House of Representatives
6 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 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2699

PETITIONS

Geneva Protocol - Chemical Warfare

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, 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 Werriwa electors respectfully showeth:

  1. That the United Nations General Assembly

Resolution 2603 XXIV 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 for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

  1. that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  2. 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 -

  1. That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international, political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. 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 and read.

Geneva Protocol - Chemical Warfare

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 10 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That the United Nations General Assembly

Resolution 2603 XXIV 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 for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

  1. that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  2. 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 -

  1. That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international, political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. 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.

Geneva Protocol - Chemical Warfare

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, 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 11 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth:

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIVA (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 for 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.

Social Services

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– 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 Mordialloc Parkdale Branch of the Combined Pensioners Association respectfully showeth:

That pensioners who live in houses they own are in a less advantaged position than pensioners who receive Commonwealth financial assistance for rented premises, because of maintenance and other expenses pensioners who own properties have to face.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will either grant municipal councils a subsidy for rebate of rates to pensioners or grant an allowance of $78.00 fiat rate per annum for the payment of municipal and water rates to pensioners who live in houses they own.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginals

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has a clear mandate to act for the advancement of the Aboriginal people, and
  2. Aborigines require a sound economic basis to rise from their present position of poverty, and
  3. the granting of special land rights would provide such a basis, and
  4. common justice and international standards require recognition of traditional ownership rights of indigenous people,

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

  1. Aboriginal residents on existing reserves throughout the Commonwealth to obtain ownership of the reserves:
  2. the recognition of Aboriginal ownership of traditional land at present owned and leased by the Crown and
  3. the development of mining, pastoral and other enterprises on all Aboriginal land to be subject to the consent of Aboriginal owners and such conditions as their own legal advisers may arrange.

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

Petition received and read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance at all in the point of order.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the Citizens of the Commonwealth, of Australia humbly pray that the Government of this Country will:

  1. Ban the shooting of Kangaroos for commercial purposes. (No animal can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale as exists under present legislation).
  2. Ban the export of all Kangaroo products from Australia.
  3. Prevent the extinction of the Red Kangaroo. (The Red Kangaroo has been reduced to a numerical level where its survival is in jeopardy).
  4. Institute a Scientific survey of the Kangaroo population.
  5. Establish large national parks of good quality land as major tourist attractions
  6. Take control of and be completely responsible for the management of Australia’s wildlife.

Petition received. (Quorum formed.)

Education

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

Whereas -

  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 honorable 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.

Education

Mr BRYANT:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. more than 500,000 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 conies from the National Government.

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

A joint Commonwealth-State inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities.

The immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.

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

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

Whereas

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 Instutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

That these can be summarised as lack of classrom 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 and read.

Education

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of 1he House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

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

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr MCIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

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

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

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

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the Stales for the needs.

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physical 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.

Eduction

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:

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

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr BRYANT:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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.

page 2703

QUESTION

ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. Last Thursday he told the House that appointments to the office of Assistant Minister would be left until the parliamentary recess. I ask him whether the House will be given the opportunity before it goes into recess to vote on the amendment to his statement made on Tuesday, which does not appear on today’s daily programme and which expressed disapproval of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers. If the House is not to be given that opportunity will the Prime Minister defer the appointments until the House has such an opportunity in the Budget session?

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

– It is my view and the opinion of the Government that it is a highly desirable procedure and practice to adopt that we should give promising young members on the back benches the opportunity to learn the routines and the method of conducting ministerial business. I have presented a statement in the House announcing my intention to appoint Assistant Ministers and the terms and conditions under which they will be appointed. This is purely and simply a Government responsibility and the paper is there for the information of the Opposition. I have no intention whatsoever of deferring any of the appointments until the House meets for the Budget session.

page 2704

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

Mr DOBIE:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In view of the reports that several European countries have announced somewhat dramatically that foreign trading in their currencies has been suspended; in view of the very strong possibility of revaluation of those European currencies and the attendant possibility of a movement in the international valuation of the Japanese yen; and in view of the international paper which is held in those currencies by the Federal Government and certain of its instrumentalities, can the Treasurer inform the House to what extent and in what detail this crisis is being followed by Australian authorities? Furthermore, would the Treasurer be prepared to make a statement to the House during this day should important news be forthcoming from overseas on this crucial subject?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– There were reports last night and this morning which, among other things, I received during that time and which we were following closely. This question will need to be considered very closely and followed by Australian financial authorities and by the Government. Essentially, there is a situation in Europe in which most of the West European countries have suspended trading. This is not true of France and is not true of the United Kingdom. At one stage last night there was a report, which somewhat surprised me, that Australia had suspended trading. I chased it down; I am afraid that I got a few fellows out of bed to get answers; and I found that there had been a misreport and that it was Austria and not Australia that had suspended trading.

Essentially, what has caused this situation is the balance of payments situation of the United States dollar. The balance of payments of the United States dollar is such that, in conjuction with interest rates, on the short term market in the United States and in western Europe, a great flow of dollars into Europe has occurred. Steps have been taken in this respect. I would not like to go further than to say that there has been a great flow of money over there.

I think that the genesis of the current situation was a report by a very respected group of West German economists the other day. This group suggested that the German Deutsche mark should be allowed to float against the United States dollar. I think that that is really the point at which movements started to take place so quickly. We will be following the situation very closely. If any circumstances arise which lead me to the belief that the Parliament should be informed today of them, I will seek then to make a statement in the House. Whether I am permitted to do so, of course, will depend on whether I am given leave. As my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, pointed out the other day, the Opposition has been refusing Ministers leave to make statements on similar important matters.

page 2704

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr KEOGH:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been directed to the recent statement of the Vice-President of South Vietnam, Vice-President Ky, that President Thieu was disloyal and led a corrupt government? Is he aware that VicePresident Ky described the South Vietnam Government, in his published statement, as a rotton boat covered with lousy paint - only needing a gust to sink it’? Will the Minister for Defence assure the House that the Vice-President’s statement was in no way related to any discussions that he recently had with the Minister about his own treatment by his one-time deputy, the right honourable gentleman who was described by an ex-Minister for the Navy in the House the other evening as ‘he who presently leads the Government’, or was he prompted by his description to the VicePresident of the current political situation in Australia under the present Prime Minister? Can the Minister assure honourable members also that, before the House rises for the winter recess, he will give a

Comprehensive statement covering this visit to South Vietnam and his other recent overseas jaunts?

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

– I have read in the Press various remarks attributed to Vice-President Ky, and indeed to other significant figures in South Vietnam. I think that the honourable member might remember that there is the beginning of an election campaign in that country and that a number of statements are often made in election campaigns, even in this country. Also, I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out to the honourable member that in South Vietnam an election campaign is possible. Free elections can be held, whereas they cannot be held in North Vietnam, and that is one purpose of our presence there - to see that the South Vietnamese retain the right to have a free election. I do not think that the rest of the so-called question requires any answer other than the request to know whether there would be a statement on defence. I understand that the Opposition is refusing leave for statements.

page 2705

QUESTION

STEELWORKS

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is being done to adjust the disproportionate rate of tax which is alleged by Mr Hancock of Hancock and Wright in Western Australia to be a contributing factor in preventing world corporations from participating in establishing steelworks in Western Australia? Is the right honourable gentleman aware that Mr Hancock is reported to have said that the main hurdles are in Canberra, where the conditions are too tough for capital to be forthcoming, and that this has already caused a number of world corporations to abandon the idea? Will he immediately take steps to rectify this situation?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I have no recollection of my attention being drawn to the statement made by Mr Hancock, but I know him well to be a hard trader and one very anxious to use whatever political advantage he can to get a good deal for himself and his own interests. Nonetheless, I will have a look at the substance of the question by the honourable gentleman and see whether there is anything I can do about it. I remind him that I stated in the House in the last few days that the Armco people did see me in Canberra during the course of the last few weeks. They pointed out, not that there was any difficulty at all about obtaining finance, but that the real problem was associated with the slowness with which the Western Australian Government was approaching the problem of providing leases for mining rights in that State. Also, I assured the House that we would make inquiries and see whether we could do something to expedite a decision by the Western Australian Government. I also stated - and I have to repeat this - that the other problem raised, although it was not regarded as a substantial one, was that some difficulty had been created because the investment allowance had been suspended, and they felt this did in some way affect the short term profitability of their enterprise.

page 2705

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. As there is still some doubt about Government policy towards limitations on funds available to the Australian Wool Commission for the purpose of price maintenance at wool auctions, will the right honourable gentleman indicate whether there has been any change in policy in this important area of assistance to this great national industry?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have received comment from people saying that there still existed doubts as to whether there had been any change in Government policy relating to funds for the Wool Commission. I can do no more than remind the House that on 30th March of this year my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry made a statement which I thought cleared up all the misunderstandings that might have arisen from some Press reports that could probably have created a wrong impression. He then stated that there had been no change in the Government’s policy regarding the purchase of woolby the Australian Wool Commission. That decision still stands, and I believe that if there are any other doubts the Minister’s statement of that date should be referred to.

page 2705

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. I refer the right honourable gentleman to his statement in the House yesterday that he did not discuss the Fill aircraft with the United States Government during his visit to Washington. Before he left was he given a. briefing by the Royal Australian Air Force on the state of the Fill project in the expectation that he would raise it with the United States defence officials? Is a top level delegation to visit the United States in the next few days to discuss the Fill? If so, is this delegation to do the job which the Minister neglected to do?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Before leaving on the overseas visit which I have recently concluded, I had a discussion with members of the Air Board, with the Minister for Air, with technical officials and with the Secretary to the Department of Defence on the technical stages of the Fill and certain steel which went into that aircraft. This was not a briefing in expectation that I should be discussing with the United States Government the question of the Fill because, as 1 have indicated, it was confined to technical and scientific matters. We reached, I think, the very proper conclusion that these matters should be the subject of discussions between technical experts and that there was little point in myself or Secretary Laird discussing matters of this scientific complexity.

Indeed, there is going on, as is more or less continually going on, discussions between experts from Australia and the United States on those technical matters to which I referred yesterday, and there will be a senior Air Force officer going to continue these kinds of discussions - not, as the honourable member suggested, to do the job which I neglected to do but rather to do the job for which he is competent because he is a technical expert, and which we decided he should do.

page 2706

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he has received representions seeking more equitable postal rates for periodicals restricted to what is known as controlled circulation. Has he been able to examine this matter, and is he in a position to indicate any conclusions?

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

– The honourable member and other honourable members will know that in recent years the problem of the profitability of the Post Office has been created by difficulties in the postal area. I have indicated in White Papers to the House that this is a very labour intensive industry and that 70 per cent of our cost is incurred in relation to labour. Therefore, there is a problem, particularly in giving concessions in any particular area. For a number of years a substantial concession has been given in relation to newspapers, magazines and educational and religious journals, but last year the Government decided that something should be done to reduce the loss which in that year amounted to $9m. The action which was taken had the effect of reducing this loss to approximately $4.5m.

I remind the honourable member that there are category A and category B. The area to which the honourable member is referring would mean that a new category would have to be created. Category B represents a 30 per cent concession and there still would be in the area about which the honourable member speaks a further concession particularly related to journals for which no charge is made and which goes to what I understand is a free list. The Post Office, of course, has had to determine certain guidlines in relation to these matters. It is a requirement of the regulation that no concession can be given and that none of these can be brought into a category unless 75 per cent are in fact paid for by the individual. When 1 say that, I have in mind that it is not merely a request by the individual; it can be in relation to an organisation which appropriates a certain proportion of its membership fee adequate to meet the cost of the printing and postage of the journal. 1 can offer no hope of further expansion of the categories to other organisations.

page 2706

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr HANSEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer the Minister to the Tariff Board inquiry into the Australian shipbuilding industry which was completed in December 1969. Having in mind that the future of a number of Australian shipyards hangs on the recommendations contained in the Board’s report - 18 months is a long time to be hanging -I ask: When will the Minister table or release the report of the Tariff Board?

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

– Generally questions relating to the Tariff Board should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry. However, I know of the honourable member’s interest in the Tariff Board report concerning shipbuilding because of the shipyards on the north coast of Queensland. So far as I am aware - I will have to confirm this with my colleague - the Tariff Board report referred to by the honourable member has not been received by the Government.

Mr McMahon:

– It has not been received by the Government.

Mr NIXON:

– The Prime Minister has confirmed that the report has not been received. Until it is received by the Government I am unable to offer any further comment.

page 2707

QUESTION

LAW OF THE SEA

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. I ask: Has the Government made an assessment of the advantages that may flow to the nation in establishing a law of the sea institute, such an institute to be attached to one of the universities in Australia? Could the honourable gentleman be persuaded to accept the proposition that the establishment of such an institute might bring some measure of enlightenment to the views that are presently influenced by superstition and groaning provincialism?

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

– I do recall that at one time in what seems the distant past there was a suggestion that an institute of the law of the sea should be formed. Indeed, some progress was made in endeavouring to ascertain whether there were people of sufficient stature in Australia to lead such an institute.I do not think that this matter is under consideration at present. However, in view of what the honourable gentleman has asked me I shall look into the matter further but I suggest to him that he go rather to the history books relating to the 18th and perhaps the 19th centuries if he wishes further information on the latter part of his question.

page 2707

QUESTION

DOCKYARDS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: In 1970 was the question of Commonwealth assistance for the construction of new docks referred to a special Cabinet subcommittee? Has the Newcastle State Dockyard submitted a plan for the construction of a new graving dock capable of docking and repairing large bulk carriers and tankers operating on the coast? Is he aware that this essential programme cannot commence until the Cabinet sub-committee has made a decision? Has he any information as to what progress has been made with these inquiries and when a decision can be expected?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– An inter-departmental committee has been investigating the question of docking facilities throughout Australia, and it is my understanding that its report is nearing completion. I understand also the difficulties that are likely to be created because that report has not been completed and consequently the Newcastle dock is unable to proceed until the report has been made and the Government has given its approval to any change that might be contemplated. I will pursue this matter for the honourable gentleman and let him know when we are likely to get the report from the committee. A series of meetings is being held with the State by my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, relating to port facilities as a whole. I hope that we will be able to co-ordinate not only the Tariff Board report relating to the shipbuilding industry but also the inter-departmental committee report relating to docking facilities and the report that might be made by the ministerial committee relating to port facilities as a whole.

page 2707

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Does Australia discriminate against imports from mainland China? When will the Minister announce, as forecast by the Prime Minister on 20th April, measures to liberalise our trade with mainland China?

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

– There is no foundation at all for any suggestion that Australia discriminates against the People’s Republic of China. We apply the same General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules to trading with the People’s Republic as we do with other countries, although it is not a member of GATT. Under GATT certain rules and regulations provide for non-discrimination between trading countries. Those rules and regulations apply to China, which is a most favoured nation. In one or two cases, such as with footwear and the machine tools industry, recommendations have been made by our tariff-making authorities to increase the tariff and so put an impediment in the way of goods coming from that country but this applied to other countries as well as to mainland China.

Regarding the second part of the question, I am not yet in a position to make a full statement about the Government’s examination of any liberalisation or relaxation of trade with the People’s Republic. However the Government has been working on the list of restricted goods that applies to that country. Our restrictions have been based mainly on strategic materials and whilst there is no intention to ease the restrictions on warlike or nuclear materials and goods, the Government has examined the list of goods that are at present restricted and it hopes, in the near future, to be able to publish a list of all goods which are restricted and all goods which are not restricted. Interested companies and businesses will be able to apply to the Department of Customs and Excise in respect of goods which are not restricted, knowing that there is no restriction on them. Items on the restricted list will be examined and reviewed continually and if exceptions are possible they will be made in the course of time.

page 2708

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT: SITTINGS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Treasurer. It arises from a letter which he sent in his former capacity as Leader of the House on 2nd December to my Deputy and me. The letter was attached to a schedule of the proposed sittings for this year up to 20th May. It informed us that it was ‘not possible at this stage to forecast when the sittings would end and further sitting periods might be programmed if the business of the House should require it’. I ask the honourable gentleman: Were this programme and schedule discussed with members of the

Cabinet at that time and in particular with the present Prime Minister, who was then the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– This letter and the schedule ought to be put in perspective. When I became Leader of the House I decided it would serve everybody’s convenience if I circulated to all honourable members a programme so that with a knowledge of the days of sittings they could make their appointments and formulate their programmes personally. In doing this I constantly had a problem. The problem was that if I put out a schedule which showed any finishing date, people would jump to the conclusion that that was the period of time for which the sittings would proceed. I tried various formulas to draw to the attention of people that it was not a firm finishing date and that it could be earlier or later.

Mr Hansen:

– It could be longer.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Longer or later, which ever you like. I tried different formulas but I could never get an understanding that the words I used were not intended in any way to foretell the length of the sesssion but were merely for the convenience of honourable members. If honourable members will look at previous letters for other sessions they will find that the words used on those occasions are different from those used in this letter. I kept trying formulas which would bring the attention of people to the fact that it was for their benefit for forward programming and had nothing to do with the finishing date of the session, and this was so with this letter and this schedule. As to whether there was any discussion with members of the Cabinet, no discussion that I remember was held with Cabinet. The way it was formulated would be that I would have a look at the commencement date and make a recommendation to the Prime Minister as to the day on which the session should commence.

Mr Armitage:

– Ah, he was responsible, was he?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That is a rather stupid interjection. I would consult the Prime Minister as to the commencement date of the session. Having obtained the approval of the Prime Minister as to the commencement date of the session it was then merely a matter of extending the programme from that date. The programme of sittings formerly was 3 weeks on and 1 week off. In relation to this schedule it was 2 weeks on and 1 week off. The programme had been changed. At the time I drew up the schedule I really did not know what date 1 should end the sittings, having regard to the difficulties I have had in the past as to the date of the end of a session. It was not meant to be the date on which to end the session. It merely served the interests and convenience of honourable members so that they would be able to programme.

page 2709

QUESTION

QANTAS HOSTESSES’ UNIFORMS

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is Qantas Airways Ltd considering the introduction of new uniforms for their air hostesses? If so, will the Minister give an undertaking that the uniforms for its air hostesses? If so, will the weight, machine washable, permanent press wool fabrics?

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

– This is certainly a very interesting subject. I am afraid I have no personal knowledge as to whether a new type of uniform for Qantas hostesses is in contemplation, but I will certainly interest myself in the matter raised by the honourable member and see whether I can obtain some information for him.

page 2709

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JESS:

– Yes. I have been misrepresented in the most scurrilous and cowardly manner.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not make any comment.

Mr JESS:

– I will make my personal explanation. Last night on the radio and on the news from Channel 9 and Channel 2 a statement was made that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) had claimed that the reason why the Opposition refused to grant pairs yesterday was that the honourable member for La Trobe, Mr Jess, had been absent and had been paired by Mr Whitlam. He said that I had appeared on television that night, Mr

Whitlam having given me leave because of ill health. I wish to deny this emphatically. I was not absent because of ill health. I may suffer from ill health occasionally, but I do not like that to be used against me. An article appearing in the ‘Sun* newspaper this morning on page 1 1 says:

Pairs Row: ‘Ban by ALP. The Labor Party yesterday banned all pairs in the House of Representatives - and blamed Victorian Liberal backbencher, Mr Jess, for the decision. The Labor Leader, Mr Whitlam, described as ‘the last straw’ the appearance of Mr Jess on a TV programme on Tuesday night when he had a pair.

If honourable members look at page 2436 of Hansard they will see that I was paired at 11.20 a.m. I was paired at 3.31 p.m. At 3.40 p.m. I was not paired. At 3.42 p.m. I was not paired. At 4.8 p.m. I was paired. At 4.48 p.m. I was paired. At 5.52, 8.53, 9.35, 9.40, 9.58 and 10.7 p.m. I was not paired. At 1.11 a.m. I was paired. Obviously, when I was paired it was by arrangement between the 2 Whips. I was paired in the first instance, when the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) was absent, and at 1.11 a.m. when the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) was not here. I had leave of the Government Whip to be absent to attend 2 meetings in my electorate in Victoria. I never asked leave - there was no necessity to do so - of the Leader of the Opposition. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. If I feel that the Leader of the Opposition is a pompous ass, have I the right to say so?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. I, too, have been misrepresented in a scurrilous and cowardly fashion. Not only have I been misrepresented but so also has that excellent programme ‘This Day Tonight’. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) alleged, in a question that you ruled out of order, Mr Speaker, that on that programme last night I made certain statements with respect to Government interference with the Australian Wheat Board. I made no such statements on the programme ‘This Day Tonight’.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has misrepresented me. I never stated that I gave him a pair. I was reliably informed, and I have since confirmed, that he was granted a pair. I do not know for what reason he was granted the pair and I do not recollect having given the reason. But he did appear in a programme on television. It is certain that he was not given leave for that purpose. That was never put. It is regarded by my Party - I also so regard it - that it is a breach of the honourable undertakings and understandings which obtain in these matters for a Government member to use for purely partisan purposes the pair which he is granted for electoral or domestic reasons.

Mr JESS (La Trobe)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member again claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JESS:

– I have been misrepresented scurrilously again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not make any comment in relation to it. If he does, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr JESS:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has stated that I have committed a breach of privilege because I was granted a pair. This has nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition. The Whip of my Party gave me leave to be absent. What arrangement was made between the 2 Whips is their responsibility, not mine. Furthermore, let me state to you, Sir, that I discussed this with the Labor Party Whip yesterday and I told him what his Leader had said. He said that it was absolute rubbish and that he certainly had never said any such thing.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOX:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by inference. I did not seek a pair for the honourable member for La Trobe, nor was he granted a pair. The fact that he was shown in Hansard as being paired was as a result of an arrangement between the Whips to try to co-operate when members are not here.

Mr Sherry:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Henty says that he has been misrepresented by inference. One is either misrepresented or is not misrepresented. One cannot be misrepresented by inference.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for La Trobe. I do not know why he had to spoil a personal explanation to this House by a statement such as the one he has just made. I explained to him quite clearly that he did not get a pair from this side of the House. The reason was that I was not asked to give him a pair from this side of the House. If he was paired in that very late division it was purely because the Government Whip decided to pair him with one of our chaps who was not here. I never made any statement about my Leader’s statement such as that alleged by the honourable member for La Trobe.

page 2710

ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTS SAFETY COMMITTEE

Mr GORTON:
LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report produced by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee entitled ‘Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from May to August 1970’.

page 2710

LIFE INSURANCE ACT

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1965, I present the 25th annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 2710

AGED PERSONS HOMES ACT

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a list of the homes subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954-1969 as at 31st January 1971.

page 2711

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Salaries Bill 1971.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1970-71.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1970-71.

page 2711

QUESTION

APPROVAL OF WORK- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Development of Hospital at Alice Springs

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: Redevelopment of hospital at Alice Springs, N.T.

The proposal involves construction of new buildings, remodelling of some existing buildings and demolition of others to accommodate 313 in-patients and associated staff and services. The new buildings proposed are:

A three-storey ward block to accommodate 253 patients and supporting hospital facilities;

A services building for stores, laundry, boiler and chiller house and the mortuary;

A three-storey nurses home to accommodate 212 sisters.

Other phases include:

Alterations to an existing nurses quarters; Extension of the medical officers quarters:

Remodelling the central sterile supply and theatre block to provide a public health laboratory;

Remodelling two existing ward blocks to take 20 and 40 patients respectively;

Remodelling the administrative building for a regional office for the Department of Health; and

Conversion of laboratory buildings and the aerial medical services building for staff accommodation..

The estimated cost of the proposed work is $11,500,000. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for all of the items in the reference and has recommended their construction, with the exception of the residential buildings for nurses and single medical officers accommodation. The design and construction of the residential accommodation is to be the subject of a final report when a study to be made by the Department of Works into the overall question of costs and standards of livingin accommodation has been considered. I informed the House recently in connection with other proposed works that the Department of Works has given priority to the study so that the necessary discussions with the Committee and other departments, and preparation of the final report, can be carried out in a minimum of time.

The Government shares the Committee’s concern that the proposed work should not be delayed pending the final report and now seeks approval to proceed with the proposed works, except for the residential accommodation. Excluding the residential accommodation the estimated cost is $9,700,000. Paragraph 87 of the Committee’s report draws attention to deferment of certain works and services which were to have been commenced during the 1970-71 Budget year and to staff proposals for the hospital. The items which unfortunately had to be deleted from the current works programme as a result of reconsideration of priorities for a reduction in overall expenditure by the Commonwealth are to be considered together with new items submitted for 1971-72 when the 1971-72 works programme is formulated later this financial year. Works and services for later years, including the future ward wing, which with certain other works will complete the redevelopment of the hospital on the present site, will be kept under review with the view to their submission as the need arises. New staffing proposals for the hospital form part of a comprehensive re-assessment of overall needs for the Northern Territory hospitals and medical services and are being examined by the Department of Health and the Public Service Board. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition welcomes this motion, particularly with respect to the construction of a new hospital, as it might be called, in Alice Springs. Some years ago I was in the hospital at Alice Springs being treated for scurvy, and even in those times there were very serious accommodation problems. Of course, these have been accentuated greatly. The Opposition agrees entirely with the Government and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works regarding priorities in this matter. It would seem, from what the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) has said, that it will be a first class hospital. I note in passing that it will be fully equipped not only to meet the requirements of patients but also in regard to service facilities. The service facilities to be built are stores, a laundry, a boiler, a chiller house and a mortuary. It seems strange to put the chiller house and the mortuary together but this is the way it reads in the Minister’s speech. The cost of the building, excluding the quarters which cost $9.7m, will be $ 11.5m. It would seem - there is no question about it following the delegations and the representations that have been made - that this building is justified in every respect. In fact, the quicker it is constructed the better it will be for Alice Springs and for the Northern Territory in general.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Speaking in support of this motion, I too am very pleased to see that after all these years Alice Springs is to get a first class hospital. I note that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was at one time in the hospital with scurvy. I trust that the treatment was successful. Although the hospital has been somewhat behind the demand in bed state for many years, the quality of the staff employed there has always been top line. In fact, I was in the hospital some 20 years ago and my 4 daughters were born there, so I. have a particular interest in it. I am sure that the local hospital committee and the local Country Party councillors who have all been working so hard to get this hospital to this stage will be more than pleased.

Mr Hurford:

– Did nobody else work hard?

Mr Kelly:

– Your wife is a member of the Council too, is she not?

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, she is. People do work in the Northern Territory and parliamentarians’ wives do serve on committees. All of the work is not done by the sanctimonious and smug honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) or his wife. I urge the Government to carry on with the early planning of the future ward wing because this hospital actually serves an area stretching from Oodnadatta in South Australia to Wave Hill in the north. It is urgent that the work proceed with all possible expedition.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The special health needs of the Aboriginal people featured very significantly in the planning of the Alice Springs hospital. In its report the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has recommended that a bed population ratio of 6 to 1,000 be adopted for non-Aboriginal patients and that this ratio should be doubled to 12 to 1,000 for Aboriginal patients. That in itself shows the special need in this area. However, I feel there are other special factors about this matter which deserve some emphasis in the short time available to me today. It is also proposed that 50 paediatric beds be provided for the particular needs of Aboriginal children. Moreover, the Committee in its report went on to draw attention to the important need to provide not only an adequate hospital at Alice Springs but also back-up services in the regions from which Aboriginals come. The Committee was intent on making the point that this was the first line of defence and that unless this was done great success would not be attained in alleviating the health conditions which many Aboriginal people experience.

I think all members of the Committee were greatly perturbed to learn of the increased incidence of Aboriginal infant mortality. We were told that in 1966 the Aboriginal infant mortality rate bad reached its peak when it rose to 215 per 1,000. There has been great progress since that time and in 1969 Aboriginal infants in Central Australia were dying at the rate of 89 per 1,000. But to the Committee’s dismay, Reverend J. Downing, the minister of the United Church in the Northern Territory, who is acknowledged by all to be a dedicated specialist in his field, expressed the view that the Aboriginal infant mortality rate in Central Australia had doubled in the last year. I regard that as a very important statement coming from such a significant person. Other factors were revealed to us which should give great concern. For example, the 201 -bed hospital at Alice Springs has had on occasions 240 patients. We were told that there are occasions when 2 children are accommodated in one bed in the paediatric ward. We were later told that on occasions 4 Aboriginals children, if I am not mistaken, were accommodated in one large oxygen tent.

We were told that the rate of cross infection was incredibly high, almost unprecedentedly high. So high was the rate of cross infection that, according to Sister Gilbertson, the cross infection rale resulted in a period that followed October 1969 in 116 children being cross infected with chickenpox. She unequivocally expressed the view that one carrier of chickenpox had brought this infection into the hospital and that others in the hospital caught it and suffered as a consequence. All of us here would be alarmed and disturbed if this were to happen to our own children. We would be alarmed if, when we sent a child to hospital for a tonsilectomy operation, an enormous incidence of cross infection occured at that hospital and that child became infected.

Many reasons contribute to this unhappy situation. But, to a large extent, it results from the inadequacy of the hospital and the fact that the hospital is not divided properly into small sized wards to facilitate the segregation of people. We were told that serious language problems exist. Aboriginal dialects are not understood by sufficient people in the hospital including doctors and nurses. As a result, very real difficulties arose. The Reverend Downing said that, of every SO Aboriginal children born in the Northern Territory, 11 will die in early childhood .We were told also that there is a deficiency of personnel, particularly nursing sisters in the Territory in this front line area of defence which is regarded so significantly-

Mr James:

– And a rapid turnover.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. In fact, the turnover was at the rate of 300 per cent per annum and, in any case, the number of sisters available was grossly inadequate. As a result, many children who come from the back blocks and from settlements into the hospital contribute to its overcrowding. Clearly, a far more impactive effort will need to be made if this incredibly bad situation is to be alleviated.

We were told that there was not 1 person in Central Australia properly trained in public health. We wonder why the hospitals are full to overcrowding with cases of gastro enteritis and other similar illnesses; these could be alleviated if public health facilities were installed and provided in these places. So, I express very grave concern about these matters. I recall the Reverend Downing saying that in some fringe communities - he mentioned a place called Finke, but apparently there are many others - 50 or 100 people live with only one tap, no showers and no toilets. I think that it is to the eternal disgrace of this Government and this country that such an appalling situation has been permitted to prevail for so long-

Mr Calder:

– Where was that?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Finke. But I am not just talking about Finke. I am talking about central Australia and the neglect of the Aboriginal people there from the standpoint of health. I point to the need to provide proper field services and to attract more sisters to the area. The sisters who appeared before the Public Works Committee were wonderfully dedicated people, as were all the people connected with the workings of the hospital.

Clearly, sufficient effort has not been made to attract people from the other States. People should be made aware of this problem instead of it being covered up as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) attempted to do in answer to a question the other day. But for my provocation, the Minister would have given the House the impression that there was a decreased incidence of infant mortality throughout the Northern Territory whereas in fact evidence has been put before the Public Works Committee on oath by the Reverend Downing that the infant mortality rate has doubled in the last 12 months. If this situation does not justify the appointment of a royal commission, and if it does not justify the Government shaking off its state of inertia about this matter concerning human beings, nothing does. I am appalled that this situation has been covered up for so long. I believe that a real impact must be made on this problem and that we must get people out in the field.

The present system operates in an uncoordinated fashion with the Minister for the Interior prevailing on the one hand over so many matters concerning the Northern Territory and with, on the other hand, the Northern Territory Administration and the Director of Native Welfare and his personnel infiltrating into certain spheres of operation there. Then, the Commonwealth Department of Health is responsible for another area of administration, as is the Commonwealth office of Aboriginal Affairs. In many respects, this lays the ground for a first class schemozzle. That might sound a little like a cliche, but it is a lot more than a cliche when the lives of hundreds of young Aboriginal children are involved. The situation would be quite different if they were the children of honourable members.

We just have not given this matter the kind of attention that it deserves. I will be more gratified to hear the honourable member for the Northern Territory start to speak and think in terms of the humanity in his electorate rather than rub his hands with glee and enthusiasm for the manifestation of some concrete and some bricks and mortar. I will be more impressed when the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth), the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) and the Minister for the Interior show that they are concerned and stop adopting the placatory attitude that they have adopted. They should commence to outline a blueprint as to the manner in which this problem, which in my view is a blot on the Australian landscape, can be assailed and ultimately alleviated.

I bring these matters to the attention of the House with very great feeling because I have been concerned and actively involved in Aboriginal affairs for many years. I know the demure and tranquil Aboriginal people. I know that they cannot speak sufficiently for themselves. I am appalled that those who have a responsibility to do things on behalf of these Aboriginal people have not carried out their duties more adequately up to this point in time.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) put:.

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority .. .. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Construction of Yirara Residential College for Aboriginal Students, Alice Springs

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

– I move:

The proposed work involves the construction of a college to provide for some 300 Aboriginal male and female residential students between the ages of 12 and 17 plus years. The college is to have teaching and instruction facilities, an administrative and resources centre, a recreation hall, a kitchen and dining block, 6 student dormitories, a clinic, 6 staff residences and roads, parking areas, sporting facilities and associated engineering services. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $2,900,000. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposed work and, upon the concurrence of the House in this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition supports the motion. The college to which the Minister has referred is to cost §2,900,000, and indeed it will be very tangible evidence of the country’s concern for Aboriginal education. Having spoken so critically in respect of the previous matter, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay a tribute with regard to this matter. This will be an excellent facility, and the kind of facility to which any of us would be pleased and proud to send our own children. It is in sharp contrast to the outmoded facility at Darwin - the Kormilda College - although it is gratifying to note that there is some improvement taking place in that area as well. I think that everyone will be pleased that some special effort is being made with regard to the education of Aboriginal people. However, there are some factors which must give rise to concern when we look at the way in which this problem is being approached. One of the things that surprised me during the Public Works Committte hearing was the revelation that compulsory education does not operate in the Northern Territory in respect of Aboriginal people.

Mr Birrell:

– I thought you were going to say: ‘In respect of the member for the Northern Territory*.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not want to reflect on the honourable gentleman in that way, because I find him genuinely concerned about these matters. If I can stimulate his interest and encourage him to be more outspoken about the great injustices done to the Aboriginal people, 1 will take a great delight in doing that, but, as I know the honourable member is not insensitive to these matters, I do not want to do him any disservice in that regard.

I make the point that, in terms of principle, it is alarming that there is no compulsory education operating in the Northern Territory in respect of Aboriginal people. There is a surprisingly high proportion of people of eligible age undergoing education. All of us were pleased to learn that pre-school education is getting priority in the Territory. I regard that as being of great significance because, when a child gets the advantage of education in the pre-school period, it is a thing that compounds as he goes through his education, and the longer he goes to school the greater the value he derives. Since Aboriginal people have been disadvantaged for so long, it is good to see the emphasis in that direction.

When we think of the Kormilda College and of the Yirara College at Alice Springs, which is the subject of the present motion, we ought to have regard to the fact that, in contrast to the conditions that prevail in the rest of Australia, the preponderance of young Aboriginal people will be taken away from their family if they desire to undergo higher education, that is, education beyond the age of 12 years. We have some remarkable contradications in Australia. If a person is an old Australian - an Aboriginal- it is the Government’s policy to assimilate him, to absorb him, depriving him of his culture. However, if a person is a new Australian, the official policy is to integrate him, that is, to have regard to his cultural characteristics, preserving the ones that are desirable. We are going to assimilate the Aboriginal people. I suppose that, if one deliberately set about a policy of assimilation, one could not go about it more effectively than by arranging to take the children away from their family at a certain age, to take them away from their tribal customs, to take them some hundreds of miles and for some years put them in a place in isolation from their parents.

This is the kind of thing which the Yirara College in Alice Springs, which is the subject of this proposal, and the Kormilda College in Darwin are doing. If one lives in the back blocks in New South Wales or South Australia or Western Australia the likelihood is that one will be able to travel in a school bus or to ride on a horse or a bike or in a milk van to a regional high school. But this is not the case with Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. We will not spend that kind of money in the Northern Territory because these children are Aboriginal children. If they were white children we would probably go to the trouble of strategically locating these schools so that the children would not have to be away from their homes for very long. But it is different with Aboriginal children. When they are between the tender ages of 12 and 17 years we will take them from their families and put them in the Yirara College or the Kormilda College.

When one walks into most clubs in Sydney one sees illustrations of Aboriginals with boomerangs or spears on Aboriginal motifs hanging on the walls or on beer mats. While we exploit this lovely bit of Australiana, we are so intent deliberately to introduce a different programme for Aboriginals which will deprive them of their culture. We will take them away from their tribal traditions. Can honourable members imagine what would happen to a child of 12 years who went away from home for 5 years in order to receive the benefit of an education and then returned to a situation which had not evolved in a compatible way? The gulf between the child and his parents would be widened. In my view, a great deal of this could be minimised. Although I agree that there is a necessity for colleges like the Yirara College and the Kormilda College, in which a very good job is done by devoted and capable people, I still believe that we should not be adopting this attitude in such a switch-throwing way - taking these children away from their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and their tribal background and sending them to Alice Springs and Darwin for education.

I take this opportunity to commend the responsible departments for the very excellent plan which has been produced. It indicates the physical characteristics that are to be provided in the Yirara College. I know that all my colleagues share the hope that, as some 300 Aboriginal children will attend the college, the coffers of the nation will be used to provide a small swimming pool for these children, many of whom might have come from areas where there are lovely rivers or creeks or from coastal areas. To put them in a place like Yirara College without providing them with swimming facilities seems to be pruning things down too much. I think that it would provide some kind of symbol of paying the debt we owe if we were to go a little further and provide swimming facilities. I am pleased that further investigation is being undertaken into that matter. I commend the proposal before the House and hope that the Yirara College will soon become a reality.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to speak briefly to this motion and say how pleased I am that this proposal is to come to fruition. It illustrates the Government’s genuine interest in Aboriginals in this area. In spite of what the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said, it is a great step forward because the Aboriginal children will not have to leave their natural environment. They will not have to travel thousands of miles to and from Darwin. They will be able to go into Alice Springs, which is a town that they all know. Even if they live 200 miles out of Alice Springs, they know the town. Their parents also have been to Alice Springs and they know the town. So there is a great advantage in constructing this college in Alice Springs.

As regards the honourable member’s remarks about whether or not we would do something for white children, I point out that there is a similar college in Alice Springs for coloured, part coloured and white children who come from stations. It has been there for years. I might add that my children, too, had to travel 300 miles into Alice Springs and that they were separated from their family. This is a fact of life when one lives in these areas. I will say nothing more than to commend the Government for introducing this proposal and to express the hope that the work is carried out speedily.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I will not detain the House for very long, but I should like to support the report before the House. One of the things that I have found most interesting in the Northern Territory on the occasions I have been there and have talked to the Aboriginal people has been the interest which Aboriginal people living in isolated places show in allowing their children to take advantage of the education which they are now receiving. I had a talk with a gentleman at Yirrkala. I do not think he would mind me mentioning his name. It is Wanjuk. He is a well-known artist. He said he was very proud of the fact that his son had absorbed the old ways, the tribal traditions, and that he was now at the Kormilda College absorbing the new ways.

The point I want to make is that I know the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) said that the Yirara College will take young people from the age of 12 years. I know that in many ways the educational assistance which is given to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory is superior to that given by the States or by the Commonwealth in the States. I hope this means that the secondary grant scheme for Aboriginals will be extended to children as young as 12 years who attend these colleges in Alice Springs and Darwin. I hope this means that the Commonwealth similary will extend the scheme to Aboriginal children right throughout Australia when they go from primary school to secondary school.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2717

BANKS (SHAREHOLDINGS) BILL 1971

Bill 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 purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision announced on 1st May 1970 to introduce legislation to ensure that the Commonwealth had adequate power to control the acquisition by local or overseas interests of large shareholdings in banks incorporated in Australia. The Government’s policy towards the ownership of banks in Australia is based on the view that banking should be conducted by companies of undoubted financial viability which can be expected to recognise that banking is a business in which the nation has special interests. In addition, it is the policy of the Government, as it has been of all previous governments since 1945, not to grant overseas interests authorities to carry on banking business in Australia or to allow them to acquire interests in existing Australian banks.

The Banking Act confers on the Government power to consider applications to open new banks in Australia and to recommend to the Governor-General that an authority should be granted. Sections 8 and 9 provide that, subject to certain exemptions, a body corporate shall not carry on banking business in Australia unless it has an authority to do so. In accordance with the long-standing policy, applications from overseas interests for authorities to carry on banking business would be refused. Before recommending the issue of an authority to an Australian applicant, the Government would need to be fully satisfied on all aspects of the application, in particular that the applicant company had the financial strength to fulfil the responsibilities involved in operating an authorised bank and that the persons controlling the applicant company had a standing commensurate with those responsibilities.

Consistent with the power in relation to the granting of authorities to commence new banking businesses, the Government needs to have undoubted power to control changes in ownership of an authorised bank. The Banking Act confers only limited power on the Government to control such changes in ownership. Section 63 provides that, except with the Treasurer’s consent, a bank shall not enter into an arrangement for the sale or disposal of its business, by amalgamation or otherwise, or effect a reconstruction of the bank. But there are other ways in which the ownership of a bank could change hands. The legal advice is that it is doubtful whether the Treasurer’s consent would be required under this section to the acquisition of a controlling or significant interest in a bank, for instance, by the purchase of the bank’s shares on a stock exchange, the acquisition of shares by means of takeover bid, or the taking up of a parcel of new shares of the bank issued specifically for the purpose.

The object of the Bill is therefore to supplement the provisions of section 63 of the Banking Act, by providing a method of exercising control over the possession by local or overseas interests of substantial interests in shares of banks incorporated in

Australia. The need for the Government to be able to control changes in bank ownership was emphasised last year when certain changes in shareholdings in one of the authorised banks was brought to the Government’s notice. As I have already mentioned, my predecessor issued a statement on 1st May 1970 announcing the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to require the Treasurer’s approval in future to acquisitions of shares which had the effect of raising a beneficial holding to 10 per cent or more of the capital of a bank incorporated in Australia.

He also warned that the amending legislation would provide that persons may be required to divest themselves of bank shares acquired after 1st May 1970, but before the enactment of the legislation, where the effect of acquiring such shares would be to raise a shareholding to 10 per cent or more, or, in the case of any shareholding of 10 per cent or more at that date, to raise that shareholding further. At the time it was envisaged that the legislation would be in the form of an amendment to the Banking Act. However, in view of the length and technical nature of the provisions, it has been decided that a separate piece of legislation would be preferable. Subject to certain transitional provisions, the Bill limits the nominal value of voting shares of an authorised bank incorporated in Australia in which a person, including a corporation, may have an interest to less than 10 per cent of the total nominal value of the voting shares of the bank, unless the Treasurer has fixed a higher percentage for that person. Where the Treasurer has fixed a higher percentage for a person, the Bill provides that the person’s interest in shares of the bank concerned shall not exceed that percentage.

