole economic environment are put in jeopardy because a hearing is not readily available to it.

Mr KILLEN:

– Look, the honourable member will not relieve whatever fault he may find in the Arbitration Commission by identifying this. I am talking about a specific difficulty and it will not be exacerbated by making commentary on the matter at all. The Attorney-General said that the Government is looking closely at the procedures. I wonder precisely what procedures the Attorney-General has in mind. I ask him if he will take into account the fact that there will be companies of good repute which may say: Well, for a variety of reasons we want to maintain a resale price’. They may have available to them something in the nature of what I described as a ready exit through one of the gateways available to them. There may be some reluctance on the part of the tribunal to deal with their case.

I hesitate because it is very easy to offer advice on these matters, but I would hope that something would be available to enable a ready hearing for these companies if they are prepared to go to the stage of offering, say damages, or meet a penalty if they do not come up to the level of exemption that is provided in the legislation. That is a very rough hewn suggestion that I put to the Attorney-General. The last thing I want to say is that I have very considerable doubt as to the effectiveness of the proposal relating to recommendations. Again, this is a subjective test and people may say that what is proposed in proposed section 66b - I think this is the relevant section - will enable the supplier to say: ‘Well, I am recommending a particular price to be paid and to be asked for’. What I ask the House to consider, and what I ask my friend the Attorney-General to consider - and I do so with certain impertinence I suppose on my part - is this: How do you test a recommendation in a case where supplier A says that he wants you, Mr Retailer, to sell and that he recommends that you sell at price so and so? Let us take the motor car industry, and I do not want to be offensive to those who service the motor car industry in any respect. Take the case of a dealer who derives his living from this industry. Let us take the case in which he is asked by the supplier to sell at a particular price. Let us say that he is asked to sell at $3,000 and it is put on the basis of section 66b that the price referred to is the recommended price only. One may say that this is in the nature of inducement, but how does one test it?

Mr KILLEN:

– This is so. But if the supplier agrees to that, can the retailer bring the supplier along before the Tribunal and say: ‘Well, here you have asked me to do this’. The fact that if he succeeds he has lost his business concerns me. There is no protection for the man who brings the supplier before the tribunal and argues the case on its merits and succeeds. There is no protection that the supplier will not say: ‘All right, I will go and find someone else’. This is only one matter and I have dealt with it in its very broad sense.

The other matter which I would like to refer to the Attorney-General is this: Under the amending Bill the AttorneyGeneral has an initiative. Under the Trade Practices Act, he has none. I think this is a pity. All that my learned friend can do is ask the Commissioner of Trade Practices, Mr Bannerman, or whoever it may be, to do something about this and to make something in the nature of a recommendation on the old Boyer basis. I do not say that offensively.

Mr KILLEN:

– He can call for a report. There is nothing terribly exultatory about calling for a report. I think that he should have an initiative. This was referred to by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). I think that there should be scope for a person to air a grievance - not necessarily a private complaint. At least some opportunity should be provided for a person who has a grievance relating to a trade practice to say: ‘I want to take you on and I am prepared to face the music’. I do not want to collapse on my feet. I understand that the AttorneyGeneral - poor man, I sympathise with him with my infinite capacity for sympathy - has about 3 minutes to sum up all that has been said. I am sorry to have delayed the House. I hope that I have not needlessly disturbed him by what I have had to say.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

(Quorum formed)- I congratulate the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) on having made his maiden speech. I do not think it matters from which side of the House an honourable member comes - a maiden speech is always a matter of concern. I speak for all honourable members on the Opposition side when I say that we wish the honourable member well. However, I assure him that his next speech may not be so peaceful. As member for the electorate of Murray he follows a very distinguished Australian. If his record is half as good as the man he follows I think he will be well pleased with it. The Bill before the House is concerned with rural reconstruction. It is a pity that the time for debate has been shortened. Not all honourable members who have placed their names on the Whips notice board will be able to participate in the debate on this important matter.

I do not think that any honourable member from either side of the House has denied that there is a need for some action in the rural community. Today, very few sections of primary industry enjoy anywhere near the affluence which is enjoyed by some sections of the community. Not all sections of the community are affluent, of course, and recipients of social services such as age pensions certainly are not. Nevertheless honourable members on both sides of this House recognise that there is a need for something to be done for rural industry. Even Government members who supported the measure have criticised it and, in many cases, condemned it with faint praise. The honourable member for Murray felt that not sufficient was being done. If he felt that further legislation was necessary, naturally he would not be very pleased with this measure.

Government members seem to be optimistic that this Bill does not represent the end of the assistance available to the rural section of the community. We on this side of the House believe that this measure does not go far enough. It is for this reason that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has moved, among other things, that the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth be amended to make provision for more detailed criteria on eligibility.

In his second reading speech, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said that in order to obtain any assistance an applicant must be unable to obtain finance to carry on and must be in danger of losing his property or other assets. This would mean that, to qualify for assistance, an applicant would need to have used up all available sources of finance. The Minister states further that, if this is the case, advances may be made for periods of up to 20 years and that the money may be advanced under the scheme with a minimum interest rate of 4 per cent. Many of the details as to how this assistance is to be made available have been left to the States.

The scheme as outlined by the Minister and the Schedules to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill do not state the method by which loans will be made available or whether guarantees will be required. We are not told whether a loan will be on a. first mortgage basis or whether it will be used in many cases merely to follow up and to assist in the payment of loans that have been advanced from various banking sources, including private banks, or by stock and station agents and the like. Undoubtedly such institutions would take a first mortgage on any asset held by the farmers.

In questioning the merits of this scheme, I am following up and quoting the views of an eminent constituent of mine. At least, he is eminent in the Country Party. 1 refer to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, who has claimed that the assistance under this scheme is not sufficient. The Liberal Minister for Lands in Victoria said, on 23rd May, that the plan was sure to fail because it did not go far enough. He said that of 600 applications for assistance under the scheme 78 had been processed but only 2 applicants were eligible. I feel that many people who believe that this scheme will offer some assistance to them are doomed to disappointment.

This scheme will provide $100m over 4 years for rural reconstruction. When we talk of this amount, it seems a lot of money. When we consider that the economic crisis in the rural community extends over the 6 States of the Commonwealth and that this money must be divided among a number of people in those States, it is a long way from being sufficient. I note that, in the European Economic Community, assistance is being offered on a somewhat similar basis. That assistance is expected to total approximately £Stg8,000m a year. That scheme is not altogether similar to the scheme under consideration here because it goes much further in providing assistance to the rural community. It assists in some cases in the repayment of debts and in others in the acquisition of land to produce more viable farms. Assistance is provided where a farmer will be able to make a go of his farm if he is able to obtain more land or if he is able to obtain more stock.

Paragraph 20 of the Schedule to the States Grant (Rural Reconstruction) Bill provides: (1.) Each State agrees te operate the scheme in such a way that, taking into account its experience with other schemes of rural assistance and the normal expectations as to factors that affect farmers’ incomes that are current at the date of this agreement, the amounts received by the Authority in the course of the operation of the Scheme could be reasonably expected to equal the payments of principal and interest which the State is required to make to the Commonwealth under this agreement.

The State is required to repay to the Commonwealth $75m of the sum made available under the scheme. There are many points on which the scheme is vague. Possibly in different States it will operate in different ways. Honourable members have referred to the servicing of debts and the preferences to be allotted to farmers’ debts. Are a farmer’s debts to be serviced in such a way that his banker, commission agent or stock and station agent to whom he has already mortgaged his property is to receive preference before he makes repayment to the State? The Minister has referred to a loan of SI. 000 to people who are no longer able to carry on. If I am correct, the Minister referred to interest at 6i per cent.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

(Quorum formed) I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes but I will deal with one aspect of the disastrous situation which exists in Queensland. The people in the area to which I will refer will accept with open arms the rural reconstruction fund which will soon become available. However, in considering the general situation of the rural industry, it is my duty to spotlight more especially the areas involved in the inland part of Queensland. In those areas there is a conspiracy of 3 factors. Firstly, there was the disastrous drought which went on for years and was broken only recently; secondly, there is the remoteness of these areas and, thirdly, there is the productivity of these areas, which are in the more arid zones. Therefore, we have a group of people who are involved in the general economic situation in rural industry which I think is far more disastrously affected than is any other rural section in Australia.

At the outset, I would like to pay a tribute to the Ministers who have been concerned enough to go constantly into these areas and to examine the problems on the spot. I refer to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), whom the Prime Minister more recently sent into the area. It is rather interesting to examine the particular operation that occurred last Monday week. In the Longreach area, there is a group of people who call themselves a survival group. Believe you me, the group is just that. In this interesting operation, all sections of the community of the central western area, including local authorities, graziers, business people in the towns affected and the Australian Workers Union have combined to form this survival group. I know that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) is not particularly interested in this. He is more interested in disrupting this House.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– Mr Speaker, because of the guillotine which is to be applied by the Government to these Bills, only 4 hours has been allowed in which to debate this vital legislation. Unfortunately, I have approximately 6 minutes in which to express my opinion on a piece of social legislation which should be regarded as one of the most important measures passed by this Parliament. But we are being given only a very short time in which to debate it. 1 think the point I. made is a very important one because it shows how irresponsibly this Government is acting in thrusting the legislation through in this way. This legislation is based on the principle: Get big or get out. Of course, this has been denied by members of the Australian Country Party and by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). But this is the reality behind the legislation. As a matter of fact, I have not heard one member of the Country Party who has spoken on this Bill do so with any pride whatsoever. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) spoke during the week before last in reply to a question with only the slightest conviction and only the slightest pleasure of this Bill. The Minister for Primary Industry, who is sitting at the table, has no pride. Government supporters have spoken only with regret and apologies about this Bill and no wonder because, despite the crisis facing rural industries in Australia, the Government has not been able to bring forward legislation which can seriously tackle the problem. On the contrary, this legislation is aimed at accelerating the process which has already taken place at the hands of a laissez-faire economy; it is accelerating the process under government action. A number of estimates have been made as to how many people will be forced off the land by this legislation. One of the smaller estimates is that about 100,000 farmers will be driven off the land by this scheme. It is not surprising that no Government supporter whatsoever has expressed any pride or conviction in this legislation. It is not surprising that Government supporters have in fact called for the legislation to be amended urgently, as did the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who has just resumed his seat. It is not surprising that the new honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in what I thought was a very good speech, expressed his conviction that in comparison with overseas legislation the legislation now before us was miserable. He also said that if this was to be the only piece of legislation concerned with dealing with this problem he would be very unhappy to support it. That is typical of the attitude that has been expressed.

State governments and farmers unions have condemned this legislation. The common opinion of this legislation has been that it is totally inadequate. If we go through the views of the South Australian Government, the New South Wales Government, the Queensland Government and the various farmers unions of Australia we find that all of them have said that this legislation is totally inadequate, firstly because of the limited amount that is to be provided and secondly because of the very restrictive nature of the legislation which is aimed at ensuring that only the very smallest number of farmers are to benefit, from it.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Firstly I want to protest at the fact that we have been treated tonight to one more farcical display. This is one of the most important Bills affecting rural industry. Yet debate has been restricted because of the guillotine. Many serious questions have been asked by honourable members from both sides of the ‘chamber but the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has not been able to reply to them. It illustrates the complete and utter farcicality of the proceedings of this Parliament when, in a debate on a rural reconstruction Bill involving at least $100m, the Minister for Primary Industry is not even given the opportunity by his own Government to answer the questions that have been asked by members from both sides of the chamber.

page 2650

LOAN (FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 29 April (vide page 2336), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Billhead a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2650

VICTORIA GRANT (SHEPPARTON PRESERVING COMPANY LIMITED) BILL 1971

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide financial assistance to the State of Victoria in order that the State can assist the Shepparton Preserving Company Ltd in the matter of the company’s payments to growers for fruit delivered to the company. Honourable members will be aware from public reports of the extent of the difficulties that the company has encountered over the last 2 years, extending to the company’s inability to finance in full payments to growers for fruit delivered in the 1970 season. Since the company is a major fruit cannery in the Shepparton region these difficulties, without some degree of alleviation, would have serious consequences for the stability of the industry, the welfare of growers and the welfare of the whole Shepparton area generally.

In these circumstances, the Government of Victoria approached the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance, and the Commonwealth Government acceded to the request. The agreement between the Commonwealth and the State relating to the provision of this assistance and the terms of repayment are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, and the agreement, have a retrospective application to 31st December last year. It was at that point of time that a crisis situation had developed in the affairs of the company in respect of payments to growers. To meet this, and following urgent representations from the Victorian Government, the Commonwealth Government made available to the State at that stage $4m of the agreed assistance. I note from recent public statements by the company authorities that despite the losses of the last 2 years, the directors anticipate an early return to profitable trading. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move as an amendment:

That the words ‘the next sitting’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘Tuesday next’.

The reason for this action by the Opposition is that at 1 o’clock in the morning the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has introduced a Bill which involves an amount of $4.2m. As far as I know, the Bill has not been circulated. I do not know whether anybody else has received a copy of it.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– There was a deal.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker-

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– He has not told us in his second reading speech.

Mr Hurford:

– Perhaps Leopold?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– In his glib fashion the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) has just pulled rank, I am afraid, on the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), who must be quite disappointed. Nonetheless, the substance of the motion before us at the moment is whether or not the Bill should be debated tomorrow or whether the House should resume next Tuesday to consider whether payments should be made to Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd. Fortunately the honourable member for Lalor, as did all other members of the executive of the Australian Labor Party, knew sufficient of the Bill, which was distributed to them this morning, to be able to rise in this House tonight. He knew something of the Bill and its purposes. He had some opportunity, if he had been interested, to find out the very extreme and dire straits of fruit growers in the Murray Valley area. He would appreciate that these fruit growers were in circumstances wherein they could well be in quite grave plight if it were not possible for the Shepparton Preserving Co. to meet the payments which were referred to in the second reading speech on this Bill. The purpose of the Government, in introducing this legislation is .to give those growers in the Murray Valley an opportunity to be paid these funds, so they will not be in a position where, in circumstances which are enumerated in the second reading speech-

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina.

– Mr Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the Government’s handling of this Bill because I have a deep interest in it. When the measure first came before my colleagues - all of us assembled this morning - the information conveyed to us was that in fact the State Government of Victoria had not ratified the agreement. In fact Sir Henry Bolte had not signed it. No further information had come before us by that time. All of us, therefore, were very confused about the situation. I think this is a very inefficient and ineffectual way to present a most important and vital measure. I am deeply concerned about it.

But no blame can be attached to the assembled members of the Opposition who were most anxious to consider it in a constructive way. If we were to be presented with a wrangle between the Commonwealth and the States and a. disagreement, between Sir Henry Bolte and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), it was not up to us to adjudicate until we had all the facts,’, and these we did not have. The honourable’ member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has indicated that he is most anxious that the. issues be fully understood. So have I,’ because I am deeply concerned about the fate and future of the canning fruits industry. Therefore I think it is important for the whole Parliament to understand the ramifications and for honourable members to vote accordingly.

This is a most important and vital measure and the Government has mishandled it. I deeply regret that. We have had one example already this evening in Committee. In 5 minutes we disposed of $100m. The money was disposed of at the rate of $20m a minute. That must be a new record for this form of deliberation. I do not think we should have any more of this nonsense in the national Parliament. I want to see proper consideration given to this Bill. I do not want to see a measure covering only the emergency which I know has arisen. I want to see the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) go further. I want to see him relate the decision we are asked to make on this Bill to the overall future of the industry which will be seriously affected-

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Speaker, the point at issue is not so much the $4m or the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd but the way in which this Parliament is to consider legislation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) seems to regard the whole system as part of his own proprietary interests. None of us should tolerate this. This is the point my friend the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) made: Where were all those people on the Government side of the chamber who ought to be as deeply concerned with the Parliament as an institution and with our right to consider all this legislation as is anybody else? I cannot understand how the Minister, arriving in this Parliament a few years ago hot from some business enterprises of his own-

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– May I quote you?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– I rise to a point of order. I regard as grossly offensive the words of the honourable member for Wills in suggesting that I am in any way a rubber stamp of some person outside this chamber, and I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Oppostion · Werriwa

– I support the motion. I do so because I want to relieve you, Mr Speaker, and other honourable members from the procedure which has been laid down. The programme for the day shows that there are two more Bills to go through all stages in the 6J hours which has been allowed. If there are no procedural motions at all, that means that we will be sitting until 8 o’clock this morning. If the motion which the Minister has moved is carried we can, after the House sits at 10 o’clock and with question time ending at 10.45, then go ahead with this Bill which we have seen today for the first time. It was signed, as the text shows, yesterday, 5th May. It has only just been signed. Admittedly this is only a convention but it is certainly one of the most hallowed conventions in the Parliament, namely, that the Parliament is not required to resume the debate on any Bill until there have been intervening party meetings. These always take place on Wednesday morning. Nevertheless, because it is said that this Bill is urgent, we are prepared to accommodate our party meetings to some stage before next Tuesday.

But if we are to get up and end the present sessional period today, there will be no opportunity whatever for my Party to consider this Bill nor will there be any opportunity for private members of the 2 Government Parties to consider this Bill except between 8 o’clock this morning when the House adjourns and 10 o’clock when it sits again. It is quite clear that there is no opportunity for any private members of this House together to consider this Bill. We are expected to sit for another 6i hours to consider 2 Bills of some moment, namely, the Trade Practices Bill and the Wool Industry Bill which are designed to assist in the fight against inflation and against depression in our biggest rural industry. One would expect that many more honourable members would expect to speak than could speak in those 6i hours. Then we would have to come back to the Victoria Grant (Shepparton Preserving Company Limited) Bill, which provides for a loan of $4. 2m to a co-operative company - surely a rather unusual procedure. This is only the first of 3 Bills which are listed on today’s programme for introduction when stocks of Bills are available. The other 2 Bills are the States Grants Bill, which apparently is designed to make up for the loss of the receipts duty, and the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill. Presumably these Bills involve another $200m or so.

Even if honourable members had nothing to do between 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock this morning except to consider the Bill which provides for a loan of $4.2m to a cooperative company it would be bad enough. But at this stage we must make a stand on this Bill. If honourable members give away their rights on this matter obviously we will have no rights to debate the other 2 quite extensive, expensive Bills. It is not as though the carrying of this amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) would cause any disruption of the country’s affairs. As has been pointed out previously, in the middle of February under the Gorton Government all private members were given a programme which forecast sittings up to a fortnight from today, which will be 20th May. Ministers, as well as private members, made their arrangements accordingly. It has been my responsibility to agree to pairs for Ministers. I know quite well that their arrangements were predicated on the basis that the House would be sitting until 20th May. I gave pairs to Ministers who were engaged in negotiations with State governments or overseas governments for dates up to then. Everybody expected that the House would sit for another fortnight from today.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– Of which you had already seen a copy.

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

– I think that I should put the record straight regarding some of the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has referred. The question of the introduction of these 3 Bills was referred to the Opposition on the day before yesterday. It was indicated that they would be considered by the legislation committee at the earliest opportunity, which was yesterday morning. It was arranged that, immediately they had been approved by the legislation committee, copies of the draft Bills would be sent to members of the Opposition who were to meet at 9.30 a.m.

Mr Whitlam:

– We have given leave to introduce this Bill.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority .. ..9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2658

STATES GRANTS BILL 1971

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Snedden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purposes of this Bill are to amend the States Grants Act 1970 to provide for the payment of additional grants to the States as compensation for loss of receipts duty revenue and as special revenue assistance to help finance 1970-71 Budget deficits; and to make certain amendments needed because of the non-payment of pay-roll tax by Victoria and the legal challenge by that State and South Australia to the validity of pay-roll tax in its application to State governments.

Under the new revenue grants arrangements settled at the Premiers Conference last June provision was made for a substantial increase in the level of Commonwealth assistance to the States on the basis that the distribution of tax resources would remain unchanged and that the States and their authorities would continue to pay pay-roll tax. In 1970-71 the revenue assistance payable under these new arrangements is currently estimated to be nearly $190m or almost 16 per cent greater than in 1969-70, which is, by any standards, a very large increase.

However, notwithstanding this very large increase in assistance, the States have run into financial difficulties since last June. First, for reasons of which honourable members will be aware, the Commonwealth was forced to limit the application of its legislation imposing a duty on business receipts on behalf of the States to receipts before 1st October 1970. As a result, the States were faced with the loss of a major source of revenue. Secondly, following the presentation of their 1970-71 Budgets the States were faced with a quite abnormal increase in costs largely as a result of very large increases in wage awards granted to their employees by various wage-fixing bodies. It has been estimated that such increases will have the effect of increasing wages per State employee, on average, by no less than 15 per cent in 1970-71.