Under the transitional provisions of the Bill, a person who had an interest in the shares of a bank amounting to 10 per cent or more at 1st May 1970, and who still retains that interest at the date on which the legislation comes into operation, will be permitted to hold such interests, subject to his compliance with certain notification requirements. Where the interest of a person subject to the transitional provisions has fallen between 1st May 1970 and the commencement date of the legislation, his permissible interest will be the interest held at the commencement date. The substantive provision of the Bill thus prohibits a person from being possessed of an interest in bank shares amounting to 10 per cent or more of the voting shares of a bank. This prohibition provides the support for Government policy of not allowing local interests considered unsuitable for the task, or overseas interests, to aquire a stake in Australian banking through the acquisition of interest in existing banks.

Mr Bryant:

– It is almost nationalising them.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Quite the contrary. Because it is not possible to foresee what developments in the structure or ownership of banks might be desirable in the future, the Bill confers on the Treasurer a discretionary power to allow a person to have an interest of 10 per cent or more in a bank. This is a permissive power and is not one intended to frustrate desirable changes. Without this discretionary power, the Bill would preclude the possibility of major changes in the Australian shareholdings of a bank in all circumstances. This is not the intention of the Bill. There could be sound reasons in some cases for authorising substantial shareholdings. For example, at the present time, the private savings banks are wholly-owned by their parent trading banks and it would be unreasonable not to provide for similar situations arising again in the future. Moreover, the recent merger of the ANZ and ES&A banks involved a change of ownership of the combined savings bank subsidiary and without the proposed discretionary power a merger of this kind in the future could be frustrated or at least impeded.

Limitation of shareholdings to some maximum arbitrary percentage in all circumstances could therefore be unreasonable and undesirable. The Bill does provide, however, for the Government to have an opportunity to consider specific applications. Any interests seeking to acquire a controlling stake in a bank would need to demonstrate, for instance, that the acquisition would not be contrary to the national interest. If I can explain to the honourable gentleman quickly, what that paragraph is intended to say is that there are circumstances where the savings bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trading bank and the other thing is an amalgamation such as that between the ANZ Bank and the E S & A Bank. It should be emphasised that the discretionary power in this Bill is in effect an extension of the discretionary power which exists in the Banking Act for granting authority to set up a new bank in Australia. If the legislation had been in the form of an amendment of the Banking Act, as it might have been, rather than a separate Bill, this relationship would have been readily apparent.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill draws upon other recent laws relating to shareholdings in companies, with appropriate modifications to suit the purposes of this Bill. For example, with minor modification, clause 8 ‘Interests in Shares’ follows the definition of interests in shares in the provision included in the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance 1971 at the recommendation of the Eggleston Committee to require the disclosure of substantial shareholdings in certain Australian Capital Territory companies. Clause 4 extends the obligation to comply with the Bill to all natural persons, resident in Australia or not, and to all bodies corporate, whether incorporated or carrying on business in Australia or not. Clause 5 extends the operation of the Bill to cover acts done or omitted to be done outside Australia. By virtue of the definition of ‘bank’ in clause 6, the Bill applies only to interests in shares in banks incorporated in Australia. This has been found necessary for legal reasons since the Commonwealth’s powers could not extend to interests in shares of a company incorporated overseas.

A person’s interest in the shares of a bank is widely defined in clause 8 to include interests in the shares held on his behalf by, or controlled through, associated persons or nominees. The defintion is designed to cover situations where an interest in shares might be acquired which would enable a single individual or corporation, or a group, to control or influence the policies of a bank, or where the right to control the voting power of a share is exercised through intermediaries, for example, through a subsidiary company standing between the ultimate beneficial holder and the registered shareholder. Clause 9 extends the scope of a person’s interest by providing that a person is to be deemed to have an interest in shares in which an associated person, as defined in that clause, has an interest.

I have already explained the substantive provisions of the Bill limiting the holding of interests in the voting shares of a bank incorporated in Australia. These are contained in clause 10, which also empowers the Treasurer to vary or revoke a percentage fixed under that clause. As the holding of substantial interests in bank shares is a matter of public interest, there is also provision for the various instruments by which the Treasurer fixes, varies or revokes a percentage under this clause to be published in the Gazette.

I have also referred to the transitional provisions which are included in clause 11 of the Bill. These provisions protect any substantial interests held in shares of the banks concerned as at 1st May 1970. To bring such holdings under notice, the persons concerned are required to give the Treasurer within 3 months of the commencement date, or such further period as the Treasurer allows, full particulars of their interests in the relevant bank shares as at 1st May 1970 and the commencement date of the legislation. The Treasurer is empowered to vary the percentage applicable to a person under the transitional provisions, provided the percentage is not reduced below the person’s interest at the date of the variation.

Clause 12 provides that where a person fails to comply with the substantive provisions of clause 10, a Supreme Court may, on the application of the Treasurer, make one or more orders of the kind set out in that clause. These include an order restraining the exercise of voting rights attached to bank shares, or directing the sale of all or any of the shares, in which the person concerned has an interest. Before making an order the court must satisfy itself so far as it can reasonably do so, that the order would not unfairly prejudice any person. The court may not make an order, other than an order restraining the exercise of voting rights, if it is satisfied that failure to comply with clause 10 was due to the person’s inadvertence, mistake or ignorance and that, in all the circumstances, the failure ought to be excused. The Supreme Court of each State is vested with Federal jurisdiction for the purposes of this clause. -

Clause 13 provides a person with a defence to a prosecution, in the event of failure to comply with the provisions of the Bill limiting the possession of interests in bank shares being due to ignorance of a relevant fact or occurrence. To protect persons selling shares, clause 14 provides that where a transaction in bank shares has led to a contravention of the provisions of the Bill the transaction shall not be unenforceable, voidable or void for that reason alone. Clause 15 invests State courts with Federal jurisdiction with respect to offences against the provisions of the Bill irrespective of where the offence is committed, and invests courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory with jurisdiction with respect to offences committed in the respective Territories. Clause 16 provides that proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted without the written consent of the Treasurer. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Mr Crean:

– Before the Minister resumes his seat will he confirm that it is not intended that this Bill be debated this session?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. I wanted to introduce the legislation so that it could be subjected to examination in depth.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2720

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 399

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

– I move:

That Standing Order 399 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings, except when a motion is moved pursuant to the standing order by a Minister. (Quorum formed). Mr Speaker, I merely wish to comment that this motion is necessary for the orderly conduct of the business of the House.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I oppose the motion for the suspension of standing order 399. It is perfectly obvious to honourable members that the Government’s intention is to continue with the treatment it has given to honourable members during the last 3 days. Initially it applied the guillotine and in a few moments the Parliament will be presented with a document by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) to amend the present guillotine times. Even less time will be available for honourable members to debate legislation. However, that aspect can be dealt with when the Minister submits that proposal. The Government is now moving to deny to honourable members a right that they have always enjoyed under the Standing Orders, namely, the right to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. Clearly the Government is determined that the Opposition will have no say in the way that legislation is presented and the times that will be allocated for debate on that legislation. Indeed, Opposition members will have no opportunity to express their disapproval while legislation is being debated.

In the whole of my experience in this Parliament, which extends back to 1954, I cannot remember a precedent for this motion. If I am wrong, no doubt the Leader of the House will be able to produce evidence to show that I am wrong. To restate the position, I point out that the Government is seeking to do 2 things: Firstly, to limit further the time for debate and, secondly, to prevent Opposition members from moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. I am sure that it cannot be argued successfully that at any time during yesterday’s proceedings Opposition members moved for the suspension of Standing Orders in an irresponsible manner. On every occasion that Opposition members sought the suspension of Standing Orders it was to voice their dissatisfaction with the Government’s handling of the business of the Parliament. An examination of Press reports will substantiate my claim. I do not think that there is a newspaper in Australia which would condone the Government’s activities, particularly the activities of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in relation to what has been happening here.

At question time today the Prime Minister adopted an air of complete superiority. What happened yesterday was all right, so far as the Prime Minister was concerned. He was home in bed. At the same time the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) was absent from the Parliament. Opposition members were obliged to debate legislation until 6.30 a.m. today. This is a responsibility that should be accepted by all members. I make it clear to the Government that Opposition members are determined to express their opinions on all matters. We have not altered our position and we seek an extension of the sittings by a further 2 weeks. It is clear that there will be a repetition of what happened yesterday when the Parliament sat through the early hours of the morning until 6.30 a.m. Noone could seriously suggest that this is the way a responsible Parliament should act in a so-called democratic institution. Yet the Leader of the House is not entirely responsible for this. I believe the person to whom one should point as being responsible for this is the Prime Minister. As I said a few moments ago he indicated quite clearly, as he did during question time yesterday, that he has no intention of extending the sittings of the Parliament. That is a dictatorial attitude.

All that I want to say in conclusion in relation to this matter is that there has been no precedent for a move such as this initiated by the Leader of the House. If there has been a precedent I would ask the Minister to give some indication of when a resolution of this nature was last moved in this Parliament. This motion restricts the rights and opportunities of honourable members on this side of the House. It is contrary to the privileges that one would expect to be accorded to all honourable members in this Parliament but it is particularly aimed at members of the Opposition. This is a further reason why this Government should be censured. It deserves to be censured for its attitude in handling the business and for condoning the cessation of this session some time today.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

– I have noted the remarks put forward by the Opposition in opposing the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). It is obvious from the proceedings yesterday that the Opposition is concerned only with delaying, obstructing and preventing Government business being called on for debate. This is the purpose of the Opposition.

Mr Keogh:

– On a point of order. The right honourable member for Fisher is reflecting on me. I was present throughout the sitting yesterday and on no occasion was any action on my part an effort to restrict the business of this House, but rather my action was an effort to bring democracy back into this chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ADERMANN:

– It is not a question of reflecting on any individual honourable member; it is a question of the official attitude of the Opposition and its efforts to prevent Government business being called on for debate. The Opposition has moved motion after motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Those motions could not have been carried because the Opposition did not have an absolute majority of the House. The Opposition was aware of this before it moved its motions for the suspension of the Standing Orders. I am glad that the Leader of the House has moved this motion with a view to getting on to Government business which is so vital and necessary in the interests of-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I was on my feet seeking to move a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister is entitled to the call and I called him.

Mr Swartz:

– The right honourable member for Fisher was still on his feet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the question be now put.

Mr Whitlam:

– I was attempting to put a motion, which I am entitled to do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition had not been called by the Chair. The right honourable member for Fisher was actually gagged by the Leader of the House.

Mr Swartz:

– The right honourable member for Fisher was continuing his remarks and in view of the time factor and the element of urgency in relation to the business of the House I moved that the question be now put.

Mr Stewart:

– That was a deliberate lie. The right honourable member for Fisher had sat down. If you want the place turned over tell lies like that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Lang will withdraw those remarks.

Mr Stewart:

– I withdraw the remarks but you, Sir, saw what happened.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Speaker, I desire to raise a point of order, if I am permittedto do so in this place. There is a motion before the Chair to gag further the right of this Opposition and other honourable members of the Parliament to debate questions in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Well, there ought to be.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has moved that the question be now put. That is the motion before the Chair, asI see it.

Mr Foster:

– On a point of order. Have you not-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed:

That the Minister for National Development be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member cannot do that. I have let the Opposition raise points of order. Honourable members know that immediately the question for the closure is proposed it must be put forthwith. Therefore I propose to put the question that the question be now put.

Mr Martin:

– Before putting the question, and in a spirit of trying to ascertain information from you, Sir, I ask you to rule on standing order 399 which states-

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is the subject of the debate. The motion before the Chair was that standing order 399 be suspended. The immediate question before the Chair is that the question be now put.

Question put.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority….6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority…. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2723

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That Order of the Day No. 1 Government Business be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I move:

The motion which has just been carried by the House, the motion which has just been moved and the motion which is foreshadowed on the Daily Programme ail flow from the circumstances for which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) yesterday accepted responsibility, that is, guillotining a record number of Bills in one motion. Secondly, we now know from the Daily Programme that there is to be a still more abrupt guillotine. Let some honourable members on the Government side realise the implication of the new guillotine, notice of which has been circulated. If it is carried it will mean that honourable members who want to speak on the Wool Industry Bill will have not 24 hours for debate, as was proposed under the guillotine adopted by the House formerly, but H hours. For the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill they will have, instead of H hours, H hours. For the income tax Bills, instead of having lj hours, they will have 1 hour, and for the Superannuation Bill and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2), instead of having over 3 hours, they will have but 1 hour.

This all flows from the circumstances which the Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged. In answer to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) he said:

I have not seen the schedule- that is the schedule for the projected sittings of the House - to which the honourable member has referred. The guillotine has already been approved and I have no intention of requesting the Leader of the House to attempt to alter it.

In fact he has put the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) up to alter it. In answer to a question of mine immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister said:

I will take responsibility for the decisions that have been made during the time that I have been the Prime Minister.

The text of my amendment flows from 2 particular passages. When the right honourable gentleman took over his present high post he said: ‘I will do my best to see that the Australian public is informed of what the Government is doing and, just as importantly, the reasons why the Government is taking the kind of action we recommend’. Furthermore he asserted at the same time, when all Australia could see him on television:

  1. . 1 am a Party man from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet and 1 will want the fullest consultation with the Ministry and with the Party before I make any decisions or fill in any precise details.

As every member of the Liberal Party in this House knows, the members of that Party were not consulted about any of the 3 Bills that were brought in between 1 o’clock and 3 o’clock this morning and they were not consulted about the additional Bill that- was brought in this morning. The Prime Minister has not kept the public informed of what the Government has in mind and why the Government is proposing to do it, and he has not kept his own Party informed on it either.

In this matter one does not blame the new Leader of the House. The new Leader of the House uttered these brave words on taking up his position on 30th March: lt is my duty to ensure that the Government’s legislative programme proceeds on schedule-

I will come back to that word ‘schedule’ - but at the same time there must be a full recognition of the rights of all members to adequate debating time for general and private members’ business.

The Prime Minister has let down the Leader of the House. He has undermined him; he has humiliated him. He let him carry the odium of this through the first 61 hours of this day’s sitting when he, the Prime Minister, had gone home. I come back to this reference to the schedule. Yesterday at question time the Prime Minister, in answer to the first question, said to my Deputy:

I have not seen the schedule to which the honourable gentleman referred.

The Treasurer (Mr Snedden), who was the Leader of the House at the time, showed what falsity there was in that reply. It was a typically glib and false reply by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister prides himself on his diligence with his paper work. We now know that on 2nd December last the then Leader of the House circulated all members with the proposed schedule. That schedule showed that the House was sitting until 20th May. Admittedly there are difficulties as to the cut-off point on these matters. There always are. But in the covering letter the then Leader of the House had not foreshadowed any earlier date. He said there might be later dates.

Then we found a change of policy. The new Prime Minister came in and he immediately decided that the House should not adjourn on 20th May - not a very early date for the House to adjourn - but that it should adjourn today, 6th May. This is an earlier date for the conclusion of the autumn sittings of this House than at any time in the 1960s or last year. Never have we ended the sittings so early. In fact we have quite often gone through, as we did last year, almost to mid-June. The basic fact is that honourable members, despite denying themselves the maximum time per*mitted to them on various motions last year, are now being bundled into recess earlier than ever before. This Parliament sits about one-quarter or one-third of the time of the legislatures at Westminister, Washington, Wellington and Ottawa. We sit less time than any comparable legislature in any unitary or federal system. There is no legislature in the free world which has been so handled by the head of Government as this legislature has been in the last 2 days.

Honourable members may wonder why it is. The simple fact is that the preceding Prime Minister has returned to Australia. The public just cannot understand why this mad rush to end the sitting is occurring. We in this place know very well the true reason. The dogs are barking it. The Prime Minister is embarrassed by the presence of the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton). He fears the personal embarrassment which will unavoidably follow either the success of the Minister for Defence or the right honourable gentleman’s failure. The Prime Minister told my Deputy a fortnight ago that he wished to wait until the Minister for Defence returned from his overseas tour before making any comprehensive statement on the S-power arrangements. On Monday the Minister for Defence made it quite clear that the differences between him and the Prime Minister about the role of Australian forces under the 5- power arrangements are unresolved. The Prime Minister has said in private conversation that the Minister for Defence twice caused serious embarrassment to the Australian Government during his absence overseas. I do not know whether he caused that embarrassment by what he said, by what he did, or by a combination of the 2.

The Minister for Defence has made it known that he will use the occasion of his appearance at the National Press Club as a forum to settle, in his own words, a few old scores. It is because of this fear on the part of the Prime Minister that this sitting is being rushed so unceremoniously to its disgraceful conclusion. The present Prime Minister was installed in office because the great metropolitan dailies in Sydney and Melbourne turned against his predecessor. Let him beware. The former Minister for the Navy, the honourable and learned member for Moreton (Mr Killen), has warned him about what lies ahead. The great metropolitan dailies have turned against him again on this occasion. The organisation publishing the most widely read and circulated newspaper in this country, had this to say in yesterday’s Melbourne ‘Herald’: . . Mr McMahon is going too far in trying to push through 17 Bills in the last couple of days, lt is not as if these were routine matters; they include such vitally important measures as the rural reconstruction scheme, resale price maintenance and representation in the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly . . .

Meanwhile Mr Killen’s blunt remarks and his refusal to knuckle under to something unpalatable to his conscience - followed by a curious anonymous notice in the Press gallery - are evidence that the Government’s internal wounds are by no means fully he.aled

But still more ominous for the Prime Minister was yesterday’s editorial in the Daily Telegraph’, which said in part:

It does the Prime Minister little credit …. orated and thundered the ‘Daily Telegraph’ - . . that he will allow his Government to bulldoze 17 important Bills through the House with a total of 12 hours debate on the second reading, two and a half hours in the Committee stages and 34 minutes in the third reading.

Even the ‘Daily Telegraph’ could not have foreseen what is now happening. The Bills which have been listed will now go through in 5 hours less than was previously approved by the House. Furthermore, there are 3 more Bills which were brought in between 1 o’clock and 3 o’clock this morning. Woe betide a Liberal leader who falls foul of the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’. Let me come to a much more august organ of record - the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ itself. Today it said:

The Prime Minister has accepted full responsibility for the decision to guillotine 20 Bills through the House of Representatives before the end of this week. In the circumstances, he could hardly do otherwise. His decision deserves the severest censure.

The Prime Minister has now returned to the House. There is no need for me to repeat the editorial in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’. It will be on his heart like Calais’ on the heart of that other bloodthirsty head of state. Today the ‘Australian’ said:

On Tuesday Mr McMahon made his first major blunder as Prime Minister.

I do not want to prolong the list or to antedate it. The significant thing is that the Australian’, which always supports the Australian Labor Party after elections, has said on this occasion that Mr McMahon made his first major blunder as Prime Minister, lt continued:

He started his attempt to bludgeon 20 Bills, many of great importance, through the House of Representatives.

He has seriously weakened his claim to break with the Gorton methods of riding roughshod over constitutional procedures . . .

Mr McMahon became Prime Minister wilh a reputation as a systematic, deliberative and shrewd politician. The Liberal Party must now be questioning bis political judgment.

I conclude with an extract from the editorial in today’s ‘Age’. It said:

It is still the Parliament which tests the ability of the rulers, which makes them accountable to the people. Its forms, often clumsy and archaic, remain vital to our system of representative government.

That is why this newspaper is totally opposed to the Federal Government’s decision to apply the guillotine to 17 separate Bills in the next few days, lt is an exercise in political bulldozing which displays a disregard for the parliamentary process.

I have limited myself to referring to the 17 Bills which were included in the earlier guillotine and which are now to be debated for 5 hours less under the new guillotine, details of which have been circulated. I have not referred to those ministerial statements which Ministers purported yesterday and today to be anxious to make to the House. The Opposition is anxious that they should make these statements to the House. We have been asking them to make these statements to the House. But the practice is, as they know, that the leave which they require to make statements to the House is given if honourable members on this side of the House are given 2 hours notice of the statements in order that they may take up the debate immediately, or if an undertaking is given that the debate on the statement will ensue in the next few days. The fact is that the Ministers would not follow such procedures.

Mr Turnbull:

– Why not address the Chair?

Mr Grassby:

– He is doing all right.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Riverina will restrain himself. That is the last warning I will give him today.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The fact is that the Ministers concerned were only too happy to make statements here, but the Prime Minister would not allow honourable members on the Opposition side or on the Government side to debate any such statements. Then there are these other Bills which came in early this morning, and the matters which will still be on the notice paper next August-

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, I have heard so often your ruling that honourable members, when speaking, should address the Chair. What has been happening here is that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to influence his own members.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

That the honourable member for Werriwa be granted an extension of time.

Mr McMahon:

– No.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is wrong with you, saying ‘no’?I am moving a motion for an extension of time. It is no good you saying ‘No’. We have to have a vote on it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 60

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The point of order is without substance.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barnard:

– I second the amendment.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I hesitated to rise, because I was expecting that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) would be leading in the debate at this stage. After all, this amendment is aimed at the Prime Minister; it is not against the Government. The amendment states:

That the Prime Minister tacks the confidence of the House in that he has broken undertakings to keep the public informed of what the Government is doing and has been responsible for suppressing debate in the House on what the Government is doing.

This is a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, not in the Government, yet the Prime Minister hesitates to join in the debate. Surely he will stand up and defend himself in this debate and not merely sit back and listen to the case made out so convincingly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) before the luncheon adjournment who quoted chapter and verse not only of the opinions expressed in this Parliament over the last 2 or 3 days but also of the opinions that have been expressed so convincingly by the Press of this country. Surely the Prime Minister is now prepared to stand up and answer these charges.

What must the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) be thinking about the Prime Minister’s attitude in this respect? He refused to acknowledge their arguments in this Parliament in support of the Opposition’s contention that the Parliament ought to continue for a further 2 weeks. The Prime Minister dismissed their arguments in the callous way that he dismissed the honourable member for Moreton from the Ministry. What about the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton)? Surely he must regret that he made his decision of some weeks ago. He has returned to this country and has found that in the short period of only a few weeks the Prime Minister has led the Parliament into the situation we are now facing. I know that the Government is not prepared to give the honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for Moreton an opportunity to speak in this debate, although it must be said - and I think one can say it with great respect - that the honourable member for Moreton has at least had the courage to say in this Parliament what he thinks about the Prime umm- R-899

Minister. There are a great many other honourable members on that side of the House who would like to be in the same position.

The Leader of the Opposition had to move this motion today because the Government was not satisfied with dishonouring a promise or agreement that was made by the Leader of the House some weeks ago- indeed it was made at the beginning of the session, before the present Prime Minister occupied that position. I want to inform honourable members that ever since 1 have had the responsibility of working on these matters with leaders of the Government in the House, at the commencement of a session, together with the Leader of the Opposition, I have always been given a detailed programme of the session. I can say that, while the former Leader of the House generally indicated that the programme was subject to alteration, never in my experience has the time forecast been reduced. Certainly in some cases the Parliament has sat for longer than the timetable provided by the Leader of the House initially indicated. The credibility of the Prime Minister has to be questioned on this issue, because he denied in this House yesterday, when, asked questions by the Leader of the Opposition and by me, that he had any knowledge that there had been a previous agreement and that a previous timetable had been issued that would have taken this Parliament up to 20th May. He sits back in his seat now, having caused all this chaos, . which could have been avoided. What must honourable members on his own side of the House think of him in these circumstances?

Despite the problems that we had yesterday, the guillotine was applied as a result of a statement issued by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz), who was of course obviously acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister. In opposing the guillotine at that stage, I believe members on this side of the House acted quite properly. Because of the problems that the Government experienced last night as a result of its attitude in curtailing the debate, the Government has applied another guillotine this morning, and the Leader of the Opposition has referred to it. What he said ought to be restated to indicate the complete and utter contempt which the Prime Minister has not only for members on his own side but indeed for the Parliament as a whole. For example, let me take the Wool Industry Bill. Under the guillotine set out in the statement given to the House yesterday by the Leader of the House, 2 hours 32 minutes was to be devoted to this Bill; under the new arrangement, that time will be reduced to 1 hour 30 minutes. For the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill and the 4 other associated compensation measures, under the old agreement the time allowed was 2 hours 26 minutes; it is now 1 hour 30 minutes, approximately half the time. How can honourable members on this side of the House be expected to debate matters of such great importance, involving all of the industrial problems that the Government has referred to in recent weeks, in the 1 hour 30 minutes that will be available? Next, . I come to the Income Tax Assessment Bill, the time for which has been reduced from 1 hour 40 minutes to 1 hour. The time for the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) and the Superannuation Bill was previously 3 hours and ‘6 minutes; it has now been reduced to 1 hour, one-third of the time previously available.

It is obvious that, as a result of what has happened in the House this morning, it will not be possible for the Government even to adhere to the new times. Surely the Prime Minister ought to be able to see that his attitude is opposed by honourable members on his own side of. the House as well as by honourable members on this side. It is certainly also opposed by the thinking people outside the Parliament, who will utterly reject the contemptuous attitude of the Government on this issue. I want to say that the Government has reduced the legislative processes of this Parliament to a complete shambles; precedents have been established that will remain a shameful blot on the legislative record of this Parliament. It can fairly be said that this has been the blackest week ever in the history of the Australian Parliament. The framework for this session was clearly established late last year. As I have clearly indicated, a programme was circulated to all members pointing out that the House would sit at least until 20th May. It was a deliberate choice of the Government to cut back the sitting by 2 weeks, at the same time flooding parlia mentary channels with important new Bills.

Notice of the motion to guillotine the Bills was given on Tuesday. The times set out in the motion indicate that we have at least another 13 hours of debate on those Bills. Three other Bills were introduced into this House early this morning. These are important measures which warrant careful consideration. Let me deal with one of them - the States Grants Bill 1971. One can excuse the Victorian members of the Australian Country Party because I do not think that they ever read anything that comes into this House unless it suits them; but when one looks at the States Grants Bill 1971 I think one should ask Government supporters from Victoria: What is their attitude to the Government’s decision to reduce the amount of the grant to Victoria by the amount of payroll tax which Victoria will not pay to the Commonwealth Government?

Mr Whitlam:

– Pending a High Court judgment.

Mr BARNARD:

– Pending a High Court judgment. This legislation probably will be debated in the early hours of tomorrow morning, and I doubt very. much whether any honourable member for Victoria will rise in his place and refer to the injustice which is being meted out to his State in this regard. The Prime Minister sits back quite complacently, but there is no complacency in his Party: His ‘ Party knows that he has failed dismally on this question of when the House should rise.

If he had been man enough, he would have admitted 3 days ago that it would be impossible for this House to deal with all of the legislation it has before it effectively and in the way in which the Australian people expect the legislation to be considered. But he ignores all of the criticisms that have been levelled at him not only by honourable members in this Parliament but also, as I have already indicated to the House, by those who are in a position to judge this Government. In this instance it is a criticism not so much of the Government, but of the Prime Minister. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this morning, even those newspapers which, one would concede, played a major part in changing the Prime Ministership of this country have criticised the attitude and action of the Prime Minister on this issue.

No-one would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, who has moved this amendment, did not make out a case that ought to be supported not only by members of this House but by the whole Parliament. As I have already indicated, the amendment is aimed at the Prime Minister himself, but he will not speak in the debate. I can anticipate what will happen: When I have resumed my seat after my time has expired, the Leader of the House, no doubt, will reply and the gag will be applied again. It would be an extremely interesting mathematical exercise to see how often the gag has been applied in this House in the last week and, unfortunately, because I regret to have to say it, how often it has been applied by the new Leader of the House and by his first assistant, the Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party. If one rooks at the records one will see immediately that the gag has been applied by both of those honourable gentlemen probably on many more occasions than it was applied by the previous Leader of the House who, of course, was quite notorious for applying the gag.

We on this side of the House will expect the Prime Minister to stand up and give a full explanation of this matter not only to the Parliament but also to the nation. He must have read the signs that the people are dissatisfied about this House concluding its business tonight - probably in the very early hours of tomorrow morning. We debated legislation in this chamber until 6.30 this morning while, as has been pointed out, the Prime Minister was relaxing at home.. Honourable members were expected to debate legislation until after 6 o’clock this morning. The same thing will happen tomorrow morning. It is clearly impossible for this House, by tomorrow morning, to deal effectively with the legislation that remains on the notice paper. We believe that the amendment which has been moved expresses the complete disapproval, not only of honourable members in this House but also of the nation, of the actions of the Prime Minister, of his complete disregard for the forms of this House and for the rights of members of this Parliament and, as I have already indicated, of the completely contemptuous attitude which he has adopted towards the legislation that is on the notice paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Leader of the House.

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

– Mr Speaker-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

That the honourable member for Hindmarsh be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have not called the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I know. That is why I have moved the motion under standing order 61.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already called the Leader of the House.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The first point that should be made is that the Government does not accept this amendment as a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I think that when one examines the wording of the amendment one can fully appreciate that it is merely part of the programme which I think, understandably, has been in operation over the last 2 days. There is one way in which the . Opposition can get on with the business of the House-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to dodge answering the question in the-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was just asking! Is it in order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!I would say that if the honourable member is taking a point of order he is well out of order.

Debate interrupted.

page 2729

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Then, Mr Speaker, I dissent from your ruling. I move:

That the ruling be dissented from. (Mr Clyde Cameron having submitted his motion in writing)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It grieves me to have to do this not only because I know it will embarrass you, Sir, but because it will be pretty galling to my good self to have to draw the attention of the House once again to the fact that you appear - I say only ‘appear’ - to be protecting the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) from answering, as he ought to be required to answer, the very serious charges that have been levelled against him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Throughout this chamber and in the lobbies there is discontent from both sides of the Parliament, particularly from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) who is looking at his passport and getting ready, I understand, for another overseas trip. But, whenever he gets the opportunity to match his very brave words with his vote, he always finds some excuse.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the motion is that the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right. I will talk about you instead. Mr Speaker, you have been, I think, the epitome of partiality in these matters. I am sorry to have to say this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark; he is reflecting on the Chair.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right, I withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– And apologise.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And I apologise. Sir, I am pleased to note that you are smiling once again. But your ruling, Sir, was atrocious. It was a shocking ruling. A person who looks as wise as you do, Sir, could not possibly have given a ruling like this unless he was acting in complete ignorance of the Standing Orders. I think that it would be a good idea if during the recess you could give some attention to the Standing Orders and go into retreat, study those Standing Orders-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member continues in this vein he will be in retreat too.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, Sir, what I am putting to. you is that surely you will not seriously suggest that when a motion of no confidence is moved in the Parliament, the device which was hatched up by honourable members opposite over the luncheon break will be permitted to be used by the Parliament-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will adhere to the motion of dissent from my ruling. If he does not I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, all right, Sir. Mr Speaker, I am sorry to have to say once again that I disagree with your ruling. I am sorry that you do not seem to have cottoned on to the motion I have now moved. I think it is a terrible thing that a Prime Minister should come into this place and allow ‘his henchmen to take-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister is not under consideration in this motion. The motion is one of dissent from’ my ruling. ‘ If the honourable member offends again I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well then I might move another dissent from your ruling. Mr Speaker, I can only say that you are making it nearly impossible for me to state the case, as I would like to state it. For those reasons I will have to content myself with simply leaving the motion as it is and voting on it without having a proper opportunity to deal with the real culprit in the piece, the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from’. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Daly:

– Yes, I second the motion.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That Mr Speaker’s ruling (Mr Clyde Cameron’s motion) be dissented from.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 61

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2731

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Debate resumed.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a matter for me to decide. Honourable members already have made a decision on that.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is, That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 53

Majority .. .. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

-Parting Downs- Leader of the House) (2.56) - I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the-

Mr Keogh:

– I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance, Sir, on a matter of procedure. Before the first of the last group of divisions, I am sure I saw the Prime Minister attempt to get to his feet to speak, but he was not able to make it-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is of no concern to the Chair. As to who speaks, I call honourable members as I think fit.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I will start again. I move:

That thetime allotted in connection with the Trade Practices Bill 1971, the Wool Industry Bill 1971, the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971, the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971, the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971, the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971-

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a. point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to move a motion which obviously cannot have any application if it is passed?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a matter for the House to decide according to the contents of the motion, but the Minister is only proposing the motion.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The motion continues:

  1. . Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971, the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971, the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971-
Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister is now moving a motion dealing with times to be allotted for the remaining stages of these Bills, the debate on which is said to commence at 3 p.m. The point I make is this: If-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister has not completed his motion.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The motion continues: . . Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971, the Superannuation Bill 1970 and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1970 be varied in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable members with the addition of 30 minutes to each time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move as an amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted and there be substituted in lieu thereof: ‘the Prime

Minister be called upon to justify the variation in times from the procedures determined by the House yesterday.

The Opposition expressed this morning, in a motion to which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) did not reply but which related to him, our feelings about the procedures that have been adopted in trying to crash through the rights of honourable members and to force Bills through at the rate of one every half-hour and sometimes through the Committee stage in 2 minutes. The Prime Minister himself said that he is fully responsible for the tactics of the Government in curtailing the arrangements of this Parliament, reducing its sitting time by 2 weeks and then declaring that the procedures of yesterday were the ones that the House should accept. Now we have, an even greater curtailment of time in respect of a whole series of Bills.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. May I have a look at that amendment? With great respect, I cannot see the relevance of this amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has moved for a variation of the allotment of time in connection with the Bills. The motion, as it reads, does not seem to me to be relevant to the situation.

Mr BEAZLEY:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister has taken responsibility for the arrangements of the debates on what the Government intends to be the last day of this sitting period. In so taking responsibility he has, as every honourable member will recognise, curtailed the rights of honourable members to study legislation and to speak. It is surely relevant that the House should inform its mind by hearing the Prime Minister justify the procedures for which he has claimed responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that another course would be open to the honourable member for Fremantle. I do not think the Prime Minister can be called upon to justify his action in relation to this matter when the motion proposed by the Leader of the House concerns the times to be allotted for debate of various Bills.

Mr Whitlam:

– I raise a point of order. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated:

The guillotine has already been approved andI have no intention of requesting the Leader of the House to attempt to alter it

The right honourable gentleman also said:

I will take responsibility for the decisions that have been made during the time that I have been the Prime Minister.

The very guillotine which the Prime Minister yesterday said he would not ask to be altered, the very guillotine for which amongst other things he took responsibility, is now being altered. I submit that it is relevant to the motion which seeks to alter it that the House should hear the reasons why now the Prime Minister has not only allowed but has apparently instructed the Leader of the House to vary the guillotine.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Chair does not know officially who instructs whom in this House. The Leader of the House has proposed a motion. The only amendment permissible to a motion such as that is one in relation to the allotment of time.

Mr Giles:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr Scholes:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Angas. I have already called 2 speakers from the Opposition side.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

That the honourable member for Corio be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member cannot do that.

Debate interrupted.

page 2734

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, I now move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr Scholes:

– Mr Speaker, I only want to take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have a motion before the Chair and I cannot take the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. The question is: That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I invite you to look at standing order 61. We can perhaps read it together. Under the heading ‘Manner and Right of Speech’ it states:

When two or more members rise together to speak the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, first rose in his place:

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is right. That is exactly what I did.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But there is a little bit more to go. The standing order continues: butit shall bein order to move, that any member who has risen’be now heard’, or ‘do now speak’ and the question shall be put forthwith and determined without amendment or debate.

Two members rose at the same time. They were the honourable, member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). In fact, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) tells me that he rose first.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Dawson was not involved in this. He was even sitting outside the House.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The point is that the Standing Order quite clearly enabled a member to move that another member be heard rather than the one the Speaker calls. Two members rose to speak at the same time. You, Mr Speaker, saw the one on the Government side. I rose to move that the honourable member for Corio be heard. You ruled that I was out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ruled the honourable member out of order because I had already called the honourable member for Angas.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I know you had and that is why I moved: That the honourable member for Corio be heard. I would not have had to move that if you had already called the honourable member for Corio. It only became necessary for me to move that the honourable member for Corio be heard when you did not call him. That is the purpose of standing orders. But when I sought to do that you said that I was out of order. Quite clearly you were not aware of standing order 61 or, if you were, you do not understand English. It is as simple as that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. It is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I certainly withdraw it, and I apologise as well. It is quite clear, and I think the simplest way out now would be for you to admit your error and permit me to move that the honourable member for Corio be heard. If you do not do that and if the House supports your ruling the House is going to do something that is clearly opposed to its own Standing Orders. The House can do a lot of things if it has the numbers, but surely one thing it would never want to do would be to carry a motion which would have the effect of nullifying its own Standing Orders. You, Sir, ought to be the last one to want to see that happen. I am not saying that you do want to see it happen, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the effect of your ruling me out of order when I sought to move my motion based on standing order 61, which I am entitled to do. I will say no more. I feel you ought to be convinced of what I have said. Whether or not you are remains to be seen. But if you are a sensible and wise person you ought to be convinced of what I have said, admit that you were wrong, and allow me now to move that the honourable member for Cork) be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member cannot move that motion because there is a motion of dissent before the Chair. He should look at the Standing Orders.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the motion of dissent from your ruling is carried I will move that motion.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I second the motion of dissent. I wish to support the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have not got the motion in writing yet. (The honourable member for Hindmarsh having submitted his motion in writing)

Mr DALY:

– As I said, I second the motion of dissent. All day today the Opposition, with the best of intentions, has endeavoured to get the Government to explain to the Parliament-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 54

Majority….7

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not within the province of the Chair.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 60

Majority…. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2736

QUESTION

LIMITATION OF DEBATE

Debate resumed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The time allowed for discussion of the motion for the alteration of the allotment of time has now expired.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority .. ..6

AYES

NOES

In Division:

A resolution, or other vote of the House may be read and rescinded; but no such resolution or other vote may be rescinded during the same session, unless 7 days’ notice be given: Provided that to correct irregularities or mistakes one day’s notice shall be sufficient, or the corrections may be made at once by leave of the House.

I submit that the resolution that it is sought to rescind now has been passed and consequently 7 days notice should be given before it is rescinded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I refer the honourable member to standing order 92. (a) which says in part: a Member who is addressing the House or committee, move a motion or motions specifying the time which shall be allotted to all or any of the following:

In any case, notice of motion was given for this motion last night.

Mr Daly:

– But not 7 days.

MrSPEAKER- No, but notice was given. There is no substance in the point of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2737

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 5 May (vide page 2698).

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is,That the Bill be agreed to with the omission of clause 5 together with the amendments circulated by the Government.

Government amendments -

Clause 12.

After Part VI. of the Principal Act, the following Part is inserted: - “Part VIa. - Resale Price Maintenance. “Division 1. - The Unlawful Practice of Resale

Price Maintenance. “66a. - (1.) It is unlawful to engage in the practice of resale price maintenance. “Division 2. - Exemptions. “66c. - (1.) A person may apply to the Tribunal for a determination exempting from the application of this Part the goods described in the application, being goods that he supplies or is intending to supply.

Government amendment No. 1 -

Before proposed section 66a, insert the following proposed section: - “66aa. This Part applies to and in relation to the practice of resale price’ ‘maintenance where that practice is engaged in or is proposed to be enagaged in -

in the course of trade or commerce with other countries or among the States;

so as to tend to prevent or hinder transactions, acts or operations in the course of trade or commerce referred to in the last preceding paragraph;

by-

a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;

a financial corporation so formed; or

a foreign corporation;

in respect of the supply of goods to the Commonwealth or to an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth; or

in the course of trade or commerce -

within a Territory;

between a State and a Territory;

between two Territories; or

between a Territory and a place outside Australia, and, except as provided by section 7a of this Act, not otherwise’.”.

Government amendment No. 2 -

In proposed section 66g.- (1.) after ‘supply’ insert ‘otherwise than by way of sale by retail’.

Mr Scholes:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman, do the words ‘omission of apply to the amendments as well as to clause 5? No-one has moved the amendments in the Committee.

Mr CHAIRMAN:
Mr Lucock

– That is part of the amendments that have been circulated. They have been included in the whole motion.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– The question now is:

That the report be adopted and the Bill be read a third time.

Mr Berinson:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it appears to me that an improper procedure has been adopted and that the report is not now properly before the House. I was in the House last night when we were at the point where we could have moved into Committee, but we did not. So far as I am aware, having been here throughout the debate on the Bill, the amendments supposedly carried in the Committee stage have never been moved. It is true that they have been circulated, but they have never been moved. I ask you to rule whether in these conditions it is proper for the House to continue with the consideration of the Bill, as amended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– I draw the honourable member’s attention to standing order 92 - ‘Limitation of Debate (Guillotine)’. The point of order is not upheld. I rule that the correct procedure has been followed.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order, Sir. Would you advise me under which standing order motions can be agreed to in this House without anyone having proposed or seconded them? There is neither a mover nor a seconder of these amendments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I again refer the honourable member to standing order 92.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2738

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28th April (vide page 2143), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Honourable members will recall that last year Parliament authorised the Australian Wool Board to enter into negotiations for the establishment of modern wool selling complexes and also, by the same Act, the Wool Board was authorised to borrow moneys for the establishment of these complexes, but the borrowings had to be approved by the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry. It could be said that the Bill is supplementary to the legislation enacted last year in that the Commonwealth Government will now guarantee the repayment of loans and the payment of interest on any amounts which the Australian Wool Board may have to borrow. As was explained by the then Minister for Primary Industry, in connection with the complementary legislation, the objective of the wool selling complexes is to streamline the handling and the marketing of wool. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is a positive and constructive move because, if there is one field of the wool industry which needs streamlining, it is the wool handling and wool marketing field.

In fact, when one compares the methods still employed with those employed50 years ago, there is little difference. The Opposition supported these measures last year and will support them again this year. From the studies made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its surveys of wool handling techniques and the economic effects on the wool industry of various types of processes, it is obvious that there is the possibility of a significant reduction in cost if there can be an improvement or a streamlining in wool handling and wool marketing. Of course, by wool handling, I mean the actual streamlining of the number of times that wool is handled, and the placing of various types of wool in the most advantageous classifications so that they can be sold in the most advantageous way to buyers. Eventually we hope this will involve comprehensive core testing, objective measurement and, in time, presale sampling, so that buyers will be able to make purchases through samples, using specifications, without going through the very tedious process that is now characteristic of the wool industry. Therefore, overall I believe the objectives of this proposal are very sound, and the Opposition has no argument whatsoever regarding this Bill or the objectives of the complex.