No arrangements intended to apply over a 5-year period could be expected to cope with sudden abnormal developments of this nature and magnitude. Indeed, it has always been recognised that, within any 5-yearly period of their operation, the financial assistance grants arrangements are not designed to meet either significant changes in the State’s powers and responsibilities or severe financial difficulties that arise due to abnormal factors beyond the States’ control. The Commonwealth therefore agreed, at the Premiers Conference last October, to compensate the States for the loss of receipts duty revenues and, more recently, to provide additional revenue assistance of $43m to help the States finance their prospective Budget deficits in 1970-71.

I emphasise that this additional revenue assistance on which we agreed last month is being provided on the understanding that it would be used to reduce the States’ revenue deficits and not to increase expenditure on goods and services in 1970-71 following the measures taken by the States after the February PremiersConference. This was unanimously accepted by the States at the April Premiers Conference. I might add that these measures of restraint by the States helped not only to alleviate their own budgetary problems, but also to reduce inflationary pressures upon the economy. However even after allowance for the fact that these measures were estimated to reduce the States’ 1970-71 deficits by $60m to $70m, it was apparent from the information before us at the Premiers Conference on 5th April that the States would still be left with substantial deficits in 1970-71. The Commonwealth therefore agreed to provide special revenue assistance of $43m in 1970-71 on the basis I have mentioned. As a result the total of the Commonwealth revenue assistance to be provided under the new grants arrangements and of the additional revenue assistance is estimated to be $230m, or over 19 per cent higher in 1970-71 than the comparable figure for 1969-70.

The additional revenue assistance is to be distributed between the States in proportion to the formula grants. As final estimates of these grants are not yet available, the following estimates of amounts payable to each State are subject to revision:

As regards the amount of receipts duty compensation to be paid to each State, it was agreed at the Premiers Conference held on 8th October last that in 1970-71 each State would be paid a grant equal to the estimated amount of duty which would have been collected in 1970-71 in respect of receipts in the last 9 months of the year (other than wage and salary receipts) if the receipts duty legislation of the Commonwealth and the States had continued to operate after 30th September 1970. In addition, the Commonwealth agreed to representations by Queensland that it should receive an additional grant to compensate it for the fact that the rate of duty in that State applying in the first quarter of the year was only 0.02 per cent, compared to 0.1 per cent in all other States and under the Commonwealth’s legislation. Queensland argued that it had framed amendments to its own legislation such that, had the original proposals agreed between the Commonwealth and the State governments been agreed to by the Commonwealth Parliament, its rate would also have been 0.1 per cent as from the beginning of 1970-71.

It was also agreed at the October conference that the compensation for 1971-72 and subsequent years would be calculated by estimating the amount of duty each State would have received from receipts duty at 0.1 per cent in 1970-71 had it been a ‘normal’ year and adding the amounts so estimated to the ‘base’ to which the financial assistance grants formula, as laid down in section 5 of the States Grants Act 1970, is applied. In settling upon this procedure, it was recognised that the grants calculated under it would not necessarily equal exactly the amounts of receipts duty which would have been collected. It was seen, however, by both the Commonwealth and the States as an equitable approach to the problem and accepted on that basis.

The estimates of duty which would have been collected in the whole of 1970-71 had it been a ‘normal’ year, and in the last three-quarters of the year had Commonwealth and State legislation continued in operation, have been discussed between Commonwealth and State treasury officials and the amounts, which are set out in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, respectively, have been endorsed by the Government.

With the concurrence of the House, 1 incorporate in Hansard a table showing the compensation payable in 1970-71 and preliminary estimates of the additions to the financial assistance grants in 1971-72 which will arise from the provisions of the legislation.

Approximate

Grants Grants Payable Payable in 1970-71 in 1971-82*

New South Wales .. 24.00 40. 5

Vxtoria .. 17.33 29.2

Queensland .. 8.02 12.2

South Australia .. 4.67 7.9

Western Australia .. 4.35 7.4

Tasmania .. .. 1.34 2.2

Total 59.71 99.4

At the October Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth made it clear that, as with the grants payable under the new financial assistance grants arrangements, the payment of receipts duty compensation would be dependent on the States and their semi-government and local authorities continuing to pay pay-roll tax. This followed the statement by the former Prime Minister in this House on 30th September last that the Commonwealth could not accept the position taken by the Victorian Government that it did not intend to seek an appropriation from the Victorian Parliament for the purpose of paying pay roll tax to the Commonwealth in 1970-71.

The main reason why the Commonwealth continues to make the payment of the financial assistance grants conditional on the payment of pay-roll tax by the States and their authorities is, of course, because non-payment of the tax would, in effect, tricsease the net flow of funds from the Commonwealth to the States beyond that intended by the Commonwealth Government and by the Parliament when agreeing to authorise the payment of the grants. The amount of revenue currently involved is considerable. In 1.970-71 State governments are estimated to be liable to pay pay-toll tax of about $40m and their semi-government and local authorities approximately $30m. There are, of course, other reasons making it desirable to preserve the very comprehensive basis on which the tax is presently levied. Essentially, however, the Commonwealth’s position on this matter is quite simple. We could accept a situation in which the States or their authorities, or some of them, ceased to pay pay-roll tax only if there were to be an equivalent reduction in the grants payable to the State or States concerned. As there is no provision in the Slates Grants Act 1970 to permit deductions to be made from the grants where a State, or ils authorities, do not pay pay-roll tax, it is necessary to include such a provision in order to meet the possibility that the High Court will uphold the challenge by Victoria and South Australia to the constitutional validity of pay-roll tax in its application to State governments. Further, as Victoria has not paid any pay-roll tax this year, and as the Victorian Parliament has now risen, it is also necessary to have authority to make a deduction from the grant payable to that State in 1970-71 in order to protect Commonwealth revenue in the event that Victoria decides not to meet, or in the absence of parliamentary authority is unable to meet, its liability for 1970-71 (Quorum formed.) However, on this latter point, I would draw honourable members’ attention to sub-section (5) and (6) of the proposed new section 9a, the effect of which is to authorise the refund of an amount previously deducted from a State’s grant where that State subsequently pays the amount of pay-roll tax owing.

Honourable members will also note that the Bill leaves discretion to the Treasurer to determine the amount of any deduction from the Grant payable to a State. I assure the House that it would not be the intention to deduct an. amount, greater than the amount of pay-roll tax not paid. However, it will not necessarily be. possible to estimate precisely the amounts of pay-roll tax a State government or a State authority - would have paid in some period had it continued to pay the tax. In this regard I mention that, in the event of a High Court decision unfavourable to the Commonwealth, and the States, or some of them, deciding not to continue to pay pay-roll tax, the legislation would permit the Government to offset the loss of pay-roll tax revenue to the Commonwealth in future years, by making a deduction to the base grants to which the financial assistance grants formula is applied. It may be of interest to honourable members to know that provisions of this type in States grants legislation are by no means unprecedented. The States Grants Act 1946-48- under which tax reimbursement grants were paid from 1946-47 to 1958-59 inclusiveprovided in effect that, if a State imposed an income tax, it could thereby lose its grant. Similarly, the present Commonwealth Aid Roads Act authorises the Treasurer to make a deduction from an amount payable to a State where that State has failed to comply with the conditions of the roads grants.

The non-payment of pay-roll tax by Victoria has also given rise to the need to amend the States Grants Act 1970 in order to ensure that Victoria’s action does not reduce the size of the increase in average wages calculated for the year ended March 1971, this being one of the elements in the formula used to determine the 1970-71 grants payable to all States. The failure of Victoria to submit pay-roll tax returns in respect of the period June 1970 to March 1971 means that, under the legislation as it now stands, the increase in average wages for the year ended March 1971 would have to be calculated by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician without reference to the number of Victorian Government employees and their wages during the period in which returns have not been lodged. Without going into details, it is estimated that the effect of this would be to reduce the increase in average wages for the year ending March 1971 by about 0.3 per cent, which in turn would reduce the financial assistance grants payable this financial year to all States by about $3m.

It would obviously be inequitable to allow the States grants to be lower than they should be merely because Victoria has not lodged pay-roll tax returns for part of the relevant period. Clause 6 of the Bill therefore amends section 10 of the Act so as to allow the statistician more discretion in calculating the increase in average wages. This will enable him, in this and other circumstances which may arise, to make such adjustments to figures obtained from pay-roll tax returns as he considers necessary to put the calculations on a consistent and accurate basis.

To sum up, the Government believes that, in providing receipts duty compensation of $59.7m in this year and of roughly $100m in 1971-72, escalating in future years, as well as additional revenue assistance of $43 m this year, we are reaching a fair result with the States. It follows that we could not afford, in addition, to suffer a further net loss of revenue as a result of the non-payment of pay-roll tax by a State or States or their authorities, and we have accordingly to protect ourselves against that situation.

To put the matter in perspective, with the concurrence of the House I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the extent to which, after taking account of the proposals contained in this Bill, we shall be assisting the States in the current financial year.

CO MMO NWEALTH PAYMENTS TO OR FOR THE STATES

1969-70 1970-71 Increase

Sm Ito Per cent

Payments of a revenue nature(a) 1,334.7 (0)1,539.3 IS. 3

Receipts Duty Compensation (b) ., 59.7 . .

Additional Revenue

Assistance (b) .. 43.0 . .

Adjustment to Financial Assistance

Grants .. (d)3.0

  1. Payments under existing legislation. (b) Payments proposed to be made under or arising out of the Bill.
  2. State works and housing programmes are financed, so far as possible, from loan raisings on behalf of the States.
  3. Estimated.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The question now is ‘That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting’.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– As an amendment, I move:

I do so because of the significance of this measure. After all, not only does it reimburse the States but it also places a penalty upon one State in particular, Victoria, with regard to pay-roll tax. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) took about 20 minutes to deliver his speech, which contains a great deal of statistical information. When the House agreed most reluctantly to certain guillotine provisions, described as the omnibus guillotine, it had no conception that additional measures such as this would come before the House. In these circumstances, I believe that it is absurd to ask this House to deliberate sensibly upon this measure. After all, it involves a sum of $60m for the remainder of this financial year and a projected sum of $100m for 1971-72. We are asked to adjourn the debate and to resume the discussion later today - I was about to say ‘with all respect’, but I think that the Government has lost any respect that may have been attributable to it - we have reached an absurd stage when we try to transact business in this way. Neither I, nor honourable members on this side of the House, can see any reason why we should not adjourn this measure and come back next week to debate it properly, after having had discussions with our respective States.

The Treasurer mentioned that the Victorian Parliament has just risen for the winter recess. In actual fact it adjourned only yesterday. That was about the only accurate piece of- information in his speech. The Opposition believes that it is most unfair to transact business in this way. It is in all seriousness that I have moved this proposition to enable the normal procedure to be followed of adjourning the debate for a reasonable time to allow the Bill to be considered. It is for these reasons that I have moved, on behalf of the Opposition, that the debate be adjourned until at least Tuesday next.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. In seconding the amendment I want to point out that, although the time now is 10 minutes past 2 on Thursday morning, we still have, according te the blue sheet, apparently another 6 hours of debate in front of us, which will take us through to 8 o’clock or later this morning. Honourable members will be expected to be back in the House for the next day of sitting at 10 o’clock this morning to debate, among other things, this Bill. The second reading speech that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has just delivered comprises 81 pages of foolscap. As was pointed out by my colleague, the honourable members for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), it took him about 20 minutes to read it. A number of tables were incorporated in Hansard. Hansard will probably not be printed in time for honourable members to examine these tables before the debate is held. In addition, if we are to do our duty properly and consider this legislation in the manner in which it should be considered, we should be getting in touch with, perhaps, the Under-Treasurer in the State from which we come in order to get his views on this legislation. This is what I intend to do. I hope to get in touch with not only the Under-Treasurer but also the Treasurer of my State to see whether the arrangements set out in the Treasurer’s second reading speech are satisfactory to my State.

Another point that 1 think is well worth mentioning is the complicated nature of this Bill. Because Sir Henry Bolte in Victoria put the cat among the pigeons concerning payroll tax and threatened not to pay it to the Commonwealth this Bill has become extremely complicated and will require far more attention than otherwise would have been required. These are only some of the reasons why it is my duty to second this proposition, -which seeks to ensure that we do not consider this Bill at a later hour this day - which is in fact what otherwise we would be doing - but that we consider the terms of the Bill in great detail and get in touch with those with whom we should be in touch before debating it. To show my bona fides I point out that I have already booked my passage back to Canberra from Adelaide on Monday night, in order to take part in the deliberations of this House next Tuesday.

We have not heard one word of argument from honourable members opposite as to why they are not prepared to come back here next Tuesday. Is it because they do not believe that their place is in this House or is it because they do not want to face the Opposition in this House? I think it must be due to the second reason. Honourable members opposite can prove that it is not by agreeing to come back here next week. If the Government does not have enough business to debate next week in addition to complicated Bills like this one the Opposition will bring up for debate in this House plenty of matters which are of concern to this country. Honourable members will realise that I do not want to delay the House any longer but the points I have put forward are worthy of deliberation and I hope that the House will agree to adjourn this matter until next week.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

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

– There is only 1 point I wish to make. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) mentioned that when the motion for the guillotine was before the House no reference was made to the fact that other Bills were to be introduced. I would like to correct that statement. I am sure he has made a genuine error in saying that because in my comments at the time in relation to the introduction of the motion I did indicate that there was a certain number of Bills, which were not specified at that time, to be presented. This matter had been discussed with the Opposition at the time. I will not repeat what I said earlier. At the earliest possible opportunity the Bills were given to the Opposition for consideration. Whilst I appreciate the problems that have been outlined in association with them, it is important for them to be passed during this sitting. Reasons have been given in relation to the number of days and the number of hours, and why the sitting is to terminate at the specified time.

I also draw attention to the fact that the comments which are being made tonight are familiar to most of us in this House. They are made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) at the end of each sitting, and I have no doubt that anyone in opposition at such a time would make similar comments. The Government cannot accept the motion that has been proposed.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the amendment-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

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

58 51

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crcan’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 51

Majority

Majority

AYES

NOES

In Division.

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I rise to order. Is it in order for the doors to be locked while the bells are still ringing for a division?

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Kirwan - Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I was about to call the Minister for Education and Science. There is no question before the Chair and the honourable member for, Forrest will resume his seat.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed:

That so much .of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Forrest being heard.

Mr Bryant:

– I second the motion. Question put:

That the . motion be agreed to.

The [Bouse divided, (Mr Deputy Speakers-Mr E. -N-. Ayes

Noes

Drury)

51- 58

Majority

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2665

STATES GRANTS (SC1T5NCE LABORATORIES) BILL 1971

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Fairbairn, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Government to conduct and to bring to a conclusion over the next 4 financial years, from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1975, its programme of grants for the construction and. equipping of science laboratories in secondary schools.

The Commonwealth science facilities programme was first introduced in the 1964-65 financial year. By the end of the present 3-year period, on 30th June this year, some $80m will have been provided for government and non-government secondary schools in Australia. The expenditure of these funds has improved markedly the quality of the science teaching facilities available to students and has without doubt contributed to the improvement in the quality of the teaching of science subjects. As a result, young people leaving secondary school are better prepared in science than would otherwise have been the case.

Most existing Australian secondary schools have already received some form of assistance, often substantial, from the funds, made available under the Commonwealth science facilities programme in the last 7 years. However, needs still exist. On present information, made available both by the States and the non-government schools, the Government believes that the purpose of its programme will be achieved by the expenditure of a further $43.295m. lt is the Government’s intention to make this money available over a 4-year period.

Expenditure under the programme in the present triennial period has been running at the rate of some $12.573m per annum. This is a substantial amount. The expenditure of $43. 295m over a 4-year period represents an annual expenditure rate of $10.83m. While this is- a reduced rate of expenditure as compared with that of the last few years the Government believes that it is a rate appropriate to the economic circumstances of the time and appropriate to the remaining needs of secondary schools.

While the Government has been concerned to restrain public expenditure, it must be kept in mind that expenditure on this programme of unmatched capital assistance to schools should be considered in conjunction with 2 other Commonwealth programmes of unmatched grants, viz., those for technical training and secondary school libraries. The Government has recently announced increases totalling $3m per annum in the rate of expenditure under these 2 programmes. The programme for science laboratories has always been regarded as a finite one designed to overcome deficiencies, and the shifting emphasis in Commonwealth programmes reflects the success of the science facilities programme.

Because we are reaching the end of the programme we are changing the method of allocation of the available funds. Until now, funds have been distributed on the basis of a formula which was based on secondary enrolments and State populations. For the remaining 4 years the method of distribution will take closer account of the actual needs of particular schools.

The proportion of the total of $43.295m allocated to government schools will be the same proportion of the total as has applied during the triennium just ending. The amount to become available in this way to government schools will be $26.08 8m. This $26.088m will be divided between, the States in proportion to their secondary school enrolments. As at present, the States will determine how this money will be distributed between individual government schools.

This Bill is in most respects broadly identical with the existing States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1968, but there are some additions to it. This Bill provides that the Minister will present each year to the Parliament a full report on the progress of the programme during the preceding year. He will provide the Parliament with the same information about the science facilities programme as’ he does each year about the Commonwealth secondary schools libraries programme. The Bill gives the Governor-General authority to make regulations varying the amount payable to the States each year in respect of non-government secondary schools, by transferring funds from one category of

The non-government schools will receive as their share of the $43 .295m available, a total of $17. 207m, which .reflects their assessed, actual needs. .The various State advisory committees of which there are two in each State, one for Roman Catholic and the, other for non-Roman Catholic schools, will continue to make recommendations, to, me concerning grants foi- the category of school for which they are responsible. Those committees will allocate priorities and recommend ,tq the Minister the timing of grants within total sums, which, reflect the .assessed needs of the schools which fall within, the ambit of their responsibilities. The distribution of the amount of $43. 295m available till 3.0th June 1975 is set out in the: Schedule to the Bill. The following table, which . with the concurrence of honourable’ .members I incorporate in Hansard, . sets out the distribution of funds for each . category of school on an annual basis.

non-government school i to another and from one State to another.

The Bill also empowers the Minister to authorise payment to a State from funds appropriated under this; proposed legislation, after 30th June 1975, of amounts for expenditure incurred in ‘ respect of an approved project undertaken before that date. .This provision will, allow the Government flexibility as it brings the programme to a close. I take the opportunity to express thanks to the State governments which have carried out most adequately their own responsibilities under this pro* gramme for the past 7 years,, the members of the- Commonwealth Advisory Commit-, tee on Standards for Science Facilities in

Independent Secondary Schools who have worked constantly and the members of the various State advisory committees. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The question now is: ‘That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting’. ‘

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

I move as an amendment:

That the words ‘the next sitting’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘Tuesday next’.

This is a question of courtesy. The ordinary procedure, as I have known it in this Parliament over 26 years, is that legislation is introduced and, normally speaking, one can expect a week’s adjournment of a Bill as important as ‘ this one. The Minister’s second reading speech has not explained many of the strange disparities within the Bill. For instance, why in the State of Queensland is the sum for the private schools greater than it is for government schools whereas in South Australia the ratio is 4 to 1 in favour of government schools? This clearly is a measure which does require members of the Opposition, to whom this is an extremely important subject, to find out from the various States what they feel about the magnitude of the grant that they will obtain.

A change was made in this legislation. In the original triennium the assessed needs of the private schools were found and then the government schools were given grants in the ratio of about 3 to 1 because the ratio of enrolment was about 3 to 1 in their favour. Suddenly the assistance for the private schools was doubled. There have never been any adequate explanations of this. The doubled per capita grant for private schools - double that for State schools - is repeated and it is to be the feature of the next 4 years according to this legislation. This is a matter that requires a great deal of consideration. Most of us need to have consultations with education authorities in our own States. We believe that this is significant legislation. We ask for common courtesy from the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) for the adjournment of this Bill for a -longer period than is pro posed. The previous Leader of the House set all time records in discourtesy and that produced an explosion in this Parliament. 1 think it also reflected considerable discredit on the Government but I shall not debate that matter. The same situation has been featured in the Press over the last few days because of the manner of the handling of the House by the present Leader of the House who has reached the level of his predecessor in his discourtesy towards the Opposition. The Minister knows very well that common courtesy would require the adjournment of a Bill like this for more than a few hours. The request we are making is reasonable.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– 1 second the amendment. I join with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in condemning the tactics of the Government in expecting the Opposition to debate this measure today - not the next day of sitting but this day, because the next sitting is only a few hours off. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) looks a kindly and lovable man but he has developed into a real tyrant almost overnight. As the honourable member for Fremantle has said, he has surpassed the infamous conduct of his predecessors. It is 10 minutes to 3 in the morning. You yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, without any discourtesy, look half asleep at this stage. We find that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) and honourable members opposite, because of tiredness and fatigue, are unable to debate effectively the matters before this Parliament. Yet the Minister has introduced a measure of vital concern to people all over this nation which affects education. We are expected not only to listen to the Minister at this hour of the night but also, when this House meets at 10 in the morning, to have decided our attitude to the Bill. Honourable members from this side not only have to decide their attitude to the Bill but also have to prepare speeches to deliver in this place for or against the proposals which have been presented.