What I have said is in relation to that item only. It does not detract from anything I said yesterday on the overall question of the wool industry. Although this is a most positive move for streamlining, and for the eventual reduction of cost of bandling and marketing, one must still remember that the real problem in respect of -wool is on the price side. Despite the fact that we may be able significantly to reduce this sector of marketing costs, it seems fairly clear that the total costs of production in the wool industry will continue to rise. Again I quote as my authority the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In the absence of monetary or fiscal measures or in the absence of positive programmes, such as selective price control, I think we must agree with the basic premise that costs will increase. To counter those increased costs we have to adopt techniques such as those envisaged in this Bill, or increase productivity on the sheep properties.

It is quite obvious that the Yennora project is really a model; one might even say that it is an experiment. It is pleasing to note that the project has been backed by 3 Sydney brokers who, in fact, up until now, have accepted the financial responsibility for the establishment of this complex at Yennora. However, the Australian Wool Board has been closely associated with the project at all times and as the Minister for

Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has said, other brokers will be coming into this project. The complex at Yennora will act as a model for testing hypotheses in respect of other modern wool selling complexes.

There is one other aspect of this Bill upon which I should like to comment. It refers to the financing. As the Government has pointed out, if the Wool Board has access to finance at reasonable rates of interest or even, I might say, rates which are lower than those which can be secured on the open market this obviously will be a benefit to the wool producer, because it will mean that his costs,, particularly his payments of interest, will be lower. Perhaps one of the great benefits which will be derived from the Yennora complex will be the rapid development of the pre-sale testing and objective measurement of wool. As the Minister has pointed out, the Government has made available a grant of $ 1,5m for research into these procedures. 1 think that every authority which has been connected with physical’ and economic investigations of the wool industry has made it quite clear in its conclusions that we have to streamline our handling and presentation of wool for sale. We have to move the wool to and from .the wool complexes, and of course within the complexes, in one comprehensive but fully integrated operation.

This is a narrow Bill, in a sense, and I do not believe that I should again range all over the economics of the wool industry. I have already done that twice in the last 24 hours, and I do not see much point in doing it again, although probably it would be within the Standing Orders for me to do so. The only other point I should like to make and to stress again is that I believe that the Government has to present to the Parliament as quickly as possible a comprehensive report, preferably by an independent authority which is divorced from the International Wool Secretariat and the Australian Wool Board, on what it considers to be the truth regarding the future of wool. Too many wild allegations are being made at the present time. Some of them have been extreme, even to the extent of suggesting that wool still has a good . overall future. Some authorities or people are saying that there will be a significant increase in the . demand for wool in the future. Others paint the reverse picture and express a most pessimistic view.

I believe that the Government has to present such a report to the Parliament. We have to have a White Paper on the future of the wool industry, because the ramifications of the wool industry are tremendous. A few years ago our export income from wool amounted to approximately $800m a year. The wool industry affects, in area, approximately two-thirds of Australia. When one considers the multiplier theory as applied to income earned- that is, to multiplying the total income earned by 2.3 or 3, because that is the number of times the income circulates throughout the economy - one can see the tremendous influence which wool has on the Australian economy. The figures I quoted yesterday indicate that the total net farm income ta the .sheep industry has dropped, in 4 years, by approximately $400m, and this is having a very significant effect on certain specialised sectors of the Australian economy

I believe it is essential that we obtain more detail regarding the future of the wool industry. 1 know that this is difficult. I know that H is almost impossible to predict what wilt happen in fields which are influenced heavily by synthetics or competitive fibres; nevertheless, one can learn from what has happened in the past, particularly in the immediate past. If .one looks at the graphs which have been supplied on price ratios over the last 10 years, one can see that in this period there has been a very marked widening of the gap between the relative prices of synthetics and wool. The trend has been in favour of synthetics in the sense that synthetics have caused relative wool prices to drop by almost 40 per cent in that 10-year period, and there is no reason why one should not suggest that the gap will continue to widen. Although there has been some increase in the price of synthetics, the fact remains that when one looks at the organisation of the synthetics manufacturers one sees that it is run on streamlined, highly efficient principles of marketing and promotion, research and distribution. It is really sad to compare the efficiency of major synthetics industries, such as the acrylic industry, with our own fragmented wool industry, and I say that with sincerity. One sees the slapdash, haphazard way in which the wool industry is being forced to compete with the highly efficient and modernised synthetics industry, which is backed by tremendous amounts of money. The more the synthetics industry is able to increase production under the economies of scale the lower will be its relative cost of production.

The wool industry will have to face tremendous problems in the future, but if we do not face them - if we put our heads in the sand - we will just fool ourselves. It is essential that we face these problems. Looking at the position from the worst point of view, it could well be that woollen garments will become a luxury type of garment. I think I have referred previously to the analogy with fillet steak. Wool by itself will always have exclusive properties. Up to the present time it has always been superior’ to any synthetic fibre. But when one considers the actual competitive spirit and the techniques which are adopted in the synthetics industry, one finds that even the exclusiveness of wool is swamped in many fields by the sheer volume and efficiency of nylons and other synthetic fibres.

Those are the main points I want to make, because this Bill deals exclusively with guaranteeing the repayment of any finance borrowed by the Australian Wool Board, and the payment of interest on that finance, for the construction of the complex at Yennora. As I said before, I can see no point in ranging again over the many facets of the economics of wool because to a large degree this was thrashed out yesterday. I finish on this note: It is essential that we have this detailed information because when we look at the matter from an overall point of view, it does not matter how efficient or modern wool complexes such as Yennora will be, if the price of wool does not increase significantly or unless the cost of production is not reduced significantly, I am afraid that modern wool complexes such as Yennora will not solve the basic and fundamental problem of wool which is a demand and supply marketing problem.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– Like the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) I intend to confine my remarks to the provisions of the Bill. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr

Sinclair) in his second reading speech said:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to guarantee the repayment of loans and the payment of interest on amounts that may be borrowed by the Australian Wool Board for the construction and equipping of integrated wool selling complexes.

It is worth remembering that at this stage there is still no wholly integrated wool selling complex in Australia, but of course everybody connected with the industry will be watching very closely developments at Yennora where 3 brokers are engaged in building wool selling facilities. The indications are that these facilities may be expanded into true integrated wool complexes. When assessing the success or otherwise of this venture, it is extremely important to remember the special conditions that apply in Sydney. Because existing wool stores in Sydney are so widely scattered and often so difficult to service with adequate transport facilities, there is probably a better case for wool selling complexes in Sydney than in any other centre. Any success in Sydney must not lead us to assume that similar successes will be achieved elsewhere.

I think the Minister very rightly referred to the tremendous implications of the probable introduction of objective measurement of wool leading to sale by sample and description. Yennora, and presumably any other complex which might be built, would be designed with sale by sample and description in mind. But as more is becoming known about objective measurement and its possibilities for reducing cost and therefore increasing returns to the grower, there are growing doubts that wool complexes will be essential to achieve the most economic and efficient utilisation of this new technique. We have assumed that, as presale core testing of wool becomes universally practised, it will be best to perform the testing on the receipt of a sample at the wool handling and selling complex. But there are now indications that we may be able to use the technique of objective measurement far earlier in the wool pipeline, perhaps even before the sheep has entered the shed. I am referring to the possibility of sampling wool on the sheep itself.

If this becomes a reality we shall have to reassess completely our previous concep tions of the role of objective measurement. The widespread adoption of the practice of taking a wool sample from the sheep itself would probably make integrated wool selling complexes unnecessary. I suggest that we will have to be extremely careful that we do not commit ourselves to spending huge sums of money which may turn out to be for no purpose. If wool samples can be taken from the sheep or in the shearing shed, there is obviously no advantage in building very costly wool complexes designed to handle the core testing of wool because only some form - of cheap wool storage would then be necessary, perhaps even not at a major port,, and certainly existing storage space would be perfectly adequate.

I was very pleased to hear in the Minister’s speech that before any approval was given to the building of wool complexes there would have to be a clear economic justification for doing so. As long as we stick to this attitude I do. not think we should run into any trouble. But I want to place on record a warning that the wool industry must not be ‘talked into a hasty decision to invest huge sums of money in these wool complexes only to find that the reasons for building them no longer apply and that rapid changes in marketing techniques had already made them obsolescent. I agree with the honourable member for Dawson in saying that this is yet another area in which more information should be ascertained so that we can find just exactly where wool is going. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned particular problems of cost and the price for wool. However, I feel that the technique of obtaining a sample on the sheep before it goes to the wool shed probably has greater implications for future cost savings for the wool industry than anything we have yet thought about - certainly far exceeding the original concept of the wool complexes themselves.

While I agree that provision should be made for the Australian Wool Board to borrow this money if it turns out that wool complexes are economically justified, I would just like to place on record my warning that we should not start spending huge sums of money when present indications are that we may be able to do a better job in a much cheaper way.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The Opposition, as has been made clear by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), supports this measure for the very good reason that the Bill gives the genesis of the national organisation that we envisage some preliminary power. The only reservation that I can see in relation to the Bill and the measure as interpreted by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is related to the following reference the Minister made in his second reading speech:

The amendment made to the Act last year allows the Board either to finance the construction and equipping of complexes ‘ by industry interests or to construct and equip the complexes itself. .

We are very pleased and happy about this. That seems to be the right way to proceed. However, the Minister then made the following qualification:

The Board will only adopt the latter course if the wool trade, including wool selling brokers’, wishes it to do so.

I think we are fast approaching the time when some pretty urgent and clear decisions will have to be made by government. After all, since 1968-69 the nation has lost $360m in relation to this industry. That is a considerable loss to the nation. When we look at the loss to the grower, we can see that that has been disastrous. The. average price in the 1968-69 season - when we look at that year in relation to the price of wool it could be a generation ago - was 44.67c. The average price in the 9 months to 31st March was not 30c, as has been stated by the Minister, but 27.4c. That is a pretty dramatic drop in a very short space pf time.

If this has been a (ong term trend and we have reached the end of a long term trend I am still at a loss to know how it could have come so suddenly.

Mr Kelly:

– Not enough people are buying woollen suits.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The reference to woollen suits is a very good one and I am grateful to the honourable member for Wakefield for his interjection. I buy a woollen suit from time to time and it costs me $84. The interesting thing is that of that $84 the grower, as the honourable member would know, would receive at the most about $2.50 at present.

Mr Sinclair:

– A lot would go in wages. It is good for employment and good for the community. Wool growers have always looked after lots of people.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you for your help, Mr Minister. I am always grateful for it. But you know, as well as I do, that if we doubled what the grower received for his product the actual effect on the retail cost of the suit would be very small. Therefore, it lends weight to the point I intend to develop in this debate, namely, that the pipeline of costs, is something that we have not yet studied, very adequately. I want to draw attention to the fact that there is some need for urgency. I always find it difficult when I come to Canberra to find any sense, of urgency about anything. This is exactly why I have quoted what has happened in relation to costs. In fact, as this debate began I received from the far western part pf my electorate a telegram which. reads:

Average market price Brisbane and Sydney last week also Adelaide, this week approximately twentytwo cents pound. .Please request a suspension of all wool sales forthwith until the Australian average market price at least covers cost of production and also to protect the growers’ interests wtih a debt moratorium during interim period. The situation urgent ‘and desperate. 1 present that telegram to the House because, after all, it is a cry of despair from people who are in serious trouble and it is as well that honourable members understand this. I present it in a sincere and definite way. I am not suggesting that in this legislation we should debate all the matters in the telegram. I do not intend to do that, but I do not think that even the Minister for Primary Industry, who I know has taken a battering from me in the last 24 hours, would say that it was wrong of me to present that plea. I hope that he would not say this, because 1 present, it with the utmost sincerity.

I draw attention also to the fact that when we talk about the price of wool, we must consider that the price of wool surely has 2 dimensions. The first dimension is the price that the growers receive - the price that my constituent quoted in his telegram, 22c per lb. The other dimension is what the buyer of this product will pay when it gets to the other side of the world, and I might say that many people on the other side of the world who buy wool for their particular purposes are quite surprised at how much they have to pay and how much the grower actually receives. This is where I devote myself to the pipeline of costs. I agree with this Bill because not only does it give some hope but it also gives authority to the Wool Board to involve itself in updating and upgrading our present archaic system of handling wool, lt is a primitive system, long out of date, which only adds to the cost of wool. Everyone is talking about how the price of wool must be competitive and viable. Of course it must, but the price of wool to me when buying a suit is entirely different from the price of wool to the grower at present. How much attention has been paid to the pipeline of costs? Obviously, some attention has been paid to it, otherwise We would not be considering this legislation nor would the Minister be saying that there are ways of improving the handling of wool by integrated complexes. There has been a reference to Yennora. I remember, when I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament, this matter coming before that Parliament. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for it because it was felt that this complex would result in a streamlining and a saving and it was hoped that at least some of the saving would actually get down to the grower. A situation exists at the moment where there have been considerable changes in respect of the shipping of wool. The container system is now under challenge. If the Wool Board, or whatever successive body we may establish, determined that this was not the right and proper way in which to handle wool, I wonder what the status of that complex would be. This is purely a technical matter and I pose the query in the spirit of seeking information. Has this complex and the support given to it been reexamined recently in relation to possible changes that could take place in the handling of wool? Only 2 things can happen. Firstly, that we continue with our adherence to the container system or, secondly, that we break away from the container system and adopt a system of moving wool by charter or in other ways. We may even reach the stage of moving wool in bulk. However what I am interested in is whether studies have been carried out into the viability of Yennora and similar complexes on the basis of a possible move from containers to non-containers or on the basis of proceeding along present lines. I think that some comparisons have to be made, because I do not think that the Opposition is particularly wedded to the present shipping arrangements or to the present handling arrangements. I wanted to make that point clear.

The idea of streamlining is to be commended. It is a good and sound idea to give the Board authority not only to help the industry but also to go into business on its own behalf. However I wonder why the Minister, at the second reading stage of this Bill, sought to qualify so definitely that the Board would not do anything unless it were encouraged to do so by somebody else. This. is surely tending to be a ministerial hamstring of the Board. Is the Minister saying that the Board should not proceed unless the brokers and other people in the wool trade authorise it, encourage it and ask it to do so? This is a question to which the Minister should apply himself. I do not want to see the Board, any independent authority or any national authority that we establish hamstrung by any such restrictions, and I should hope that it would not be. I shall be interested to hear the Minister on this. …

It is being said that we must be terribly careful about the free flow of wool otherwise nobody will buy it and they will turn to synthetics. I wonder how valid is this argument. Many wool producers do not think the situation can get much worse. According to many producers we have already reached rock bottom. It may be held that a small minority may survive the current, blizzard but again. I think we must apply ourselves to - what: is regarded as the rock bottom. If we have another sudden drop like the drop which occurred in 1968-69 - a sudden drop and not a gradual tapering away - what happened then could happen again. In those circumstances in another 18 months prices could drop from 27c to 15c. It is all right for the Government to say: ‘We will have a: look at it and have a White Paper’. I commend this and think it a good idea. There is only one thing wrong with it, and I think my colleagues would agree with me, and that is that i it should have been done 10 years ago, but I support it now.

But what about some contingency plans for this sort of thing happening? It happened recently and it can happen again. What contingencies exist? Surely there should be some contingencies. Surely if there is another dramatic drop in wool prices the only thing to do is to suspend sales altogether because there is no point in talking about a free flow of wool at prices which would put every wool grower out of business. He is not in business for the sake of the nation. He is in business to survive with his property and his family. Incidentally he has served the nation in a fine way and made a tremendous contribution, and still does, to our balance of payments situation to which reference was made last night. These are the thoughts that are uppermost in the minds of growers at present. I do not think there would be any section of the industry that would have any quarrel with this legislation and that is why Opposition members and Government supporters’ have achieved unanimity in respect of the legislation, but I have the reservations that I mentioned in relation to theMinister’s qualifications expressed during, his second reading speech.

It is as well to pause and contemplate the cry for help contained in the telegram that I read to the House earlier. Has the Minister any contingency plans if it is decided by those- who set the market at present - and set it pretty definitely, too - that there should be another appreciable and disastrous fall in present prices? The Government must take some responsibility. By all means let us have an inquiry and let us have a White Paper. We should have had an inquiry 10 years ago and if the Government accepts this . suggestion and carries it out the Opposition again will be at one with it. The only desire at present is to bring some stability to the industry and some hope for the future.

I made a submission which had in it some of the elements of what I have submitted to the House this afternoon. It was suggested by one of my suburban colleagues that this was all just rather sordid politics. I suggest to the suburban members of this Parliament who might be a little out of touch with what happens west of Parramatta, that if they live and work in an area and attempt to represent it but are deaf to the needs of the people and blind in the economic realities in the nation and rural areas generally, then they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. I hope very much that I will continue to fulfil my responsibility to the best of my ability.

The Opposition stands with the Government on this measure. I hope that this miserable guillotine with which we have been battling so valiantly for the last 24 hours will not preclude the Minister from replying in a very material way to the points I have raised. I say this without heat and with a real and deep sense of concern.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– The Bill before the House is for an Act to empower the Commonwealth to guarantee the repayment of loans’ to the Australian Wool Board in connection with wool selling centres. I, too, very strongly support the’ Bill and the ideas -which it seeks to implement. There is no doubt that the wool industry is in’ very great and drastic need of any possible assistance that it can obtain from any field at the present time. I represent a very large area of wool growing country which has suffered perhaps the most severe drought- in its nistory. I know from the practical’ experience of my own constituents just what a difficult problem the wool growers of that area and, indeed, the wool growers throughout Australia face at the present time.

The wool industry is caught up in the cost price squeeze, or between the selling price of the article’ and the cost of production. There is no doubt, in my mind that the price factor is’ a major one. Nevertheless, the cost factor is also very important and must be looked at. This is the area where the intention of the Bill is directed. It is important that we should consider the whole aspect. 1 feel that it is reasonable to draw attention to the Government’s action in connection with the price factor in introducing the Australian Wool Commission. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said, if I made a correct note, that he could not find any sense of urgency in Canberra. . If he could not find it, then I would say that he has taken very little interest in the efforts that have been made by the Government to introduce the Australian Wool Commission and in the efforts made by the former Minister for Primary Industry - now the Minister for Trade and Industry and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) - at that time. He made a prodigious effort and strained every nerve, as did the Government members who were behind him. It was a tremendous effort on his part. Anyone who had any association with the Minister or the people he was dealing with would know that there was a very great sense of urgency. The Minister really ran himself into the ground in an endeavour to establish the Australian Wool Commission.

The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan), who is interjecting, may introduce some ideas of his own. If one looks hard enough one can always find some reason, which is not the right reason, to support one’s own argument. It is not hard to find. Any unbiased observer would realise that the Australian Wool Commission was established to help the Australian wool grower, and that ls just what it has been proved to do. People who are well qualified in this field have estimated that the Commission has kept the wool price at least 5c higher than it would have been without the Commission’s operation. That would mean a saving, to the Australian wool producer and to the Australian economy of $100m per annum, which is well worth while. I hope that it will be possible to extend that benefit.

I hope that the confidence which has been shown in the Commission will continue. One of the great needs for the industry, was to have confidence in the price of wool. It did not have the stability that only the Australian Wool Commission has been able to give it. It is very encouraging to see even the small rise which has been shown this week over the improvement - the small improvement - in prices in recent times. The honourable member for Riverina mentioned the free flow of wool. I have heard this mentioned, too. But surely we have had a free flow of wool, and it has not done the job. It is necessary to try to keep up a reasonable flow of wool into the manufacturing areas, and I hope that that will be done.

The most efficient methods of handling wool certainly must be adopted. I know that this point has been made by each honourable member who has spoken on this Bill. I do not question it at ail. I think it is important. I appreciate very fully that the development of these methods must take place. But one of the factors which must be stressed in connection with the efficiency of handling is that it must be seen and it must be made certain that the savings that come about as the result of this increased efficiency are passed on, to the greatest possible extent, to the very hard pressed wool growers who are so much in need of it. These benefits will be obtained in the maximum degree only if the cost of the complex is kept low.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) pointed out in his second reading speech that the Government is desirous of seeing, and it is tending to see, that the interest rates in particular are kept low for this purpose. Lower interest rates are a very important cost factor in any field. Sometimes they are not given the amount of stress that they could be given in relation to the wool industry generally. I have seen some percentages of cost which can be attributed to interest rates where a wool grower has had to obtain more finance than be would have liked to obtain. It is pleasing to me to see this well recognised economic principle of keeping the cost down as far as possible being applied tq the building of this complex. I hope this complex will be the beginning of others. I hope that it will prove to be successful.

Another aspect of this wool selling complex is the’ promotion of pre-sale objective measurement of wool. This would enable sale by sample. I go along with those who feel that this is long overdue. I know that progress is being made in this direction. But let us look at the wool industry generally. There has not been the progress made in these sorts of ways that perhaps could have been made. No doubt it is a fairly slow process. It is good to see that this is being undertaken at the present time. I believe that if we can get pre-sale objective measurement and core testing of wool, so that it can be sold by sample, it will mean that we will have an efficiency in the handling of our wool that will compare with that of the competitive fibres.

This is something that we have to match because it becomes more important as time goes on. In days gone by it may not have been so important and therefore not such a matter of urgency. The desperate position of the wool growers certainly demands action on the cost and price fronts, and in regard to the efficiency of the handling and presentation of our wool, which involves the ability to sell it on a sample basis. There could be assistance in saving costs and improving prices because of a more effective presentation of the wool.

The necessity for selling is, as I see it, a matter of urgency. There is an immediate necessity for this not only because of the immediate advantages, which will accrue but also because of the many expected long term advantages to the industry. In most eases experience will be able to guide us as to the line that we should take. Perhaps we will be able to make improvements as we go. it is very pleasing to see that the first of these wool selling complexes will become operative in the not too distant future. I commend those brokers who are building wool selling facilities at the present time. I hope that the other brokers mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech will co-operate with those brokers already involved. Another point I would like to stress is the economics of this measure. I want to leave some time in this debate to allow someone else to speak. I would like to see the limited time available for this debate spread amongst honourable members as much as possible. I do not want to take up all the time that is available to me in this debate because I understand that someone else wishes to speak. I am very happy to co-operate in this way. In relation to the economies of establishing wool selling complexes, the Minister said in his second reading speech:

We will, of course, ensure that any problems which might affect the viability of such a proposal have been fully resolved before approval is given for the Wool Board to proceed. The Wool Board is anxious to be in a position to facilitate the development of integrated wool selling complexes where they can be justified on the grounds of increased efficiency and cost savings.

That is certainly a sound economic approach. I give the Bill my blessing. I hope that the complex will prove to be the success it deserves to be and will be the benefit to the wool growers of this country that we all hope it will be. I commend the Bill.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– When the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr

Sinclair) introduced the Bill into this House he said:

The purpose of this Bill is to ‘enable the Commonwealth Government to guarantee the repayment of loans and the payment of interest on amounts that may be borrowed ‘by the Australian Wool Board for the construction and equipping of integrated wool selling complexes.

The Minister went on to say:

An amendment to the Wool Industry Act last year authorised the - Wool Board to establish or encourage the establishment, where appropriate, of . integrated wool selling complexes, and empowered the Board to borrow .for these” .purposes, subject to the approval of the. Treasurer and myself.

In. addressing my remarks; to the establishment of such a centre I want to suggest an appropriate site in Western Australia. The electorate of Forrest, .which T represent, constitutes only a very ‘small proportion of the State of Western Australia. That State comprises one-third of ‘ the ‘ total area of Australia. Western Australia has been one of the greatest wool producing States in the Commonwealth from the days of its early history. Wool is produced from the north-west of the State to the south-west area, which comprises my electorate. I agree with the previous speakers who have said that there is a need for a close examination of what is required to provide the best means of presenting and selling wool. I believe that there: is a need to rationalise the sale of wool and that it is necessary to centralise the sale and the presentation in one place in a State, if this is possible. In Western Australia there is no more suitable place than the port of Albany, t asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon): a question on notice about what had been done by the Government to establish whether Albany was a suitable site for a wool selling centre and wool exporting port. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard the question and answer to which I have referred and which are already in Hansard of 20th April 1971.

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has any approach been made to the Government by the Western Australian Government to preserve the port of Albany as an export port particularly for the export of wool?
  2. If so, what is the Government doing to ensure the protection and preservation of Albany as an export port?
Mr Nixon:

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

  1. In November 1969 the Western Australia Transport Minister Mr O’Connor approached the Minister for Shipping and Transport on behalf of the West Australian Government concerning the preservation of the port of Albany as an export Port. In December 1969 Mr Sinclair visited Albany for discussions with local authorities. Further discussions with members of the Western Australian Government were held in February 1970.
  2. In respect of the general movement of ships in and out of Albany, although some reduction of services has resulted from containerisation, there has been no great change m the number of overseas cargo vessels calling at the Port of Albany. The number of vessels calling at Albany in 1967- 68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were 111, 107 and 106 respectively.

Regarding exports of wool to U.K./Europe, the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference is now centralising Albany wool for this destination at Fremantle. The Conference has undertaken that this service through Fremantle will not cost the shipper any more than it would cost him to ship through Albany.

This is not to say, however, that the Port of Albany is not being served on a direct basis. The Conference has provided for regular calls at Albany of conventional ships. In 1969-72 22 per cent of wool sold at Albany continued to be shipped from Albany. During the calendar year 1970, 17 ships left Albany for U.K./Europe.

In December 1969 the former Minister for Shipping and Transport visited Albany for discussions with local authorities on problems that had arisen with the introduction of container shipping and on the question of overseas shipping to ports not served directly by container vessels. The Government’s expressed concern was that no special handicaps be put in the way of exports from outlying areas.

My predecessor has, on a number of occasions, put forward the idea that aH sectors of a community served by a particular outlying port should co-ordinate snipping requirements. In this way calls at such ports would be made more attractive commercially to shipowners. A suitable consolidating agency might be the local Harbour Board or Port Authority.

I have been advised that the present Minister for Primary Industry visited Albany, inspected the port and examined its prospects, and following that visit further investigations were made. I want to emphasise the words of the Minister for Shipping and Transport relating to the Government’s expressed concern and continued in the last 2 paragraphs of the answer to that question. I know that this Bill relates to the provision of funds to enable the Australian Wool Board to establish integrated wool selling complexes. I know that that is a limited purpose. Therefore I suggest that the Wool Board itself cannot make the necessary decisions. The Wool Board should select the most suitable site in Western Australia for the establishment of a wool selling complex. In taking this decision the Board should look into the matter in conjunction with the departments involved at the Commonwealth level - the Department of Shipping and Transport, the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of the Treasury. The Board should also consult with the State Departments of Agriculture and Decentralisation in Western Australia.

I believe that Albany, having a natural harbour and one of the best in Australia, is ideally suited for the centralisation of wool in that State. The establishment of the complex at Albany could provide a very important additional service to the town. The town itself is totally reliant on the rural industries which surround it in the Great Southern and south-western areas of the State. The sale of wool from Albany area would bring State Shipping Service ships from the north-west. With ships calling at the port of Albany to deliver wool produced on pastoral areas in the north, Albany businesses would be able to provide provisions for towns in the northern areas of the State and it would be able to transport on the State Shipping Service ships timber and sleepers for the development that is taking place in the northern parts of Western Australia.

The position at present, with the decline in the economy of the rural sector, is that there is increasing unemployment in the district surrounding Albany. People are leaving the area. It has been one of the areas hardest hit by the decisions of the previous Liberal-Country Party State Government which opened up large areas of land for wool and wheat growing. To help offset the effects of those bad and irresponsible decisions, I suggest that an examination be made to determine what can be done to consolidate these areas and protect them from further decline. I think the establishment of a wool selling complex at Albany to serve the whole State is one measure that could help considerably. I .believe that this is a suggestion which deserves and is receiving the support of all members of this Parliament. I hope that when this Bill is passed through this House and the Senate, examinations will be made to ascertain the most suitable areas in each State for the establishment of wool selling complexes.

I hope that full consideration will be given to the proposition which I have put forward here this afternoon. I hope too that there shall not be delay in making a very close examination of what is required in the provision of wool selling centres and what is the best way of showing our wool, selling it and shipping it. Wool is not a commodity which I think needs to be containerised. I think containerisation may bring additional expense. I believe it has even been proposed that wool may possibly be shipped almost in bulk on ore carrying ships which cannot be laden fully with ore and which have open spaces at the top of their holds which could be used for the shipment of wool to European and other ports. I commend the Bill and look forward to seeing developed in the States of Australia the complexes which will help to eliminate some of the costs which are involved at present in selling our wool and which are imposed upon the growers of this nation. I thank the Minister and the House.

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

-in reply - There are only a couple of things that have been raised to which I want to refer specifically. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby.) raised a couple of questions. I do not know whether I have noted the exact form of the questions, but as I understand them the first one related to whether or not there was in the Bill, and if so the reason for it, a discretion for the Australian Wool Board to undertake construction of complexes and why it was necessary for it to be referred to the Government. If my understanding of the question is not correct I will write to the honourable gentleman when I have read the Hansard report of his speech. But if his question is as I have stated, the objective is to try to let the wool brokers themselves build such facilities as they desire. As honourable members will know, the initial brokers at this stage are Dalgety Exports Pty Ltd, Schute Bell Badgery Lumley Ltd and Farmers and Graziers Co-operative Co. Ltd. They have commenced construction at the Yennora site.

It would not be the Wool Board’s intention to take over the financing of projects which are already being embarked upon by private companies. I think the clause to which the honourable member is referring is specifically intended to give the Government the option to allow private companies to build if -they are able to do so and if they are prepared to do so. Indeed, I would see the best function of this Bill lying in that way.

The second question to which the honourable member for Riverina referred related to a contingency plan. This field is one which, of course, has been filled as a result of the operations of the Australian Wool Commission since early this year. I think all members, in this House, and certainly all members of the rural community, are only tooaware of the very critical situation in wool growing communities as a result . of the accelerated price decline late in the 1970 calendar year. It was in these circumstances that the decision was made by the Commission to hold the prices firm. As the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced in the House this morning in confirmation of an earlier statement I made, there has been no change in the operation and function of the Australian Wool Commission:

The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who ledfor the Opposition on this matter, has expressed, his own support for the Bill. I am delighted that all members of this House see’ in it the very real merit in the amalgamation of the wool selling units under one roof. At the same time I think it needs to be associated very closely with the . development of core testing, sale by sample and other technological methods of selling wool. I am sure that in the projects that might be embarked upon in the future these factors will be taken into account.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Sinclair) reada third time.

page 2749

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 April (vide page 1900), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now lead a second time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of- procedure on this legislation before the debate is resumed on this Bill. I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill, the Air Accidents (Commonwealth; Liability) Bill, the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bin and the Seamen’s Compensation 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 five Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering all the measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to protest at the beginning about the way in which this Bill is being pushed through without an opportunity for the Opposition te deal with this matter properly. I have been studying workers compensation now for about 15 years, and I prepared material for a speech which would have taken me longer to deliver than the total time which the Government has allowed the whole House to deal, with this matter. For this reason therefore I will be obliged to reduce what I have to say to a bare minimum. At the beginning I want to pay a tribute to the members of the relevant Opposition committee - the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Fester), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb), the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), and to the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), and to the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) who has given so much attention to this matter and who has assisted me so greatly.

I have to pay great tribute also to Mr Paul Munro, the Secretary of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, to Mr George Slater, the General Secretary of the Postal Workers Union, to Mr Frank Waters, the Federal President of that body, the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) and to a lot of other people who gave up their time willingly to assist us in this matter. I would be remiss and ungrateful if I did not mention the work which was put into the amendment that I will move in Committee by the parliamentary counsellor, Mr Jeff Kolts, who at weekends came to my home and worked late into the night and who willingly and courteously co-operated with my committee. to help us to prepare ah amendment that was comprehensive enough to cover all of the points on which we differ with the Government.

The Government’s Bill is much better than the Bill which the former Treasurer, Mr Bury, introduced last year. I express my thanks to the present Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is now in charge of this field of activity on the Government side for his co-operation in dealing with amendments. He has accepted, I think, 15 of them. It is unusual to find a Minister who is prepared to be a Minister and not a mere rubber stamp for the Cabinet. He is prepared to use his own intelligence in deciding whether a proposition is fair and reeasonable, and when he thinks it ought to be accepted he has proved that he is prepared to do so. I want to thank him also for being willing to appoint an interdepartmental committee to deal with those points on which he cannot readily agree. Although he is not necessarily opposed to them, he has expressed an opinion that time does not permit him to give the proposals the consideration that they would need to have.

Before I deal point by point with the defects in the Bill, I request the Minister for Social Services to give his personal attention to seeing that the regulations are drawn up as quickly as possible so that the whole of the Bill can be brought into operation without delay. The present proposal is that only a portion of the Bill will be proclaimed in the immediate future and that the balance will need to await the proclamation of regulations to give effect to the machinery clauses. It is no use proposing a great step forward in Commonwealth employees compensation if the step is never taken or is delayed.

Mr Wentworth:

– The honourable member may have my assurance that there will be no unavoidable delay.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the Minister for that assurance. Woe betide the counsellors now if they try to find some excuse for not doing it because I know that the Minister will guarantee that that assurance given in the chamber, so close to the Despatch Box, will be carried out.

The Government’s Bill unfortunately does not cover the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory insofar as privately employed persons are concerned. I would like to have seen the Government introduce a Bill that would give to everybody in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory the same benefits as are enjoyed by other employees over whom this Parliament has the right of legislation in respect of compensation. I know that ordinances can be brought in to make those conditions correspond with what is provided in this legislation, but it seems to me to be a clumsy way of doing the business to have an ordinance to cover the Northern Territory, another separate ordinance to cover the Australian Capital Territory, and a separate Act of Parliament to cover seamen and other Acts of Parliament to cover other classes of employees who are. referred to in the legislation being considered in this cognate debate. It seems wrong also that the people who are not covered in any of these Bills or in any ordinance - I refer to people such as air pilots operating interstate and, for that matter, waterside workers engaged in interstate trade or commerce - are excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

This Bill is now the second best piece of compensation legislation in the Commonwealth. Only the South Australian Act surpasses it. Insofar as that Act relates to weekly payments, it would be my hope that the South Australian provision would be one of the things that the interdepartmental committee would see fit to adopt. The provision in South Australia does not go as far as I would like to see it go. It provides, however, a maximum of $65 per week. Under the South Australian Act, a married man who receives $65 or less a week will obtain compensation on a no loss of earnings basis. It is only proper that we should one day reach the point where we can accept this principle of no loss of earnings as the proper and normal basis for compensation per week to people who are incapacitated through injury at work. I notice, in the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’, that the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Argentine, Brazil and Mexico already have compensation payable on the basis of 100 per cent rate benefit in their normal wages. Some of the Scandinavian countries achieve the same result through social services or social welfare. This, I believe, is the correct way of tackling the whole problem.

I have been impressed by a report delivered by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand. I wish to quote, if I may, an extract from the report of that Commission, which was delivered by Mr Justice Woodhouse, an eminent member of the Supreme Court of New Zealand whom I have the privilege of knowing very well. He said this:

The toll of personal injury is one of the disastrous incidents of social progress, and the statistically inevitable victims are entitled to receive * co-ordinated response from the nation as a whole. They receive this only from the health service. For financial relief they must turn to three entirely different remedies, and frequently they are aided by none.

The negligence action is a form of lottery. In the case of industrial accidents it provides inconsistent solutions for less than one victim in every hundred. The Workers’ Compensation Act provides meagre compensation for workers, but only if their injury occurred at their work. The Social Security Act will assist with the pressing needs of those who remain, provided they can meet the means test. All others are left to fend for themselves..

Such a fragmented and capricious response to a social problem which cries out for co-ordinated and comprehensive treatment cannot be good enough. No economic reason justifies it. It is a situation which needs to be changed. This is the general theme of this report and the short summary of it which follows in the next 17 paragraphs.

Every person interested in workmen’s compensation and all the social questions that must be answered when people are injured at work should read every word of this report. The learned judge goes on to say:

Injury arising from accident demands an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. Next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the Injured. Thirdly, there is the duty to compensate them for their losses. The second and third of these matters can be handled together, but the priorities between them need to be stressed because there has been a tendency to have them reversed. No compensation procedure can ever be allowed to take charge of the efforts being made to restore a man to health and gainful employment.

This Royal Commission recommended that every person injured at work or on the road or in the home should receive compensation provided that it does not exceed $120 a week. Mr Justice Woodhouse told me only a few weeks ago that, since the report was brought down in 1967, the intention of the Commission was that the new rate should be related to the cost of living index at the present time compared with what it was when it recommended a maximum of $120 a week.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Government’s Bill that deals with the method of preventing accidents. This is a terribly important thing. True, the Minister has proposed vocational training for those who are injured in order to get them back to work again. That is an excellent objective. But nothing is said about the prevention of accidents. The amendment that I propose to move does provide a clause which allows the Government to make regulations for the purpose of ascertaining the incidence and causation of accidents and for recommending steps to be taken to ensure that accidents can be prevented. The relevant part of my amendment states:

The Government is authorised to make provision for and in relation to the holding of an inquiry into the incidence, causes and the means of prevention of injuries suffered by employees in connection with their employment and for giving effect to any recommendations made by the person holding the inquiry.

I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to do the same thing in this Bill. When we look at what is happening in the world today, what we see must cause us great concern. We just cannot close our eyes to this problem of accident occurrence in industry. It is causing too much loss of life and limb, and is causing, as a secondary consideration, too much loss of production. In Australia, according to the publications of the National Safety Council, we have one of the highest industrial accident rates in the world. Furthermore, the National Safety Council argues that the cost to the community of these accidents is at least $500m per annum and could be as high as $700m or $800m. When one looks at a later statement issued by the National Safety Council, one sees that the Council estimates that the nation’s loss due to industrial accidents and disease is probably nearer to $ 1,000m a year. This represents a little more than 2 per cent of our gross national product. It is just not good enough for a government to pretend that this problem does not exist.

Some of the companies in Australia are doing an excellent job in this regard. The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, for example, has greatly reduced the loss of time through accidents at its works. It has reduced the incidence from 50.2 per 1 million man hours to 3.4 per 1 million man hours, a total reduction of 93 per cent. At the company’s Port Kembla works, the accident frequency rate fell from 37 in 1945 to 10 per cent of that figure in 1961. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the improvement in the frequency rate of accidents in various other Australian companies.

Our nation cannot afford the needless loss of skilled workmen and our experience in accident prevention has shown us that we can reduce industrial injuries to a fraction of what they are now. I know that the Minister is not unmindful of the need to deal with this important question of accident prevention. Knowing him is I do - I have my differences with him on certain subjects - I know that once he sticks his teeth into something he will leave his mark on the history of this country in relation to it. Now that he has had his attention drawn to the great need for accident prevention I am certain that he will be wanting to do something about it. In order to expedite proceedings and to avoid being forced to leave out any more of my speech than is necessary, with the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the aims of a United States Bill of 1969 which, I believe, could equally be applied to the Australian scene.

  1. by establishing mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting commerce;
  2. by providing for the effective enforcement of such safety and health standards;
  3. by providing tor research relating to occupational safety and health;
  4. by providing, tor training programmes to increase and improve personnel engaged in the field of occupational safety and health;
  5. by more clearly delineating the responsibilities of the Federal Government and the States in their activities related to occupational safety and health;
  6. by providing grants to the States to assist them in idenitfying their needs and responsibilities in the aiea of occupational safety and health, to develop plans in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and to conduct experiments and demonstration projects in connection therewith; and
  7. by providing for appropriate accident and health reputing procedures which will help achieve the objectives of this Act.

I turn now to a. comparison of this Bill with the Opposition’s amendment. The Bill is deficient because in my opinion it fixes weekly compensation rates at a figure that Is too low. It fixes a rate of $35 for an unmarried man. $43.50 for a married man and $48.50 for a married man with one child, plus another $5 for each additional child, or the employee’s average weekly earnings, whichever is the lesser; whereas under the Opposition’s amendment the weekly compensation payment to a person who is totally incapacitated is equal to the full earnings, whether he is married or single. Let us take the case of a married man with one child. All he will receive is $48.50; yet the average weekly wage in Australia today is $84.80. So this person will lose approximately $36 a week. He is a married man with a child to maintain, house payments to keep up, medical benefit subscriptions to pay and all the ordinary expenses to meet. Let us make no mistake about this.

Any person on the average weekly wage in Australia is budgeting his household and living expenses in accordance with what he earns. There is nothing over at the end of the week. How then can a person whose budgeting has become so closely linked with his income be expected in times of sickness to suddenly reduce his budget from $84 to $48? It cannot be done and it is quite unreasonable to expect it to be done. Let us consider other countries such as; to mention the ones I have already spoken of, Mexico, Argentina, the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. We should not be prepaied to admit that we cannot do as well as these countries can. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world and we should aim at nothing less than those countries are able to achieve. We should try to emulate the wonderful proposition which has been put forward by a royal commission in New Zealand. There a select committee of the Parliament has been appointed and is recommending that the first step towards the objectives set by the royal commission should be given effect to this year. Wc should not do anything less than that. We should be standing out as the country in the world,, particularly in the southern hemisphere, which leads all. other countries.

The Bill provides that no lump sum is payable to an employee in respect of a schedule injury where the employee becomes totally incapacitated and qualifies for weekly payments. The Labor Party does not accept this as a proper basis for compensation. It believes that an employee who suffers the loss of 2 eyes, 2 legs, his genitals or his capacity to engage in sexual intercourse ought to be compensated for the loss of social enjoyment and the pain and suffering endured through the loss of those things. If the injury causes total incapacity, such an employee ought to receive weekly payments as well as the lump sum. If common law action were taken for damages, the court would assess damages on that basis. We should be doing the same with compensation, so that compensation ceases to be something that can be paid at a figure lower than that which the court will give where negligence can be proved. All accidents should be treated as compensable on that basis.

The Bill provides that where a person loses both eyes he shall receive a total lump sum payment of $13,500 but no weekly payment. We disagree with that assessment. We think it should be 520 times the national minimum wage, which would produce a figure in relation to the Australian Capital Territory of $24,232 plus weekly payments for life. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the comparison between what the Opposition’s amendment would give to an employee who suffered any of these schedule injuries and the amount which the employee would receive for the same injury under this Bill.

It is not good enough, . we believe, to simply wipe off a widow with a flat payment of $13,500 and say: ‘You are paid’, irrespective of whether she is young with a number of dependent children or an elderly person without dependent children. If $13,500 is the proper figure for a widow of 64 years of age with no children, then it is grossly under the amount that should apply in the case of a young widow of 26 or 27 years of age who has four or live dependent children to maintain. Alternatively, if $13,500 can be’ justified as a wipe-off figure for a young widow with four or five young children then axiomatically $13,500 must be too much for the elderly widow without any children.