The conduct of the Government is nothing less than monstrous. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) deserves to be commended for his outspoken criticism last night of the Government’s action, which he described as disgraceful. I think the people of this country will long remember the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) for forcing this Parliament to sit at this hour when there are weeks before we need to adjourn for the winter recess. The Government expects us to debate legislation of this kind within a few hours of its introduction. For my part I think we were extremely generous in allowing the legislation to be introduced tonight because that was a matter of courtesy. Yet, as I say, the Minister and other honourable members expect to come back within a few hours. I do not know how long this situation is to continue. I hope the Press of this country will give due publicity to the conduct of, this Government and the attitude of the Prime Minister. At this very moment he is probably snoring his head off in The Lodge while we sit here. He is not in thd ‘Parliament. He does not give a hang for the nation. The Minister .does his bidding at the table because Liberal Prime Ministers select their Ministers, who are expected to sit here all night while the Prime Minister loafs or slumbers off his tiredness which has come to him during the few hours he has worked here. This is a monstrous state of affairs.

The best thing the Opposition could do at this stage to the people who have the conduct of this Government would be to make the Parliament unworkable because nobody in this country expects Parliament to be sitting at this hour of the night. Nobody in the nation expects the Government to be run by stealth. Is the Government ashamed of its legislation? Will it not let the people hear this legislation debated in the daytime? Does it not want the people to know what is in the legislation? If it does, why does it introduce these Bills in the dead of night when there is no publicity for us? I repeat what I have said here before. The only people awake in Canberra at this time are the police, perverts, prostitutes and the politicians. The simple reason for this situation is that the Government does this kind of thing. It is making a mockery of democracy in this country. I must confess that I exclude from my remarks those ladies sitting in the public gallery. I hope that they will accept my apologies.

You, . Mr Deputy Speaker, must agree that the conduct of’ the Government deserves to be condemned. I join with the honourable -member for Fremantle in placing on record my condemnation of its attitude. Legislation should not be introduced at this hour of the night. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), I think it was, asked a moment ago: ‘Will we adjourn in time for the resumption of the next sitting?’. It seems that one sitting will run into the next.

Why should this Parliament be sitting at this hour? Throughout the corridors and offices of this Parliament now are members of the staff who will be expected to line up for work again at 8 -o’clock- or 9 o’clock this morning. I do not know what unions they are in, but if I was a union secretary in charge of the staff of Parliament House; I would take the staff out on -strike in protest against the conduct of this Government. The best way in’’ which to bring this Government to its senses would be for the unions concerned to declare this kind of conduct black- and to state- that no man or woman would work ‘for the Parliament without a specified- time1 for rest. The clerks at the table must be worn out, par:ticularly in view of the I onerous duties that they have carried out’ What about the members of the Hansard staff who sitalongside us and who are expected to take down the proceedings in the middle of the night? Most members of the. Liberal Party who are here cannot- take -it down in the middle of the day. This situation exists throughout the House.- Similar remarks could be made with regard to the staff of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms.

This is a monstrous state1 of affairs. The way in which the business of this country is conducted is shocking and scandalous, and it should not continue. I hope that what is happening here will be given full publicity, although I am not hopeful that the Press will report the’ manner in which this Parliament is run- while the Prime Minister snores his head off at the Lodge. What a dreadful state of affairs.

We do not know how. many of the Liberals are awake in the House. I only wish that all of our members would go outside and we would wake up every one of them to see what they look like at this time in the morning. I should like to place on record my condemnation of the conduct of the Government. I have been a member of this House for a long time. Little did I dream that I would ever see the conduct of the business of this Parliament reach the level that it has reached tonight. Little did I ever think that I would see the Parliament run in this way by a government that says it is democratic. Never did I dream that I would see a Minister looking placid and contented at the very moment when, as everybody knows, he is raping democracy.

I finish on that note. You seem very anxious, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rise to your feet. I am sorry that I have to speak in this strain at this hour of the morning. But I hope that the Government will take note of my remarks. I urge the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who is now sleeping peacefully to rise in his place. Look at the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). Take a good look at them. These are the people running the country. The Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) to his credit, is one of the few who is awake. As I look around, I see that one-half of the Government’s supporters is asleep, but we are expected to debate Bills relating to science laboratories and all the other matters before us. I say these things to let the people know the situation. I hope that all Government members will sit up. Here is a sleepy time government telling us to stay awake while it introduces legislation. More in sorrow than in anger 1 express these words tonight and place on record, with the honourable member for Fremantle, my condemnation of the Government’s conduct.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise-

Mr Bryant:

– I move:

Mr Bryant:

– Why?

Mr Scholes:

– I move:

That the Minister for National Development be not further heard.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 57

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

– In view of the fact that Opposition members have indicated that they do not wish to hear what I have to say, I move:

That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury) Ayes . . … . . 57

AYES: 0

NOES: 51

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beazley’* amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy SpeakerAyes

. 57 51

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 51

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2671

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Forrest from moving that the House do now adjourn.

I believe that this is the best and soundest motion to be put to this House since midnight tonight. I believe the House cannot conduct its business properly at this hour of. the morning. Because of the way in which the business paper is drawn at present we cannot possibly conclude the business before the House meets for question time at 10 o’clock later this morning. I believe it has been made amply clear to supporters of the Government that members of the Opposition are fully aware that we have been elected by the people to come to this place and that we are prepared to come here for another fortnight to deal with this business in the proper way. Therefore, I have moved this motion. I hope that honourable members will accept it and that by voting solidly for it honourable members opposite will not jeopardise their chances of getting one of the new ministerial posts.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I second the motion. I concur with the sentiments expressed- by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan).

Mr Barnard:

– I rise on a point of- order. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that since the honourable member .for Forrest has completed his speech you should now allow the honourable member for Blaxland to speak to the motion.

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

– This is a fairly good demonstration of delaying tactics by the Opposition.

Motion (by Mr Bryant) put:

That the Minister be not further heard. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury) Ayes … . . . . 51

Noes . . . . . . 57

Majority .. .. 6

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That, the question be now .put. The House divided. . (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury) Ayes . . . . . . 57

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mi Kirwan’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 57

AYES

NOES

page 2674

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2250), on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen:

That the. Bill be now read a second time.

Majority

Question so resolved in the negative. Mr Scholes - Mr Deputy Speaker-

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet before you called the. Clerk. I am not speaking to the Bill. I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent this House from immediately discussing the hours and conditions of employment of the staff of Parliament House.

I move this because I think it is’ a matter of serious consequence and something which . someone of responsibility in this Parliament should take into consideration. The situation is that the staff of this House, with 7 hours off, have now been on duty for almost 40 hours. If the timetable of this Parliament is to be completed in accordance with the Government’s programme, the girls in the dining room the attendants in the House, the Hansard reporters, the staff of Ministers and other staff in the Parliament will have been on duty in this House continuously for about 40 hours. Possibly if we could telephone the Prime Minister’s Lodge and have him awakened from his comfortable sleep we would explain this to him. The staff of the House, especially the attendants, are paid salaries which I suggest some of the Ministers in this place should have a look at. Their salaries are an absolute disgrace. They are not paid in accordance with the normal conditions of employment. I am informed that their maximum rate of overtime payment is time and a half. It is quite possible that they could be on duty here for 40 continuous hours.

Dr Patterson:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The position is that the Leader of the Opposition is, I understand, to be the’ first speaker for the Opposition in this debate. His own members should support him and give him an opportunity to speak. I make the point that the Government Business had been called on.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, does than mean that the time is now running for the debate that has been called on?

Dr Patterson:

– I take a. point of order. I just want to put on the record that after the last division the honourable member for Corio went round there. He was on his feet, standing, the whole time.

Mr Buchanan:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– No. I said that it is the Opposition which is causing it and not the Government.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I second the motion. I point out that this is not just a matter of wage justice and conditions; it is a matter of the health and efficiency of every person concerned with the Parliament, including the drivers who are waiting outside. It is dangerous for people to be driving around the streets in the condition those people must be in after this time. All of us are in a condition comparable to inebriation. That is what fatigue does to the brain. It creates a condition similar to intoxication: On previous occasions such as this honourable members acted in a pretty ugly manner, like a lot of intoxicated people, when Mr Speaker did not show tolerance arid when he himself became cranky and irritable, as people do in an intoxicated state. On this occasion we have had a different kind of intoxication. There has been a certain amount of hilarity and irresponsibility. But it is inevitable that there will be some kind of intoxicated behaviour when people’s minds are as tired as ours are now. This Wi i apply to the staff we employ inside and outside this House, and especially to people who will have to work for a couple of hours after we have gone to bed - if we ever get to bed - because they have to prepare Hansard reports and do all sorts of- other things that we will not be doing.

I support this motion. I think it is high time it was brought home to Government supporters that it is their own doing that things have reached the impossible state they are in. We will have to sit next week. The Government will have to face this fact. That is why we want this motion discussed here and now. There is no excuse for prolonging the sitting in the way it is being prolonged.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to support the motion because I think we have reached the stage when consideration must be given to a few of the humanities. I think it must be remembered that members of the staff are being kept here at these ridiculous hours by the ridiculous decisions of the Government, which is endeavouring to force through legislation. I understand that never have so many Bills been guillotined through the House in these circumstances in the past. The staff of the House who assist us and upon whom we are so dependent every day of the week will have to come back here before the members of Parliament turn up. Keep that in mind.

Mr Cope:

– That is what Marie Antoinette got.

That the question be now put. Question put: The House divided.

AYES: 57

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in ‘the’ affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Scholes’*) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speakers-Mr P. E. Lucock) Ayes . . . . . . 50

AYES: 0

NOES: 57

Majority < 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

- Mr Deputy Speaker, as we all know, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is a belated parent but a proud one. Seven weeks ago, he was most anxious to brand any measures to ban resale price maintenance as unquestionably illegitimate. Two weeks later, he was equally anxious to claim paternity for measures to ban resale price maintenance. A further week later he was ridiculing the grandfather of this legislation, Sir Garfield Barwick, for the old fashioned and cumbrous methods that Sir Garfield had proposed for banning resale price maintenance.

Let me recall to honourable gentlemen that on 18th March this year, in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the Prime Minister had said: .

Dunlops Ltd is operating within the law and consequently is entitled to the protection of the law if that can be achieved.

Very clearly, the Prime Minister then, only 7 weeks ago, was asserting the right of any company in Australia to pursue resale price maintenance as a completely legal and proper course of action. In fact, later during the same question time, in answer to me, he was at pains to let it be known that the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) was in no great pains to introduce legislation on the subject. The Prime Minister said:

The Attorney-General did not say that we would be introducing any such legislation. He did say that a submission was before the Government. That submission will be considered within the course, of the next few weeks.

The ‘ Prime Minister was very leisurely and cavalier about the whole matter, but he realised that public opinion would no longer brook resale price maintenance. On 30th March, I had given notice of a Bill’ to outlaw resale price, maintenance. The following day, almost the .first question asked of the- Prime Minister was from the Government Whip, the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox), who twice has voted against- measures to- ban resale price maintenance. In answer to the Government Whip - obviously in answer to an inspired question - the Prime Minister said:

I thought until yesterday that it was well known to every member of this House and to most thinking members of the population that the Government had decided to introduce a Bill quite soon in order to control resale price maintenance. The Prime Minister was going to adopt this child of dubious paternity.

On 6th April, he was asked a question by the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) who also twice has voted in the House against motions to ban resale price maintenance: In answer to that venerable gentleman, he said:

This provision will be similar to the provision in the British Act and will not be along the lines of the somewhat old-fashioned and cumbersome methods . . . and so on, referring to the moves that Sir Garfield Barwick had proposed 10 years before.

It has proved most difficult to conceive and to deliver restrictive practices legislation ‘in the Liberal Party. Sir Garfield Barwick tried very hard to father this as a feature of restrictive’ practices legislation. When his successor, the present Treasurer (Mr Snedden), at last was able to bring in such a Bill he had to accept responsibility for a much more puny child than numerous progress bulletins had led members of this Parliament and the community to expect.

Let - me recall the chronology of this legislation. In 1958 and again in 1959 the all party Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Review had unanimously recommended that the Parliament should seek powers by referendum to deal with restrictive practices including resale price maintenance. In March 1960 the GovernorGeneral in opening Parliament said:

The development of tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry has engaged the attention of the Government which will give consideration to legislation to protect and strengthen free enterprise against such a development.

In March 1961 the Administrator when opening Parliament said:

The Attorney-General has so far progressed in his investigation of the matter and the Government has developed its thinking to the stage that consultation with the States will now be advantageous.

In. November 1961 Mr Menzies, as he then was, in his policy speech for the approaching election said:

We desire in co-operation with the State governments to do something to protect, and strengthen free productive and business enterprise against monopoly or restrictive practices.

On 3rd December 1962 Mr Freeth, the Acting Attorney-General, delivered a speech prepared by Sir Garfield Barwick, then Attorney-General. He stated:

The paper which I have before me represents Sir Garfield’s and the Government’s conclusions arising out of a really monumental amount of work that Sir Garfield did.

Mr Freeth was given leave to incorporate in Hansard the elements of the Barwick scheme which had been aproved by the Government. Among those elements were bilateral and unilateral vertical practices -involving resale price maintenance. In explaining the scheme. Mr Freeth read Sir Garfield Barwick’s statement and said, among other things, that the scheme covered resale price maintenance.

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– lt was blocked in the South Australian Legislative Council, though.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– If anyone ever damned his own Party’s legislation with faint praise it would have been the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer), who has just resumed his seat. He spoke in the grand old Victorian tradition of reaction and monopoly incarnate. If there is any State in Australia which is hag-ridden by restrictive practices it is Victoria. I suggest to the honourable member, who made reference to darkness at noon, that he might well enlighten himself and get a few rays of sunshine by examining the latest annual report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. For. his information and that of the House I want to refer to some figures given by Mr Bannerman, the Commissioner of Trade Practices, as to the total number of registered restrictive agreements. Out of a total of 12,649 of such agreements Melbourne has the single distinction of having 5,385 of them registered. Sydney, with all the great grandsons of convicts, has only 4,200. The proportion should be just the reverse. So much for the honourable member’s jeremiad. Let me take it a stage further and read to the House the further comment of Mr Bannerman. In paragraph 3.19 of his report he said:

Refusal to deal is the commonest cause of complaint -

He is referring to complaints received by the Trade Practices Tribunal. He goes on to say:

The complainant is usually a small business.

So much for the honourable member’s crocodile tears on that point. He continues:

Refusal to deal is not examinable, even if the company refusing to deal is in a dominant position. It is examinable for a dominant company to refuse to deal except on dictated terms, but outright refusal to deal is not examinable. The Act leaves all companies, dominant or otherwise, free to decide with whom they will deal: No doubt most companies take the decisions on sound commercial grounds. . . . My Office cannot interfere to assist complainants, and there would ‘ no doubt be difficult practical problems if it could. It deserves nothing, however, that a company’s decision to refuse to deal can have the effect of excluding a business altogether if the company is in : a dominant position and there is, in practical terms, no other company for the complainant to approach.

It is one of the dominant characteristics of Australian industry and of Australian retail business that our economy is dominated by some 200 companies including 40 giants, and of these giants 40 per cent are owned or substantially controlled by overseas interests. We heard the wails from the honourable member for Isaacs on the need for more information. Let him have a look again at another paragraph of Mr Bannerman’s report and he will see there for his enlightenment if he wants to what Mr Bannerman had to say in paragraph 2.8. It reads:

There had never been any general inquiry into trade practices throughout Australia. I doubt whether the extent of the restriction on competition in the Australian economy could have been known, even in general terms, before the Register of Trade Agreements was set up.

It was Dr Maureen Brunt of the Monash University who said - and I compliment her on this - that every form of restrictive practice known to the ingenuity of man is in operation in the Australian economy. A further comment of Mr Bannerman’s is. contained in paragraph 2.9 which reads:

In Australia, agreement between competitors is remarkably persuasive. By contrast in North America, the UK and Europe, the problem has for a longer period been the subject of legislation…..

Typical price agreements are those directed at assuring some profitability to companies already in an industry and not to the efficiency of the industry itself. Today there are 12,649 registered contracts, There are over 1,400 trade associations associated with the compilation and enforcement of those contracts. It is a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs.

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

– You would get an injunction probably.

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

– This is a modern Act. It is not intended to catch horses and carts.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) referred quite often to the report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices when he quoted the numbers of agreements that have been registered. I point out that the vertical ones are not registrable. So, most of what he said is completely irrelevant to the whole subject. But let me express my views on this matter. I would like to point out that this is a popular measure or at least one that is being brought on because it was thought to have popular appeal. But there is another side to it as well. Over the last few weeks I have been talking to some country shopkeepers and their reaction is not a very happy one. They do not regard it as a popular measure. Last night I rang a friend of mine who I knew would have a pretty fair idea of what was going on iri this field because he is concerned in it and I asked his opinion. He gave it concisely. He said it was an idiot thing to disrupt our present system, but after I had talked to him for a while he told me not to do anything about it because, since it Ls a popular move, I should be cautious about opposing it. He said: ‘You can’t win. Everybody loves a bargain.’ That is what the whole thing is based on. I suppose all the people who brought things from H. G. Palmer thought they were getting bargains,, but I doubt whether it can be fairly argued that the disruption of trade caused by H. G. Palmer was in the public interest. It inflicted losses on the whole of the community by over-trading, throwing away discounts and trading in anything at all. Manufacturers were left with their accounts unpaid. Is this in the public interest? This is the result of cutting prices, as everybody seems to want to do. Any fool can sell goods by cutting prices but one has to have a reasonable margin over costs if one is to stay in business. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) used the phrase ‘passing on the results of his efficiency to the consumer by a reduction in price’. He also said that pressure might be brought on a manufacturer to keep his prices up. This is sadly away from the real facts of the business world. It is right off the beam.

The objective of the manufacturer is to produce good products as well as he can and then get them into the hands of the public as cheaply as he can. No manufacturer wants his distributors to get more profit than is necessary. He is the one who wants the profit. He is the man with the ideas who is coming out, developing something and putting it on the market. He has to have a distribution chain, of course, but he is not bolstering up his retail price just to put more money than is necessary into the hands of the retailer. This is a completely wrong concept. The lower the price at which he can get it on to the market in the retail shop the more potential customers he has, provided that he can create a demand. Demand for so many products is created through national advertising. Is this to be eliminated? Are we going to lose all the information that comes to people to let them know what sort of goods they can get? This is the logical conclusion we come to if we take this process as far as it can go. I do not say it will be lost completely because these are not black and white areas, as has been pointed out. They are extremely grey areas. I am not much concerned about the cheap goods from the cheap stores such as Coles and Woolworths which, incidentally, have done more damage to manufacturing than anything we have bad inflicted on this community for many years. I am talking about the quality products that are sold under a reputable brand name. I believe they should be given some protection. lt is very easy to see that this Bill is a lawyer’s Bill. The legal mind does not seem able to cope with the practical difficulties that are met in the market place. I believe this Bill will inflict great damage on the thousands of small shopkeepers who are already being hit by the superior buying power of the supermarkets, the group buyers, the discount houses, the group bulk stores and so on. The Minister has said that the Government has taken into account the experience of other countries with free enterprise economies. It has come to the conclusion, he says, that in general the practice of price maintenance, that is the suppliers stipulating the minimum price that must be charged on the resale of their products, is against the public interest. He quoted the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, South Africa, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Finland and the United States of America. But what sort of comparison is this? If we leave out the United States, Canada and South Africa, any one of these other 9 would fit inside Victoria alone. They have a density of population that makes our conditions quite different from theirs. .

The United States is quoted as an example. The United States has its Sherman anti-trust laws dating back to 1890, but by 1930 a lot of the States had found that these were not such a good idea and they have introduced fair trade laws permitting resale price maintenance because of the damage that was being done to the small shops. I know that a lot have come and gone since. Appeals have been made and again the lawyers have had a good time. In some States it was found that resale price maintenance was unconstitutional so it had to be dropped, but in a lot of States it is still operating. In some of the other States they have exempted resale price maintenance agreements on branded products’ which are in free and open competition with other goods of the same general class. Why should a manufacturer not be able to put his name proudly on a product and see it through to its logical place in the home of the sort of people to whom he wants it to go without these discount houses completely ruining the whole objective that he has been trying to attain?