The proper approach is npt to attempt to get a lump sum payment to compensate widows for their loss but to’ pay thom, while they have dependent children relying upon them, a weekly compensation payment equal to the amount their deceased husbands would have received had they remained at work. Once the ‘ children are no longer dependent she should receive an amount equal to 75 per cent of that figure, remembering all the time ‘that if the widow continued to receive the full income her husband previously earned she would pay taxation, just as her husband Would have paid it had he been employed. She does not become a charge on the Department of Social Services and to the extent to which the Treasury is relieved of having to p ovide her with a widow’s pension’, so the loss is mitigated. It is not nearly, as expensive as people might imagine it to . be at first sight. I think that it is wrong that the Bill makes no provision for compensation for a student after the student reaches 21 years of age and is still dependent. I know that the Department of Social Services, in other fields, does not treat a student as dependent after he reaches 21 years, but let us not forget that the medical benefits funds and the hospital associations treat students as dependent up to the age of 24 years. 1 believe we should have no limit at all. 1 cannot understand why the Bill does not include damages for bodily disfigurement as well as for facial disfigurement. I appreciate that the provision for facial disfigurement is almost a giant step forward compared with what has been provided in previous Bills we have had, but I have had put to me by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who is greatly interested in this kind of thing, the case of a young lady in Newcastle who had a horrible gash in the upper part of her thigh which caused her great distress when she tried to join the fashion and wear mini-skirts, and when she went bathing. She got nothing for this. I think that cases of bodily injury such as this ought to attract compensation of some kind. The Minister has increased threefold, I think, the amount of compensation which his predecessor thought was sufficient for loss of sexual capacity. I congratulate him on his youthful approach to this matter. However, I cannot understand why he still refuses to give the same amount of compensation for serious facial disfigurement. This already applies in Queensland, where up to the maximum amount can be claimed. However, what the Minister has done is infinitely better that what his predecessor did. His predecessor seemed to adopt a penny-pinching attitude towards Commonwealth employees, and all of us are glad to see that this attitude has passed away. ] now turn to such matters as the lump sum payment for loss of taste or smell for which $1,350 is provided. I cannot understand why such a low figure is provided. We would suggest that nothing less than the figure we recommend - $8,542- ought to be provided for this injury. The Bill provides for maximum lump sum compensation of $9,450 for the total loss of speech. Nothing could be worse than the total loss of speech, with a person suddenly finding himself mute. I cannot see that anything less than the maximum amount that is contained in the Schedule should apply, in which event it would be $13,500 under the Government Schedule - the guiding rule - and more than $24,000 if we were to take the Opposition’s figure.

The amount of $300 for a funeral seems to me to be quite inadequate. Why cannot the Commonwealth say: ‘We will meet all reasonable costs’? I have had it put to me that a situation could arise where a man working for the Commonwealth railways could be away from his home station and could die at the foreign station. His body has to be brought back to his home station, and at the moment all of this expense has to be met out of the amount set aside for the cost of the funeral. It is true that in the case of the Commonwealth Railways a Commonwealth Railways determination would require that the body be brought back to the point at which this person previously lived, but everyone is not covered by a Commonwealth Railways determination. When the interdepartmental committee is looking at this matter, it should try to see whether an improved method cannot be devised whereby the cost of returning the body of the worker to his home could be covered.

I do not know why the Government wants to punish the widow of a person who commits suicide, by not providing for her any widow’s compensation at all. No-one can blame the poor widow if a man is so distressed as to commit suicide. For all we know, his distress could be a consequence of bis work, and that could be the reason he takes his own life, leaving his wife and little children behind. They cannot be just wiped off and not cared about. I suggest that no normal person would take his own life. A person who does this obviously is suffering from a serious mental disease which, for all we know, could be caused by his work. I do not think it is right that a widow and little children should be made to suffer because of the breadwinner’s action. The same can be said in respect of other injuries caused by an employee’s wilful misconduct. I do not think that anybody would deliberately commit misconduct to the point of deliberately causing himself serious injury. People skylark, and this can be called misconduct but, after all, we all skylark; I have seen Ministers skylarking around the place in the early hours of the morning. Therefore, it is no use saying that there is a right to exclude such people from the benefits of workmen’s compensation.

Before I sit down I want to refer to the fact that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor) has received a petition which I have here and which has been signed by several hundreds of people who work at Trans-Australia Airlines in Melbourne and who ask that the Government do something to remedy the gross anomalies in the Bill. I am sorry- that time is. cutting out when I am only about a quarter of the way through the Bill.

Mr Wentworth:

– We can give you another 5 minutes.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would be cutting out my colleagues if I took that time. I regret that I cannot go through the whole matter. I am pleased - and I will have to conclude on this note - to know that the Department of Social Services is handling this matter instead of the Treasury. I am pleased to know as well that Mr Wentworth instead of Mr Bury will be handling it. A better department than used to handle the matter will now handle it, and a better Minister will handle it than handled it previously.

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

Mr HOWSON:
Casey

– I am always interested to listen to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) speak on this matter, about which he knows so much. I was interested also to hear him at the outset protest at the time he was being given to speak on the matter. I am sorry that he did not take up the offer of the Minister to talk for another 5 or 10 minutes, so that we would have the benefit of what he said, as he speaks so well on this matter.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Be fair to me; 1 do not want to cut out my colleagues.

Mr HOWSON:

– As the honourable member knows, there is extra time on this Bill. I wanted to say that at least there was that offer, which I had hoped the honourmember would accept in the spirit in which it was offered. As we are dealing with this Bill, I want to pay a tribute both to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is about to take ever the responsibility for this Bill, and also to his predecessor, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). While the honourable member for Hindmarsh spent a good deal of time’ during his speech dealing with some of the defects as he considered them, in the Bill, 1 was sorry that he did not refer to some of the extremely important new provisions in the Bill, because this Bill, of all Bills that come before the Parliament, is one that reflects a continual updating from year to year of national views on this important subject of employees compensation.

I thought that the honourable member for Hindmarsh might be interested to know that quite a lot of suggestions that he made in the debate in 1964, when we last had a major review of this Act, ‘ have been incorporated in the Bill we are now discussing. J think we should pay tribute to the views he expressed at that time; I am sorry he has not referred to them himself. I think he should agree that the Government has included in this Bill a number of new provisions that reflects its own ideas on updating in- this field. I must refer to the very important provisions relating to the appointment of a Commissioner for Compensation who will be independent of the Treasury. Therefore, he will be entirely responsible ‘for examining claims for compensation.^ He can be regarded as being independent of employers and of employees, and therefore he will be able to give not only what will be but also what will appear to be an independent judgment. I think that this matter has concerned Commonwealth employees for a number of years and now, for the first time, we have this new development.

Allied with that provision is the provision for appeals either to a county court or to an appeal tribunal. I think that the fact that the employee will have the opportunity to go either to a court or to a tribunal - whichever he chooses - is something which also will be of help to him. At times there may be value in going to a court. On the other hand, I think that the value of the new appeal tribunal will be such that the employee will be likely to get a much more rapid decision and a much more rapid review of his case, which is another aspect that has concerned employees in the past. So, compared with the last occasion on which we made a major Review of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act, we have these quite significant changes which will be of great value to all our Commonwealth employees who suffer injury. I think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh will agree with me when I say that, whilst he has referred to a number of matters which he thinks require re-examination, it is also important that we keep generally in step with the workers compensation Acts in the States so that Commonwealth employees will be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged compared with their colleagues in comparable activities. I think that if one looks generally through the schedules one sees that there has been an attempt to -maintain this comparability.

I should like to deal with one or- two matters raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Firstly, he has raised a number of new points during this debate. I believe that he had an opportunity, which was provided by the Minister, to make these points known to the Minister earlier so that they could be examined by the interdepartmental committee. I am surprised that he has not availed himself of that opportunity earlier than today. But I am sure, as the Minister acknowledged by interjection during the speech of the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that these matters will go to the interdepartmental committee. I feel certain that one of the important .points is that the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act should be reviewed fairly frequently and that possibly every 2 to 3 years, at least, we should have a debate on this Act. We should regard it as a continual updating process. Today’s debate is not the finite conclusion of the matter, but we have made significant advances since the last occasion on which we looked at the Act. As we examine the points that arise in this debate, we shall see that the important points that are worth while are incorporated in further amendments to the Act.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh raised the general subject of accident prevention and an examination being made of accidents that occur in industry. Whilst I agree entirely with his statement that our record in certain industries in Australia is not one about which we can be happy, I think that we should pay tribute to the work of the Department of Labour and National Service. Over the last 10 years this department has done a great deal to encourage employers to become much more safety conscious, and the task of making an examination of accidents and recommendations for their prevention should be a major responsibility of that Department.

The second matter which the honourable member for Hindmarsh raised referred to this question of the limits on the loss of income. I think he said that, there was a number of countries - he mentioned particularly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - in which compensation was paid on a no loss of income basis. I think those were his words. It is quite true that there is such a provision in the USSR, but I wonder whether he realises that it is subject to a maximum payment of 30 roubles a month. As one rouble is equivalent to approximately SUS1.11. it will- be seen that the total maximum payment is SUS33.30 per month. Therefore, I believe that the provision to which . the honourable member referred is not quite as good as he led the House to believe. Limits are imposed on payments in other countries which he mentioned, particularly the Argentine and Mexico. So I wonder whether he might have another look at these matters which he raises before making such an important point of them. I think that generally we can say that the provisions in our Act are well in step with the Acts applying not only in the States of Australia but also in comparable countries where similar Acts apply.

I believe that the important thing to do during a debate of this sort is, firstly, to draw attention to the important new developments which have been made and also to listen to suggestions which the Government can examine when the Act next comes up for review. Because of the limitations which have been imposed on this debate, I do not want to take up time which otherwise would be available to Other honourable members who also want to advance some valuable ideas which I think can be considered in the months ahead. However, I want to congratulate the Minister for making a very important review of an important Act, and also, as always, to congratulate the honourable member for Hindmarsh for advancing some new ideas to which I always enjoy listening.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity also to congratulate the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) on the effort which he has put into this Bill. I also thank him for the complimentary remarks which he made about me regarding assistance which I was able to give to him. But I think that he is deserving of the highest compliment for the tremendous effort which he has put into this Bill. After all, it is the man who is sitting at the table of the House who really has to co-ordinate the activities of others and to bring down the final result.

In addition, I believe that the work of the Australian Labor Party’s industrial committee, which was assisted by many other people, resulted in the formulation of a model Bill, and is responsible for the introduction of many of the amendments which appear in the new Bill, which has been introduced by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). The new Bill is vastly different from the code which was brought down about 12 months ago by the then Treasurer. I compliment the Minister for being so astute as to take so much out of the model Bill presented by the Labor Party. This model Bill will be used as the basis for amendments which will be moved to the Bill we are considering. - At long last we are debating a Bill to establish a new code of workers compensation for Commonwealth employees. I say at long last’ because this new code was promised as far back as 1964 when the then Prime Minister stated that amendments to the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act submitted by the Opposition ‘would be further considered during the forthcoming recess’. That was 7 years ago. Following on that, promises were made year after year, but it has taken nearly 7 years to fulfil those promises. Now we have this new code before us. The procrastination that has taken place is to the eternal discredit of this Government. It may be a new code - it is a new code in the real sense - but it is not an entirely satisfactory one.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh has indicated many ways in which this could be improved. I do not propose to go over the points that he made. In some respects this legislation provides for better rates of compensation than are provided in some of the States but in other, respects it still lags behind the provisions of some States. While the new code has broken some new ground it has not reached the objectives which the Australian Labor Party has represented in its model Bill and which the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the white collar workers unions have been pursuing for years. In those respects in which this legislation is better than that in some of the States it could well be only a temporary advantage as some pf the State Acts are to be reviewed. One would have thought that this new. code would have been at least as advantageous to the workers as was the one most recently amended. I refer to the Workmen’s Compensation Act of South Australia which has many features more advantageous to the workers of that State than this code provides for the employees of the Commonwealth.

I do not intend to go into this difference too deeply because I understand that 2 honourable members from South Australia wish to speak in this debate .and no doubt they will go into these aspects. However, I draw attention to 2 examples. Firstly, on the death of a worker the amount now provided in South Australia is $15,000. Under this code it is $13,500.’ The amount allowed for a spouse is $13 under the South Australian Act; under this amendment it is $8.50. There are other instances but I will leave those to honourable members from South Australia to develop if they so desire. The new code increases weekly rates of compensation for an employee to $35, for a dependant female to $8.50 and for a child to $5, making a total of S48.50 for a family unit of that size. Average weekly earnings, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh has pointed out, are now over $80 a week. So the amount falls far short of average weekly earnings.

It is true that the Bill contains new provisions which will enable an employee to receive weekly payments of compensation and at the same time to utilise a proportion of his accrued sick leave credits to build up his payments to ‘his ordinary rate of pay. That is an advantage. Formerly, if he took out sick leave he forwent his workers compensation. As I have said, the

Bill is an advantage in that direction. However, this provision does not help a worker who does not have accrued sick leave. He and his faimly have to exist on their entitlement under this new compensation code which is far below average weekly earnings. This loss of earnings can be a tremendous setback to a young married man who has commitments for furniture and his home. Hire purchase companies as well as the mortgage on his home have to be paid. In our view a worker injured on duty should receive his average weekly earnings. He should not lose financially.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has adopted the principle that a worker who is deemed to be totally or partially incapacitated for work should be entitled to receive during the period of his incapacity the amount of weekly earnings he would have received but for his injury. We support that view ond it is provided for in our proposed amendment. A justifiable reason does not emerge to explain why a worker and his dependants must suffer a substantially reduced rate of earnings in circumstances where a worker is unable to work because of some injury or disease suffered in his employment. Injured workers and their families frequently suffer severe financiol burdens when the breadwinner is incapacitated in this way. The Government not only has the basic responsibility to protect the worker against industrial safety hazards, but it also has the responsibility to ensure that when a worker becomes injured he and his family are justly compensated. The weekly rates provided for in the amending legislation are inadequate in that direction. Even though they are an improvement they do not go to the extent that they should to meet average family needs. Furthermore, the principle of reduced income prevailing in this Act, and in the State Acts, for an injured worker is not just. After a period of incapacity most workers find themselves in considerable debt for some time afterwards. It is not uncommon to hear of injured workers having to obtain personal loans from banks and other borrowing sources in order to make ends meet while being incapacitated for work.

All workers compensation Acts already have built in safeguards, as this one has, to ensure that only legitimate claims are met and that compensation payments are paid only while the worker is actually incapacitated for work. Surely this clearly indicates that something better, approaching what we have suggested, could be incorporated in this Bill. The ACTU and the Australian Labor Party contend that the no loss of income principle should prevail in this legislation and in all Commonwealth and State workers compensation law. The New South Wales legislature has proceeded well along the path to recognising this principle in respect of those persons employed by two or the largest employers of labour in New South Wales - namely, the Department of Government Transport and the Railways Department. The New South Wales Parliament has enacted special industry Acts which include workers compensation coverage. The relevant provisions in the Acts are found in section 124 of the Transport Act and section 100(b) of Uht Railways Act, if honourable members want to pursue that line.

These sections provide in effect that an employee who is incapacitated by an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment so as to be unable to perform the duties of his classification, shall be paid at not less that the salary for the time being payable to employees with the same classification and with the same length of service. There is also, provision in those 2 industry Acts for. the . employee if he wishes to elect, within 6 .months of the accident, to come under the provisions of the New South Wales Workers’ Compensation Act. The no loss of pay principle has also been introduced by consent of the employers to cover . employees in the electricity distribution and generation industry in New South Wales. It also applies to employees of the Sydney County Council In this regard, whilst these employees come within the ambit of the New South Wales Workers’ Compensation Act, the employer has correctly considered it proper that the difference between the compensation rates under the Act and the employee’s ordinary salary be paid by the employer. That is now being inserted in many awards and agreements in that State.

This means that employers of some 80,000 workers in New South Wales alone have already substantially embraced the no loss of earnings principle in lieu of the more unjustifiable reduced income principle for injured workers and their dependants. The Commonwealth says now that an injured worker can use his accrued sick leave to build up his wages for this purpose. That is not good enough. He may not have any accrued leave. Of course, he is disadvantaged if that is the case. In any event he is disadvantaged when compared with the New South Wales workers I have mentioned. How can the Commonwealth justify the fact that its employees employed, in some cases, in substantially similar occupational groupings as their State counterparts, particularly in New South Wales and South Australia, are denied the more favourable benefits which exist in many categories of benefit?

I am pleased to see that there are several amendments m this Bill which we have been pushing and which the Minister has seen fit to introduce, most of them having been mentioned already by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. This Act, which in many respects is below the standard of benefit in some of the State legislation, also applies, it must be remembered, to our national servicemen, our militia and our Regular Army. If these lads are injured or meet their death by accident arising out of or as a result of their service, they or their dependants, as the case may be, come within the ambit of this Act.

Mr Birrell:

– Other than those on active service?

Mr WEBB:

– Yes. That is before they go overseas or after they return. When servicemen are overseas they are covered by the Repatriation Act, but it is our view that they should be covered by the Repatriation Act once they eater the Services. It ii ridiculous that men who may be training for war and who before they actually go overseas are subjected to quite a number of dangers that they would not meet in their ordinary working life should come under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act and not under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. The Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act was originally framed for those engaged in civil employment and not for men who may be in the Army or undergoing national service. His Honour Mr Chief Justice Nixon, stated:

Naval, military and Air Force was brought into legislation originally framed without regard tu the nature of that service.

He went on:

This means that the conception of employment must be moulded to fit the service of the Crown in the Navy, Army and Air Force.

That reference is from Commonwealth v. Wright which was reported in 1956 at page 536 of the Commonwealth Law Reports. It is clear that the Act was not framed to cover members of the defence forces. The Repatriation Act is much more appropriate to cover members of the defence forces from the time that they enlist until their discharge, not only when they are overseas but also when they are in Australia. I ask the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) to have a look at this. I know that the Repatriation Act does not come within the ambit of his ministerial duties, but still this is a matter that could be investigated. I believe that all workers compensation Acts throughout Australia should be co-ordinated with the objective of ensuring that uniform benefits and payments are available to all workers covered by the Acts. Surely, this is a reasonable matter for discussion at a Premiers Conference. I raised this matter with the former Prime Minister on one occasion. 1 asked him:

Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by Judge R. R. McGrath to the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales that workers’ compensation benefits and payments should be made uniform by legislation in all States? If so, will he arrange for the next Premiers Conference to discuss the co-ordination of all workers compensation Acts in Australia with the object of ensuring that uniform benefits and payments are available for alt workers covered by the Acts?

The Prime Minister of that time did not give a favourable reply to the request. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) also has raised this matter. On one occasion, he asked the Treasurer of that time:

Did he have more success in having a uniform workers compensation Act discussed at the Premiers Conference, pursuant to his answer to the honourable member for Stirling on 13th June 1968 (Hansard, page 1297), than his predecessor had pursuant to his answer to me on 31st May 1960?

The answer was:

As has been explained on previous occasions, the question of co-ordination of workers compensation legislation is primarily a matter for the States. The subject was not raised by any of the States at this year’s Premiers Conference and it was considered not appropriate for the Commonwealth to raise it.

Why should not the Commonwealth raise it? Why should it be left to the States? His Honour Mr Justice McGrath, spoke about the co-ordination of these Acts before the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales and it was there that he suggested uniform legislation. He pointed out how the position was highlighted when major building projects or undertakings were carried out close to State borders. Workers on the same project doing the same work could be compensated differently for the same injuries depending on which law was applicable. He said:

This type of legislation made the least beneficial or narrow legislation appear strikingly anomalous.

Some of the anomalies were outlined: Firstly, many workers covered by the laws of one State were not ‘workers’ in the legislation of other States or the Commonwealth; secondly, there were many differences in substantive benefits; and, thirdly, many differences in procedure existed. His Honour pointed out that many systems, including that of the Commonwealth, dealt with compensation administratively and only came to court on appeal and that those were disputed compensation claims came directly to a court involved a totally different approach. These were the points that he made, and he suggested a specialised body to handle them. His Honour pointed out that the only arguments against uniformity of benefit and payments could be cost. But he answered this by suggesting that the success of the insurance arrangements under the New South Wales Act was sufficient to demonstrate that the insurance community was capable of providing total coverage at premium rates governed by the New South Wales Act and scheme which were sufficiently remunerative to ensure continued competition for this type of insurance business. In other words, insurance companies were still carrying workers compensation risks at a profit. That applies in all States. All insurance companies are showing handsome profits on workers compensation. There is no doubt that higher workers compensation benefits could be paid by insurance companies. They are making substantial profits from this line of business.

The Queensland State Government Insurance Office was established originally to provide adequate financial protection to Queensland workers injured in the course of their employment. From a study of the annual reports of the Queensland State Government Insurance Office one can get an idea of the profits made in this line of business. All workers compensation in that State is handled by this authority. The 1966 report shows that the premiums were $17.5m and claims were $10.3m, but with other expenses, such, as management, bad debts, payroll tax etc. the total expenses were $2m, leaving a surplus of $5.5m. Investment income built the surplus up to $6.7m. For the benefit of honourable members I quote from the report as follows:

Our policy of’ maximum protection at minimum cost is fully enforced in this Department.

The report shows what profits were made. That profit carries on from year to year. I have studied these annual reports back to 1962, and each year there has been a substantial underwriting surplus after claims and all expenses are met. Investment income increases the surplus in each of those years. Information is not available from all States but I could quote figures from Western Australia which show that substantial profits are made. The same applies to information that I obtained from the Bureau of Census and. Statistics.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– It is a great. pity that the Australian Labor Party devoted all its energies to procedural matters this morning and did not display more vigour and enterprise in this matter this afternoon. Of course, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) have both shown keen interest in compensation matters and are to be congratulated. The Bill applies to members of the defence forces - members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force - in the same way as it applies to all other Commonwealth employees, except that it does not apply in situations where a member of the defence forces is covered in relation to the service involved under the Repatriation Act.

To overcome difficulties that have been encountered iri applying the existing Act to members of the 3 armed Services, special provisions have been included in the Bill. These relate to attendance in camps, and to the journey provisions. Under sub-clause (5) of clause 8 of the Bill, the attendance of a serviceman at times when he is not at liberty to absent himself from any place, such as a ship, camp or barracks, is deemed to be employment. In other words, he will be in the course of his employment and thus under the cover provided in the Bill while so attending. Similarly, any employee, including a serviceman, will be covered by the Bill while in attendance at his place of employment at any time, whether or not he is free to leave, provided that the attendance is reasonably incidental to his employment. Since the attendances referred to above are deemed to be employment and the serviceman or employee so involved is automatically in the course of his employment while so attending, it has, however, been provided in sub-clause (6.) of clause 8 that the section does not render the Commonwealth liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury sustained during such an attendance if the injury was sustained by reason of the fact that the serviceman or employee had voluntarily and unreasonably subjected himself to an abnormal risk of injury. Otherwise there would be a wider cover during off-duty hours than the normal cover provided to an employee while he is on duty.

The journey provisions in clause 34 are of particular interest to members of the armed Services. This clause extends the normal journey provisions under clause 32 relating to travel to and from work to include also a journey to and from living accommodation, other than separate living accommodation such as married quarters. The extension covers a journey to, say, a camp where the journey ends - or, but for an injury, would have ended - between the time his period of liberty or leave expires and 8 p.m. on the evening of the previous day. In other words, he will be covered for a journey that will get him back to camp in time to have a night’s sleep before resuming duty the next morning and will still be regarded as travelling to his employment. Likewise, on a journey from a camp he will be covered for a journey that commences before 9 a.m. on the morning of the day following the begin ning of his period of liberty or leave. This means that if his leave commences at, say, 5 p.m. today he will be able to sleep in the camp tonight and, providing he commences his journey from the camp by 9 o’clock in the morning, the journey will be regarded as a journey from his employment.

There are, of course, further extensions to cover travel by the last available transport to a camp or the first available transport from a camp, in the same way as the last or first available transport provisions are applied to employees other than servicemen. The honourable member for Hindmarsh referred to the sad occurrence of a man being killed away from his home town. An amount of $300 is allowed towards the cost of bringing the body back to its home town, and the amount is not taken into consideration for funeral expenses. A comparison was made between South Australia and the Commonwealth in regard to compensation. The maximum limit on incapacity payments under South Australian legislation is $12,000, or $15,000 if totally and permanently incapacitated. There is no limit under the Commonwealth Bill. Another comparison was made. For a married man the upper limit under South Australian legislation is $65, irrespective of the number of children he has. Under the Commonwealth legislation a man and wife with 4 children receive $63.50, with 5 children they receive $68.50, and then there is a progressive increase for other children.

The Bill is quite remarkable. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in another successful Bill. But there are certain areas of which I would like to speak. Let me refer to servicemen who are sent to non-war zones outside Australia, such as Singapore, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and other places. The Repatriation Act applies in some areas in Malaysia. Servicemen are sent to these areas where motor vehicle and third party insurance does not apply. These men go to these places under directions from the Commonwealth Government. Their position should not be in any way lessened because we have sent them there. If they meet with a motor car accident, the advantages they would obtain in Australia through third party insurance should apply or they should be covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act.

Let me refer to another section of servicemen - men who have been accepted by the Services, who have passed the medical test and who at a later date suffer from a condition which is diagnosed as congenital although they did not know of it as such. I know of many of these cases. The medical officers who examined these men did not find congenital situations at the time, and when these men meet with accidents and suffer greatly they are not compensated under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act. I think that this is quite wrong. If the Services accept a man and he afterwards suffers from a condition, whether it is congenital or not, he should be compensated. Several cases have been brought to my attention. In one case a man had served in the Air Force for quite a number of years and was eventually discharged as suffering from epilepsy. When he applied for a position he found it very difficult to get a civilian position and he had to work in lesser circumstances than those in which his ability would entitle him to work. Two years after having private consultations it was found that he did not suffer from epilepsy but that he bad a hole in the heart. This man had been accepted by the Air Force, had served regularly and then had fainting turns. This was diagnosed as epilepsy. It was proved afterwards that the whole time he had suffered from a heart condition that he did not know of and which the examination for entry to the Air Force did not reveal. This man suffered a great deal.

Let rae refer to third party insurance and the Workers’ Compensation Act. I refer to the case of a young man who was knocked down by a semitrailer in New Guinea. It has cost him over $2,000 in medical expenses because he was off duty at the time. I think that he would possibly have been covered had the Act as it. will now be amended been in operation then. The one regret that I have is that the Act has not been made retrospective in regard to servicemen serving overseas. I commend the Minister for his efforts and I trust that it will not be very long before we have a complete review of this legislation, which goes quite a long way but not as far as I would like it to go.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– We on this side of the House are very pleased that at last this Bill has been brought before the Parliament for debate. I do not think it. could be said that this Bill has been rushed through - apart from in the last couple of days when we have had the regrettable attitude of the Government in trying to push everything through in the last hours of this session. However, my memory goes back to 1963-64 when I received from my colleague, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), correspondence stating that the then Government, with Mr Holt as the Treasurer, intended to introduce a Bill to completely overhaul the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. At that time I was the Secretary of the Port Augusta Combined Unions Council, which included practically all the unions covering Commonwealth Railways wage employees. As such, I was particularly interested in this proposal of the Government. But up to the present time all that has haappened has been the making of variations in the weekly payments for an employee on compensation, plus extra payments for his wife and children if married. The lump sum payment in the event of the death of an employee was increased at the same time.

However, the many anomalies that have existed in the old Act have gone on completely unaltered and many, I should imagine, remain unaltered under this Bill. I suggest that if we were to look at the new South Australian Act we would see there provisions which could improve this Bill. Probably one of the biggest anomalies causing great hardship and heartache is the long delay that takes place before a compensation case can be settled. I could quote many cases of completely unnecessary delays that have taken place before settlement has been reached. One case with which I have been closely associated concerns an employee injured in 1966. The latest information that I have is that the matter is still not settled. This employee has broken himself financially, waiting for some finalisation. He has been placed in the very embarrassing position of having summonses served on him for payments for hospitalisation and other medical services. I understand that finally he paid all these expenses out of his own pocket and can only hope that he will be able to recoup them when his case is finalised.

Another case that was referred to me recently concerned an employee who burnt one of his eyes in the course of his employment. Whilst his eyesight itself was apparently not permanently damaged, his tear ducts were, with the result that his eye continually watered, thus permanently reducing his sight by 15 per cent. His union wrote to his employer, the Commonwealth Railways, on 6th May last year, enclosing a specialist’s report. It was 6 months before this employee went before a Commonwealth medical referee, and another 4 months before he received word that liability was admitted. Both the cases I have mentioned were Commonwealth Railways employees. Whilst the Commonwealth Railways have officers specifically to deal with compensation, the blame for the delays did not lie with them. The blame lay with the Commissioner for Commonwealth Employees Compensation here in Canberra. In mentioning these 2 cases, I certainly hope that the improved machinery contained in this Bill will completely do away with such delays.

We fully recognise the great number of improvements in the Bill, but we feel that there are still ways and means by which it can further be improved. It is to be hoped that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will give full consideration to any amendments or suggestions that come from this side of the House, or later from the ACTU or the Public Service organisations. We appreciate the fact that the Bill introduced last year was withdrawn, and another look was taken at what was required on this matter. Many of the suggestions from this side of the House have been included in the present Bill. We appreciate the realistic approach by the Minister and hope that it heralds a new deal for Commonwealth employees unfortunate enough to be injured in their employment.

There is one matter that perhaps has been overlooked in the Bill, and that is the close association between compensation and the prevention of accidents. In my many years in industry, I came across very few employees who really wanted to go off on compensation. Nobody wants to see his income drop by 30 per cent or 40 per cent, apart from the physical pain, disfigurement, or any of the long suffering complaints that can result from an accident. As one who has been associated closely with safety first committees set up to do away with unsafe practices and potential hazards and to promote education to make employees in industry more aware of potential dangers, I am fully aware that safety first discipline is essential if industrial accidents are to be kept down. It is one aspect of industrial relations in which all are involved - the individual, the union, and the employer - and one that can be approached in harmony to ensure complete job safety.

I want to refer to another factor which is related to this Bill, namely, the rehabilitation of injured employees. Whilst I do not want to dwell on rehabilitation, I suggest that the Minister should examine the Report on the Inquiry into the Feasibility of Establishing a System for the Rehabilitation of Injured Workers in New South Wales. That report may be of assistance in determining ways in which our rehabilitation processes can be improved. Whilst matters such as recompense for loss of income and rehabilitation of the injured are of the utmost importance following an accident, the question of prevention is of prime and initial importance, and I would like to feel that this question received more attention in the Bill. How can we do this? First of all we can ensure that every opportunity is taken, where groups of employees gather in industrial and other undertakings, to initiate comprehensive safety first programmes using films, lectures, and any other means that are available. We can make it a condition of promotion for supervisory staff that they have taken a course in safety first procedures. In larger establishments, we should have fully qualified full time safety first officers, with the necessary authority to see that safety first procedures are carried out, and that all this is carried out with the full cooperation of the unions involved. I am sure that if this can be done we can go a long way towards reducing the number of accidents in Commonwealth establishments covered by this Bill.

Another aspect of prevention that I feel has been neglected, and one that has a great bearing in establishments that are noise prone, is the need for the innovation of programmes of noise prevention to conserve the hearing of employees. As one who has suffered from the effects of noise, I cannot stress this point too strongly. It is only in the last few years that it has received any attention at all. There would not be an employee, working for any length of time in a shop subject to excessive noise, whose hearing would not be effected in some form. Here again I suggest that all establishments in which there is a Commonwealth responsibility should be closely examined by qualified acoustics engineers of the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories to establish what the noise levels are. The engineers must have the authority to ensure that procedures are adopted to bring noise levels down to medically acceptable limits. Figures available clearly show that the number of people suffering from the effects of noise is larger than is generally realised.

Whilst some may feel that the measures I suggest would be expensive, prevention is better than cure. It is also a fact that the carrying out of safety schemes, the appointment of safety officers, and the initiation of hearing conservation schemes will go a long way towards cutting down on the amounts paid in compensation, and overall will fully justify the outlay needed. It is this aspect of prevention that I feel has been overlooked in the Bill, and I therefore suggest to the Minister that he consider this aspect very closely. I know that the Bill provides for many improvements, one of which is the provision dealing with sick leave. My colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) referred to sick leave. He said that if a person was not entitled to any sick leave he could not avail himself of sick leave. What happened in the past was that an employee sacrificed his accumulated sick leave in order to get his full pay entitlement when he went off on compensation. This was very unjust because it meant that if the employee ever needed to take sick leave he did not have any entitlement to sick leave.

I suggest that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh should be examined closely by the Government and the committee that has been set up. We on this side recognise the very great improvements contained in this Bill. We hope that, as a result of the committee examining these matters and the amend ments that have been proposed, this legislation will be further improved.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

-I raise my protest over the lack of coverage in this Bill for an outworker or contractor, sub-contractor or owner-driver, particularly because of the growing practice of employing these people in the Commonwealth service. It would appear that the Commonwealth is utilising these people as a more economical method of having its work done. Call it cheap labour if you like. It is a worry that no attempt is to be made to protect what is, in effect, a large section of people performing work for the Commonwealth. With the passing of this Bill, the attraction will be there, on a cost basis, to further pass on work to sub-contractors or owner-drivers, thus avoiding the cost involved in the administration of this compensation Bill. It is regrettable that people who are honest, hard working artisans could be placed in the position that in 1 week they could work for the Commonwealth as fully protected wages employees under the provisions of this Bill, but they could be offered sub-contract or ownerdriver contract work the following week.

The tragedy is that they will remain on the same type of work with great commitments in relation to their equipment to meet their contracts. These people are in extreme need of protection and there is no other adequate protection available to them anywhere. Assurances that this matter will be looked at in depth are urgently required, and assurances that this contract work will not be extended would be appreciated by those currently so employed. We would like further assurances that the cost factor will not be used to extend the subcontract system to the detriment of employees on wages when contracts are being looked at in the future.

The Labor Party amendment gives these guarantees; so no difficulty in drafting the legislation can be envisaged. Only the adoption of the Labor amendment is required. Basically the only requirement is the ready acceptance by the Government of its obligation to these people. An accident to these people very often has disastrous effects, often leading at the very least to the repossession of equipment and vehicles and even the loss of their homes. They may go on to become bankrupts with no work to which to return. No doubt the Department of Social Services, which is handling this Bill, is well aware of the consequences with these contract people requiring social services in these circumstances. There is a need for rehabilitation training, but this is not preventing community problems. The real need is to see that all such people are fully protected by workers compensation, thus preventing the human tragedies which occur because of the lack of this protection. I ask the Minister to find a solution to this problem at an early date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move the amendment circulated in my name. Since there are now a few more minutes available for consideration of this measure than I had previously anticipated, I would like to refer to the things which the honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson) criticised me for not mentioning, that is, the improvements which the Government has made to its 1970 Bill and the good things that have been done by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I thought 1 had done this in a general way, but I am sorry if I did not convey that impression. I commend the Minister for thieving so many of the good proposals which I brought down in my model Bill. I think he must have seen it. I hope he did. Whether or not he did see it, and whether the similarities came about by design or coincidence, the fact remains that the 1971 Bill shows a considerable acceptance of many of the propositions that were contained in my 1970 model Bill. An important one is that injury is now compensable regardless of whether the employee suffered an accident. That is a tremendous step forward.

Mr Howson:

– You moved a similar amendment in 1964, did you not?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I did. 1 am obliged to the honourable member for Casey for recalling that, because I did move an amendment on those lines in 1964. This Bill has introduced payments for diseases and injuries resulting from diseases such as heart complaints, which previously would have been excluded. Seeing that half the people die from heart diseases of some kind, one must assume that half the people in the Commonwealth service will die from heart complaints, and claims for compensation will follow almost automatically. This is how it ought to be. Other people to benefit will be those suffering from other conditions that are related directly or indirectly to their employment or which are aggravated by their employment. This is an improvement which it is nearly impossible to exaggerate or to overestimate.

The maximum compensation which previously applied no longer applies. There is no longer a maximum figure, which again is a step in the right direction. Indeed, in one way, if I may just pass to another subject that I had not intended to mention, the Government’s proposal not to make the weekly compensation payments a percentage of average weekly earnings is much better than the provisions in most of the State Acts. Even in South Australia the payments are 85 per cent of wages. This provision corrects the disadvantage that would otherwise apply by virtue of the fact that an allowance of $13 a week is given to the wife instead of the $8.50 which we proposed. I was hoping that that figure, namely the $13, would be the figure the Minister would adopt in future, should he feel tempted to accept the South Australian figure, as the special payment to be made for the person who attends to an injured worker who needs intensive medical care. It seems that this is needed when the wife cannot go out to work. The wife of an injured worker who is able to care for himself very often can go out and supplement the family income or perhaps, more to the point, may continue to work as she did prior to her husband’s accident.

The loss of the sense of taste and smell have now been added to those conditions that will attract benefits. This is a big step forward. This is something to which I drew attention before, and the Minister has now seen fit to adopt that provision as well. The lump sum amount payable for severe facial disfigurement has been considerably increased. I think it has increased 10 times, from $600 to over $6,000. Any provision that is 10 times greater than the previous one is good. But this provision is still below the Queensland provision, and therefore it is below what I think should apply. A considerable increase has been made in the payment for the loss of genitals and for the loss of capacity to engage in sexual intercourse. This again is something that is breaking new ground. The improvement in benefits relating to facial disfigurement, the loss of the sense of smell and taste except to a wine taster or someone to whom these senses are part of his job, and the loss of genitals are breaking new ground because one usually does not make a living this way. Of course, to get compensation for something that has no direct bearing on one’s capacity to earn is breaking new ground; but it is a recognition, either wittingly or unwittingly, of the fact that lump sum compensations for injuries ought to go beyond compensation just for injuries that affect earning capacity. The loss of one’s right to enjoy a proper and normal social life, and pain and suffering are things that should be compensated for. The Minister, however, has provided for this, and I think that is very good.

The powers of the functions of the Commissioner have been greatly improved. I did not think that it would have been possible to improve the section of the Act dealing with the Commissioner’s power and functions. I thought the section would have to be scrapped altogether and that a completely new concept would have to be adopted. But by quite a skilful device the Minister has been able to come up with a proposition whereby the original concept is retained but whereby the things that made the concept appear to be unacceptable have been removed. That is to his credit.

Mr Howson:

– Are you referring particularly to the secrecy provisions?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, and the fact that now where a medical certificate has been obtained at the request of the employer and any submissions have been made in respect of it, the employee may require the Commissioner to supply him with a copy of all documents that the Commissioner has had supplied to him by the employer. That is how it should be. I am glad that that is how it is. When South Australia made that kind of step forward recently, most of us thought that it was the kind of thing that we would have to wait many years to see emulated in other legislatures. It is good to know that the Minister - I must refer to the Minister and not to the Government in this respect - anticipated the actions of the South Australian Government because his proposals must have been formulated before the South Australian Bill was passed. I must compliment him on his action. The question of cost has been made a lot better. The Minister has shown his flexibility of mind on this point by adopting in Committee still further amendments on the question of costs. This as well is to his credit.

The idea of the establishment of medical boards is welcomed. One of the things that we greatly resented in the 1970 Act was the provision that certificates from medical boards had to be treated as conclusive evidence. This just was not fair. Again, we scrubbed out medical boards altogether because we thought that it was not possible to make them work. I do not know; I think that I will need to have another look at the medical boards system. I am not saying that I accept it in its present form, but it has been so greatly improved by requiring that a. decision be unanimous that the original objection to it has been largely solved.

I think that the Minister is to be congratulated for allowing the New South Wales Workers Compensation Commission which specialises in these things and the South Australian Industrial Court which will be the new body in South Australia to deal with these matters to be defined now as prescribed courts. I wish that we could have had a much longer debate on this Bill during the Committee stages. We have not. Therefore, I will content myself with saying no more at this stage.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 52

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I thank honourable members, particularly the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), for the remarks they made; but I most not permit the credit for this legislation to be given to myself. I would like to say that the Committee of Ministers and my officers must take the credit. I think this is a good Bill and I am grateful for what the Opposition has said about it. It is true that in some respects provisions in the South Australian Bill are more generous than those in this Bill, but in other re spects, and sometimes in quite significant respects, this Bill is more generous than the South Australian Bill. It may be that when this Bill is looked at objectively it will be seen generally to be about a line ball with the South Australian Bill. I have already said that there are some major matters which will be considered in the future and there is no feeling at this moment that they must inevitably be ruled out. This has not been a rushed Bill. It was put before the Parliament in draft form some time ago. I think this is a good thing. I would like to acknowledge for my part the help I have had not only from members of the Opposition and trade union representatives but from the Commonwealth Public Service and other people in the community. Suggestions have been brought forward and where they have been constructive in the Government’s view, they have been accepted. I think all honourable members will agree that because of this process of consultation the Bill is now better than it otherwise would have been. The honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) spoke of the out-worker. This matter has now been cleared up.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr Corbett)The time allowed for consideration of this Bill in the Committee stage has now expired. The question is, ‘That the Bill and amendments circulated by the Government be agreed to and the Bill be reported with amendments’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2767

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April (vide page 1901), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

page 2768

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April (vide page 1901), on motion by Mr Wentwortb:

That the Bin be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

page 2768

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April (vide page 1902), on motion by Mr Wentwortb:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

page 2768

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April (vide page 1903), on motion by Mr Holten:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8.30 p.m.

page 2768

AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1971

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. (Quorum formed)

page 2768

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April (vide page 2147), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure in regard to this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill, and the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill, as they are associated measures. Of course, separate questions may be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I suggest that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection I will permit that course to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– As all honourable members know, the time for this debate is limited. The debate must be completed by 9.26 p.m., and this is a highly complex measure. Perhaps I should indicate at the beginning that it is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose the legislation, but we do want to take the opportunity to raise one or two matters in association with it. The Bill was brought down on Thursday, the last sitting day of last week. It had an explanation that it took the Minister about half an hour to deliver. The Bill was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum of some 33 closely typed pages. As the memorandum indicates, the main purpose of the legislation is to provide 2 exemptions from withholding tax and other tax on interest on certain borrowings from overseas. I wish to say at the outset that the Bill is designed more with regard to attracting foreign investment than with the collecting of revenue through the income tax provisions. In fact, as a consequence of this, to some degree there will be a certain loss of revenue to the Commonwealth, although that will be cancelled out by certain tax deductions that will not now have to be made.

The significant event that is supposed to flow from the passage of this legislation is that certain borrowers in Australia of funds from overseas should be able to obtain those funds at a lower rate of interest than previously applied. In the case of what are described as bearer debentures, whereas the proposition was formerly not attractive at all because of the tax law in Australia, it is suggested that, because of what we are now doing, certain kinds of investor will find it more attractive to invest in Australia. There are some reservations put upon it. Such investment as will get the advantage of this legislation must flow directly into Australia; these provisions must not be used in the sense of using Australia as what was described in the Minister’s speech as a tax haven. I want to say something about tax havens, too, because I think they are of some significance here. However, broadly, the sorts of transactions that are involved are not the small kinds of transaction of some individual in Australia borrowing money from an individual in some other part of the world; what is involved here is borrowing by Australian interests at fairly high levels, such as $20m, $30m, $40m, and $50m. That is the kind of transactions involved, and the borrowings being arranged will not be from small individuals in the United Kingdom or the United States of America or from Euro-bond markets and so on, but will be from large institutional lenders, many of whom depend on quite a fine margin for the funds they raise as against the funds they lend.

According to the logic which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) used when bringing in this legislation, that was the kind of borrowing that was penalised before the passage of this legislation. What is described as a withholding tax and the rate at which this withholding tax is made on interest payments to some extent has historical antecedents in Australia and is somewhat conditioned by arrangements which we have under double tax agreements. As far as I can recall, at the moment we have double tax agreements with the United

Kingdom, the United States of America and Singapore, and I am not too sure whether there are some others, but at least where there is a double tax agreement between Australia and the country that the investor comes from - in the terms of the agreement there is a limit of 10 per cent placed on the taxing of interest and 15 per cent placed on the taxing of dividends where that interest and dividend is received ultimately by somebody who is not a resident of Australia

This looks all right on the surface; but, because of the scales of borrowings about which some of these negotiations take place, a lender who wishes to place his money in Australia takes into account the fact that there is a withholding tax or some other kind of tax in Australia and, instead of lending his money at a rate which might be called a market rate, he lends it at a higher rate. So he receives the return on his investment which he wants either by charging a higher interest rate or by the concern in Australia which borrows the money paying withholding tax. As I have indicated, this is a fairly complicated kind of transaction. In order to illustrate the types of things that go on in this field I want to quote 2 extracts from a quite interesting publication which I came across recently because of a reference I saw in the ‘Economist’.

The publication is entitled ‘Tax Havens and Offshore Funds’. On page 2 of this publication, which is published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, it is stated that a tax haven is a place in which people who have large sums of money invest their money because either there is no tax imposed in this place or there is a low rate of tax imposed - certainly a low rate of tax in such fields as capital gains and income tax. The learned writers of this publication describe the essentials of a tax haven as follows:

First and foremost of course, it must have low, or no, taxes on at least one important category of income.

Secondly, a haven must have political stability.

Thirdly, it must be accessible, not only physically, but also legally. There are many places in the world which would qualify for tax haven status if only they could be easily reached.

Then the learned writers make this interesting observation:

Among these -

That is what might be called suitable tax havens in some respects - is Norfolk Island off the Coast of Queensland, an independency of Australia which has no taxes. Other taxless oases are Nauru . . . and the New Hebrides, an Anglo-French condominium with no clear demarcation of legislative powers and a foot in both the sterling area and the European Monetary Union. These are all so remote as not. to be a viable tax haven for anyone but the most determined Australian tax avoider.

I simply cite that as an example because the Treasurer, in the course of his second reading speech, indicated that one of the reasons for introducing the legislation in the form in which it has been introduced was to avoid the possibility of Australia being used as a tax haven. He did not spell out precisely how Australia might be used as a tax haven, but at least it was implied that an entity might be created in Australia to which money could flow but which would not directly make investments. It is suggested that this loophole has been closed.

In order to show the kinds of things that have been done in recent times by Australian interests in order to take advantage of a tax haven not in Australia but in other parts of the world, I again quote from the publication entitled ‘Tax Havens and Offshore Funds’:

An important catch for the Dutch Eurobond net which has set the scene for a host of others was a $20m issue of Eurobonds-

This is the magnitude of the sums that are being borrowed - in 1967 by Queensland Alumina Holdings NV.

I am not quite sure what ‘NV stands for, but that is the name of the company. The quotation continues:

This is a joint company formed by four major mining groups to finance a bauxite processing plant in Australia. Instead of incurring the Luxemburg capital costs and immobilising $2m it chose the Netherlands which imposes no annual tax on capital and levies no withholding tax on interest paid to non-resident bondholders: equally, Dutch 0.73 per cent issue tax on long-term borrowings was avoided since the bonds were issued outside Holland and ranked as tax exempt foreign securities. As an extra carrot to bondholders the four mining companies guaranteed that if Holland levies withholding tax in the future, they will redeem the bonds at 103 per cent before Jane 1, 1975, and at par thereafter.

I quote that merely to indicate the magnitude of the sums involved in these transactions and the sorts of devices to which people will resort in order to raise sums of this magnitude. We can argue about whether there is too much foreign investment in Australia, but that is not the interesting field to which I want to refer this evening. Nevertheless, if foreign investment is flowing into Australia, surely it is advantageous to the internal structure of the operations in which the money ultimately is invested if that money is borrowed at lower rather than higher, rates of interest. It seems to me that in some respects this is what the Government is endeavouring to do, because the Treasurer, in his second, reading speech said that there were two broad categories. He continued:

The first broad category is bearer securities issued overseas to the public or on an otherwise widely spread basis. The second broad category relates to what might be termed overseas borrowings to support whole or partial Australian ownership of debentures in this country.

It seems that these are the kinds of loopholes which the Treasurer is endeavouring to close. There are shrewd operators in this game and, candidly, I have not a great deal of respect for the shrewd operator who will chase around the world in order to get his money at the lowest interest rate available and who will then, because nothing much has been done internally in Australia, exploit the Australian people by investing money in the development of Australian resources. If there were better public supervision over these matters the resources could be developed much more equitably and much more cheaply for the benefit of the Australian economy. It must be recognised that over the last 10 years Australia has accepted foreign capital inflow at an average rate of approximately Si ,000m a year. If Australia is to continue to accept foreign capital inflow at that rate, I suppose it is prudent that the money be obtained at lower rather than higher interest rates.

I think that one of the most incredible utterances of all time was made in March or thereabouts of this year when certain economy measures were inflicted upon the Australian community with a view to damping down inflation. The incredible statement made was that the Government was alarmed at the large amount of capital which was flowing into Australia for property development and which the Government did not seem able to tape. I think there is something wrong with the internal management of a country when money comes into it from overseas and the Government is unable to tape where it goes. I would like to quote from an advertisement which featured prominently in ‘The Economist’, a well known overseas publication. This advertisement has appeared in at least the last 3 issues of this publication, namely, the issues of 10th April, 17th April and 24th April 1971. I shall quote from the advertisement which appeared in the issue of 10th April. It is headed:

A new kind of safe, high yield security for

United Kingdom investors: Guaranteed mortgage investment in Australia.

In the centre of the advertisement appears a map of Australia. This is the kind of blurb that accompanies it:

Investing directly in mortgages on property is traditionally one of the safest and most effective ways of putting one’s capital to good use.

It refers to the fact that one can get 9 per cent gross yield on one’s investment. If one can get 9 per cent on the money that is lent, one can imagine what the ultimate price will be to the person who puts his money into property, and particularly if it happens to be someone who wants to rent a flat or buy a home. The advertisement continued:

In Australia, mortgage investment means something even better - for the investor.

I do not believe that home building should be regarded primarily as of advantage to the investor. I think it should be conditioned by advantage to the person who wants the home.

For Australia is the only country in the world where investment can be made in Guaranteed Mortgages, with the repayment of both principal and interest fully covered by mortgage insurance.

The advertisement noted underneath what was meant by the term ‘guaranteed mortgage’, and continued:

Today, Australia, with stable government and one of the world’s hardest currencies -

Why is it hard? It is because of this sort of flow of foreign currency into Australia. If we took a balance sheet of Australia’s overseas investments as against Australia’s overseas indebtedness we would find that Australia is one of the most bankrupt economies in the world. This is why honourable members opposite ought to view with a certain amount of alarm the question that was asked by one of their back benchers this afternoon in the House. The advertisement went on to say: . . a country of swift development and growing prosperity.

Yet, 2 months ago we were told that Australia was in a condition of raging inflation and that we had to damp it down. The advertisement continued:

The population is increasing rapidly and there is a continuing demand for first-class residential property, most of which is purchased on mortgage.

Is it a sign of great economic health that most of our property is purchased on mortgage and that we have to borrow funds to sustain it overseas at 9 per cent with advantages that sometimes reside in the way in which Australia’s internal tax law is drawn? After all, the people who invest here are conditioned by their own tax structure as well as by the internal tax structure in Australia. They do not come here out of love or as philanthropists; they come here as hard, shrewd, calculating people to get the highest return they can on the money that they invest. The advertisement then stated:

The high rale of income from an Australian Guaranteed Mortgage is fixed - not estimated, not tied to fluctuating share prices or world interest rates which are now tending to fall. Nor is the investment subject to the performance or financial strength or weakness of any trust, fund or company.

I think a lot of other people in Australia would be appreciative if their incomes could be guaranteed by reason of having escalative provisions in them. I refer to such people as superannuitants, pensioners and the like. But the only people apparently who are guaranteed a place where they can put their hedge against inflation are those who invest in property.

If we are to obtain money at lower rates rather than higher rates - this legislation goes somewhere towards it - I suppose at least this legislation ought not to be opposed. But as I have said on some other occasions here, it is about time that we began to take critical stock of the internal structure of the Australian economy. It seems to me that the situation of drift that we find is a disastrous sort of situation. If anyone saw how the Government of this country has been conducted in the last couple of days or weeks, one could have no feeling that the problems are being grappled with. I believe it is the right of a government to secure equity in financial transactions for all sections of the community, and not just to create sweet lurks that are of advantage to some people who have large quantities of money.

I have no illusions whatever about this legislation. It is designed to advantage those who borrow money in large quantities from investors and who lend it in large quantities on finely negotiated margins. This seems to me to be the whole purpose of the legislation. 1 resent the fact, candidly, that there is not an adequate opportunity to examine the merits of this legislatim, particularly in the Committee stage, because it relates to a highly complicated portion of the Income Tax Act. I refer to sections 125 to 128, division 11 of the Act which refers to interest paid by companies on bearer debentures. One section which was written into the Act nearly 20 years ago was section 126 which is what might be called the punitive provision. It imposed a penalty rate on certain transactions because it was realised then - this was in the days of a Labor government - that attempts would be made by shrewd speculators overseas and shrewd manipulators inside the country to try to evade the real spirit of the tax laws of the country. Section 126 remains. But as far as the class of investment we are talking about is concerned, the section is abridged, but it is designed to enable this kind of money to come perhaps at a lower rate of interest than it otherwise might. As I have said, I resent the fact that we are not able to discuss this fully during the Committee stage of the debate. I will not say any more because a couple of my colleagues want to speak. We have only 4 minutes less than an hour between the lot of us to discuss this kind of transaction. I repeat that it perhaps deals with flows of money. When one looks at the statements made there is something like $20,000m annually floating around die Eurobond market looking for the best return, the best tax haven, the best offshore foothold that it can get. To my mind it is typical of the attitude of this Government that matters as significant as this are disposed of in a space of time so short.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has outlined in brief the stated purpose of this measure. He has explained in some detail certain of the objections of the Opposition. To put this matter in its proper perspective, and for the information of the House, I feel that I should put in some detail a description and origin of the withholding tax, its original intention and the amount of revenue that has been raised from it. The dividend withholding tax is a flat rate of tax imposed on dividends paid by Australian resident companies to nonresidents. This tax came into effect on 1st July 1960 and is still being applied. A general rate of 30 per cent is charged for residents of countries with which Australia does not have a double tax agreement. The rate is 15 per cent when a double tax agreement applies to a non-resident.

The revelant legislation for both dividends and interest payments is contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936- 1969, as updated, in Part III, Division Ha as set out in sections 128a to 128e. These sections determine liability for dividends and interest withholding tax. Part VI, Division 4, sections 221yj to 221yy- do not ask me why it is called yy; it seems to have a ludicrous hint to it - contains the administrative provisions for collection of these taxes.

I should like to dwell for a little while on interest payments. Since 1st June 1968 a withholding tax on interest received by non-residents has been charged at a flat rate of 10 per cent, regardless of the double tax agreement. The withholding tax has been charged whether interest was paid by a resident or a non-resident, or by the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth or State authority. I am reliably informed, from sources within the Parliament, that the Government has found that the interest withholding tax has not been as successful as was anticipated in taxing non-resident interest earners, since most of the tax burden appears to fall on the Australian borrower. It may be of interest to note that on 13th December 1970 the then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton, who possibly may come back, announced plans for amending the interest withholding tax provisions. He announced them; it was not the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). And when I say he ‘may come back’. I do not mean in 1972. I mean that he may come back sooner than 1972. These amendments were introduced in the Parliament early in 1971 and they will take effect, according to the legislation now before the House, on 1st July of this year. The former Prime Minister gave the following reasons for amending the tax laws when he introduced this legislation:

Firstly, overseas lenders were increasing interest rates above the normal level, knowing that Australia would retain 10 per cent of interest payments or else require the borrower to meet the tax. Australian companies were bearing most of this additional cost as they did not have access to loan funds from abroad through parents or associated companies. This situation made it more difficult for Australian companies to participate in ventures on equal terms with overseas companies.

The second reason given by the former Prime Minister was as follows:

The proposed amendments will exempt Australian owned companies from payment of withholding tax made on overseas borrowings for predominantly-

And I emphasise the word ‘predominantly’ -

Australian owned ventures or for financing a substantial Australian equity participating in a venture.

No specific definition of ‘substantial Australian equity’ or ‘predominantly Australian’ venture was given at that time. However, it is given in the legislation which is now before the House. Whether the definitions given will have the effect of achieving the anticipated result in my view is open to doubt. At the same time, the then Prime Minister proposed that section 126 and section 128B of the Income Tax Assessment Act should be amended so that interest paid overseas on overseas borrowings made by means of a public issue or widely offered private placement of bearer bonds would no longer incur penalty rates or be subject to withholding tax.

It is admitted that these amendments should - I underline the world ‘should’; to my mind it possibly should be ‘could’ - assist local companies and, in particular, they could enable the Australian Dairy Industry Development Corporation to make greater use of bearer bonds on the international money market. The Government’s aim in amending the legislation apparently is to encourage overseas investment to continue in Australia whilst, at the same time, providing improved opportunities for Australian participation in developmental ventures requiring overseas capital. I should like briefly to speak about the original intention of the tax. When it was originally introduced, the major reasons given were as follows: Firstly, such a system brought Australia into line with other countries in regard to taxing, interest and dividends paid to non-residents; secondly, since the withholding tax was deducted from the amount of dividend or interest before it was paid to the non-resident, the Government was assured of collecting this revenue. However, prior to 1st July 1960 collection of this revenue was much less certain, as the Government depended upon nonresidents lodging income tax forms in the same manner as residents and this was not always done. I think I would be safe in saying that I know that as a specific fact.

Thirdly, there was pressure by business interests, who believed that a withholding tax would give the certainty of a fixed rate and remove confusion about Australian tax laws and hence encourage foreign investment in Australia. I have grave doubts about that. That matter has yet to be established. When the dividend withholding tax was originally introduced, an option was left open so that non-residents could elect to have their dividends assessed on the then previous system by lodging an Australian income tax return form. Where this course was followed, a refund was made of the excess of withholding tax over the tax ascertained on assessment. I would suggest that for administrative reasons this provision for election was repealed on 1st July 1967.

I would like to quote some of the amounts of revenue raised. In the year 1960-61 the dividend withholding tax collected amounted to $ 11.9m out of a total tax receipt of Si, 851m. In 1961-62 the dividend withholding tax was $ 16.2m out of a total tax receipt of $2,835m. In 1962-63 the dividend withholding tax was $ 17.9m and the total tax receipts were $2,882m. In 1963-64 the dividend withholding tax was $15. 9m and the total tax receipts were $3,220m. In 1964-65 the dividend withholding tax was $16m out of a total tax receipt of $3,788m. Honourable members will notice the sudden increase that is shewn. In 1965-66 the dividend withholding tax was $ 17.2m and the total tax receipts were $4,187m. I shall pass over a few years, because I think I can afford to, and come to the year 1970-71 when the dividend withholding tax was $40m and the total tax receipts were approximately $7,000m I quote as my source the ‘Commonwealth Finance Bulletin No. 4 at page 10 and No. 8 at page 12. My colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) will give some further details of this measure, which I am sure he will handle in an admirable manner.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Here we have one of the paradoxes of this Parliament. At a time when the nation is reading on the front pages of the newspapers about what is going on here and is seeing on its television screens that there is a great deal of difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition as to how long the Parliament should sit and how long we should take to push 20 Bills through this Parliament, material such as the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2), which does not draw sufficient people to fill the galleries or to which not many honourable members are listening in the chamber, is being passed by the Parliament. To use the sort of language that my children use, it is not groovy material. However, I congratulate the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) for the detailed way in which they have tackled this Bill.

I realise that they have had only about 2 hours sleep, because that is all the sleep I have been able to have in the last 36 hours. This Bill is not the sort of material that is easy to absorb. To do so requires wet cloths around the head. I am not going to tackle it in such a detailed way tonight because I want to look at the principles of such a Bill. I suggest that the sorts crf things that have been going on in this Parliament today must lead thinking people to realise that the forms of the Parliament ought to be looked at. Such a decision can also be arrived at when we look at a Bill like this. It is ridiculous to think that of a Parliament of 185 members - 125 in this House and 60 in the Senate - we can expect only 10 to understand the workings of a detailed tax Act and to debate it in depth. It is not possible to give the Bill the sort of consideration it ought to be given.

We should move the Committee stage of a Bill such as this outside the Parliament and bring in experts in the taxation field in the various capital cities of Australia to give us the benefit of their thinking as to whether the clauses which in the Bill will fulfil the purposes of the Government, let alone fulfil the purposes which would serve this country best. This is a complicated Bill. It is made even more complicated by the fact that Sir Henry Bolte has thrown out a challenge to the Commonwealth Government and has said: ‘Look, you are not going to receive pay-roll tax from me until this is tested in the High Court’. The Commonwealth Government is using this Bill to make sure that if Sir Henry Bolte will not pay the pay-roll tax that he should be paying, the Government can deduct it. I beg your pardon; I have mixed it up with another Bill that will be debated later tonight. This is the sort of complication we get in this Parliament at this stage after honourable members have had only 2 hours sleep. It is no wonder that I am getting that Bill confused with another.

The Income Tax Act is an absurd Act, as are the clauses that are being brought in at this stage to close 1 loophole. I repeat what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the honourable member for Banks- have said about the principles of this Bill. We cannot quarrel with the fact that at the moment an Australian borrower is. at . a disadvantage in this country compared with an overseas borrower who wants to borrow money from, say, the United Kingdom. We cannot oppose the Bills on those lines but we can with all propriety raise certain questions about them. The first question is: What will this cost the country? We were not told in the second reading speech how much a measure such as this will cost our nation. I know, because it is another problem that has come before me today, that over a period of 5 years the Commonwealth Government will allocate the measly sum of $5m to subsidise the States in building nursing homes. My own State of South Australia will receive $465,000 of that amount over 5 years. I have heard on the grapevine - I have not been told this directly and I have not been able to find out through a proper committee system such as we should have here - that this Bill in one year alone will mean a loss of revenue of $10m.

That is the sort of information I want when I am trying to decide whether the legislation is correct for this country.

I do not want to make this a party political issue, but 1 believe that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), who is one of the few honourable members in this House who takes an interest in financial measures, wants such information as well. Perhaps he and 1 could sit on a committee of this Parliament set up to consider a complicated measure such as this one and bring in personnel from the Department of the Treasury, who sit here and give advice to the Treasurer - he is not even in the House for this debate - and who could advise us. I hope that we would also call in Mr Eric Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association of Victoria, Mr Harold Irving from the Taxation Institute and a lot of people with whom I have been associated, being on the South Australian Council of the Taxation Institute. They are far better qualified than I am, because I have been spending my time in other fields of taxation and also in politics. We should have far better qualified people who would be able to give an expert view on the complicated clauses in this Bill.

Another point I want to make is that surely we should question why we are encouraging foreign investment in this way at this time. I do not want my political opponents to jump immediately to the conclusion that 1 am against foreign investment in this country. I realise, as do my colleagues in the Labor Party, that foreign investment under some conditions is very necessary in this country, particularly when that foreign investment brings in know-how for the proper development of this country. But this is not that sort of foreign investment. This is foreign investment of a fixed interest type. It may be that this has advantages. This means that the foreign investment is not necessarily taking over Australian companies. It may be only of a temporary nature. I am sure that in the committee of this House which should be deliberating on this Bill and which would bring in from outside sources information to help us in our deliberations on this Bill, we would receive more information as to whether this was the particular time in the history of Australia’s economy when we should be encouraging foreign investment.

It occurs to me that perhaps this is not the time because at present our balance of payments is in an extremely healthy situation. Indeed all of us, particularly those on this side of the House who are particularly nationalistic in our outlook when it comes to Australian affairs, realise ‘.hat foreign investment is creating a yoke for our necks in the years to come because that foreign investment must mean divident or interest payments in years to come and we do not know how our balance of payments will be then.

Those are reasons why we on the Opposition side, having been given only a week’s notice and not having been able to discuss the Bill amongst ourselves let alone with outsiders so as to obtain the extra information that we want, say that, as Australians are disadvantaged at the present time, wc cannot oppose the Bill; but we are far from being enthusiastic about it. We recognise that this Parliament is not being used properly. No wonder there is cynicism in this country about what is going on in this Parliament, when the debating seems to take place in so much of a vacuum and without sufficient information for honourable members to make up their minds.

I apologise for my confusion earlier concerning pay-roll tax but I think I have a good excuse, bearing in mind the way in which 20 Bills are being rushed through this House. One of those Bills to which I will be directing myself later on tonight came in only at 2 o’clock this morning. I apologise for my confusion in speaking about the payroll tax, which comes under the States Grants Bill. However, the principles are much the same. We ought to be looking at this Bill in far greater detail. We ought to be able to call upon the expert advisers in the Treasury to advise us in an all-party committee of this House, rather than debating the matter in a vacuum as we are now doing. I thank my 2 colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak for a few minutes in this debate and to put forward a few ideas. I congratulate them on the detailed work they have done.

Supporters of the Government, if any of them have an interest in this legislation, have stood back and allowed the Opposition to make a contribution on this Bill tonight. ButI am sure that Government supporters do not believe that that ought to be the position, and neither does this member for Adelaide. I would have liked to have heard from the honourable member for McMillan and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who is not even in the House but who is another chartered accountant. The honourable member for Curtin ought to have some contribution to make on tax Bills, such as this. I would have liked to have heard those honourable members speak on this Bill and to have had some debate, even in the limited way in which this Parliament is working at present. We are working under the disadvantage of 20 Bills being forced through this Parliament in 2 sitting days, with our staying up until 6.20 this morning: Some of those Bills were introduced only at 2 o’clock this morning and are still on the list for debate later tonight. I hope that puts my contribution in perspective.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

-I thank the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for giving me about 2 minutes to speak in this debate. All I want to say is that I think he must be awfully lonely on the Opposition benches, if what he has just said represents his views on the income tax situation in Australia. I have been amazed to find that so many members of the Opposition seem to feel that any sort of investment in Australia or any attempt to develop this country is bad for the country. I am delighted to hear that there is at least one honourable member on the Opposition side who realises that the investment that is being made in Australia today by overseas people gives us the things which the rest of the world has - the know-how, as the honourable member said, and the machinery with which to develop industries and thereby give employment to our people. I have risen to make this one little point. I believe that it is marvellous to have somebody on the other side recognising that Australia will be a very great country provided we continue the way we are going now and do not socialise it out of existence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The time allotted for all stages of this Bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill passed.

page 2776

INCOME TAX (WITHHOLDING TAX RECOUPMENT) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 April (vide page 2148), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Kevin Cairns) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2776

INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 April (vide page 2148), on motion by Mr Sned den:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2776

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October 1970 (vide page 2261), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1970 as they* are obviously associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– Although these Bills - the Superannuation Bill 1970 and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1970- are being rushed through the Parliament at this stage, I point out that they were introduced into this House in September or October 1970. Therefore it can hardly be claimed that we have not had sufficient time in which to consider the Bills. But, because of certain technical amendments that had to be made, the Bills have been moving backwards and forwards between the Treasury and interested organisations. They have now come before the Parliament as part of this rush programme. When the former Treasurer introduced these Bills he circulated an explanatory memorandum dealing with the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund which stated:

The purpose of these 2 Bills is to give effect to the Government’s proposals for the preservation of superannuation rights of contributors to the 3 contributory retirement benefits schemes established under the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1970, namely, the Superannuation Fund, the Provident Account-

Those who do not qualify for the Superannuation Fund on medical grounds are still able to subscribe to what is called the Provident Fund - and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

In broad terms, preservation will work as follows. A person contributing to one of these schemes who changes his employment with (ho Commonwealth and is required to contribute to another Commonwealth superannuation scheme, will be able to gain credit in the new scheme for his accumulated interest or stake in his former scheme, including the Commonwealth’s share of that interest or stake. In addition, a person who moves to public employment with the States, including State universities, will be able to preserve his superannuation rights. As well, a person with 20 years’ Commonwealth service who leaves to engage in private employment will be entitled to a preservation benefit. A person joining a Commonwealth scheme with a right to a preservation benefit from another scheme, including a private scheme, will be able to pay the amount of the benefit into the Commonwealth scheme and obtain credit for it.

The legislation deals with what is broadly described as portability or the ability to carry a person’s right in one superannuation scheme, whether it be public or private, over into another. The advantage that is conceded to this kind of provision is that it allows for what is called employment mobility. If a person is in a particu: lar kind of employment, whether it is government or private employment, and he has retirement benefits related to his employment, the longer he is in the scheme the more reluctant he becomes to transfer from that employment to something else, although in the general interests of the economy it might be a good thing that he should transfer. As increasingly there are technological and other changes in the economy it is less and less likely that when people go into a job, say when they leave school, they will believe that that job will last for the whole of their employable life, which may be from the age of 20 to about 65 - a period of from 40 to 45 years.

At least the schemes are a move in the right direction although they are limited at this stage. They apply only to people who are in the Commonwealth Public Service and in the armed Services. If they transfer from the armed Services to the ordinary Service or from the ordinary Service to the armed Services, at least their rights are protected. If any person has been for a total of 20 years in Commonwealth employment and transfers to nonCommonwealth or non-governmental employment, he may take some sort of commuted right with him. It is the belief of the Australian Labor Party that the longer we continue to defer such a scheme, the more difficult the problems become. The community as a whole has to face up to the introduction of what might be called national superannuation. That would mean that irrespective of whether a person is in private employment or government employment, if he transferred from one job to another there would not be the same kinds of difficulties about his retirement benefits. With that in mind, I intend to move on behalf of the Opposition a technical sort of amendment at this stage to draw the attention of this House to the need to face up to this kind of problem. I intend to move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘further consideration of the Bill be deferred pending a report by a joint parliamentary committee to be appointed to inquire into the Australian proposals and overseas practices in relation to a national superannuation scheme.’

I want to try to illustrate the rather curious sort of situation that we have in Australia and the astonishingly few comprehensive statistics that are available about superannuation funds. The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics publishes quite regularly 2 sets of statistics. One deals with selected private pension funds and the other deals with government pension and superannuation schemes. The latest one that deals with selected private pension funds, which was issued on 8th April this year, shows the assets of these various private pension funds as at 30th June 1970. It does not really indicate the number of funds there are, nor does it indicate the number of beneficiaries that there are in the schemes; it simply gives an aggregate of the balance sheets of the various undertakings. They show that at 30th June 1970 the total assets of these private pension funds were $1, 194.7m. The latest figures I have for the government funds deal with a period some 2 years earlier. They show that as at the end of June 1967 the accumulated assets of the various government funds, that is State government and semi-governmental schemes, were $l,214m rising by about $100m a year. So presumably the figure would now be in the region of $l,800m. There were 516,000 people contributing to those funds and about 100,000 people who were beneficiaries of those funds on that date, and the number was rising by 20,000 to 25,000 annually.

Nearly 2 years ago a survey was undertaken of both public and private funds in

Victoria. If one bears in mind that Victoria has about 27 per cent of the total population of Australia, one can perhaps by extrapolation get the picture for the whole of Australia. But at least this was the total employment position in May 1968 in Victoria. There were 352,000 manual workers employed in private economic activity and 98,000 people described as manual workers in government employment. Only 89,000, or approximately onequarter, of these 352,000 manual workers had some sort of superannuation benefit; 263,000 manual workers were without any superannuation. So 3 out of 4 manual workers - that is, mechanics and those who work with their hands in factories rather than those who are described as white collar workers - were without any superannuation scheme in private employment.

In relation to those in government employment, the position was somewhat different. Of the 98,800 in this category, 56,000 or more (ban half of them had superannuation benefits of one kind or another; 42,000 were without such benefits. Of the 169,600 non-manual workers in private employment - these are white collar workers as distinct from blue collar workers, to use the jargon of today - 99,900 were in superannuation schemes and 69,700 were without superannuation cover. At least one quite evident distinction is drawn here. It is that in private employment a white collar worker is more likely to be a contributor to a superannuation scheme than a blue collar worker is.

I turn to the government field. Almost all of the non-manual workers were in a superannuation scheme. Almost 86 per cent, or 62,900 out of 75,000, were in such a scheme. Of the whole workforce of Victoria employed in the private sector - approximately 525,000 persons - just over one-third is on superannuation and approximately two-thirds is not. But in the government field, of 172,000 people, 120,000 or approximately 70 per cent, were on superannuation; the others were not.

What I draw attention to, first, is that superannuation at the moment tends to be what we might call class biased. It favours the white collar worker as against the blue collar worker. The vast majority of ordinary workers in the community are not covered by superannuation at all. One reason why my Party has urged the need for a national superannuation scheme is that so many people are not covered. I have said in this House before that, whatever we feel about what is called the revolution of youth, I believe that there will be a revolution of aged people in the years ahead. I refer to those people who at the moment are between 30 and 65 years of age, are employed in our workforce but presently are not covered by a superannuation scheme. These people will not tolerate the fact that as soon as they turn 65 and cease work their income will drop by approximately two-thirds. This is roughly what happens now.

Let us take as an example the person who is on the average weekly wage of $80. He retires the day after he is 65. He goes on to the age pension. In that category, four out of five of the population qualify automatically for the pension. If that person is married and his wife receives a pension the weekly income from both pensions is $27. This represents a drop of two-thirds in weekly income. We all know that, at the present time, great discontent exists regarding the basic level of pension. Whatever the degree of tolerance that may have been shown by those who have retired already, 1 believe that in the future those who retire and who next day see such a large drop in their income, will not tolerate such a position. Candidly, I do not believe that they ought to tolerate that situation. There will be a marked contrast between their earnings on the day they retire and their pensions thereafter.

This is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is this: If the Victorian figures that 1 have quoted in regard to those fortunate members of the community who are covered by public or private superannuation schemes are applied to the community as a whole, probably only one-quarter would be covered by superannuation schemes. That one-quarter is very heavily subsidised by the existing tax arrangement. I instance the case of Commonwealth public servants. Out of every $7 that is paid out of the fund to a contributor only $2 comes from the contributor’s payments, the other $5 being made up by the Government’s share of the contribution.

In addition, the contributor will receive on the payments he makes to the scheme a tax deduction of anything between a half and two-thirds of his payments, depending on the tax range within which he falls. All his contributions are really subsidised by the tax system. The same sort of situation applies with regard to the funds of private companies. The contributions made by employers are subsidised via the tax system. In the case of companies, this means that approximately 47i per cent of every dollar contributed by the employer is subsidised from Commonwealth revenue. As I have said, a similar situation applies to the contributor.

In aggregate, I regard this as a highly inequitable sort of system. I believe that all kinds of problems have to be faced in this situation. That is the reason why a progressive committee of inquiry is needed. The matters that are involved are so vast as to require something like a full scale public inquiry that might take quite a long time to encompass all the aspects involved. All sorts of arguments would be advanced. Suppose a national superannuation scheme was introduced. What would happen to the private and public superannuation schemes that are already in existence? An arrangement, described as a contracting out kind of arrangement in other countries, might need to be introduced.

I commend to the attention of this House the kind of inquiry that was recently undertaken in the State of New South Wales. The report of the committee of inquiry has been called the Trimmer report and it was presented to the Parliament of New South Wales on 30th September 1969. I wish only to list the kinds of things that have to be taken into account in trying to evaluate this situation. The report states that the differences between existing schemes were so numerous and the views of employers and employee organisations covered such a wide range of views that the committee felt that its examination of them could best be undertaken by first considering the principles upon which government retirement funds should be based. The committee was concerned only with government operated superannuation funds. Nevertheless, I believe that the matters it examined are relevant to the total situation.

The committee expresses the hope that consideration of these principles may lead to decisions by the Government which will result in the establishment of one general retirement scheme which, as will be suggested, would be appropriate for the majority of government and quasigovernment employees. The committee’s report lists a number of question which the committee regards as relevant. I do not propose to answer these questions. I merely pose them as being indicative of the kind of complicated network situation that must be faced. These include such questions as: should there ultimately be one retirement fund covering all employees rather than a series of funds? What types of employees should be eligible to join a retirement scheme? As I indicated, at the moment the preponderance of those who join superannuation schemes are non-manual workers or white collar workers. Should there be separate schemes for wages and salaried employees? That again is a variant of an earlier question. Should a scheme be optional or compulsory? Should a scheme be contributory or non-contributory? What proportion of the cost of a superannuation or retirement scheme should be financed by the employer? Should schemes be based upon a lump sum or a pension benefit? Should a government scheme be funded or not founded by the employer?

Then there is the matter of interest rate and government guarantee in the fund. What types of benefits should be provided in a retirement scheme? Should they cover health, invalidity, retrenchment, reemployment and so on? Should the retirement benefit be related directly to salary? Should the benefit be related to length of service? At what age should retirement benefit be available for men and women? Should the amount of benefit vary with sex or marital status? How should retirement benefits vary in relation to age at retirement? In what form should pensions be paid - lump sum, pension, or both? What is the extent of the employer’s responsibility to subsidise death and breakdown benefits? Should there be provision for a withdrawal benefit, which is part of the problem involved in portability? Should employees be able to elect for various levels of retirement benefit? Also there is the adjustment of benefit and contributions with increases in salary. What should be the basis for the employee contribution scale? Should there be any limit on employee contributions?

What ancillary provisions should be included in a superannuation or retirement scheme? What is the nature of the administration of such a scheme?

There are some 20-odd items involved there, all of which are complicated in themselves. It is highly foolish to go into this field without a fair amount of preliminary inquiry. If one introduces a fund in the future, it does not do anything whatever for those who are existing beneficiaries, that is, those who are pensioners already receiving sums of money. They gain nothing as far as beneficiaries are concerned from the creation of a contributory scheme in the future. There is a great question to be answered, a question which has tremendous social impact: People believe that if they put a dollar into a fund today on the assumption that it will return a benefit when they retire, they should get something like the value for the dollar they draw as against the dollar they put in. That is one of the difficulties that haunts all schemes at present. It is the sort of difficulty about which honourable members on both sides of the House regularly receive submissions from people, Commonwealth superannuation beneficiaries, State fund beneficiaries, pensioners and so on. They ask: ‘Why can we not have the purchasing power of the pension maintained?’ I believe these are questions that have to be faced up to.

I was interested to receive in the last few days from the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations a report disclosing a rethinking of this scheme. The Council seems to me to come down on the proposition that it would be much simpler if every person paid a certain percentage of his salary into a fund and as his salary rose the amount of contribution would increase, but the percentage would be constant to the salary. At the end of his employment he should receive a benefit that would be determined according to the years he worked, taking into consideration the final years of employment, and would be adjusted periodically to allow for changes in costs of living. This is why the Opposition does not object at this stage to this kind of legislation. At least it has the virtue of doing something towards acceptance of the fact that when people leave one kind of employment to go to another, particularly when they go from government to private employment, they should be able to take some of the benefits they would have received had they remained in the one job all the time.

The amendment we hope to move in the committee stages is that where the Bill provides for 20 years, we think that the qualifying time should be reduced to 10 years. We have had representations from Service organisations, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and others in this regard. I leave it al that.

That all words after that’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

I move: further consideration of (he Bill be deferred pending a Report by a Joint Parliamentary Committee to be appointed to inquire into the Australian proposals and overseas practices in relation to a National Superannuation Scheme’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr HOWSON:
Casey

– It is interesting that these are the last 2 of the 17 Bills subject to the present guillotine which has been discussed so much this week. Each of those 17 Bills has been supported by the Opposition and in each case the Opposition has said how important it is that the Bill be passed because it would do so much good for the people of Australia. The Opposition is glad that the Government has got these Bills through quickly because it realises that the quicker they are passed the quicker they will benefit the mass of the people in Australia. Each one of these Bills has been in that category. While there may have been some importance in extending the time for debate in order to look at the ways in which these Acts could be amended in due time in the future to improve them, at least each Bill has been recognised as being of great importance and it has been acknowledged that it should be passed as soon as possible.

This aspect is important in relation to the Bill we are now discussing. It is taking us into a new field of experimental legislation into which the Commonwealth has not entered before, and in which I think it is wise that we should move slowly and be certain that we are moving in the right direction. This is where I disagree with the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). I think it is much more important that we should bring this Bill in now, examine how it works and determine what difficulties we face as we enter this new field of legislation rather than defer it indefinitely and have another long period covered by a report by a joint parliamentary committee appointed to inquire into not only these proposals but also overseas practices and this vast area of a national superannuation scheme. 1 hope the honourable member realises what he is doing if this amendment is carried. What he is saying, in effect, is that these Bills will be deferred and because of that the advantages of this scheme will be delayed. This would involve the preservation of superannuation rights not only of each of the contributors covered by the Bills - some 250,000 people - but also of contributors in other Commonwealth schemes. These employees would need to be catered for whether or not the national superannuation scheme was adopted.

I do not think it is desirable that Commonwealth employees be denied the advantages of the preservation of these rights pending consideration of a national superannuation scheme applying to the whole of the work force. The Government has promised already that the benefits of this legislation will be made available to its employees retrospective to 1st January 1970. Then there is the constitutional aspect - the question whether Commonwealth powers in this field of superannuation could apply. This would need to be examined. What I think is important is that we should enter this field now along the lines that the Government is suggesting and, as we see it develop, we can see whether the points made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports should be taken into consideration when we come to review this legislation in, say, 2 or 3 years time.

Earlier this evening the honourable member for Melbourne Ports will remember that we were dicussing the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill. The great advantage of that legislation is that the House has looked at it once every 3 or 4 years. As our experience of it has developed, we have modified it, expanded it, and taken into account new concepts of the importance of various fields of compensation. I believe that we should look at this superannuation legislation in a similar light. We should get this scheme into operation and, as we see how it develops, so we should see whether we should imcorporate some of the other points that have been made to modify it in due course. I am sure that as a result of tonight’s debate the Treasurer will take into account some of the many points that have been raised and, when we come to have a look at the measure again in 2 years’ time, in the light of experience he could well take into account some of the ideas that have been put forward. I would hope that this is the sort of Bill to which honourable members on both sides can have a bipartisan approach, and that they can try to get the best of all worlds for our own Commonwealth Government employees and for other employees who contribute to State superannuation funds.

Several matters have been brought to my notice by my constituents in the same way as some of his constituents have brought matters to the attention of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I ask the Treasurer whether, either in winding up this second reading debate or in the Committee stages, he would be prepared to answer a few quick questions that I wish to put to him. Because of the timetable, I think the best course is for me to deal with the questions very quickly and briefly. It has been suggested that the extent to which this legislation enables real opportunities for persons to move freely from one employer to another will depend on the extent to which the Treasurer declares an outside scheme to be an eligible superannuation scheme. The reference to this in the Bill is proposed new section 119R. The question is being asked as to what are the criteria to be used in deciding whether a scheme is an eligible superannuation scheme for the purpose of this new section. As the Bill before the House is silent on this aspect, I should be grateful if the Treasurer could give us any help on this matter. Secondly, who will take the initiative in approaching other funds, either private or state, to see whether they will be eligible as superannuation schemes? Will the Commonwealth take the initiative in this field, or do other schemes have to take the initiative them selves? Many employees, when they are negotiating to move from Commonwealth employment to another employer, can be left in the dark about the operation of this legislation in future fields of employment.

The next matter to which I wish to refer concerns section 101 of the existing Act which defines a State fund, and State Public Service regulation 11 sets out the current Public Service superannuation funds with which the Commonwealth fund has some form of transfer benefit. I ask the Treasurer to say how wide is the definition of ‘public employment’. Does it embrace local government public utilities of the State, such as hospitals? ls it wide enough to embrace any private enterprise schemes? I should also like to ask the Treasurer whether it is his policy, or whether it will become his policy, that private enterprise schemes, such as those of banks, insurance companies, or large public companies may, can or will be embraced in due course. These are some of the matters that I think have been hinted at by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. Possibly in just dealing with this subject the Treasurer may be able to give us some clues on these matters. Finally, in dealing with these points I think it is tremendously important that, as soon as the Act has been proclaimed, there should be some mechanism whereby the news about this legislation can be made available fairly quickly to those people who may benefit from it. I wonder whether the Treasurer has some arrangement whereby details of this scheme will be brought to the notice of all persons interested in moving in or out of Commonwealth employment, and also whether possibly a memorandum might be produced for members of Parliament so that we, too, can answer questions brought to our notice by our constituents

Then there is the matter, which has already been referred to by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, of the time limit of 20 years before eligibility takes place. I know that this is a matter to which the Treasurer has given a great deal of consideration, and I know that at present he does not feel he can reduce the time of eligibility below 20 years. This Bill has been through a long period of gestation. What appeared to be right and proper in, say, 1966, when the first negotiations were taking place on this legislation, may be already somewhat out of date in 1971. Our views concerned with the portability of pensions have moved fairly quickly over the last few years. I think that in Australia we are changing our ideas considerably as to the desirability of a movement of employees from one field of employment to another, and that we want to encourage mobility of employment much more today than we wanted to encourage it even 5 or 6 years ago.

Therefore, what was desirable - and 1 think essential - in 1966 is already moving towards a period of being possible a little too limited today. I believe that after we have had some experience of this Bill in operation we could suggest to the Treasurer that he might well feel that this period of 20 years is too long. After all, although I know that the situation in some other countries is rather different from the situation here, because they have more of this form of national insurance scheme than has been suggested here, in similar Acts overseas the period is much shorter. Belgium has 5 years, Canada has 10 years, Denmark has 5 years, and so on - I will not deal with them all. But certainly 20 years is on the high side.