We want a system that works in Australia. I am not concerned with what is done in all these other countries. We will not get a system that works in Australia by upsetting the existing structure and our wholesale-retail chain of distribution. Shopkeepers in Warragul, Moe, Korumburra, Wonthaggi, Pakenham, Morwell and other towns and villages throughout the electorate of McMillan must suffer if this craze for increased competition is allowed to develop to the absurd point where everyone will go to Dandenong or Melbourne to get their supplies because they can get them there cheaper. One day a person will go to get something from his local store only to find that the shopkeeper has not got it because all the time he has been going away chasing cheap prices he has been ruining the marketing conditions in that country town. Australian manufacturers have enough trouble now. They have a very hard time battling with the competition among themselves plus the restraining influence of a tariff structure which is designed specifically to allow reasonable competition from British manufacturers, and they are battling internally to prevent the flood of cheap tools, knitwear, cotton goods and electrical goods and all the thousands of items that are coming into Australia today from the cheap labour countries.

Australia is a huge land with wide open spaces. It costs $1 0,000 or $12,000 a year to put a salesman out on the road to show products to the people in the country. We get the comparison with the United Kingdom, but in the United Kingdom one provincial salesman can go out and can cover a market of 5 million or 6 million people in a week. How many men would it take to do this in Australia? The cost of maintaining such a system would have to be found somewhere. We will not find it by selling everything as cheaply as we can in supermarkets in the cities… If we kill the distribution pattern that has. been worked out on . the basis of the experience that people in our country towns have had it means that what goes out into the country will be only the .dregs. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) mentioned this a little in his speech. He did not think that people, in country areas would be very happy. I arn emphasising it because I know they will be most unhappy.

Once the distribution chain goes and the profit margin is cut down beyond the point where it pays to operate-, the country store has no chance of budgeting and orderly marketing as we know it now must suffer. The country storekeeper will not get the variety to choose from and he will not be able to get the service from the people who supply the goods. He will not be able to give the service to the people who want it. in the country towns. It is all very well to consider the bulk lines. The farmer likes to. get his binder twine dirt cheap. But when he wants to buy some of the spares and odds and ends that he does not buy at bulk rates, he wants the store in the town to be there so that he can go down the street and get them.

With price maintenance gone and the profit margins cut the small trader will not know where, to turn for stock on which to make a profit and a lot of these people will be looking for other jobs. I think we have seen enough of the chaos of cut price marketing in the petrol business. The public loves it because everybody loves to save a few cents or dollars. As I said, I cannot win this argument that I am advancing because everyone loves a bargain - no-one more than I. But the position becomes intolerable when there is no longer any margin for service, when it does not pay to carry a stock of spares or a wide range of sizes, styles and colours. It is the final purchaser - the public- who loses out when the country store can no longer carry a choice of goods and sell them to advantage because there is not enough profit and business is given to city emporiums and the cut price discounters.

I turn now to the specific points of objection which I have to the Bill as it stands. I believe it needs an amendment to give some protection to the supplier. But has this been explained to me? The honourable member for Isaacs said in his speech that nobody will be forced to supply anybody with goods; that the only restriction is to be on asking somebody to sell- at a set price. This is not mentioned specifically in the Bill - I think it ought to be- because every phrase in it is directed to the’ reseller. The Minister said in his speech -that it will not be an offence to withhold supplies unless the reason is solely that the seller will not agree at a stipulated’ price:- The Bill makes it illegal for a supplier to ask for an agreement to sell at a stipulated price. Therefore how can you refuse! to supply because the fellow will not sell, at your price when you are not allowed to set. a price under the terms of the Bill? ‘

This means that any shopkeeper can demand the delivery of goods from any supplier in his particular line of business. Where does this leave the supplier who has built up a distribution system involving the giving of a franchise? Even if there is not an agreement legally taken ,out for sole distribution, such as happens for example with motor cars or cosmetics, and sometimes some electrical goods, there are cases where the supplier prefers his product; to be sold in a certain way, through a certain type of shop. I believe that that supplier has just as much right to select the outlet for his products as the reseller has to. select which products he will sell in his shops. I specifically ask the Minister to make a much clearer declaration of this effect than his present nebulous statement that it will not be an offence if, for example, the reason for withholding supplies is a doubt : as to the creditworthiness of the reseller - that is fair enough - or some other substantially commercial reason. I think that other, substantial commercial reason needs a little more elaboration to indicate exactly what is meant.

Another point to which I would like to draw the attention of honourable members is the definition of loss leader. It is defined in the Bill as selling a product at less than cost. This is a very common practice, particularly in the superman and that type of shop which is trying to attract people. Obviously this wipes out any sense there might be in referring to it at all because products are not usually sold at less than cost. Shopkeepers sell products at less than cost perhaps if they are getting to the end of the line, if there is a broken line or if something new has come in and made a product obsolete. Loss leaders are sold at a lower price and a much better definition would be: Goods sold not for the purpose of making a profit but for attracting customers likely to purchase other goods or for simply advertising the business. Under the definition in the Bill, before anyone can refuse to supply goods on the grounds that a person has been using that line as a loss leader, the supplier has to show that the retailer has been selling the line for less than it costs. This, in fact, is going much too far because as long as the retailer sells it at cost the supplier cannot object to it.

There is in business today a growing tendency towards a decline in retail price maintenance. This is clear. This is the way in which business is developing. Competition is extremely fierce and a lot of manufacturers are very happy to have retailers cutting the prices of their goods in the hope that they will sell more of them. But this does not do the community any good really. They may sell a few more items. I referred a little while ago to Coles and Woolworths, the companies which are selling so much of the cheap stuff: A manufacturer might supply them with a product at a certain price. The companies put it into their stores and find that it goes pretty well, but they sell it so cheaply that the other small shops no longer want to handle that product because they cannot make a profit out of it. Then Coles will say that they want to make the product cheaper still. What happens then? They cut out the quality. That is my objection to the whole concept of the Bill of asking people to sell something at a price that is not economical.

Competition is sufficiently fierce amongst manufacturers in branded lines. Where there is a branded line competing with another branded line, the manufacturers will see to it that competition keeps the prices down and that the line does get into the public’s hands at the cheapest price. This is called dynamic marketing, aggressive firms wanting to cut prices. What the retailers should be doing if they want to supply a particular good is asking the manufacturer, who has a reputation to protect, for permission to retail that line under their own brand and cut the price in that way. .

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– The purpose of this Bill is well known. It seeks to amend the restrictive trade practices law of the Commonwealth so that the Government can deal with resale price maintenance. For that purpose the Government has inserted a new Part, Part VIa, into the principal Act. As has been said, the Opposition welcomes the amending Bill but it does make the strong comment that the Bill does far too little and is, oh, so late. Being new to the House I find myself in the interesting situation of being in agreement with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). I also agree with much of what was said by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I regret to say that I did not agree with so much of what was said by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer). It seems to me that the comments which have been made and directed at this Bill illustrate the conflicts which arise in the mind of anyone who thinks about it. One can take this situation back to the origin of restrictive trade practices legislation and anti-monopoly and antitrust type legislation which assumed that free competition in all forms at all times was the ideal. It also seeks to express the view that what the American courts have interpreted is not necessarily the correct way and has built a concept of reasonableness into those blanket prohibitions which those early American statutes contained. The British legislation, our legislation and other Acts throughout the world pay greater regard to the public interest, to the interests of other people and to the creation of a system which is responsible to some democratically responsible body.

Surely the thing which stands out when one thinks about restrictive trade practice legislation is that it is a set of norms, a set of laws or a set of rules which has an extensive operation throughout the community. It can affect a person’s livelihood, the way he earns his living, or it can cause him to become bankrupt. It can impose sanctions upon him. Yet that system is administered by people who are not responsible to anyone. The alternative, which is certainly in accordance with my thinking, is to evolve a system which makes that privately imposed system, in the mixed economy type of situation that we have, the responsibility of democratically appointed bodies. I found it profitable and it may be of assistance to the House to trace to some extent these developing approaches. If we go to the history of this type of legislation we find that it first emerged in its modern form in Canada in about 1879. Then it was enacted , in the United States in the very famous Sherman anti-monopoly law in 1880. This was a very turbulent time. I suppose one could call it a buccaneering era in the life of North America.

The representative figures of the age Were people with names like Carnegie and Rockefeller. It was a time of commercial aggression and industrial plunder. The founding giants of the American system of capitalism then laid the basis for this enormous accumulation of capital and the concentration of capital and the power which goes with it, which is such a characteristic of the United States today. It was that feature which forced itself upon the attention of the publicists of the time and brought the response that something had to be done. The American creed was he rugged individualist, the expanding frontier and concepts of this sort, that free enterprise at all costs in some pure form - which never really existed - had to be preserved because it was in grave danger from these barons - if one . wants to use an emotive term - who were emerging on the American scene. Legislation like the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act was enacted because of this fear. The American statesmen at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century felt no doubts. They were determined to perpetuate free competition. In the beginning they did not give any thought to public interest. Free competition was synonymous in their mind with the public interest In 1912 Woodrow Wilson campaigned oa what he called the new freedom. He. stated:

Men in a small way of business must .be as free to succeed as men in a big way of. .business.

These dangers of monopoly power revealed themselves to the Americans.,, as long ago as approximately 80 or 90 years. The strong comment that people can make on the competitive attitudes of America and Australia is that we did not really become aware of this problem- perhaps our community was different - until a much later/period of time. It has not, because we do not have the same high degree of concentration in our commercial and industrial, centres, small though they may be, because on my reading and my understanding of the situation, as it is now anyway,! this country has twice the degree of concentration in the commercial and industrial activity fields than the British and approximately. 3 times that degree of concentration iri the United States of America. ‘.>;

It is not just a matter of reacting. There is something also in our psyche or makeup which has caused us to be more placid and to accept the situation. We did have the old Australian Industries Preservation Act but, as the lawyers know, it lay dormant for a long time after some early setbacks to it. When it was being rediscovered, there was not any opportunity to do much to it because it was repealed by the Trade Practices Act in 1968.

Let us consider the importance that these statutes serve. What I would submit to the House is this. In the .United States these statutes certainly have not and this legislation that we have certainly will not curb the tendency or the pressures in the sort of community that we have towards ever increasing : concentration of economic power - and perhaps abuse of that power. That seems to ,be an inevitable .-system in our way of life. I believe : that . the -real benefit of such legislation in; the United States and. indeed of all such legislation has been its worth in the educative role and the casting of light into dark corners. The

American public has been made aware of where the economic and perhaps the real power in the community lies.