I do think that, while for the normal employee who goes into the Public Service at age 16 years, 20 years and so on 20 years is quite reasonable, there are certain categories of people in the Public Service, especially in, say, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, who have to get higher degrees such as doctorates of philosophy and so on and who cannot come into the scheme possibly until the age of 30 years. I think that to limit their transferability or portability until they are SO is on the high side. And I think that this is a matter well worthy of closer examination by the Treasurer. I hope he will say that he is prepared to have a look at it - in the wellknown phrase - and that when we next have a look at the legislation possibly he may feel that he can meet some of these important points which have been put forward not only by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports but also by a number of constituents to me and to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who has been particularly interested in this matter.

I must conclude my remarks in order to allow other honourable members to take part in this debate. 1 ask the Treasurer whether, in the course of replying to this short debate, he could answer some of the questions that I have asked. This is an extremely important Bill. We have waited for it for quite a long time. It is entering an important new field. I believe that the House should give it every speed of enactment so that we can get into operation a Bill which will be of considerable advantage to a large number of people in Australia.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) who has moved an amendment to this Bill. The Superannuation Bill is an important Bill. It is a bread and butter issue. It is entitled to receive much more consideration than we will be able to give it in this guillotining process which involves, I think, 20 Bills passing through this House in some 19 hours. For my part, as one who has a very deep interest in the subject of superannuation, I find it necessary to curtail my remarks in a cryptic sort of way. Whether they will turn out to be meaningful in the end is very hard to predict at this point of time. Many of my colleagues would dearly love to say a few words on this Bill.

The preparation of this Bill can hardly be described as being a dynamic process. On 25th September 1969, which is 20 months ago, in the period preceding the general elections the then Prime Minister first gave notice of his Government’s intention to facilitate the preservation of superannuation rights. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson) gave the impression that we were in a great hurry to enact this legislation, but 21 years or thereabouts has elapsed since this Government first started to look at this portability question. One feels that a case could be made out for dealing with this matter in a more comprehensive way than the hotch potch way in which it is now being dealt with.

The Bill is designed to provide portability for a limited number of people. It will certainly do nothing towards making superannuation and its benefits, including portability, available to the vast majority of the Australian people. We are proceeding towards this end very slowly. This evening we are dealing with the Superannuation Bill, which also covers the Provident Fund, and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill. One wonders what the Government’s underlying philosophy is on this question of transferability of superannuation from one employer to another - a process known as the preservation of superannuation rights. Has the Government formulated any blueprint or philosophy at all? Has the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) or any df his predecessors in the last 21 years ever sought to rationalise the inequalities inherent in the present ad hoc approach to this question of portability? My own view is that I support portability because it is a safeguard against job obsolescence, which is the kind of thing that is occurring to a very large extent at the present time. Portability facilitates an employee’s choice of employment and releases him from employment imprisonment. It provides for mobility of labour, and I believe that there is a very useful by-product in the crossfertilisation of ideas in the Public Service and in industry as well.

There is an incredibly high incidence of people in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme who are forced to withdraw from the scheme for all kinds of human reasons. The 1968-69 annual report of the Superannuation Board indicates that there were 10,952 withdrawals from the scheme in the year ended June 1967. At that time the number of contributors to the scheme stood at 136,794. Approximately 8 per cent of contributors were required to withdraw from the scheme in that year. Table 9 in the same report refers to the provident Fund. In the year 1968-69 there were 740 resignations from the Provident Fund out of a total of 16,588 contributors. Approximately 5 per cent of contributors had to withdraw from the Provident Fund. These withdrawals and resignations are quite distinct from the very large number of people who ceased to be contributors to the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Fund for reasons of death, of reaching the maximum working age or of invalidity. Of course, it involves a financial loss to everyone concerned.

How many people have been seriously and adversely affected in schemes other than those which cover the Public Service? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has been seeking an answer to this question for some time; but, regrettably, he has not been able to make a lot of progress. On 30th October 1970 he asked the then Treasurer the following question:

What progress has the Statistician made in collecting statistics on the total number and coverage of superannuation funds in Australia and on the number and occupation of contributors to them . .7

The then Treasurer replied that the Acting Commonwealth Statistician had advised that it had not been possible to undertake any of the further developmental work required because of heavy demands on resources. So we will hear little more about it. He also said that it had been decided not to include in the 1971 census questions about the numbers of contributors to superannuation schemes. So there is a drought of information about superannuation schemes in the private area, and it seems that the Government just does not care sufficiently to probe in order to ascertain this information by way of the census or in any other way.

I remind the House that the Insurance Commissioner’s report for the year ended December 1969 gave a very serious warning. Sufficient information is in the hands of the Commonwealth Insurance Commissioner to cause him to say that ‘an unsatisfactory aspect of superannuation business is the high rate of surrender of sums insured as shown in the following table’, and the table indicates that for the 5-year period from 1964 to 1968 superannuation business surrendered represented between 6.2 per cent and 7.1 per cent of the total business in force at the beginning of that period. In 1968 the amount of surrendered business reached $336. 7m, or 7.1 per cent of the total business in force. The Commissioner said:

The high rate of surrender reflects the apparently high rate of movement of members of many schemes.

So we have the alarming situation wherein no beneficial by-products from this legislation will flow to the private sectors of industry and commerce. I am gratified to note, as is the Opposition, that there will be some benefit to some sections of the

Public Service, particularly in cases where there is a transfer of employment from the Commonwealth sphere to the State sphere and through the university system, so far as academics are concerned. But many problems remain. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has very considerable justification. Many people are denied the benefits of the Social Services Act in the long run because they have contributed to superannuation schemes. This is one of the outstanding anomalies. Of course, there are many other anomalies. But I can see that my colleagues who desire to participate in this, debate are becoming anxious. I think that the situation is such that we ought to have a closer look at this question of portability. This is an unsatisfactory way to handle such important legislation. I congratulate the honourable member for Melbourne Ports for proposing that we should refer this question to an appropriate committee so that we can provide universality in the employment field and provide the benefits which flow from superannuation. That there might be a rational superannuation scheme, giving everyone an opportunity to benefit from it, is the great aspiration and hope of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I have been informed that I have only 5 minutes in which to make my speech. So I will be able to make only a few short comments. I will start by answering the honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson). I think it is appropriate that I should do so on behalf of the Opposition because I am rather unhappy about some of the questions which he raised. The honourable member for Casey was Minister for Air at the time of the VIP aircraft debacle. If my memory serves me correctly, the then Senator Gorton, who became Prime Minister, who subsequently became Minister for Defence, and who may become Prime Minister again for only a short period, decided that the honourable member for Casey would be relieved of his portfolio. I do not know what the reason was. I was not here at the time. But I am surprised that the honourable member asked to be supplied by the Government with information - he is a prospective Minister in the new Ministry that looks like being formed - so that he can be better informed. I am rather surprised at that because we on this side of the House seem to be so much better informed than are honourable members opposite. The honourable member does not even know about this matter. I am not claiming that this is the fault of the honourable member or that he should not have the information. This is just one of the things that happen.

I will now get down to the basis of the Bill. I do not know whether I will be able to discuss the Bill because I have just been informed that by decision of the Government I have to conclude my speech at 10.24. This gives me 3 minutes in which to speak. It would be impossible for me to raise the many matters that are important for me to raise on behalf of the Commonwealth Public Service unions that I represent. In other words, this Government has frustrated every representation that has been made. By its action I believe the Government has alienated hundreds of thousands of votes. I am absolutely ashamed that I have been stopped from speaking. I have notes which show that we are better informed than are honourable members opposite. However, in view of the fact that this debate is to conclude at 10.24 p.m. - the gag has been moved and the guillotine will be applied - so I will close by directing attention to the Government’s hypocrisy. This Bill was introduced on 15th October 1970, the amendments were circulated on 5th May 1971 and now the Government wants to rush this legislation through in less than 1 hour. This is plain hypocrisy.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– The honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson) asked me a number of questions. I shall give him answers to the questions which I can recall. Firstly, I have some comments to make in regard to the eligible scheme. An eligible superannuation scheme is one declared by the Treasurer by instrument under his hand published in the ‘Gazette’ for the purposes of the preservation provisions. The schemes declared as eligible superannuation schemes will be ones that meet certain criteria. They will provide safeguards against, firstly, double-banking of employer supplements; secondly, circumvention of the 20 year qualifying period, and thirdly, manipulation that would enable an employee to receive, on resignation, the employer element of a transfer value, paid by the Commonwealth, that he would not have received had he remained in the Commonwealth scheme.

Initially, eligible schemes will be those in the Commonwealth family as their rules are amended to provide for preservation and incorporate the safeguards mentioned. The number of schemes will be expanded progressively as negotiations are concluded with the authorities responsible for the schemes. Public employment is not defined but the Bills in proposed sections 119q of the superannuation legislation and 82v of the defence forees retirement benefits law provides that the Treasurer may, by instrument under his hand published in the Gazette’, declare employment by a person or persons specified in the instrument to be public employment. Generally, the declaration for public employment will include a wide range of full-time employment in the public sector, as distinct from the private sector, Commonwealth employment, State employment and their instrumentalities and universities, and also companies in which the Commonwealth is the major shareholder The administrative action necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Bill is well advanced. They will be distributed to all departments and Services through the various agencies and I will arrange for them to go to honourable members. The honourable member asked whether I would consider the matter or, to use his phrase as is so customary in this Parliament, would I look at the matter again in 2 years. The answer is, yes, I will.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The immediate question is, ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; of the contrary ‘no’.I think the ‘ayes’ have it?

Mr Crean:

– No. A division is not required but I wish my dissent to be noted.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Messages from Governor-General recommending approprations announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The question is:

That the Bill and the circulated amendments be agreed to and the Bill be reported with amendments.

Government’s amendments.

  1. In clause 9 in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) omit ‘(a) or (b)’, insert ‘(b) or (c)’,
  2. In clause 9 in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (h) omit ‘(a) or (b)’, insert ‘(b) or (c)’,
  3. In clause 18 at the end of proposed section 110b, add the following sub-section: - “‘(4.) For the purpose of any advice to be furnished to the Board by an actuary in relation to the determination of the number of units of pension that were equivalent to an amount refunded to a person from a Public Service Superannuation Fund, the amount so refunded shall be treated as if it were increased by an amount equal to two and one-half times that amount.”.
  4. In clause 18 omit proposed section 110c, insert the following section: - “‘110c- (1.) This Part does not apply in relation to an employee if, but for the refund to him of an amount from a Public Service Superannuation Fund, a transfer value referred to in paragraph (b), or a prescribed pension referred to in paragraph (d), of sub-section (1.) of section one hundred and nineteen h of this Act would have become payable to or in respect of him or deferred benefits referred to in paragraph (f) of that sub-section would have become applicable in respect of him. (2.) Where the application of this Part in relation to an employee is not excluded by reason of the last preceding sub-section but section one hundred and nineteen h of this Act applies in relation to him, sub-sections (5.) and (6.) of section one hundred and nine, and section one hundred and ten, of this Act do not apply in relation to him.’.”.
  5. In clause 20 at the end of proposed section 119a, add the following sub-section: - “ ‘(4.) For the purposes of this Part, a benefit payable to or in respect of an employee under a superannuation scheme shall not be taken to have been based partly upon contributions under the scheme by the employer by reason only that the benefit included interest upon contributions made under the scheme by the employee.”.
  6. In clause 20 omit ‘and’ at end of sub paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of proposed section 119d.- (1.).
  7. In clause 20, after sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 119d, insert the following sub-paragraph: - “ (ia) in the case of the superannuation scheme constituted by the provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 and the other Acts relating to retirement benefits for members of the Defence Force - to a transfer value payable in respect of the employee under Division 3 of Part VIc. of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 or to a refund of contributions and a gratuity payable to the employee; and “.

  8. In clause 20 omit paragraph (a) of subsection (3.) of proposed section 119j, insert the following paragraph: - “ (a) so much of the amount paid to the Board as is equal to the employee component of the transfer value, or to the sum of the employee components of the transfer values, as the case may be, shall be paid by the Board to the Fund and, when so paid -

    1. shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act other than section fifty-one, to be contributions made to the Fund by the person; and
    2. shall, to the extent to which it was payable to the person upon the termination of the employment in respect which the transfer value or any of the transfer values become payable irrespective of whether he engaged in further employment, be deemed, for the purposes of section fifty-one of this Act, to be contributions made to the Fund by the person;”.
  9. In clause 20 omit ‘and’ at end of sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph (c) ofproposed section 119j.- (3.).
  10. In clause 20 omit ‘him’ in sub paragraph (iv) of paragraph (c) of proposed section 119j. - (3.), insert ‘him; and’.
  11. In clause 20, after sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (c) of sub-section (3.) of proposed section 119J, insert the following sub-paragraph: - “(v) in the case of a person who becomes a contributor after the commencement of this section and was, immediately before becoming an employee, a contributor to a Public Service Superannuation Fund within the meaning of Part VIII. of this Act, other than a person to whom that Part does not apply by reason of the operation of subsection (1.) of section one hundred and ten c of this Act - the number of units of pension determined by the Board in relation to him under sub-section (3.) of section one hundred and nine of this Act or, if that section does not apply in relation to him, the number of units of pension that would have been determined by the Board in relation to him under sub-sectioa (2.) of section one hundred and ten of this Act if that last-mentioned section were applicable in relation to him,”.

  12. In clause 20 after sub-section (4.) of proposed section 119j, insert the following subsections: - “ ‘(4a.) Where-

    1. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a person in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section; and
    2. a transfer value of a greater amount would have become so payable but for the doing of, or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the last-mentioned transfer value shall be taken into account for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of sub-section (3.) of this section only to the extent to which it was greater than the amount of the first-mentioned transfer value. (4b.) Where-
    3. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a person in accordance with paragraph (a) ofsub-section (1.) of the last preceding section; and
    4. a transfer value of a smaller amount would have become so payable but for the doing of. or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the last-mentioned transfer value shall not be taken into account for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (3.) of this section.”.
  13. In clause 20 in paragraph (b) of proposed section 119j. - (5.) after “shall”, insert “, to the extent to which it was payable to the person upon the termination of the employment in respect of which the transfer value or any of the transfer values became payable irrespective of whether he engaged in further employment,”.
  14. In clause 20 omit ‘and’ at end of paragraph (b) of proposed section 119j.- (3.).

  15. In clause 20, omit paragraph (c) of subsection (5.) of proposed section 119j. insert the following paragraphs: - “(c) subject to the next succeeding paragraph, one-third of the amount paid to the Board shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (1.) of section eighty-two, and subsection (1.) of section eighty-three, of this Act to be contributions made to the Provident Account by the person;

    1. in calculating the sum payable under subsection (1.) of section eighty-two, or subsection (1.) of section eighty-three, of this Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether sub-section (2.) of section eighty-two. or sub-section (2.) of section eighty-three, of this Act applies in relation to the person or in relation to the widow or widower or the children of the person, as the case may be, the last preceding paragraph shall be disregarded; and
    2. if sub-section (2.) of section eighty-two, or sub-section (2.) of section eighty-three, of this Act applies in relation to the person or in relation to the widow or widower or the children of the person, as the case may be-
    1. there shall be paid out of the Provident Account to the person, or to the widow, widower or children, in addition to the amount payable under that sub-section, an amount equal to the amount paid to the Board together with compound interest on that amount in respect of the period that commenced on the date on which the person became a contributor to the Provident Account and ended on the date on which he ceased to be such a contributor, at the rate or rates applicable under sub-section (3.) of section ninety of this Act; and
    2. the Commonwealth shall pay to the Provident Account an amount equal to so much of the amount paid under the last preceding sub-paragraph as bears to that amount the same proportion as the employer component of the transfer value or the sum of the employer components of the transfer values bears to the transfer value or to the sum of the transfer values, as the case may be.”.
  16. In clause 20 in proposed section 119j. - (7.), omit “ out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly “, insert “ out of the Fund or the Provident Account, as the case may be “.
  17. In clause 20, after sub-section (7.) of proposed section 119j, insert the following subsection: - 7a. - Where an amount is payable out of the Fund or the Provident Account under the last preceding sub-section, the Commonwealth shall pay an amount equal to that amount to the Fund or to the Povident Account, as the case may be.”.
  18. In clause 20 omit ‘and’ at end of paragraph (b) of proposed section 119k.- (2.).
  19. In clause 20 in paragraph (c) of proposed section 119k. - (2.) omit ‘him’. Insert ‘him; and
  20. In clause 20, after paragraph (c) of subsection (2.) of proposed section 119k, insert the following paragraph: - “ (d) in the case of a person who becomes a contributor after the commencement of this section and was, immediately before becoming an employee, a contributor to a Public Service Superannuation Fund within the meaning of Part VIII. of this Act, other than a person to whom that Part does not apply by reason of the operation of subsection (1.) of section one hundred and ten c of this Act - the number of units of pension determined by the Board in relation to him under sub-section (3.) of section one hundred and nine of this Act or, if that section does not apply in relation to him, the number of units of pension that would have been determined by the Board in relation to him under sub.-section (2.) of section one hundred and ten of this Act if that last-mentioned section were applicable in relation to him,”.

  21. In clause 20 at the end of proposed section 119k, add the following sub-sections: - “ ‘(5.) Where-

    1. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a person in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section one hundred and nineteen H of this Act; and
    2. a transfer value of a greater amount would have become so payable but for the doing of, or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the first-mentioned transfer value shall not be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) of this section. (6.) Where-
    3. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a person in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section one hundred and nineteen H of this Act; and (b) a transfer value of a smaller amount would have become so payable but for the doing of, or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that sub-section, the amount of the last-mentioned transfer value shall not be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) of this section.”.
  22. In clause 20 in paragraph (b) of proposed section 119p. - (1.) omit ‘any other’, insert ‘a’.
  23. In clause 20, at the end of proposed section 119p, add the following sub-section: - “ ‘(6.) A reference in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1.) of this section to a period of employment of a person does not include a reference to a period of employment in relation to which a preceding paragraph of that sub-section applies.”.
  24. In clause 20 in paragraph (a) of proposed section 119w. - (2.), omit “, at a time when he was employed in public employment or after he had completed twenty years’ eligible employment,”.

  25. In clause 20 after sub-section (2.) of proposed section 119w, insert the following subsection: - “‘(2a.) Paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection does not apply in relation to a person unless -

    1. at the date that the Board is satisfied was the date on which he became incapable of performing the duties referred to in that paragraph, he was employed in public employment or had completed twenty years’ eligible employment; or
    2. at that date he was over the age of sixty years and, at the date when he attained that age, he was employed in public employment.”.
  26. In clause In proposed section 119w. - (3.) omit “the last preceding sub-section”, insert “the last two preceding sub-sections”.
  27. In clause 20 in proposed section 119zc. - (3) after ‘shall’, Insert ‘so far as is practicable’.
  28. In clause 20 in proposed section 119zc. - (5) omit “the premiums in respect of any life policies assigned to the Board in accordance with subsection (3.) of this section or issued in accordance with the last preceding sub-section”, insert “so much of any premium payable in respect of any life policy assigned to the Board in accordance with sub-section (3.) of this section or issued in accordance with the last preceding sub-section as relates to a period during which the personis an employee”.
  29. In clause 22(1.) omit “other than a person to whom Part IX. of the Superannuation Act 1922-1970 applies”.
  30. In clause 22(1.) omit “immediately before he became an employee “, insert “ on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy “.
  31. In clause 22 after sub-clause (2.), insert the following sub-clauses: - “ (2a.) An election under section 82z of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 by a person to whom sub-section (1.) of section 9 of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1971 applies also has effect, in relation to a person to whom sub-section (1.) of this section applies, as an election duly made by that person under sub-section (1.) of this section. “ (2b.) In the application of Part IX. of the Superannuation Act 1922-1971 in relation to a person who has made an election under subsection (1.) of this section, the reference in subsection (3.) of section 111 of that Act to the commencement of the Superannuation Act 1971 shall be read as a reference to the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine.”.

  32. In clause 23 omit sub-clauses (2.) and (3.), insert the following sub-clauses: - “ (2.) Notwithstanding the last preceding subsection, section S3 or 86 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1971 does not apply in relation to a person to whom that sub-section applies unless the person elects within twenty-one days after the commencement of this Act that that section shall apply in relation to him. “ (3.) If-

    1. a person makes an election under the last preceding sub-section that section S3 or 86 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1971 shall apply in relation to him; and
    2. a payment has, or payments have, been made to the person under the Principal Act other than under Division5 of Part III. of that Act, the election does not have any effect unless an amount equal to the amount of the payment, or the sum of the amounts of the payments,is paid to the Fund or to the Provident Account, as the case may be, within seven days after the date of the election. “ (3a.) A person to whom sub-section (I.) of this section applies may make an election under section 119u of the Superannuation Act 1922-1971 within twenty-one days after the commencement of this Act. “ (3b.) The Board may, if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances that justify it in so doing, extend the period for the making of an election referred to in sub-section (2.) or subsection (3a.) of this section. “(3c.) Sub-section (2.) of section 119y of the Superannuation Act 1922-1971 does not apply in relation to a person to whom sub-section (1.) of this section applies.”.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2789

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October (vide page 2262), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I am informed that unless the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who is the shadow Treasurer, wishes to speak -

Mr Crean:

-I wish to speak during the Committee stage.

Mr MARTIN:

– I see. I am informed that we can speak on the second reading of this Bill until 10.30.

Dr Patterson:

– You have 2 minutes.

Mr MARTIN:

– Yes, I have 2 minutes. This is a serious business for members of the Opposition and it should be a serious business for supporters of the Government. It is serious to the extent that even under this Bill the people in the defence forces are being denied the opportunity to have their point of view put, and that is creating a grave injustice. The amendment that we would have liked to have moved to this Bill but which we were precluded from moving by Government action is, “That clause 7 be postponed’. This seems to be a simple amendment, but we were denied the opportunity to explain what it meant. This is not my idea of democracy. The whole Parliament and the people of Australia should be absolutely ashamed that the Government is being run in this fashion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The time allotted for discussion in the Committee stage has now expired. The question is, That the Bill and amendments circulated by the Government be agreed to and the Bill be reported with amendments’.

Government’s amendments.

Act 1948-1970* is in this Act referred to as the Principal Act. “(3.) The Principal Act, as amended by this Act, may be cited as the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971.”.

  1. In clause 7, at the end of proposed sec tion 82j, add the following sub-section: - “‘(4.) For the purposes of this Part, a benefit payable to or in respect of a member under a superannuation scheme shall not be taken to have been based partly on contributions under the scheme by the employer by reason only that the benefit included interest upon contributions made under the scheme by the member.”.
  2. In clause 7 in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of proposed section 82l. - (1.) after “Part”, insert “or to a refund of contributions and a gratuity payable to the member”.
  3. In clause 7 in proposed section 82r. - (3.) after “shall”, insert “, to the extent to which it was payable to the member upon the termination of the employment in respect of which the transfer value or any of the transfer values became payable irrespective of whether he engaged in further employment,”.
  4. In clause 7 in proposed section 82r. - (8) omit “out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly”, insert “out of the Fund”.
  5. In clause 7 after sub-section (8.) of proposed section 82s, insert the following subsection: - “‘(8a.) Where an amount is payable out of the Fund under the last preceding sub-section, the Commonwealth shall pay an amount equal to that amount to the Fund.”.

  6. In clause 7 after sub-section (3.) of proposed section 82s, insert the following subsections: - “‘(3a.) Where-

    1. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a member in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section eighty-two o of this Act; and
    2. a transfer value of a greater amount would have become so payable but for the doing of, or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, the first-mentioned transfer value shall not be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section. (3b.) Where-
    3. a transfer value became payable to or in respect of a member in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section eighty-two q of this Act; and
    4. a transfer value of a smaller amount would have become so payable but for the doing of, or the failure to do, any act or thing referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, the last-mentioned transfer value shall not be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3.) of this section.”.
  7. In clause 7 in proposed section 82u. - (1.) (b) omit ‘any other’, insert ‘a’.
  8. In clause 7, at the end of proposed section 82u, add the following sub-section: - “‘(6.) A reference in paragraph (b) (c) or (d) of sub-section (1.) of this section to a period of employment of a person does not include a reference to a period of employment in relation to which a preceding paragraph of that sub-section applies.”.
  9. In clause 7 at the end of proposed section 82y, add the following sub-section: - “ ‘(4.) Sections fifty-one and fifty-two of this Act do not apply for the purposes of this section.”.
  10. In clause 7 in proposed section 82z.-(9.) (b), after ‘pension’, Insert ‘or other benefit’.
  11. In clause 7 in proposed section 82zb. - (1.) (b) after “ employment “, insert “ or had attained the age of sixty years “.
  12. In clause 7 after paragraph (b) of subsection (1.) of proposed section 82zd, insert the following paragraph: - “ (ba) if he was an officer immediately before he ceased to be a member - within that prescribed period he attained, at a time when he was employed in public employment, the age that was the retiring age for the rank held by him immediately before he ceased to be a member or, having attained that age, he completed fifteen years’ service for pension within the meaning of sub-section (3.) of section eighty-two zb of this Act;”.
  13. In clause 7 in proposed section 82zh. - (4.)(b) after “shall”, insert “so far as is practicable.
  14. In clause 7 in proposed section 82zh. - (5.), omit “ The premiums in respect of any life policies assigned to the Board in accordance with subsection (3.) of this section or issued in accordance with the last preceding sub-section “, insert “ So much of any premium payable in respect of any life policy assigned to the Board in accordance with sub-section (3.) of this section or issued in accordance with the last preceding sub-section as relates to a period during which the person is a member “.
  15. In clause 8 (1.), omit “ immediately before he became a contributor “, insert “ on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy “.
  16. In clause 9 omit sub-clause (2.).
  17. In clause 9(3.), omit “this Act”, insert “the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971”.
  18. In clause 9, after sub-clause (4.), insert the following sub-clauses: - “(4a.) If a person to whom sub-section (1.) of this section applies makes an election under section 82z of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971, any election made by him under subsection (1.) of section 74b of that Act shall be deemed not to have been made. “(4b.) Sub-section (2.) of section 82zd of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 does not apply in relation to a person to whom sub-section (1.) of this section applies.”.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2790

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr ERWIN:
Ballaarat

– I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 2791

STATES GRANTS BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May (vide page 2664), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This Bill, the States Grants Bill 1971, was introduced at about 2 o’clock this morning. It provides 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 the respective Budget deficits of the States for the year 1970-71. In addition, it contains the rather peculiar provision for certain amendments made necessary because of the non-payment of payroll tax by Victoria and the legal challenge by that State and by South Australia to the validity of payroll tax in its application to State governments. It seems to me to be a rather odd mixture of things to say the least. One can appreciate the need for the grant of some $60m to compensate for the loss of the receipts duties that the States would otherwise have collected in the period from October 1970 to 30th June 1971, but which were made invalid by a decision of the High Court of Australia, which regarded them, insofar as they did not apply to wages and salaries, as a payment in the nature of an excise. Therefore, as it was in the nature of an excise it was within the competence only of the Commonwealth to collect them.

The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) implied that for the rest of this financial year the sum would have been about $60m - I think it is $59.7m - and for a full year the amount needed to compensate the States will be $100m. The Opposition does not oppose the measure, because it is its view that the receipts duty, as it applied, was a silly sort of tax. It was regressive. It was applied on all sorts of household commodities - on groceries, green groceries and so on. It was a flat, unjust tax and if the States needed more money, the Commonwealth should give it to them. At least, that is being done by the first part of the measure.

However; there is this peculiar arrangement about payroll tax. As everybody knows, payroll tax was introduced, I think, as. far back as 1945 for the purposes of financing child endowment. It was levied as a percentum of the wage bill with certain exemptions. The flat rate is 2i per cent on the wage bill, after allowing for certain kinds of exemptions. Of course, it applies not only to wages of private employees but also to wages that are paid by the States to their employees and to certain State instrumentalities, such as the State Electricity Commission, the Gas and Fuel Board and so on, and to municipal bodies as well. The Australian Labor Party, for many years when amendments have been sought to the payroll tax legislation, has suggested that these sorts of bodies should be exempt because it seems wrong in principle that one level of government should impose a tax upon another. Certainly the reverse does not happen. There is no tax that the States apply which is payable by the Commonwealth. All honourable members know of the example of ratable property owned by the Commonwealth in municipalities and on which no rates can be collected. However, the same sort of immunity does not seem to apply’ to the tax on payroll. The Treasurer, in the course of his speech, indicated that about $40m annually is paid by air the States in payroll tax on their wages bills and about $30m additional is paid by semigovernment and local authorities. That is an aggregate of about $70m. He gave no estimate as to the percentage of that $70m which is borne by Victoria but, bearing in mind the level of economic activity and the total population of that State, it is likely that something between $23 m and $25m is the annual burden borne by Victoria.

The Opposition’s reason for suggesting that the tax should be lifted is that local authorities and State authorities are already short of finance. This situation probably applies with more force to local government authorities than it does to State authorities, because local government authorities have only rates available to them and if they are mulcted of this payroll tax it simply means that a higher level of rate has to be applied to make up for the sum that is paid in payroll tax. There is a certain amount of circular argument here and it is pointed out in the Bill, because it is suggested that, in the event of Victoria not paying the payroll tax which is properly applicable to it, or which the Commonwealth believes is properly applicable to it, sanction is sought in this legislation whereby, when making grants in the future and, in particular, for the financial year 1970-71 which has only some 2 months to run, an adjustment shall be made in the grants otherwise payable to Victoria to take from that State the amount of payroll tax that has not been collected. This seems to be an arbitrary kind of way for the Commonwealth to exercise its financial dominance. It seems to us most peculiar that it should be included in this measure. We are really mixing up 2 entirely different sorts of matters. Provision is made for a special amount to be paid to make up for the absence of the receipts duty, and to take from Victoria, and potentially from South Australia, uncollected payroll tax. Both Victoria and South Australia have challenged the validity of the imposition of payroll tax in a case before the High Court. I do not know whether the case has been proceeded with; it certainly has not yet been decided.

This is a tyrannical exercise of power by the Commonwealth. It seems fair enough that in the past the Commonwealth has been able to persuade the States - apparently it is still able to persuade them all, with the exception of Victoria and South Australia - by saying: ‘Let us continue to collect the payroll tax from you but we will take it into account when we are making the reimbursement.’ This seems to me to be a most untidy and unsatisfactory way of doing things. I suggest with all respect that it is a most inequitable way of doing things as far as the semi-government level of activity is concerned. It may be that the State can have the matter adjusted, but what adjustment will be made for the local governing authorities in this roundabout of Commonwealth and State financial relations for the payroll tax that they pay? I do not think that any adjustment is made. As I said earlier, honourable members on both sides of the House have had quite numerous representations made to them recently by local governing authorities suggesting that payments should be made directly from the Commonwealth to the local authorities to assist them in such works as the abatement of rates to people in receipt of age pen sions, the provision of certain social welfare services such as child minding centres and baby health centres, and the various kinds of relief work that local authorities are called upon to perform in the nature of social services but for which no direct payment is made to the local authorities and which has to be met out of their rates.

If it is true, as the Commonwealth suggests with respect to the States, that the matter has been taken into account in their reimbursement, I suggest that it has not been taken into account and cannot be taken into account under existing financial relationships as far as local government and semi-government undertakings are concerned. I believe it is high time that there was a re-assessment of the whole question of grants from the Commonwealth to the States. By reason of financial domination and to some extent the way in which taxes are allocated under the Commonwealth Constitution, it has become inevitable that the preponderance of financial resources should be available to the Commonwealth but that there, still is a variety of constitutional responsibilities that lie with the States and the local authorities but which are not matched by the availability of finance.

Having taken the opportunity here to point out the reality of the situation as far as payroll tax for the States is concerned, the Government should carry its thinking through a lot further to go to the logic of the mal-distribution and the inequity that prevails at the level I have described as the poor relations in financial arrangements, namely, the local authorities.. I hope that considerable attention will be given to that matter in the months that lie between now and the preparation of the Budget. I have no doubt that the Government will receive substantial representations about this important question from local authorities in the months ahead. We may not like it, but the majority of the people of Australia still live within about SO miles of the centre of the great capital cities, Melbourne and Sydney in particular. Between them the Melbourne and Sydney metropolises, taking a 50-mile radius contain almost half of the total population of Australia. It is in these conurbations that most of the problems of rational development for the future are beginning to emerge.

We hear a great deal of talk these days about pollution and of organisations having an unrestricted right to make a profit by setting up industry. People are beginning to be concerned now about the detriment that particular industries sometimes cause to the social environment. The Senate, in its report on this matter, pointed out quite clearly that the nature of these problems was such that they could not be handled merely at State or local levels and that they ought to be regarded as national problems. I believe that to obtain better financial relations with local governing authorities some attempt has to be made to break the nexus which at present prevails. Local authorities ace creatures of the States through Local Government Acts or whatever they may be called. Perhaps payments will have to be made for special purposes, at least on the basis of need, as demonstrated by the Commonwealth.

I hope that when the Parliament resumes, greater consideration will be given to these problems. 1 suppose one could say that we expected this kind of measure, that we knew what the constitutional arrangments were. That may be fair enough, but I believe, as a Parliament man, that when amounts of as much as $60m are spent there should be far more scrutiny on the part of the Parliament. To a great degree that scrutiny should lie in a systematic examination of the basis upon which payments are being made. I hope that we will have the opportunity when we come back to this Parliament in August to debate these great national matters with considerably more time and in more detail than we are able to get at the moment.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The one part of the Bill which concerns me is the provision to allow the Commonwealth to make deductions from grants for payroll tax which has not been paid. It is suggested in the Bill that the High Court might reject the challenge on payroll tax and the States would then not meet their obligation. This would appear to be a very doubtful situation. The Bill also contains a provision which would enable the Commonwealth to make a refund to a State which paid the payroll tax after having had a deduction from its grant. I am not sure of exactly what that means in financial terms, but it seems to me to be a bit of tweedledum and tweedledee. If the State has not paid the money and the Commonwealth has deducted a comparable amount from its grant, I do not see what difference a couple of bookkeeping entries would make to the accounts of either the Commonwealth or the State. If the Commonwealth gives money to the State and the State gives it back to the Commonwealth, at least this has the effect of employing people to make the bookkeeping entries. Apart from that it seems to be a pretty wasteful exercise.

I am concerned with the effect of the lack of revenue avenues which have been available to the States for a considerable period of time. The receipts tax legislation was the prime cause of the failure of this type of fund raising, which is the reason why this Bill is now before the Parliament. The receipts tax legislation was not a very equitable means of raising revenue. It was a fairly inefficient way for the States to raise revenue. But I think it is even more inefficient and more inequitable for the Commonwealth to be continuing to demand that the States pay to it payroll tax and for the States to accept - it appears that they are being asked to accept this - responsibility for the payroll of payroll tax by local government and other bodies which are subject to State laws.

In many cases the situation has now arisen - in Victoria I think this is a reasonable assumption - where the amounts of payroll tax which are being paid to the Commonwealth are very closely allied to the amounts of deficit which exist in the Victorian Budget. The effect of this is that the Commonwealth is taking money from that State on an interest free basis in taxation revenue, and in order to finance the money that must be paid to the Commonwealth the State has to dip into its loan money to finance the deficit. The people of Victoria are paying 7i per cent interest on money which is given to the Commonwealth in payroll tax. That appears to be the economic situation involved. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has dealt fairly adequately with that situation.

I appeal to the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to look seriously at the effects which are being and have been felt in the community because of the Commonwealth’s deliberate withholding of funds from the States. I believe that central finance is the most efficient method of finance which is available. While that finance is levied in the manner in which a big brother operation is able to continue, we will have , the situation which is occurring and re-occurring in all States especially in those States which are to some degree disadvantaged under the income tax formula. The situation in hospitals in Victoria is critical. The Geelong Hospital, which is in my electorate, had reached the stage at the end of last month where its bank overdraft was such that it was totally impossible for the hospital even to contemplate continuing unless additional revenue was made available. The hospital committee had made up its mind that it would be necessary to start dismissing staff and closing down sections of the hospital. This is a direct result of Government funds not being made available to this institution.

It is a pretty serious indictment of the financial situation which exists in Australia when vital community organisations such as hospitals have their future placed in jeopardy because of Government policy. Grace McKellar House - a home for the aged - is in similar financial difficulties. One of the prime causes of its difficulties is the increased cost of labour. There are other reasons for its difficulties. However, the Commonwealth is in a very good position in that if there is a 6 per cent increase in the Commonwealth wage structure it automatically receives a very substantial increase in revenue, but the States have to reduce their services by the amount of any increase in wages until such time as the Commonwealth, under the income tax formula or by some act of grace, decides to reimburse the States by the amount of the extra revenue involved. This is very serious because it is a re-occurring problem. It does not happen once every now and then. There are always some increases in wages and salaries; some increase in costs; and therefore some increase in revenues available to the Commonwealth and some relative decrease in the revenues of the States and local government bodies, which are most likely the worst affected of all. Because their method of revenue raising is on a flat rate of taxation, the cost structure to the community has no relationship to the ability to pay and has no equity in it whatsoever. 1 point out that age pensioners who do not pay any form of income tax and who could not be considered to be liable to income tax are now paying $1 per week or more in most areas in my electorate in council rates, which are just another form of taxation and which should not have to be levied at such a steep rate on people whose incomes are so low. I do not want to speak at great length on this, but 1 do think that it is important for some protest to be made in this Parliament about what appears to be the extremely high-handed manner in which this Bill has been framed, whereby the Commonwealth has reserved for itself virtually the right to take money out of the Victorian Treasury if the Victorian Government is able to prove in the High Court that the payroll tax which the Commonwealth has been levying against it is not constitutional. If it is not constitutional, I hope that the Commonwealth will, when it gets to this refund clause, refund all payroll tax which it has already collected from local government bodies and other bodies over a considerable number of years. This would be a bonanza to those organisations. It most likely would not be enough for Sir Henry Bolte, but that is one of those things. I think his appetite for funds is most likely insatiable.

There are serious financial problems which at this stage show no signs of being solved. These financial problems may be good political talking points for State politicians in abusing the . Commonwealth. These problems may well be and continue to be an embarrassment to the Federal Government. But the fact is that it is not the leaders of the State governments or the leaders of the Commonwealth Government who suffer; it is the community which suffers. The community services which can be provided only by local government and State government authorities, and which are so necessary in our community life if - it is to continue to develop, suffer. I refer to hospitals, homes for the aged, recreation facilities and so on, which have reached or are reaching the situation of total depression. Sufficient funds are not made available. There is a limit to how much people can be asked to pay. In Victoria the cost of a hospital bed is up to $196 a week. I think it is reasonable to say that no person who works for wages could possibly meet that charge. It may well be said that that is for private ward accommodation, but of course there are people who, although they do not wish to have the luxury, have to go into private accommodation at $196 per week because of the nature of their illness. The costs of insurance are greater to the individual than is the income tax which he pays to the Commonwealth each week.

I suggest that some real efforts should be made to ensure that moneys are available to provide the community services. The Treasurer, as a former Minister for Immigration, would know the number of people who do not represent natural increase in our population but who are adding to the population in the States. They require many more services than those that would normally accrue to people who make up the natural increase in the community and who find it easier to assimilate into the Community and to satisfy their social needs. These are points which most likely have been raised with the Treasurer before and in this Parliament before. But I think it is extremely important that the depressing conditions which are facing local government authorities, semi-government authorities and to a lesser extent State governments should not continue. The service which these bodies provide are real and necessary.

I would finish on this note: I hope that the challenge to the rights of the Commonwealth to levy payroll tax is successful because I think it is inequitable and improper for the Commonwealth to levy payroll tax on organisations such as local government authorities which can raise revenue only by the levying of taxes. I believe that income tax is a more equitable means. The moneys which are being raised in the form of payroll tax levied on local government authorities could be raised with less difficulty and probably less cost to the Commonwealth and the community if they were raised in the form of income tax. Payroll tax is not a good form of taxation; it is an inefficient form and, I think, a highly improper one.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– J rise at this late hour when two more Bills listed on the notice paper are still to be discussed tonight, to record my disappointment that this is the second Bill of a finan cial nature that has come before the House in the dying hours of this sessional period on which no Government member has seen fit to talk. Earlier when we were debating a series of income tax Bills, other than from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) who made one contribution when one minute was left before the guillotine was due to fall we had no contribution from the Government benches. Again in the debate on this States Grants Bill we have had no contribution from Government members. It is indicative of the way in which the business of this House is being conducted, particularly in relation to these important measures.

Mr Reynolds:

– The Government members are not even in the chamber.

Mr HURFORD:

– As the honourable member for Barton says, the Government members are not even in the chamber, or very few of them are here. I want to make two points about payroll tax. First of all 1 support wholeheartedly what has been said by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). I think that most members of this Parliament have been circularised by an alderman of the Hobart City Council. My reaction to that circular was that the payroll tax that is levied on local government authorities must form part of a new deal in this country in Commonwealth, State and local government authority financial relationships. This Bill we have before us is just another example of the ricocheting from one crisis to another which is the story of Commonwealth-State relationships, and we hardly even get the chance to discuss the sad position of local government finances in this Parliament unless the matter is brought forward as a matter of public importance by the Labor Opposition.

I take this opportunity to say those few words relating to payroll tax and to mention one other point in relation to the same subject. I note that in the opening paragraph of his second reading speech the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) mentions South Australia - quite correctly, I agree - as being one of the States which are challenging the legality of the imposition of payroll tax on State concerns. If my memory serves me correctly, the South Australian Government has merely followed the lead of Sir Henry Bolte in this matter to the extent that, if the High Court of Australia does come to the decision that the imposition is invalid, this decision will apply to all States. Indeed, South Australia should be joined in that action. I want to point out that the Labor Government of South Australia has not taken the initiative in this matter. It did not want to take any initiative in this matter.

I consider that the Premier of South Australia, Mr Don Dunstan, to be about the only person in a senior government position in Australia who is talking any sort of sense when it comes to a realistic idea of how Commonwealth, State and local government authority financial relationships ought to be run at this time in our history. He is, of course, talking about co-operative federalism and more or the sort of relationship that there is between certain ministries at the Commonwealth level and the State level. I am referring to such meetings as meetings of the Australian Minerals Council, when the Minister for National Development gets together with the Mines Ministers for the various States, and meetings of the Attorneys-General on company law and in these sorts of areas. There is room for far more co-operation of this sort and for closer and far more formal ties of this sort in this country so that the planning can be done together and not separately.

The present situation is that the Commonwealth decides on a rather ad hoc basis what is to be done. Before Commonwealth representatives go to Premiers Conferences and Loan Council meetings the Commonwealth has really made the decisions. But with a bit of window dressing they make it appear that the State Premiers partake in these decisions when this is not really so. The Commonwealth representatives go to these meetings and hand out to the States more or less on a plate what they have already decided to give them and the States then have to go back and grapple with their great problems. A lot of those problems have been caused by the Commonwealth itself. In saying that I am referring to the migration scheme. I am not knocking the scheme in itself, but of course it has caused great needs in the fields of education, housing, health and hospitals, urban renewal and a lot of other areas which are being poorly treated in this country at the present time and which are causing great hardship particularly for the lower income groups of our country. It is only those two points that I wanted to talk about briefly tonight.

I express the hope that in the future there will be more formal arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and that these arrangements will include local government authorities. We are supposed to be in the first year of a new deal. It was the last Premiers Conference which set the pattern and the formula for the distribution to the States for the next 5 years or maybe the next 3 years. I am speaking from memory. Yet already we have these crises of the States being forced to find alternative funds because they cannot raise money through receipts duty tax, and we have the 6 per cent national wage case causing greater problems. I hope that from the year 1971-72 onwards we will have more formal relationships and that we will not be ricocheting from one crisis to another in this field and that we will not have Bills such as this one being brought up in the dying, hours of the sittings.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– in reply - There have been 3 speakers who have brought up varying points, but in some respects the points brought up overlap. I would like to deal firstly with the point made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). He said that he. resented - I think he used a word as .strong as that - legislation coming in so late in the sessional period. I want to assure him that I would like to have brought . the legislation in earlier but I have been constantly holding off in the hope that the decision of the High Court of Australia in the payroll tax case would be delivered so that I could bring in legislation on the basis of that decision. But with the Parliament about to rise I found it necessary to bring in legislation which surveyed both the possibility of the decision going against, the Commonwealth and the possibility of it going against the States. In many respects that explains the first point raised by the honourable member for Corio. (Mr Scholes) as to why this deduction and refund is made.

Of course, very wide publicity was given to the arrangements which are incorporated in this Bill, save one, and that is the provision of an extra §3m. The amount of $59.7m for the purpose of receipts duties compensation was very well publicised following the meeting of the Premiers, and the $43m that was given to the States for the relief of budget deficits was also very well publicised. The States were provided for on that basis. I do not think honourable members were seriously inconvenienced in dealing with the matter in that manner. The only other amount not known was $3m. That had to be provided in equity because if that had not been done the totality of the States would be $3m short of what it ought to have been on a proper evaluation of what the annual wage increase was until 31st March. Apart from the arguments raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) I think I have answered the matters that he discussed.

The honourable member for Corio raised the matter of payroll tax. I am quite sure that the Premier of Victoria would have been delighted if his statement was correct that the amount of the budget deficit was the amount of the payroll tax not paid by the States. In fact, if my memory is correct, Sir Henry Bolte expected that his budget deficit would have been between approximately $22m and $23m, and that the amount of payroll tax that he would have paid is $9m. So there is a difference.

I would like to make another important point to the honourable member for Corio. He is always willing to study the facts. 1 would like him to bear this in mind when he talks about the old argument of the States borrowing money and paying interest and the Commonwealth raising money and not paying interest. That old argument has done the rounds. Let me remind the honourable member that there are 2 very significant points. The first point is that the Commonwealth has released the States of debt charges of $200m in the last financial year and that under the arrangement that amount will escalate. The second point is that within the Commonwealth loan programme for works and services a grant of $200m is included. From recollection, last year, approximately $830m was allocated for the Commonwealth loan programme.

Of that, $200m was actually granted for the works programme.

The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said that he would like to see more formal arrangements concluded. If by that statement the honourable member means that there should be an agreement of some kind, I understand what he means - if that is what he intends to convey. But what the arrangement is could not be more clear. That is that the total cash flow from the Commonwealth to the States which includes the provisions in this Bill will amount in this financial year to $2,850m. That cash flow is on the basis of all the States paying the payroll tax. That was a clear condition that the Commonwealth imposed and the States other than Victoria accepted it. All States, including South Australia, have actually made payroll tax payments. The increase of money to the States this financial year is approximately $190m under the arrangement agreed to last October. Another $103m will be granted by this Bill. I think that is the correct figure. This is an increase of almost $300m in this financial year over the payment made last financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2797

VICTORIA GRANT (SHEPPARTON PRESERVING COMPANY LIMITED) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May (vide page 2658), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– In the early hours of today, the Opposition protested at the introduction of this Bill. Our principal reason for objection was the way in which it was introduced, and the short time given to the Oppostion to examine it, analyse it and make recommendations to the executive and to the caucus. Then, we had to consider the appropriate action to be taken in the Parliament. The fact of the matter is that the Bill was introduced, I am told by the Clerk, at 12.57 a.m. today. In fact, one could say that it was introduced stealthily - surreptitiously, if honourable members like - although I will admit that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) had given the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Wbitlam) a draft copy of the Bill.

The remarkable part of this legislation - in fact, it really intrigues me - is that the Bill, which was introduced at 12.57 o’clock this morning has as its purpose the ratification by the Parliament of the agreement between Sir Henry Bolte and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). That is what the Bill seeks. . We are told in the Schedule that an agreement was made on 5th May. Today is 6th May. In other, words, the agreement was made yesterday. The important point about it is this: Although we may debate whether in fact this $4.2m has been, will be or should be made available, it would appear from a reading of the Minister’s second reading speech that the money has already been made available. So, I suppose that one could argue that it does not matter two hoots what this Parliament does or what decision it makes because the Shepparton Preserving Company Limited has already had access to- this finance. I find this a most remarkable aspect of the legislation.

On 31st December, a little over 4 months ago, the crisis as the Minister termed it, with respect to this company, was fully acknowledged by the Government of Victoria and the Commonwealth to the degree that this crisis was said to be so urgent that this money was made available to the Victorian Government by the Commonwealth Government. It was not until 12.57 a.m. today, more than 4 months later, that the Government decided to let the Opposition know of this agreement. Then at 11.20 tonight we are expected to debate this Bill.

Mr Daly:

– It is scandalous.

Dr PATTERSON:

– As my good friend the honourable member for Grayndler has said, it is scandalous. In view of this I intend to move an amendment. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) can appreciate the sentiments of the Opposition in doing so. This amendment is moved in sincerity. Certain precedents have been established here which I believe are very important. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: further progress of this BUI be deferred until a financial analysis of the five canneries in the Gonlburn Valley, Upper Murray and Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area has been completed and a report presented to the Parliament’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Daly:

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

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member for Grayndler will speak to the amendment later. I believe that a very important precendent is established here. It is one to which Parliament should give consideration. The Parliament is asked to approve the provision of an interest bearing loan to the Victorian Government, but in effect it is really a Commonwealth loan of $4.2m to the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd. The basic reason for this loan is that this company has got into serious financial difficulties. The fact that it happens to be within the electorate of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen, I suppose is incidental. Perhaps I should not have alluded to that, but one becomes very suspicious after a while in this Parliament. Our new colleague, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I assume will be quite pleased with this Bill, and so he should be. After all, there are not very many companies in Australia to which the Commonwealth Government can suddenly lend on a very flimsy security $4m with simply a1¼-page justification.

Mr McLeay:

– What is the security?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting.

Dr PATTERSON:

– There are not many precedents - I will be interested to see whether the Minister for Primary Industry gives me one! - where the Commonwealth Government has lent $4m virtually directly to a private company without a feasibility study, without an economic analysis and without economic justification, because that company through entirely its own fault got itself into trouble. It is not the fault of the

Commonwealth or State governments; it is entirely the fault of the management of this company. In 1968 the company was a viable company. It has now got itself into trouble and big brother, the Federal Government, has come to its assistance. I am quite certain that the Minister for Primary Industry only has 2 ears and he could not have heard what I said then because of the musical chairs that is being played on the other side of the table. I am trying to direct a question to the Minister and now the Deputy Government Whip-

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. Is the honourable member for Angas in his correct seat?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. Honourable members will help the honourable member for Dawson, if they cease interjecting.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The principal objection of the Opposition is on the basis of the precedent that is established here. If this precedent is established then almost every private company in Australia whether it be a sugar mill, a mining company or a corner shop has the right to expect the same treatment from the Commonwealth. Every company, every institution, every shop in Australia is entitled to the same treatment. I have asked the Minister to tell me the precedent in Australia where we have seen the Commonwealth Government suddenly - it was at 12.57 this morning - provide $4.2m to a private company.

Mr McLeay:

– That is not true.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I know it is not true. In fact it provided the money on 31st December last and the Opposition did not know anything about it.

Mr McLeay:

– The State Government, old son.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We do not know what the honourable member is talking about. His interjection is: ‘The State Government, old son’. Just look at him.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He does not look any worse than you do, that is for sure.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member for Griffith has not even got out of his cradle yet. The principal reason for our opposition at this point of time is that the Government cannot treat the Shepparton Preserving Company in isolation. Anybody with any basic knowledge of cannery production in Victoria and in the Muitumbidgee Irrigation Area knows that it is not only the Shepparton Preserving Co. which is in trouble. Other Companies are also in trouble. There is Ardmona, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister for Primary Industry has to say about it. Is Ardmona in the same financial situation as SPC? What about Kyabram? In the Upper Murray region, what about Riverland?

Mr Turnbull:

– The Upper Murray?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Upper Murray, yes. It has been established that Riverland has been short of funds for at least 5 years and is in a far more serious position than SPC. What about Leeton in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area? In other words, we have 5 important cannery companies, including SPC, and in my opinion the other 4 companies have just as much right to consideration as the Shepparton Preserving Company.

Mr Keating:

– They probably do not pay into the Country Party funds.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That is probably right. Let us be quite serious here. The important point is that we have a number of cannery companies closely associated with Shepparton. Surely to goodness these other companies deserve the same treatment as the Shepparton Preserving Co. is receiving. Riverland is in a far more precarious financial position in the long term than is SPC.

Sitting suspended from 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight

Thursday, 6 May 1971 (continuation)

Dr PATTERSON:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I asked the Minister to enlighten the Opposition as to precedence with respect to this Bill. I want to make the point that the Opposition is not opposed to the payment of $4. 2m to the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd, but it does believe that before this money is made available there should be full economic justification for this decision. There is no evidence to suggest that this decision is justified. It is quite obvious that the Shepparton Preserving Co. is in a parlous financial condition, but what has caused it to be in this position. I should have thought that the Minister for Primary Industry would have enlightened us as to why this company is in such a poor financial position that suddenly it has to have $4m particularly in view of its financial position prior to the crash. In 1968, which was the year prior to the crash, the Shepparton Preserving Co. had reserves of $9. 13m and unappropriated profits of $739,000, giving a total of $9.87m. Taking into account the issued capital of approximately $1.5m, the total amount of shareholders’ funds in the company in 1968 was $11. 3m. In 1968 the SPC was in fact in a very viable position. Its shareholders’ funds amounted to $llm, which is not bad for a company of its size. Its issued capital was just under $1.5m and its unappropriated profits where $0.75m. Within 2 years the company has crashed and the Government has had to come to its assistance to the extent of more than $4m.

Mr Jess:

– Something like this happened in the cherry industry.

Dr PATTERSON:

– This is a little different to what happened in the cherry industry. I should have thought that the Government would have given some reason for the crash of this company. What is the relative financial position of Ardmona, Kyabram, Riverland and Leeton? The financial position of, for example, Riverland and Leeton in 1968 was very much worse than the financial position of SPC. In 1968, the year before the crash, the SPC had unappropriated profits of $0.75m. On the other hand, Riverland suffered a loss of $430,000 and Leeton suffered a loss of $400,000. My point that for the love of me I cannot see how the Government can ignore Riverland, Leeton, Kyabram and Ardmona because the 5 canneries are inter-related. As I have pointed out, 2 of those canneries are in a worse financial position than Shepparton. On what basis does the Government justify the giving by way of an interest bearing loan $4.2m to one company and ignoring the other companies? I again want to make it very clear to the Minister that although the Opposition is not opposed to this measure it believes that the other companies should be included in this analysis. There is no question that the Government favoured the SPC, but why? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. The Opposition is not opposed to this legislation, but it wants to defer its passage. The money has been already made available. It will not hurt anybody to defer the Bill.

Mr McMahon:

– lt is not repayable directly to us. It is repayable by the Victorian Government.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. The point is that the Opposition would not be opposed to the principle involved if, at the same time, the Government were to give consideration to Leeton and Riverland, in particular, as well as the other companies because they are all inter-related and at least 2 of them are in a worse financial position than the SPC. I think that is fair. I am not putting this proposition forward in any lighthearted way. The producers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, and the Upper Murray as well as the producers in the Goulburn Valley have to be taken into consideration in relation to advances from the canneries. I repeat: Why is it necessary for the Commonwealth to advance over $4m to the State of Victoria to assist a company that had a total of $9m in shareholders funds in 1968? Surely to goodness the answer is that it was due to bad management. Let me state one fact in support of that comment. The SPC embarked on a most ambitious project in Manjimup in Western Australia to build a cannery costing at least Sim. Despite the fact that no feasibility study was conducted or an analysis made of the domestic or the external market position, somebody made a decision which committed this company to build a major cannery in Western Australia. On 9th September 1970 the SPC suddenly announced that it had shelved the Manjimup project. The company lost $200,000 on this project, which it has shelved completely. I do not think anybody would disagree with me when I say that this was due to poor management. As I have mentioned, no feasibility study was conducted. Apparently after the decision had been made to go ahead and construct this cannery at Manjimup a new management came in and, after the books had been audited, it was apparently decided to scrap the project. It is the principle involved that worries me.

The Opposition does not oppose this measure in the ‘sense of opposing the whole concept. All we are asking is that it be deferred. Surely the Government cannot use the Commonwealth tax payers’ money, public funds, and to provide an interest bearing loan to a State, to a private company, or a co-operative company, if you like, when the essence of the problem has been bad management. If the Government does that I can assure it that when something happens to the sugar mills in my area, I will be making representations to the Commonwealth for a loan. Every saw mill, every mining company and every business has full rights through the member in the electorate to approach the Commonwealth on the same principle. I am very pleased to see that the Prime Minister is here. I think the Bill sets a very dangerous precedent, and I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. It will not have any effect at all on the distribution of this money at this point of time because all we need are simply the reasons and the justification for this measure. But what I object to - I think every member of the Parliament should object to it - is that this crisis was known on 31 December last, 4 months ago; yet the agreement was not signed until yesterday, and the Bill was not introduced until 1 o’clock this morning. The Minister cannot correlate those 3 points. If the crisis was known in December, I would assume that the Cabinet made a decision before the money was made available. Why was this Bill not introduced into the Parliament early in the proceedings? Why was the Press statement not made?

Mr McMahon:

– Because the final amount was agreed to only recently.

Dr PATTERSON:

– But the principle must have been established and Cabinet must have known of a figure at least somewhere in this vicinity.

Mr Sinclair:

– But the agreement was not completed.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That does not alter the tenor of my argument, which I repeat, and that is I think the Commonwealth has established a dangerous precedent by making interest bearing loans, irrespective of the rate of interest, available to private companies. Once it does this, I can assure every member of the Parliament that bona fide companies that have failed through bad management, not overseas prices, will have every right to come to the Commonwealth and ask for similar treatment to that given to Shepparton Preserving Co. That is the point I make.

Friday, 7 May 1971

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

I am not normally in agreement with the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I disagree with him on this occasion more than ever before during my time in this chamber. Despite the amount of repetition which he gave us - in fact he had validity in most of what he said - I do not agree with him in his undue emphasis on the time of the introduction of this Bill. But when we get down to the substance of the issue, I have to talk from a specific point of view. This particular loan, underpinned, as it were, by the Commonwealth on behalf of the State of Victoria, and several other loans of a similar kind which have already been implemented, have a considerable effect on the apple processing industry in Tasmania. The effect as far as can be discerned is such that in the years 1968 to 1970 Tasmania’s share of the bulk apple production of the internal market in Australia declined from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. I cannot totally prove that this is the only incidence of differential operation which has caused that situation. I can say only that I am assured by the Tasmanian Fruit Processors Association, that their production processes, the promotion of their produce, their marketing facilities and their labour costs are comparable with those of their mainland competitors. Probably in one respect only are they at a disavantage, and that is in relation to freight charges, which is a matter well known to this chamber. But in this particular case there does not seem to be a critical difference. After consultation with some of these other industries, it is firmly believed that these loans, and even grants I think in some other cases, have made it possible for mainland apple processors to seriously cut into the Tasmanian share of the market. The market in Australia is of the order of 35,000,000, lb per annum, about 15,000,000 lb of which comes from Tasmania. The reduction in its share of the market, as I said earlier from 60 per cent to 40 per cent, appears to be a direct reflection of the incidence of other producers coming on to the market. While some of the other producers such as the Batlow Co-operative and Jon Preserving Co-op. Ltd presumably have had some bearing on this matter, the straw which is bidding fair to break the camel’s back in this case appears to be the Shepparton Preserving Co Ltd. It is clear from the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that there is considerable justification for the belief, as I think my friend from Dawson has acknowledge, that Shepparton SPC, and no less the area of Shepparton, appears to be considerably dependant upon the viability of that industry. Nevertheless, as I see it, we appear to have here something of an industrial parallel with the balance of nature theme that is found in other areas. One could have a situation where there is an entity of production - an entity of competition if you like - to which extraneous factors axe introduced, and it leads one into reactions which were not necessarily envisaged, and which one, does not even necessarily want to happen. So we have a situation now where mainland producers are selling 6i lb cans of the bulk apple product at something like $1 to $1.50 per dozen less than the Tasmanian producers who are making their best efforts in perhaps the best apple growing areas in the natural state in Australia. So the points ;made by the honourable member for Dawson in the sense that there may be precedents and that there may be dangers involved in this sort of operation I think are well made.

While I am not here making a special plea, it is clear that the Commonwealth is involved through the States in such an operation as this. It is clear that the opera tion is initiated by the States. In this case the Victorian Government has seen fit to shore up the present viability or otherwise of SPC at Shepparton. In other words, the Commonwealth has seen fit, I think understandably, to pick up the tab as a result of Victorian representation. That is only reasonable, as I see it. But I think the incidence and the effects of this sort of thing, as I suggested earlier, are not necessarily foreseen in their totality. So we do not plead for a handout or something of that kind because clearly in terms of what I have said, whether I am right or wrong, it would come back to the Tasmanian Government to make a representation of the kind that Victoria has made on behalf of its particular firm. At the same time where does this leave a firm, or a series of firms, which are in fact still viable and which are holding up their end of the market to some extent, although declining in their share, but which cannot say: ‘We are on our knees; we are going out of production tomorrow unless you forward us a loan or a grant of $lm or $2m or $3m’? Where does it leave these people whose market is being cut into and who are not yet in the position of being able to say: ‘If you do not make money available to us we have had it. Our area will be in a parlous state and we may have unemployment with all the attendant consequences’?

I think that I : have made my point sufficiently. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already made but I draw attention to What I believe to be the validity of the remarks of the honourable member for Dawson who referred to the problems of precedent which could arise from the sort . of operation we are now considering. It will be clearly a function of Tasmanian governments to consider whether the seriousness of the situation in Tasmania ultimately merits the same sort of representations ‘ to and the same sort of treatment by the Commonwealth as has been afforded to other producers. I am given to understand - I cannot substantiate it on a personal basis - that at the time the Shepparton Preserving Co. took on apple production, as distinct from other fruit production in which it was engaged, there could be seen to be no capacity in the apple market for expansion. Expansion may be allowable in terms of anybody wishing to compete against somebody else but if such expansion is to be undertaken with subsidies or government loans or grants the situation is complicated. So I join, in qualified degree, with the honourable member for Dawson in having certain misgivings about this kind of operation. I hope, however, that when other such operations are envisaged we will be able to look further into the future acknowledging the problems of various firms which are affected in the same way as the Shepparton Preserving Co. has clearly been affected in needing the grant which has been recommended and which it is now sought to ratify.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I support the amendment which I feel is logically related to the problems not only of the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd but also of the canning fruits industry generally. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) suggested that the canning fruits industry in the Murray Valley is the creation of State action and State legislation. This is not really the case, and the national Parliament should not run away from what is clearly a Commonwealth responsibility because the Commonwealth and the States were both involved in the birth of the canning fruits industry which is basically an expert industry.

This export industry was developed primarily under the umbrella of the Ottowa agreement which was drawn up in 1932, a whole generation ago. The primary purpose of that agreement was to supply the British market, because we were all then part of an imperial system and were a closed shop, so to speak, in trade. 1 do not want to go over the history of imperial trade in the time that is available tonight but I draw attention to the fact that the Commonwealth has a clear responsibility in that it entered into the international agreements which gave birth to this industry. It is true that Victoria and New South Wales played a complementary role in the birth of what is basically an export industry. This point should be made clear because the House of Representatives is now considering a measure which proposed aid to one unit in the industry. That one unit is the largest cannery - I say this with some degree of charity - in Australia. As a matter of fact, it used to be said that if a person lived in Victoria, the largest cannery in the nation was in Shepparton but if he lived in New South Wales it was in Leeton. I do not want to labour this point because I am sure that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and I could produce statistics to prove that we are both right, depending on what we are saying and what figures we produce. However this is not really the point at issue.

The point is that the canning fruits industry is the basis of 5 Australian towns and communities. It is the basis of the lives, work and prosperity, such as it is, of probably 250,000 people, so we are not dealing in an abstract way with an industry or a problem. This has been recognised by the Opposition in putting forward its amendment. Opposition members agree that there are trouble and problems with the Shepparton cannery. Those who are deeply involved in the canning fruits industry are well aware of what has given rise to the problems. I do not want to go into that detail at all. I fully understand the position and it is to the credit of the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth Government that it has been decided to give a helping hand. But this is not the full story, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) pointed out. It is not just a case of one unit in this industry; it is a case of all units concerned, including Leeton. I want to draw attention to the problems which Leeton has faced, because these are problems that touch on the Opposition’s amendment. The Leeton Co-operative Cannery was born on the basis of the old State cannery which was abandoned by the Government of the day. The government gave birth to it and then said: ‘Well, we do not really want it. Who will adopt this infant that we have produced?’ What happened was that a group of enterprising fruit growers got together - associated with them was my distinguished predecessor in the State electorate of Murrumbidgee. Mr George Enticknap - and said: ‘All right; we will take over from the State and will launch a new enterprise’. They also took over a lot of equipment and a lot of debt, which they still have.

Mr Hurford:

– The debt or the equipment?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Both. They battled very well. They have done a particularly fine job in making repayments. The State also has done well. The State did not lose anything; it gained. But now, in 1971, a situation has developed which touches on a key community in New South Wales - a fine community of men, women and children who are involved in the cannery. If the canning fruits industry is killed, not only is a cannery killed but also an, entire town. This applies at Shepparton too. It would be dead without its cannery. I am sure that the honourable member for Murray will develop that theme but let me get on with my theme in relation to the Leeton cannery which is covered by the amendment. The Leeton cannery has a hangover of debt dating back a whole generation. The export markets picture has changed dramatically and there is a break up of the old imperial system - The old imperial closed shop. There is, in fact, an erosion of our preferences in the United Kingdom market which this cannery and this industry were created to serve.

The Opposition is concerned not only with the present transient problems of finance, such as the Government has referred to in this measure, but also with the fundamental stability and future of this industry. Therefore I think that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who I am sure has looked at this in depth, has a responsibility to answer the case presented by the Opposition not only in relation to the viability of this one unit in Shepparton but also to spell out the principle in relation to the other canneries in 3 States - in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. The honourable member for Dawson was being particularly impassioned in a very dedicated way because Queensland is not involved in this at present. But in fact 5 towns in 3 States are involved - a population of a quarter of a million people.

The principle is the key. If in fact the Government is is now saying: The canned fruits industry is important to the nation, is important to this number of people, and is important to us as a Government’, then we of the Opposition are very happy with that. We are particularly pleased that the Government accepts the general commitment. But this legislation does not do that. The Minister, in his second reading speech, has said only that there is a problem in a cannery and we will help to overcome that problem by assisting that cannery. But there is no general commitment in principle. This is proposal is not good enough. Surely to goodness we should have a statement of principle not only in relation to the transient difficulties of financing which the Shepparton cannery may find itself facing, and which, indeed the Leeton cannery finds itself facing at the moment, but also in relation to the future. I should draw attention to the fact that not so very long ago, in the very area that, we are debating tonight, a question was posed to the then Minister for Primary Industry, now the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), about the future of the pear industry if and when Britain entered the European Economic Community. The Minister at the time turned to his chief assistant and said: ‘Well, what is the position?’ The assistant said: ‘Six months after that, of course, pears are finished’. That is what he said, it seems that the Government believes there will be no problem. Next he was asked exactly what would happen with the rest of the canned fruits industry. He indicated that in a very short time after Britain’s entry, it would be dead and hopeless. That was his summation at that time.

What . do we face this morning? The national Parliament is being asked to approve the appropriation of $4m. That is not a minor sum. The important thing surely is the principle involved. If we are to do that in relation to this unit, what about the future of the industry, not only in relation to the transient difficulties of financing but also after Britain enters the European Economic Community? The Opposition has been asking questions about this. I feel deeply involved, as I must be on behalf of the people that I represent, and 1 ask: Where is the commitment? What is the commitment on the part of the Government to this important industry in the future? If Britain enter the European Economic Community, all right. She must do so if she sees fit. But what is our position as a nation and what is the Government’s position in relation to this industry and the people involved in it? The Government still has not committed itself. It has made no commitment. I think this is an important matter.

After all, we are members of the national Parliament. Not all of the honourable members here assembled are intimately aware of the intricacies of the financing and operations of the Shepparton cannery. Not many members here are particularly stirred about the problems that are faced by the Leeton Co-operative Cannery. I do not blame them for that but surely, if honourable members as a whole, on both sides of the chamber, are to apply themselves constructively to the problem they must be told 2 things. Firstly, has the Government a commitment to the canned fruits industry of the nation - yes or no - irrespective of whether Britain enters the European Economic Community, and secondly, is the commitment now being made to the Shepparton cannery a commitment in principle to all of the important and vital units of this industry in the 3 States concerned? These are 2 simple questions.

Mr Martin:

– It is a national matter.

Mr GRASSBY:

– As my distinguished friend the honourable member for Banks, points out, it is a national matter. We must be fair to the members of the Parliament who are not directly involved with this matter. I speak with some dedication and emotion on this subject because it touches on the people I am sent here to represent. Surely honourable members who are sitting here trying to weigh up dispassionately the pros and cons of this legislation are entitled to answers particularly to the 2 questions I have posed. This indeed is a matter of high principle touching on a particularly important industry. The Leeton Co-operative Cannery is a captive, I might say, of the New South Wales Government at the present time in regard to finance. Just the other day it was obvious that there would become available a very large quantity of citrus fruits that could be processed for juice for which there is a ready market. There was a ready agreement by the. directorate and the management of the cannery to take the additional oranges and to make and sell juice. There was no problem about this idea in the physical sense and there was no problem involved in selling the juice. But there was a financial problem because in fact the State Government, through the Rural Bank which almost manages the financial affairs of that cannery, said: No, we do not feel that you should have the additional money. Of course, it is very easy for an honourable member who represents a dairying elector ate to be disinterested but I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to pay attention.

Mr Sinclair:

– I might mention that I visited the Letona cannery, which is more than you have done:

Mr GRASSBY:

– Do not treat this with levity. It may be 25 minutes to 1 o’clock in the morning but you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order!

Mr GRASSBY:

– The. Minister, should be ashamed of himself. He should not tell me that I have abdicated responsibility for the affairs of my constituency. He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member for Riverina will resume his seat.

Mr GRASSBY:

– He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Riverina will restrain himself, and I ask the Minister not to engage in cross talk again.

Mr Sinclair:

– I apologise. 1 was trying to explain to the honourable member that I had visited the Letona cannery and 1 was very sympathetic with his problem. I am sorry he was not interested in hearing what I said.

Mr GRASSBY:

– If 1 misunderstood the gestures of the Minister and have done him an injustice, I apologise. I am delighted to hear of his interest. I hope he maintains his interest for the rest of my remarks. But you know how gestures are, Mr Deputy Speaker. I realise that it is very difficult to capture the intense interest of all members of the Parliament at this time of the morning in relation to a sectional matter, a district matter. I appreciate the difficulties but I make the points in all sincerity.

Before the incident occurred, which I regret, ‘I was drawing attention to the fact that here was a very good exercise from the financial point of view and from the trading point of view for one of the two largest canneries in the nation, which was prevented by a decision of the State Government through its State bank. This Bill relates to a similar situation. The difference is that the Commonwealth Government has decided to mount a rescue operation. As the honourable member for Dawson said, we of the Opposition do not object to the rescue operation - in fact we commend it - but we think the principle should be clearly established that it should apply to all of the production units in this most efficient export industry. I have made my 2 major points. I do not wish to reiterate them. 1 think the Minister is nodding to indicate that he has noted them. He has indicated his sympathy so I commend the 2 points to him. I do not want to do him an injustice and I am sorry if I misunderstood his gestures earlier. I am delighted to feel that, in fact, he was demonstrating a deep passion and sympathy which I did not quite recognise at the time. Now, of course, I give him an opportunity to express his sympathy in practical terms in relation to our amendment, which I support with considerable enthusiasm.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– It has been stated here tonight that this whole question of funds through loans for the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd has come on us rather suddenly. The ‘Shepparton News’ of 18th December 1970 carried this headline:

Loan funds to pay fruit men.

The same statement appeared in newspapers in the major cities at that time. In fact, negotiations on these loan arrangements had been proceeding for several months prior to December so I think it is rather strange to hear anybody particularly somebody who claims to know something about the industry, say that this has happened suddenly. The ‘Shepparton News’ of 18th December continued:

The Prime Minister Mr Gorton has agreed to the Commonwealth Government making loan funds available to Victoria to enable SPC fruit suppliers to be paid for their 1970 crop.

The Victorian Government has to guarantee the payment of interest and repayment of capital over a 10-year period.

Mr Daly:

– What date was that?

Mr LLOYD:

– December 18th 1970.

Mr Daly:

– What date was the by-election?

Mr LLOYD:

– March 20th. If members of the Australian Labor Party are interested in the dates between 18th December and 20th. March, it could be quite interesting to read what they had to say about the lack of help for the fruit industry by the Government. The newspaper article continued:

The Premier Sir Henry Bolte has agreed to make the legal machinery of his Government available through the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission for the utilisation of loan funds subject to 3 provisos.

These are: That the Commonwealth Government make the loan funds available to Victoria for the purpose;

I ask honourable members to take note of the second point because it has been stated here tonight that this money was advanced to SPC without any economic investigation of the viability of the cannery. The next proviso was: the Reserve Bank agrees that SPC is a viable proposition and is prepared to continue providing normal banking facilities -

Mr Foster:

– You do not do that with Ardmona.

Mr LLOYD:

– Ardmona does not need it because Ardmona is making a profit. If anybody claims that’ there has not been an economic investigation ‘ of the viability of SPC and, when told that the Reserve Bank has made such an investigation, still maintains this, I do not know what to think. I would next like to quote from the ‘Shepparton News’ of 19th March 1971 and its report of what the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), had said when he was visiting Shepparton the day before. The article stated:

He ‘ said he knew many Golden Valley people were greatly troubled by what had happened to pear growers.

The Commonwealth Government had arranged & loan of $4m to the Victorian Government so that growers could be paid for the last season’s pears.

But there was still the problem of the surplus of this season’s crop which he hoped could be dealt with to the grower’s satisfaction.

Mr McMahon said the Victorian Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, had approached him for further Federal assistance for fruit growers in the Shepparton area.

Submissions were being prepared for him to see what contribution could be made from the Federal sphere towards a solution to the Shepparton problem.

I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for their action along these lines by guaranteeing funds for the SPC through a loan to the Victorian Government, and I commend also the Victorian Government and the Country Party member for Shepparton, Mr Peter Ross

Edwards. But to refer to Tasmania for a moment, I am well aware of the problem which the honourable member for Dennison (Dr Solomon) has raised concerning apple processing and a glut of particular types of bulk apple products in Australia, but I remind the honourable member that if he can talk about Tasmania having certain rights in Australia with regard to apples I can talk about Victoria having a certain right in Australia with regard to pears. I believe that Tasmania processes pears as well.

When we are talking about the SPC and what it may or may not have done to the bulk apple processing industry in Australia we should be fair and say that it is not only the SPC cannery that is processing apples but other canneries in the Goulburn Valley as well, and that if this finance had not been made available to SPC the result would have been far more severe for the processors in Tasmania because - the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) made this point - the SPC has the largest cannery in Australia. The. SPC is such an integral and important part of the canning industry that if it had collapsed I believe the whole canning fruit industry and the stability of prices in this industry would have collapsed with it. To SPC’s credit it processed very few tons of apples this year, but if SPC had collapsed and there had been a liquidation of selling operations thousands of tons of apples would have been released on to- the market. I think this would have had a far - more severe effect on processors in Tasmania than may be the case at the moment.

Last night the Opposition alleged that the Government was doing little to help the farmers of Australia. Here we have an example of a practical measure to help rural people in real need and we get at best a grudging acceptance of it by honourable members opposite. To me this is quite an interesting contradiction. The honourable member for Riverina has shown sympathy for the canning fruit industry but both he and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) made the point that possibly we should defer consideration of support for one company until we see whether all the others need it and then we might look at the matter again. When these other canneries can show, in the way that

SPC was forced to show, that they need assistance I will be very pleased to support any measures to help them, and when this time comes I believe that support will be more generous than that being given to SPC.

Mention was made of a statement attributed to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) during the Murray byelection concerning the doom of the canning fruit industry if Britain joined the Common Market. This statement was denied by the Minister. The upshot was that the leading people in the fruit industry in the Goulburn Valley did not criticise the Minister for Trade and Industry because he was speaking for the industry and the future of the industry; they criticised the honourable member for Riverina for his doom tactics. Somebody suggested that we look at the date of the Murray by-election and the dates on which statements were made by the former Prime ‘ Minister before the byelection. It would make very interesting reading if we had a look at what Labor members said they would do to help the fruit industry in the Goulburn Valley and their statements about what the Government was not doing to help the fruit industry in the Goulburn Valley.

This Bill is a practical example of what the Government is doing and at the most, as I said before, we get grudging acceptance pf it. If this finance had not been made available to SPC, the, fruit growers who support that cannery would not have received money for the crop which they sold to the cannery approximately 9 months earlier. Think of the situation of those people and the effect on a community of creditors waiting for their money for 9 months. I believe that both the Federal and State Governments were justified in the action they took in saving not only the community in Shepparton but also the whole canning fruit industry of Australia, because SPC holds a key position, in the industry. The new chairman of directors of SPC, Mr John Cornish, in his report recently stated how SPC’S performance had improved. He expressed great confidence for SPC in the future. Sir John McEwen, the former honourable member for Murray, who I believe was a great man, a great Australian and the greatest supporter of the fruit industry, if not of all rural industries, that Australia has seen was instrumental to a large extent in the salvage operation for SPC. I congratulate him for it just as I congratulate other members in government, both State and Federal, for their practical help to SPC and to rural people generally in a time of need.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– As the seconder of trie amendment I wish to say a few words in reference to the matter under discussion. As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has stated, the opposition does not oppose the measure but its amendment is designed so that there will be a further inquiry into this matter and an investigation of the position of certain other canneries which might be militated against because of the preferential treatment given to the Shepparton Preserving Company Limited. Associated with the $4.2m grant is a number of sinister and rather strange features, which the Australian Labor Party wishes to bring to the notice of the Parliament tonight. No-one can deny that there is a series of remarkable coincidences. We heard the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) say a few moments ago that this grant was decided upon fca December.

At that time the former honourable member for Murray, Sir John McEwen, had announced that he would not be standing again and that there would be a by-election. As everybody knows, the Australian Country Party was to be challenged in this seat by a Liberal Party candidate, with the possibility of the Country Party candidate being defeated. Consequently something had to be done to bolster up the failing fortunes of those 2 discredited parties. What do we find? We find that the SPC is to be given a $4.2m grant. Shepparton is in the heart of Country Party territory and is the home of the new honourable member for Murray. It is a place with which Sir John McEwen was associated for a lifetime and is the headquarters of his organisation. It is the electorate of the Country Party member for Murray. Is it not remarkable that of all the canneries, the Government should pick the one at Shepparton which is associated with all of the Country Party activities and organisation?

The Government picked out one company which a couple of years ago had unlimited profits and unlimited reserves, as the member for Dawson mentioned a few moment ago. We on this side of the Parliament ask the Government why SPC received this preferential treatment? Why not extend it over the full range of canneries that might want assistance? Will the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), when he replies, tell us how he picked out this one and whether he will extend the same treatment to other canneries should they be in need? We have the amazing situation now that state aid applies not only to schools but also evidently to canneries. That is a remarkable situation and a new development in Country Party rural policy. I suggest to the Country Party that it has a lot to explain away.

It is significant that no Liberals have risen in the Parliament to support the move. They are not game to get in behind this one. They know that the Bill was introduced in the dead of the night last night because the Government wanted to hide it from the light of day. The Liberals have got a bit of sense and this is one of the few occasions on which they have shown it. They do not want to be tied up with this sinister deal, where the Country Party is favouring and giving patronage to a special interest in its own area.

Mr Sinclair:

– A Liberal Government.

Mr DALY:

– The Minister is interjecting the Opposition will give him unlimited time in which to speak. It does not suppress people. Let him explain it at length to us here later. It is not for the Opposition to restrict free speech. Honourable member’s on this side of the House would like this matter to be debated in the middle of the day. It is now 10 to 1 in the morning. This deal has been hidden in the night. There is something sinister about it. Honourable members know that $4.2m is not chicken feed. That amount would keep a lot of industries going.

Let us have a look at the situation. As the honourable member for Dawson said a few moments ago, in 1968 the Shepparton Preserving Company had $11. 3m of shareholders funds. It had an issued capital of $1.52m. It had unappropriated profits of $750,000. We find now that inside 3 years the company wants $4. 2m to keep it going. I say that there should be an investigation.

Mr Cope:

– It is in a jam.

Mr DALY:

– It is in a jam. That is correct. I thank the honourable member for a very worthwhile interjection, one of the many that he makes in this Parliament. I would say, even on a charitable basis that this is bad management personified. There is probably a lot of other bad management in canneries here and there, but the Government does not rush in with $4.2m because possibly these canneries are situated in areas represented by outstanding members like the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) or the honourable member for Dawson, who happen to be members of the Labor Party. Where Country Party interests are involved, the sky is the limit. What about dear Mr Bolte? The Government has to bolster him because he is a little outspoken in respect to certain aspects of policy, lt is trying to build him up against the Liberal opposition in that State. I suggest to the Government that it should get its priorities fixed. In 1969, by Act of this Parliament, $5m was granted to the States for nursing homes over a period of 5 years.

Mr Sinclair:

– That was a grant.

Mr DALY:

– It was a grant. The South Australian Government received only $465,000 over 5 years. That $5m was granted for all the nursing homes in Australia over a 5 year period, yet here is a cannery in a Country Party centre that is given $4.2m in one fell swoop. What is more, it was made retrospective to last December. The Government will not do that for a million and a quarter starving pensioners throughout the length and breadth of Australia. This matter merits a special investigation. The Opposition has proposed an amendment in order that there will be an inquiry into what the Government is doing. I suggest to the Minister tonight that this decision was made deliberately, regardless of the needs of the industry at that particular time, to see that the Liberal Party won the by-election and sent to the Parliament a new member for a temporary period. I do not know about the ‘Shepparton News’ but the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) is always quoting the ‘Sunraysia Daily’. I do not know whether it is a better paper, but the ‘Sunraysia Daily’ has become a bit of a joke. The ‘Shepparton News’ is not the London ‘Times’. What authority has the ‘Shepparton News’ to tell us that the money is needed? It would not be much of a local paper if it did not get all the money it could out of the Government. That is precisely what it is trying to do.

I repeat that this money has been made available because of interests associated with the Country Party. The former leader of the Country Party had one great attribute and I take my hat off to him for it. He looked after the 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the population that put his Party into Parliament so that they would have some power in this place. This was one of his last acts - a Gorton-McEwen’ arrangement whereby they both hoped to survive. He hoped that the new member and -. possibly the Prime Minister would receive a little benefit at that time. I say to the Minister in the few brief moments at my disposal tonight that I see not much sense in talking at this hour of the night on this important question. The Government saw fit to introduce the Bill exactly 24 hours ago. If it. is a fair dinkum Bill, if it is something which is open to public ‘ scrutiny and if it is not based on favouritism and patronage, why sneak it in in the middle of the night? The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) may have gone home last night because he did not want to be here when this Bil! was introduced.

Mr Sinclair:

– He was here then.

Mr DALY:

– If he was here he was pretty well hidden. He must have a good bed somewhere in this establishment because he was not in the chamber. The point I wish to make is that the Government has not been supported tonight by the Liberal Party members of the coalition on this issue. This is . in itself important because some members of the Liberal Party ought to know what the Country Party is doing when $4. 2m is involved. I say no more, Mr Speaker. I see that I have convinced even you as to the substance of my submission. The amendment does not in any way detract from the fact that the Opposition is not opposing this measure. The Opposition is simply seeking clarification as to whether sinister moves are afoot on behalf of the Country Party to save its wavering fortunes and its wavering sons in the country districts and to resist the great onslaughts of the Grassby’s and the Patterson’s and others from the Labor side of politics in this country. The Country Party talks about the plight of the primary producers. There was never anything stabilised in the rural industry till a Labor government came to office under Chifley. Under Chifley and the Labor Party the primary producers became so wealthy that, instead of borrowing money from the banks, the banks were borrowing money from them. Guaranteed markets, stabilised prices and prosperity for country people was the policy of the Chifley government. Tonight we find that $4.2m of the taxpayers’ money is being thrown away through Sir Henry Bolte in what is a Country Party patronage of the worst kind. The Labor Party believes that these practices should be exposed. It is a pity that the Labor Party has not been given an opportunity to expose them in the daylight. All Australia could then see that it is time that it elected Labor Party men in country seats instead of Country Party people.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, in entering into this debate I indicate my support of the amendment. The supporters of the Australian Country Party are an inward bunch of fellows when it comes to policies on rural matters. An example of this was given by my colleague, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), in this House a moment ago. I wish to dwell briefly, if I may, on the remarks tonight of the newly elected honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). Honourable members could not interject during his remarks the other night because he was making his maiden speech but he has now made the grade. Incidentally, I was given a nice old belting in my maiden speech. I was knocked off 5 times. The honourable member was fortunate in that he was accorded much more courtesy than I was. I interjected during the honourable member’s reference tonight to the Ardmona cannery because I believed that if he had quoted the other night from other newspapers in addition to the one he quoted from he would have been able to show that in or about mid-December of last year the Board of Ardmona was very critical of the Government because the Board considered that in about December of this year Ardmona would have to go to the wall because of the tremendously high freight rates.

Mr Lloyd:

– And that is nothing to what they would say if they knew what your policy was.

Mr FOSTER:

– Containerisation and so on. The honourable member must have known something about this because of the interjections. He was dishonest tonight in that he did not mention it. I rise mainly because I want the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to tell me something when he replies. The Minister will no doubt recall that a number of weeks ago I approached him in regard to the position of 2 canneries in South Australia. One of them was Jon Products. I think a sum of about $600,000 was involved. The other one was Riverlands, which involved a greater figure than that. This was a restructuring programme. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) walked back into the chamber earlier tonight with his hands in his pockets and interjected while the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was on his feet. The Prime Minister implied that what the honourable member for Dawson was saying was in fact not true. The Prime Minister should enter the debate tonight and tell us that a committee will be set up in some form or another to inquire into the position of not only the canneries mentioned in the amendment but also Jon Products. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister infrequently to walk casually into the chamber and, by way of interjection, make some allegations before going out of the chamber. He should participate in the debate. I would love to see him enter this debate and tell the House exactly what his Government has been doing about this matter. As I have said, some supporters of the Government are inward looking. I want to come back to this aspect in a moment. The Government should get off its posterior and do something about finding markets for this industry. As my friend, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) has pointed out, tha industry relies completely on markets, but the Government is not doing anything about finding markets. The Government is simply spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money subsidising this industry. This expenditure could multiply because of the position in other canning factories which I have mentioned.

I want the Minister for Primary Industry to tell me tonight whether the matters I approached him about over 6 weeks ago in regard to Jon Products have received any attention by him. I have been remiss in that I have left all my notes in Adelaide of the telephone conversations I had with the

Minister. I thought that after my initial conversation with him, the Minister, who was just getting into a new portfolio, would have brushed up on this matter and done something about it, but apparently he has not done so. The fact is that, insofar as Jon Products is concerned-

Dr Gun:

– Whose electorate is it in?

Mr FOSTER:

– I think it is in the electorate of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Birrell). As it is in a city electorate I suppose it will not get the same attention from the Country Party as it would get in, for example, Shepparton. I wish to thank the honourable member for Kingston for drawing my attention to that fact. It was sacking men. If those men were sacked - I have not checked on this-and were not given employment elsewhere, would this Government introduce a measure in this House to provide the payment of some remuneration to these men? Would their rents be. taken care of? Would the interest rates on their homes be reduced? Of course this would not happen. The Government adopts 2 standards and it will continue to adopt 2 standards. The Government is so inward looking that it will turn a circle and fall over within it. I want the Minister to tell me whether, as a result pf an investigation by a committee, a grant of some $600,000 has been made to this company to offset the dismissal of certain employees. I understand that the manager of this concern spoke to some people in Adelaide because of the fact that the factory could collapse and go completely out of production and that the Government has apparently had a look at the situation and made certain recommendations. I understand that certain new machinery and what-have-you was to be introduced, but no mention is made of this in the Bill before the House. I want to know why there should be any difference simply because a factory is located in South Australia or Victoria.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the matter which the honourable member has raised is not included in the provisions of this Bill he would be out of order in raising it. The honourable member must confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr FOSTER:

– My concern was that I spoke to the Minister for Primary Industry, who said that there was an omission and a mistake on the part of the Government. Therefore, why should I not raise it now?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honourable member wants to query the decision of the Chair on this he may do so. All I am saying is that the matter he has raised is not in the Bill, it is a separate matter. This Bill concerns a loan to a particular company. If the honourable member wishes to draw a comparison the Chair will listen to his views.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you,- Mr Speaker, I am not going to take much longer. I have said what I want to say to the Minister. I said it to him in his office some few weeks ago and I have said it to him. in this chamber tonight. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, if I cast my mind back to what happened last night and the day before, that the procedures of the House most certainly do not allow for one to air these particular matters. I regret this. I do not know whether we will ever see a committee set up. that will alter this position. It seems somewhat odd to me, Mr Speaker, that you are in the invidious position of having to draw my attention to the fact that- 1 cannot in fact disclose these matters before the House when, upon an admission of the Minister for Primary Industry, they ought to have been, included in this measure.

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

– in replyMr Speaker, several matters have been raised in the course of the debate to which I would like to make brief reference. Firstly, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) expressed his general concern that this measure creates a. precedent which he feels is unfortunate. I would like to point out that the measure we are concerned with is an advance to a State governmentit is not an advance to a private company. I understand that on a number of other occasions, particularly in circumstances where there has been distress of one sort or another, similar Bills have been introduced for payments to State governments, which, of course, administer the payments and make the loans available, as in this instance, to the particular individuals or organisations. The terms of the repayments are, of course, set out in the schedule to the Bill. I would like also to clear up, for the sake of the honourable member from Grayndler (Mr Daly), the fact that this is a measure which is specifically intended for the growers. In other words, it is not a measure that is intended to assist the big men. I am sure that if in the ‘Daly Daily’ or the Grayndler Gaiety’ there was a column which took count of deserving causes there would be room for the very deserving fruit growers of the Murray Valley, who, in the circumstances of mismanagement and over-supply in past years, would have been denied any opportunity of being paid for their fruit. They were given very profound examination by the Victorian State Government as a result of which a request was put to the Commonwealth Government. Of course, this Bill represents the conclusion of that request.

There are, as the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) have mentioned, a number of other canneries that are in very similar circumstances. Indeed the honourable member for Dawson also referred to this fact. I understand that similar agreements are to be concluded with the other State governments concerned. This, of course, is an agreement with the Government of the State of Victoria with respect to Jon’s cannery. In respect of the Riverland cannery, an agreement will need to be concluded with the Government of the State of South Australia and I understand a sum of the order of $1.29m will be payable to that Government. Similarly, with respect to fruit growers in Leeton, there will need to be an agreement entered into with the State Government of New South Wales. An amount to be determined will be made available to the New South Wales Government for the Letona cannery for payment to growers.

In each case inquiries have been undertaken by the State governments initially, then in conjunction with the Federal Government. As a result of those investigations, the agreement and the payment in the case of Shepparton has just been concluded. That is the reason for the late introduction of this Bill. The non-introduction of the other 2 Bills that will eventually be necessary is due to the fact that the negotiations have just been completed. However, the payments themselves have been of some urgency. Consequently, in the case of the

Shepparton cannery, part of the payment was made last December. In the case of the South Australian canneries to which the honourable member for Sturt referred, I understand that provision has been made in the Treasurer’s Advance so that the South Australian Government can proceed to make the advances to which the Jon’s cannery and the Riverland cannery are entitled.

In the circumstances and in view of the inquiries that led to the introduction of this Bill, the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson has no relevance. There has been adequate inquiry already. A financial analysis has been made of the circumstances of the canneries in the region. The reason for providing grants to these specific canneries is the very impecunious condition of growers who supply the 4 canneries to which I have made particular reference here tonight. Accordingly I reject the amendment and commend the Bill to this House.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative. .

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed: j

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– In view of the explanation given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that not only has the Shepparton Preserving Company Ltd been involved in this matter but in fact other companies in South Australia and New South Wales also have been involved, and some advances already have been made, the Opposition is satisfied. Our principal objection to this Bill was that it looked as though preferential treatment had been given to one company as opposed to other companies.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2814

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I present the re port, together with the minutes of proceedings, from the Privileges Committee that looked at the matter referred to it by the House on 20th April 1971.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2814

STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May (vide page 2671), on motion by Mr Fairbairn:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

I move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to increase the grant for schools conducted by a State to the same amount per pupil as the grant for schools not conducted by a State’.

When the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill was introduced originally, the formula used was based an the enrolment in secondary schools - roughly on the ratio of 3 to 1. After the first triennium the amount going to private schools was doubled, so that it has been in the ratio of 3 to 2. This Bill provides for $26m for State schools and $17m for private schools over the 4 years. The previous ratios, when expressed as a per capita amount per pupil, show what has happened. The science grants for State schools represented $10.58 per pupil. For Catholic schools it was $23.16 per pupil. For the other private schools it was $24.08. No matter where one turns, the accusation is being made against the Government that what it is doing in education favours the affluent. I refer to the leading article in the Canberra Times’ of this morning. It refers to scholarships but makes the some general charge in this way:

It should be a matter for pained reflection that in the affluent Western democracies the costs of two of the most elementary necessities, medical care and higher education, are beyond the private means of the vast majority of citizens, whereas in some less affluent countries under dictatorial rule, these things are, with some pertinent reservations, free. In Australia people on low or medium income are unable to meet these costs without the intervention of elaborate schemes of assistance. In the field of tertiary education government programmes of aid have their merits but they fall far short of the ideal.

Later, the article states:

According to the AUS submission, only 2 per cent of children in the lower socio-economic classes get tertiary education’.

The final general comment is:

The criticism levelled at the Commonwealth that it has updated its scheme of scholarships arbitrarily and without regard for stable economic, social, or academic criteria is justified.

These figures have been arrived at arbitrarily. There are some strange anomalies among them. In South Australia, for instance, the grants to state schools in relation to private schools are in the ratio of 6 to 1. But in Queensland the grant to private schools is greater than that to the much more numerous public state schools. Some of these things are hard to understand. There is a letter also in today’s Canberra Times’ by a correspondent named Kathleen Abbott of Torrens. She writes:

This situation-

I need not refer to what she is discussing; it is an aspect of education - . . will maintain and strengthen the Commonwealth Government’s conception of education as a sectional private advantage dependent upon parental income.

Mr Fairbairn’s statement on dropout rates confirms that we have another Liberal Minister for Education and Science who complacently contemplates a disgracefully immoral inequality of educational opportunity among children, and completely ignores the social and economic disasters these same children will have to bear in their lifetime as a result of his Party’s policies.

I endorse the statement about the inequalities of opportunities. I am not going on to discuss disasters that may ensue to children in later life. But there is a luminous couple of paragraphs in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) in which he tells us that he believes that the Government is coming towards the end of this aid. Although the whole country is roaring with the most tremendous estimates of educational needs and of the billions of dollars that may need to be spent over, a decade to update Australian education, he regards this as finite. The Minister said:

The programme for science laboratories has always been regarded as a finite one designed to overcome deficiencies, and the shifting emphasis in Commonwalth 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.

It is very hard to believe that a formula which doubles the per capita grant to private schools is one which is based on needs. If you are referring to the Catholic schools, yes, but I cannot believe, in the face of the educational collapse which is one of the leading features of Victoria, that the positions of the Geelong Grammars and so on under this sort of legislation are a consideration of need. It is a strange thing in Australia that no matter what is done it appears that the upper middle classes, under Government legislation, will always get off with the loot. We have a situation in which twice as much is given per capita to the greater public schools, on the Ministers own figures as to the State schools. When it come to tax concessions, of course, if you allow a deduction of $300 for education and a man is a 50c in the $1 taxpayer, he is given an educational endowment of $150 for his child. The poorer person does not get any such educational endowment. When it comes to the allowance for children - $200, shall we say, for the first child - the same thing applies. A 50c in the $1 man gets back $100 for his child; a lc in the $1 man gets back $2 for his child.

Even the rural crisis that we are sometimes debating is another interesting example. Sir Arthur Fadden gave very great concessions to farmers for ploughing back money into their farms as an investment. It is spotted immediately by the’ tipper middle classes. Doctors, lawyers and all sorts of people like that start investing heavily in farms as a means of avoiding taxation. They build up an asset which they may sell completely as a tax-free capital gain. They come pouring into the rural industries. They drive up the price of land so that the bona fide farmer coming into it starts off with heavy indebtedness. They greatly increase production, down go prices, and we find large numbers of bona fide farmers with no other income who we now know will walk off their farms as a result of legislation which was designed originally to assist the farmers. This is an example of how almost everything that is done in this country ends up, under the Government structure of legislation, benefiting the well-to-do.

The science laboratory grants began with the election of 1963. Like a lot of imperfectly thought out pieces of policy - the Fill being another - they were brought in for the exigencies of a particular election. But they were fair enough at the time. If it was in the ratio of 3 to 1 - the State schools and the enrolment in the State schools were in the ratio of 3 to 1 - fair enough. We believe that all schools should be brought up to acceptable standards. Even Geelong Grammar, if it is not of an acceptable standard, should be brought up to an acceptable standard because there are children in it. It is a field of education. But I cannot see how you can argue in the face of the appalling conditions of high schools, not in my electorate where they are excellent, but in many of the metropolitan electorates around Australia. I cannot understand how a person, seeing their abject lack of facilities, can then be gratified at the way this scheme has been working. It is patently obvious, all over Australia, from this legislation that to him that hath more was given. Excellent facilities were put into the Christ Church Grammar School which my son attended, as a result of this scheme. The Freemantle Christian Brothers, which perhaps charged about one-tenth of the fees, got no excellent facilities under the scheme.

I do not profess to understand how funds are allotted between schools in the private sector. I suppose the disparity between the public sector and the private one the Minister will now justify again by saying: ‘Ah, but you are overlooking one thing. A considerable grant is made to the State schools for technical education.’ But the technical facilities that have been established, as a result of Commonwealth grants and State action, such as the Western Australian Institute of Technology, Leederville Technical School and Perth Technical School, are facilities which are used by children from both the private schools and the State schools alike. Those who want a technical education go to them irrespective of the background from which they have come. That is a different form of service altogether. Apart from that it is extremely doubtful whether technical education institutions will receive $26m, which is what the State schools should be getting to get the same per capital grant from the Commonwealth now as the private schools will get under this legislation. The State schools should be getting another $26m. If the private schools are getting $17m the State schools, on enrolment, should be getting $52m and not $26m. While in the past this disparity has been explained in terms of technical education, it is extremely doubtful whether any grant of $26m is being made for technical education even if you can make an analogy between technical education and science block grants, which I deny. lt is a disturbing feature of the whole situation that one of the other explanations which might be advanced is that the dropout, rate in the State high schools is so very high that you could account for it with the greater public schools retaining 80 per cent through to the final year and the State schools maintaining a very low percentage through to the final year. One might justify the higher grants on that basis. But the Catholic schools and the State schools have a very similar drop-out rate and yet there is the same great disparity. I do not make much of the disparity between $23.16 for Catholic schools and $24.08 for other private schools, because anybody who knows anything about these sorts of things knows that a nun handling money can make a dollar go much further than anybody else. That may account for some of the slight differences there. But I think that the Government has not a democratic conception of education at all.

The Minister has shown really no emotion at all about the drop out rate in the non-affluent sectors of education, which rate clearly establishes that education is beyond the means of a very large number of people in the country. That would justify not adopting a regressive way of financing or making tax concessions for education. There does not seem to be any perception that there must be a great loss of skill and a great loss of potential in the drop out rate. The Minister’s references to it have been entirely complacent. We have been told that it has increased by a certain percentage. I hope that I am not misquoting the Minister, but I think that he said that over a certain period of time 64 per cent more children were staying at State schools than before. Let us see how he can arrive at a figure like this. Only 16 per cent of State school children at one stage completed the full secondary course. Many years later, 24 per cent were doing so. That can be represented by a 50 per cent increase, and that is the way the Minister uses it.

But it is only an 8 per cent increase of the total enrolment. Similarly his 64 per cent increase of the total enrolment is about 12 per cent increase. That is the figure that we really ought to be looking at. If one says that there has been a 64 per cent increase, some people vaguely think that it must have been about 16 per cent before and now it has become 80 per cent. But in the Minister’s way of stating things that would be a 400 per cent increase. Of course, taking a base figure and using it in a particular way would be perfectly correct, but for the listening public it is quite misleading. The drop out rate in the State schools is very gravely disturbing It is something like two-thirds. I do not say for a moment that all children should be forced to stay at school. That situation could be completely disastrous. I still cannot believe that, in the disparity between the affluent where 80 per cent stay on and the non-affluent where only something like 30 per cent stay on, there is nothing to be accounted for in the great difference except the desire to leave school. That would not be so at all.

I think we must use our commonsense and recognise that there is a real loss because of the inability of parents to afford the education which they would desire for their children. It is not the desire of the Opposition to take down anybody’s education. I do not desire a reduction of $17m to the private sector. In my book, a Catholic child at a convent school is as precious an Australian citizen as a child at a State school and, for that matter, a boy at Geelong Grammar is as valuable as somebody at Canberra High School. This is not the point. The point is that a formula was used which doubled the grant to one category while we believe in retaining that $17m - if this is what has really been arrived at as assessed needs - we suspect that pro rata the needs of the others are $52m. Now we are coming to the end of the party in this. A great wave of sickness is spreading over the country about the state of the State schools. I do not like the defence of Government Schools propaganda because it falsely suggests that the way to lift the children in the State schools is by tearing down children somewhere else. But the truth of what they are saying about the conditions in the State schools is beyond doubt, and they are making the community very conscious of these issues.

I think that the first little straw in the wind is this vague reference of the Minister - not carried out at all in the legislation - paying lip service to the future, that in the future needs will be considered more and more. It is an admission that in the past needs have not been considered to the extent that they should, have been, this is a good resolution. Oscar Wilde says:

There is a fatality about good resolutions. They are always made too late.

The fatality about this good resolution is that it has been made too late. The inferior teaching has gone on. If the proper ratio bad been granted to the State schools there would have been a lift in teaching. The slighting of the teaching profession, teaching in the slum conditions as they do, has gone on for too long, especially in the State of Victoria. That State suffered .for a long, long time under Premiers who, before the war, believed in keeping a very low tax rate and spending nothing on social services so that Victoria fell far behind. It never has recovered in the field of education and chronic unrest is now being produced in the teaching profession in that State. Teachers teach in slum conditions that could have been transformed if there had been more generous grants. At least it would be a sign of their value if science blocks were put into some of these metropolitan slum schools where they have not been put in.

Teachers who see themselves so undervalued have lost heart. Many of them have left the profession and not enough are coming into the profession. There is a chronic shortage of teachers. I am not going to say that the situation is as bad as it would have been if the Commonwealth Government had done nothing, but I do say that the original formula which had regard to enrolment, while not perfect because it does not really have regard to need, should have been maintained. At least it should have been maintained in preference to doubling the ratio to those, at least in the greater public schools, who must be regarded as being in the more affluent sector. I would deny that Catholic schools were in the more affluent sector. Any study of the fees around the country would show that while there are certain Catholic schools that are in the greater public school area, most of them are not.

As I have said in the House before, at least at the primary level there are certain convent schools that have been a minus quantity in fees because nuns and others have actually fed migrant children from indigent families. Far from drawing fees they have carried the burden of cost. But the whole approach of .the Minister to the children in the State schools is wrong. There is a continuance of .this, wrong approach. Because of that we feel that we cannot allow this formula to continue without a gesture against it. The Minister says that in the future he will give, .consideration to need. That is not expressed in the present legislation and for that reason I move the amendment that I have cited.

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

– ls the amendment seconded? .

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I second the amendment. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has pointed out with great clarity just where this piece of legislation leads. It favours the affluent and ignores the State schools system in large measure on’ the basis of equality of public expenditure on the people of Australia. It is a. product of following the slippery path of electoral opportunism which brought the Commonwealth into this field 7 or 8 years ago. It might be instructive for honourable members to be reminded of what the Liberal Party and the Government used, to say on this question of education. In 1958 a fairly new member of this Parliament, . who is still here, raised the following . matter of public importance:

The urgent need for the Commonwealth to take action to ensure that sufficient funds are available to each State of the Commonwealth to provide adequate public education facilities for its people.

In reply to that, the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Menzies, as he then was, had this to say:

But 1 should like to say to the honourable member that I rather envy the easy way in which he sets the Constitution on one side on the ground that it is out of date. The fact is that it still exists. The fact is that education, except in Commonwealth Territories, remains a function of the States.

He and his Party held very solidly to that point of view for 5 or 6 years but in about 1963, they discovered that there was some, perhaps, magic formula very closely associated with the ballot box more than with the schoolroom. So they decided that the Commonwealth would enter into this field of supporting science laboratories in the non-public, private or non-government schools of Australia. We believe - I think this has been demonstrated over the years - that this has no satisfactory relation to the needs of Australian education. It is instructive on occasions such as this - I do not intend to speak for the full length of time available to me - to consider where the needs in Australian education are, in what way this Government is approaching them and in what way this legislation assists in meeting them.

First of all, it is obvious that Australia needs, for the senior areas of secondary education, some student support system. We have a student support system of sorts in the Commonwealth scholarships scheme. But does it give support to the students who need it most? If course it does not. All the evidence is that the scholarships go more to the people in the affluent schools than to those in the schools in the country, the state schools and, in some measure, the Catholic schools. The evidence laid before the House in answer to a question asked by my colleague from Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) shows the disastrous fallout, particularly from the state schools of Australia, which the major proportion of the children of Australian attend. Neither this legislation nor any other legislation produced by this Government attacks that problem at all.

Then there is the problem of buildings. This ought to be apparent to anyone. One does not need to be very bright to drive around the country and see there the deficiencies in the school buildings in which the young people of Australia are educated.

It is true that in Canberra the buildings, on the whole are first class. There may be errors in design and there may be changes that are merely approached from time to time, but only in Canberra is there an almost universally high standard of buildings. In the rest of Australia, and particularly in Victoria, as my friend from Fremantle pointed out, there is a serious deficiency in the building schemes. Many of the schools that have been built over the last few years are totally inadequate. Many of the buildings that are still occupied were built 70 or 80 years ago and are fit only for the bulldozer. What the Government ought to be doing, rather than adopting this carte blanche approach to such things as science laboratories, is taking a look at the obselete and obselescent school buildings of Australia and establishing some funding scheme by which the State governments could replace them. It does not do that.

Then there is the question of teachers. Nobody can deny that the teaching service of Australia needs some kind of new look. Different questions are involved from State to State. In Victoria there are serious deficiencies in the secondary school system. Throughout Australia there are serious deficiencies at the pre-school level, in certain areas at both the secondary level and the primary school level and in the field of specialist teachers. The Commonwealth Government has done nothing about that. I represent an electorate which has one of the highest concentrations of migrants in Australia. I was interested, in glancing back at my speech on the matter of public importance that I raised in the House in May 1958, to note that on that occasion I referred to the failure of the Commonwealth to assist in migrant education. Now, after 12 or 13 years, very little indeed has been done in tackling the question of migrant education. The great flood of migrants into many parts of the industrial areas of Australia, and in particular into electorates such as mine, has almost destroyed the local education system. The Commonwealth has done next to nothing about that.

Then there are the facilities in schools. The Government has approached the question of libraries, again in the same haphazard fashion in which this legislation endows the education system of Australia. Then there are the science laboratories and other teaching facilities. The Australian education services need all sorts of extra teaching facilities. In many areas they need language laboratories. In all areas we probably should do a great deal of educational television. We should do a great deal of educational research. The Commonwealth has done very little about that. So, this system again is endowing the rich and neglecting the great areas of need in Australian education. I believe that it is time the citizens of Australia realised what the neglect of the State school systems of Australia is leading to. Three-quarters of the children of Australia - offhand, I think the figure is something like 2 million - are in the State school systems of Australia. Something like 8,000 schools, 70,000 or 80,000 teachers and from 8 million to 9 million Australians are involved. In fact, they are being slowly written off by this Government. It is an astonishing exercise in public expenditure that at this stage the Government is able to find $17m for the nonstate schools and $26m for the State schools, although the ratio in the school population is 3 to 1 and the ratio in needs in some areas must be 10 to 1 or 12 to 1. 1 represent an industrial area of Australia. There are 7 secondary schools in the area, and one just over the road. One of those 8 schools has a new building. It has inadequate ground space, of course, and is inadequate in some other areas. But every other one of those schools is almost totally inadequate in its buildings. Some of them have been built in recent years of the light construction that is available at the present time, but the facilities inside them are inadequate judged by modern standards. It would be educational for certain honourable members opposite to take a drive through some of the suburban areas of Australia, particularly industrial areas. Let them take a look some time at the Brunswick Technical College or the Brunswick Girls School. Let them see how the people of Moreland High School have to battle along.

I think it is a tribute to the Australian teaching service that so much good flows out of it in so many areas. The Moreland High School has been rather adventurous in some of its teaching methods. Some of the new principles developed there have flowed throughout the whole school system in Victoria. But that does not allow us to escape the fact that the students there are being educated in conditions which we ought not to tolerate. The buildings are totally inadequate. The space available is miserable and meagre iri the extreme and the yard space is almost non-existent. One could make an appeal, surely to the ordinary common sense of the community and say: ‘These are the people in the greatest need. These are the areas where we need to improve the environment. At least let us do it in the schools’.

Instead, we are here again this evening discussing policies which have been plucked out of the air and which have very little relation to the needs of the Australian education system. I just want to place on record not exactly my despair at this - because I have no doubt that in the political future of Australia there will be the opportunity for us to do something about these matters - but my disappointment. For heaven’s sake, if we are to spend millions on such exercises, let us apply some kind of system of equality of expenditure and effort and some kind of justice to the operation. As we have pointed out from this side of the House on numerous occasions, the adventure into non-state education and its support have been undertaken on a totally haphazard system based upon political and electoral expediency that has no relation to the needs pf the community. As I see it, the Government intends to continue pouring millions of dollars into the area without any system behind it and without any scientific examination of where it is going or where we are going. I can see the competition growing from time to time, so that eventually in election campaigns we will be trying to outbid one another by trying to produce within the non-state systems the same relative expenditure as goes from State funds into State schools. I believe that this could be disastrous to the State education systems and, on the whole, bad for all the others. Therefore, I hope that while this lengthy recess is on honourable members opposite will take the opportunity to have a close look at many of the dilapidated and unworthy State schools of Australia which are continuously neglected and which need the millions that the honourable member for Fremantle has indicated in the amendment he has moved here this evening.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

Neither the bour of the morning nor the timing of this debate is particularly conducive to clarity of thought on this matter. Nevertheless, I am disappointed in what the honourable members for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and Wills (Mr Bryant) have had to say on this subject. Despite a perhaps somewhat ungracious reference by the honourable member for Fremantle to the time allotted to me in a recent debate, I think I have been in the habit of following him on educational matters and, in the main, giving him reasonable credit for the usually soundly based arguments which he puts forward. This debate involves a question cf extending, and finally concluding, grants for secondary school science laboratories. The burden of the complaint of the 2 honourable members opposite who have spoken so far has been based on the question of state aid and on a fairly widely placed argument in relation to inequalities in education. So far as I see it, they have not in any sense made out a case against me as to the direction in which these funds are to be placed, although they might be forgiven considering those factors of time which I mentioned earlier. If we take into consideration the fact that all the funds for government schools come from Government sources and that some only of the funds for independent schools come from Government sources. I believe we immediately put into a slightly different relief the sorts of arguments which have come forth in the last half hour or so. We may remain at ideological odds on the question of State aid as it is so often called. But the question whether we aid independent schools does not, I think, at the moment bring into consideration the matter of need, at least until it is proved otherwise.

I am very disappointed to find that the honourable member for Fremantle, of all people, so blithely keeps pushing the Geelong Grammar School borrow for the State aid argument. Surely he must have realised long since that Geelong Grammar is a completely untypical example to take for those schools of a non-government kind which receive aid from governments in one form or another. It is just as untypical as one or two other schools I could name but need not worry about now. I am not interested at this stage in ranging widely over the whole argument of state aid, but as far as this Bill is concerned honourable members opposite might at least have drawn attention to a table in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) wherein on can see that far more than half the total nongovernmental grants are in the direction of Catholic schools. How relevant therefore is the question of quoting what are by general acknowledgment the most affluent types of non-Catholic non-Government schools and bringing forth a somewhat biased version of the situation in that way? To emphasise the position, $2.9m is directed towards Roman Catholic schools and $1.38m is directed towards non-Roman Catholic nongovernment schools. Without taking the matter in more detail - perhaps I run slightly foul of my own criticism - I think it is generally known by those interested in education that the Catholic schools in the large are a great deal more deficient in their funding than are some of the better off middle-income areas.

Mr Beazley:

– And they receive less per capita under this legislation.

Dr SOLOMON:

– That is included in your amendment. That is a valid point if in fact one takes the point of view that the non-State schools should not get in this area, any more than do any of the State schools. But it totally ignores the point I made a little earlier that all the State schools are being funded by Government moneys totally or near enough to totally.

Dr Gun:

– Cut it out. Has the honourable member not heard of school committees?

Dr SOLOMON:

– That is an infinitesimal part of the whole raisings of moneys if the honourable member is talking about science laboratories and the like. I am also surprised to find that the Government members committee on education which has been receiving people and deputations week after week for some time past, has not been hearing the same story as we hear on a number of occasions. I do not wish to identify the people concerned although this is not through a want to substantiate my argument. But there has been a fairly repetitive argument - it is not the only one - and complaint, in fact, from people who are sometimes associated with State schools that already moneys are being spent on laboratories which, they argue, might go somewhere else. As honourable members have drawn attention to the political niceties of this matter and alleged, in effect, that State aid and political expediency are the governing forces in this operation, I think it is relevant to say that the political returns are diminishing in the area of specific grants if for no other reason than the fact that many of the schools are now fairly well equipped with both laboratories and libraries. Clearly the overall need is much less pressing and the political ambit becomes somewhat less general.

There is another factor which could have been touched on and which I would like to substantiate in more detail than I shall, although it could be validated by further reference to resource material. I think honourable members will find that there has been a considerable lessening of emphasis over the last 2, 3 or 4 years on the science area of education, even at the secondary level. There is something of a swing back towards the humanities. Certainly that has been so in recent years in the teritary education sphere to the extent that there is now a fairly well known over-supply of chemists at the level of academic education. I know we are not talking about only that matter. Not very many of the science students coming out of secondary schools will end up being university or industrial tertiary educated chemists. Nevertheless the great dearth of scientists which we could point to 10 years ago and less, no longer exists in the broad. There is a market situation which is a good deal different from the one which existed less than a decade ago. If honourable members look at some of these schools more closely they will find - I believe to their advantage - that there is a fairly significant beginning of social science laboratory development in lieu of further science laboratory development in secondary schools.

Mr Bryant:

– Where?

Dr SOLOMON:

– In various schools in my electorate and probably in the honourable member’s electorate if he cares to look. This is still a very small proportion of the total because science has been on a considerable wave of world wide dimensions which is in some ways to our good and in other ways perhaps to our detriment. I allude of course to the problem of the 2 cultures if it exists in such a compartmented form. I think honourable members opposite will know what I mean. The hour is tate or early, as the case may be, and I do not intend to pursue this matter at great length but honourable members opposite drew some attention to other problems relating to this matter, for example, very much to state aid; to inequality of opportunity; to giving to the haves and not to the have nots; to taxation and how under this Bill those on higher incomes for some reason or other will benefit yet again while the have nots remain just where they were. The argument is tenable and I think that honourable members opposite will be aware, as we in this part of the chamber tend to be, that there are possible alternatives, irrespective of whether implemented at this stage. I think it is probably conceivable that in the not too distant future we may weir consider in education, if not in some other forms of social services, the question of flat rates of taxation relief possibly on assessed income or on the final tax payable in’ respect of expenditures by people in those areas. Either of those variations on the present theme would have a significant difference. They would undermine considerably the advantage which certainly is enjoyed, relatively speaking, by those who are paying more at the outset and who therefore incur a higher rate of marginal tax and’ thereby a higher rate of relief if in fact they get off some of that marginal rate of tax. Now, it was pointed out by the honourable member for Fremantle or perhaps by his colleague that needs are now to be considered more. That sounds great. It is easy for honourable members to criticise and say: ‘That suggests you were not considering needs sufficiently before’. But let us look at the position. Let us look at what the Minister had to say. He said that until now, the distribution of funds for science laboratories has been on the basis of a formula which was based on secondary enrolments and State populations. That is not a bad basic formula to begin with. I do not think anybody could draw a very sharp arrow at that. They might want to refine the situation somewhat but as a basic formula for . implementing this programme some years ago that was reasonable. The Minister then said that because a great deal of the need has been filled - not all by any means - for the remaining part of the time we will consider individual school need more specifically than looking at States or State school collections - collections of schools in a State - as a whole. I do not see any Ulogie in that change of emphasis. In fact, I think it could even be said to be reasonably commendable. This may or may not be an example of, as Mr Wilde said, good resolutions made too late; but frankly I do not think that that is a very apposite quotation to make in regard to this Bill. One might just as well say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and therefore, because this Bill shows good intentions, the Liberal-Country Party Government is headed in the direction in which the Labor Party would like to see it go. I do not believe that that quotation is any more relevant to the present situation. I believe that the intentions are good. I believe that the resolution is at least fair and that, generally speaking, in the school community this operation has been seen to have very considerable and specific advantages in the education of our children in secondary schools.

Finally, let me say, merely to emphasise my main theme, that this Bill should not really be argued on the question of state aid. I believe that this is not the most appropriate time to bring to account the whole question of inequalities in education, although of course the argument for per capita grants in any shape or form - including per capita per pupil, as is implied in the amendment - in itself is a good, uniform, fair sounding and fair acting proposition which one could not deny. But I disagree that the Bill needs to be withdrawn and redrafted at this stage. I think that this Bill should be seen more appropriately as a continuation and, as the Minister said, within the next few years a conclusion of a programme which has, on the whole, been of very considerable benefit to the Australian school community.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

After listening to the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), it is difficult to say whether he is more abstruse or abstract, but I certainly found very great difficulty in following what he was saying. Unfortunately, there is about him a general tone which is very reactionary. Almost everything we have put up here he has knocked back. He suggests that it is unfair for us to bring in talk about state aid; that this Bill has nothing to do with giving public money to private schools and therefore the question of state aid is irrelevant in this debate. I will come later to some of the things the honourable member for Denison has said. There are just a few things that I should point out before I go any further. The first is that this Bill has now been before the House for 24 hours, whereas the custom has been to have a Bill presented in the House and debated some 2 weeks later. We were given this Bill at about this time yesterday morning and we have had almost no time to prepare our speeches on it. It offers $43m of Commonwealth money and has many very important implications; yet this is the way in which the Government treats this important Bill. It- is an insult to the Opposition, to educationists, to parents, to taxpayers and to the community that this irresponsible method of debating a Bill at such short notice has been used.

The other thing to notice, of course, is that so far only one Liberal member has stood up to speak. I daresay that he was dragooned into the debate. There was nobody else the Government could get to speak and it had to have somebody; so it dragged him in. I do not know whether anybody is to follow me. Although this Bill appropriates $43m and has some very complex and disturbing principles behind it, all the Government has been able to do is offer one Liberal speaker. Of course, there are no Country Party people here. One does not expect them to speak on education. They are specialists on rural Australia, we are told; so they say nothing. It is an indication to the Parliament and the nation of just how little consideration these people have for education.

Mr Turnbull:

– We are still here. Keep to the truth.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I daresay that the only thing the honourable member for Mallee has ever done for education has been to present Commonwealth flags. Pardon me for sounding a little angry, but I become disgusted when I think that here is a Bill that appropriates $43m of Commonwealth money over another 4 years, after $80m has been spent already, it is produced in the House and we are given 24 hours in which to examine it, and only one member of the Government parties, so far, has been prepared to speak on it.

There is a guise of benevolent concern for education behind this Bill, but it is part of the whole Liberal policy towards education. The educational aspects of it are important, but also are its social aspects. This Bill asks for parliamentary approval of a project which treats the total needs of 75 per cent of students as almost equal with, and no greater than, the total needs of 25 per cent of students. It then conveys the delusion that the needs of almost 160,000 Catholic students are no different per student from those of approximately 75,000 students in private schools which in many cases are very affluent and well endowed. In other words, it treats the needs of more than 700,000 State secondary students as being only half of those of all other private schools students and pretends that those of Catholic school students are equal to those of other private school students.

Before I go further into the Bill I would like to raise the matter of drop-out rates, which has been discussed before. Let us see whether the philosophy behind this Bill has something to do with it. Surely it has, because the philosophy behind this Bill is to relegate the government education system to being a secondary consideration in the mind of the Government. Looking at the dropout rates we find, for example, that in Victoria last year 24.8 per cent of the students who started off their secondary education were enrolled for the last year; 31.3 per cent of the Catholic school students were enrolled for the sixth year and 93.8 per cent of the private school students were enrolled for the last year. In other words, the State school student has only one-quarter of the chances of the private non-Catholic school student of completing his secondary education and the Catholic school student has only one-third of the chances of the private non-Catholic school student of completing his secondary education. There is a stark inequality. I find it amazing when I hear people such as the honourable member for Denison talking about inequalities as though they were abstract and unreal. Here is a direct case of inequality, and the philosophy behind this Bill is partly responsible for it.

Some comments on this subject have been made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn). Frankly, what he said in reply to my question about the drop-out rates in the 3 school systems was very disturbing because it revealed a sheer lack of concern. He was asked whether he was concerned about them and whether he regarded the drop-out rates in the Catholic and government school systems as a loss to the nation. He did not reply to that. But he said that things were not so bad after all, because over the last 6 years the number of students in government secondary schools completing matriculation had increased by 64 per cent, those in Catholic schools by 32 per cent and those in independent schools by 27 per cent. It looks very good. The government schools are doing very well, the Catholic schools are improving and in the poor old private schools the number of students who go on to sixth form has increased by only 27 per cent.

But we must not be fooled by this sort of statement, because the reality behind this situation is that, over the 10 years from 1959 to 1969 in government schools the percentage of students staying on to matriculation has only increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. That is the disturbing point. The figures for the other school systems 10 years ago are not available, but it is a staggeringly slow increase in retention rates in government schools. This is obviously an area of poverty. What is being done about it? Nothing much is being done about it because this Government is treating the government schools not only as if they were equal to certain sections of the private schools but also as if their position were even inferior. This is the reality behind this Bill. The Government is giving $1 for every State secondary school student in Australia while it is giving $2 for every private school student. If that is not a clear case of discrimination 1 do not know what is. But this is the policy the Government is pursuing.

It is in these State schools that there are such poor facilities. This is just one of the reasons why so few of the State school students are going on; it is not the only one by any means. But it is this continuing neglect by the Commonwealth Government of the State education system and its continuing concentration on private education - and within that section its discrimination in favour of the non-Catholic private sector - that are causing this continuing inequality in government schools. The Commonwealth scholarship scheme is an area of gross inequality. On 28th April I asked the Minister for Education and

Science whether he knew the financial reasons why people were dropping out? Surely this must be one of the Government’s most important considerations. How can it justify this drop-out? Seventy-five per cent of State school students are dropping out and almost 70 per cent of Catholic school students are dropping out. How can the Government justify this position?

Mr Brown:

– It is not the Minister’s fault, is it?

Mr KENNEDY:

– Whose fault is it? Perhaps the honourable member for Diamond Valley will treat us to a favour later on oy making a speech on the subject. I hope he will. He will get his chance then. But if it is not the Minister’s fault and it is not the State Government’s fault then whose fault is it? Why do honourable members on the Government side keep passing the buck all the time? Of course it is the Minister’s fault because he is giving away $40m in a very discriminatory fashion. He is giving away millions of dollars in Commonwealth scholarships, which amount could go towards helping people who are in need in the Catholic and State school systems. Of course it is his fault. He is responsible for spending millions and millions of Commonwealth dollars, and where are they going? They are going in a very discriminatory way towards one section. The Government is not regarding the needs of government and Catholic school students.

Let us look at this Bill now and see where the discrimination lies. If honourable members on the Liberal Party side cannot understand this discrimination, then they have thick skulls. I do not say that the Government does these things for deliberate reasons and I do not say that it does them solely for political reasons. I am sure that the Government does them for political reasons. I think the main reason for this discrimination is the particular background from which honourable members opposite come. I think that they simply cannot understand the needs of the children who attend the schools which educate the majority of the children of Australia. That is the reason why the Government makes such gross defects in its health policy. I do not think it is because the Government is necessarily discriminatory and partisan. It has a narrow outlook and we have our narrowness too. But honourable members on the Government side have a narrow outlook because of the culture from which they come. They cannot understand the needs of certain groups of people in this community. If we look at the breakdown of the money that is spent on these secondary school libraries we see that over the next 4 years the total sum expended will be $43,295,000.

In the independent schools - and let lis see the discrimination - what the Government is giving within a period of 4 years is an average of $73.82 for each student. Break that figure down and it means that the Government is giving $73.60 to each Catholic school student and $74.28 to each non-Catholic private school student. But compare that amount - and this is where honourable members have to see the discrimination - with the amount given to government schools. The Government is giving $36.83 for each secondary school student. So the Government is giving $2 to each private school student for each $1 it gives to each State school student. If honourable member’s compare the distribution of funds with the distribution of students they will see the bias. For example, last year government schools in the 6 States had a total secondary population of 708,256 students which meant that 75.24 per cent or three-quarters of all students attending secondary schools were government school students. Yet the government schools will receive only 60.26 per cent of all the money that is allocated under this Bill. Last year Catholic schools had a total of 158,699 secondary students which meant 16.86 per cent of all students. Yet they received 26.98 per cent of the funds. The other private schools last year had a total secondary population of 74,407 students which is 7.90 per cent of all students and yet they received funds which amounted to 12.77 per cent of the total amount. Now, there is the discrimination in this area. As the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) pointed out, if honourable members look at some of the States they will see particular examples of the discrimination, some of which are more flagrant than others. For example, within a period of 4 years in Victoria the Government school student receives $36.83, a Roman Catholic school student receives $63.31 and a student in a private school other than a Roman Catholic school receives $83.52. On the other hand, in Western Australia, for each student the government school receives $36.83, the Roman Catholic school receives $112.57 and the private school other than Roman Catholic school receives $103. The Minister claims in his second reading speech that over the period in which the scheme has been in existence it has increased the quality of science teaching facilities. Now I note the emphasis on the word ‘facilities’ because I do not believe it can be said that over the period in which this scheme has been in existence there has been an increase in the quality of science teaching. When the Minister makes a statement that there has been an increase in science facilities, what are his evidence and criteria? Can he point to any programme conducted by his Department which has evaluated the success of this scheme which has been in operation for 7 years? It will be in operation for 11 years by the time it is finished. By 1975, over $123m will have been spent. Can he tell me - I believe he cannot - of any programme undertaken by his Department to evaluate the success of this scheme?

There have been improvements in courses, materials and facilities for science teaching over the last decade; but the essential factor in science teaching is the teacher himself, and there has been a chronic shortage of qualified staff in