I do suggest that the real power of this legislation when it is eventually put into proper form - it is not in proper form now - will be along those lines, in order to make us understand in a sort of research sense, much as the British have done, just how this secret system that exercises this enormous power in our community does work. I suppose that the best known writer on this subject in the United States was an American senator called Estes Kefauver. He was the leader in the Senate of a number of anti-trust committees and of a small businessmen’s committee. He has a philosophy which was in accord with American thinking on this subject. It goes some-, thing like this: It goes to a system that they believe will work. T will suggest in a moment that it does not. work. In one of his books, he puts it this way:

At least up te now … no better system has been devised to’ protect the pocket than the competitive system.

He went on to say:

  1. . the distinct . advantage of, the .market as an instrument of control was ‘ that it constituted a form of representative government, lt allowed the massive aggregate of a country’s consumers to vote their preferences by extending or withholding their custom.

Further, he stated in another place:

  1. . where there is a multitude - of independent producers each vying for business, there need be no cause for concern.

Experience surely has proved this to be wrong because the market does not work in that way in a modern commercial industrial society such as the Americans have and such as we have. The market has a role of its own. It has a life of its own. It produces abuses of its own and it can be manipulated by the people who control the centres of power. This is the complaint that I make about this hidden system that is not brought to light and will not be brought to light by this legislation, even though we welcome it here.

One of the essential features of our system is the secrecy aspect of it. But, in the United States, it has been brought to light to a large extent. What in the true position? Is it that competition should be furthered at all costs and at all times? I do not believe so because, as the honourable member for Macmillan said, therein lies chaos of a certain kind. That cannot work. There must be some degree of orderliness in it, but it must be orderliness imposed by someone who is responsible to a democratically elected institution such as the Parliament, or some board or tribunal that is itself responsible. The orderliness cannot be produced by some man - a hidden man, if honourable members like, or a faceless man - who is an essential feature of the system as it exists today.

When the British came to grapple with the problem in 1948 a Labour Government enacted the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Inquiry and Control Act. It was quite a different approach from that adopted in the United States, and in many ways was quite different from our approach because at its beginning it was essentially a research venture. It recognised the problem and the abuse that flowed from the problem. The British said: ‘We must understand it better. It is not enough just to say that it is there and we will control this, or prevent that or ban the other. We will understand it and see how it works.’ The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) said that we want something for the Australian scene. I could not agree more with him, but we do not understand the Australian scene or the practice of resale price maintenance in the Australian scene sufficiently, or the practices in the United Kingdom or the United States. The British set out in their Act in 1948 to gain more understanding. They have subsequently amended the Act and added other powers. There was a blend between the two. I suggest that there was a step forward. The British now investigate the professions and all manner of restrictive trade practices, not only resale price maintenance. I think I can quote Mr Harold Wilson on this matter with some point. He put it this way:

A monopoly is . neither good nor bad in itself but it does have the power to be good or bad.

Surely the point lies therein. I believe that Mr Wilson has described the situation realistically. It is also a recognition of the most important feature of restrictive trade practices, namely, somehow working out a system that makes business accountable in a democratic way. Trying to find a way whereby you can put over, behind or under this secret system of restrictive trade practices a scheme whereby the agreements and the practices can be examined, understood and controlled is surely the point, in order to see that the people responsible for them are made accountable.

As the system works at the moment it is capable of raising prices, contributing to inflation and working against the interests of consumers. We live in a period when the consumers are the majority of the people in the community. They can be treated extremely unfairly and have all sorts of hardships imposed on them. The system has to be understood, brought into line and made to ‘ work. Dogmatism will not help. The Americans tried dogmatism in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century and it did not work. The public interest must be paramount. ( There can be no doubt that big business methods are very diverse and extremely flexible. They can be capable of being adapted to further the interests of big business because there is . in the problem, as can be seen when it is examined, the question of why a man is in business. Surely it is to maximise profits.. It is not good enough to say that if he furthers his own interests he serves the interests of the community as well because basically there is a conflict that must be reconciled in some way. This might be the answer to the statement by the honourable member for McMillan that this is a lawyer’s statute. Generally the reconciliation of conflicts is a function in which lawyers get themselves mixed up more than others do. One starts with the proposition that any businessman is in the world from the point of view of making a profit. If he can engage in a restrictive trade practice and put more order into his business than might otherwise be there, he does it for the purpose of maximising profits and not from the point of view of providing a better service or a cheaper commodity for the ultimate consumer.

So there is conflict and it has to be reconciled in the public way I have suggested. We do not know enough about the problem. A little research is done in the universities and occasionally there are articles in learned journals, but that is all. Almost every honourable member would agree that we will have in Australia a mixed economy of a private capital type enterprise and a government capital type enterprise with an overriding determination that they both serve the public interest’ for some considerable time. If that is to be the position, there must be research. Britain has achieved it, but Australia has not. There is nothing in this particular piece of legislation to encourage it in any way. In. fact, the opposite is the case. In the reports of Mr Bannerman, as the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) has pointed out, there is one feature. Actually, one could refer to many features, but the most outstanding feature is that of secrecy. If one has a court case, one cannot serve a subpoena on Mr Bannerman, even to present a document to the court. The British considered this sort of approach and rejected it. What I suggest is that that is a feature for which .we pay too high a price.

It may be that Mr Bannerman claims that he can now examine an agreement or a practice, ring up people on a club-like basis, and persuade them in some indirect way to alter it. I suggest that it probably does not work that way. He may believe that it works that way, but it cannot do so because, given the idea or theme, behind the industrialist, manufacturer or. businessman - that his point in being there is to make a profit and to make his business pay for itself - he will only dress up’ the agreement in some other way. In other words, legislation of this sort does have, to have teeth in it, but before we put teeth in it, or as we put them in it, we must understand what is involved. We will never do that until we have something in the nature of a monopolies commission, as exists in the United Kingdom.

Of course, there are constitutional problems, but in this case the reluctance of the Government to pass adequate legislation is obvious. It can be seen, for .example - I will give only one example of this reluctance, as other members have given other examples - that in 1966 the Tasmanian Government gave the Commonwealth Government full power to make laws with regard to Tasmania in this respect. That included what could be considered almost a request to enact resale price maintenance legislation with regard to Tasmania. Nothing was done until this year, and we all know the circumstances that preceded what is being done. The Australian Council of Trade Unions came into the picture with the Dunlop situation. An enormous amount of publicity was given to the fact that resale price maintenance now no longer existed. It is true that there had been rumblings from Ministers. Suddenly the Government came in and said: ‘We have to do something about it.’ In conclusion, I would like to refer to one statement which I think sums up the matter. I will quote a passage written in 1965 by Professor Richardson, the Dean of the Law School at the Australian National University in Canberra. In the ‘Economic Record’ of that year he wrote:

Compared with the original Barwick plan, the Bill appears as a compromise yielding ground to various commercial and political interests. In particular, bilateral agreements no longer have to be registered and several types of bilateral agreement, such as an agreement between a buyer and seller fixing the resale prices of goods supplied, have been withdrawn from the proposed federal control. The list of practices bad in themselves and therefore unlawful has been reduced from 4 to 2. The penalties attaching to parties failing to register a registrable agreement are less severe than originally contemplated and the proposed register of restrictive practices will not be open to public inspection. The Government has also abandoned its projected control of mergers. These modifications will no doubt make the Bill more digestible in some business circles and sections of the political Parties of the Federal Government.

Therein, I suggest, lies a good description of the Government’s reluctance to act in this matter.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– This is a desperately exhilarating environment in which to discuss trade practices and resale price maintenance. For my part, I will forbear from intensifying the already overbearing atmosphere. Therefore, I will be brief.

Dr Gun:

– Would not that be an advantage?

Dr Gun:

– Like the Arbitration Commission.

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

– He has to add: ‘And there is no obligation to comply’.

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

– Under the Act he can call for a report.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I understand that the guillotine will be applied soon to this debate. Perhaps I could make a preliminary point and, with a bit of luck, carry on during the Committee stage. The first point I put to the House is that I think that some caution or reservation with respect to this Bill is in order. In particular, I think we may be expecting too much of it in terms of the benefits which may accrue to the public purchasing power. Put another way, I do not believe that it will reduce prices as much as some might think it will. In this respect I refer to 2 comments made by the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) during the course of his second reading speech. He said:

Mr Speaker, there is no need for me to remind the House that our economy is at present subject to strong inflationary pressures. To meet these pressures the Government is taking action in several areas.

Presumably this was one of them. His second comment was: the practice works against the objectives ot efficiency which are so important if our efforts to resist the present inflationary pressures are to succeed.

The emphasis there, as honourable members will see, is not on the anti-inflation effects of this legislation. The truth is that its effect in reducing prices is uncertain. This was well summarised, I think, in a comment in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 22nd March 1971. lt referred to the analogous British legislation in this way:

In general terms the removal of retail price maintenance undoubtedly influenced the development of discount houses in Britain.

It has added a certain amount of competition to an area which might have proceeded virtually unaffected by retailing developments in other parts of Europe.

The difficult .question to answer is whether it actually pulled prices down.

Two years after the legislation was introduced the British pound was devalued, complicating any long-term review of price movements.

But in general the effect of the legislation is not discernible in retail price indices kept by the Department of Employment.

These continued to move up under inflationary pressures and as a result of the Labor Government’s firm measures to reverse a particularly unhealthy balance-of-payments position.

Whether the margin of increase would have been greater if the legislation had been rejected by Parliament is a question that must remain a matter of conjecture.

I believe that there are 3 reasons why this uncertainty and these doubts as to the effectiveness of the legislation in reducing prices should exist. The first is that many of the goods and services that are now purchased are either already not subject to resale price maintenance or will remain unaffected by this Bill. To illustrate that statement, with the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard an index showing personal consumption expenditure for 1968-69, the last year for which figures are available. The figures are drawn from the Australian National Accounts.

page 2697

PERSONAL 1968-69

In the matter of seconds left to me I am unable to analyse and to indicate fully the importance of the figures which have just been incorporated. In brief and rough terms let me say that, the total personal consumption expenditure for the year in question was $ 15,800m; that expenditure on food, which almost completely is not subject to resale price maintenance, was . $3, 360m and that there are other fields in which price maintenance does not exist such as medical, hospital and funeral expenses, total travel and communication, gas, electricity and fuel.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma.

Progress reported. House adjourned at 6.22 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710505_reps_27_hor72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant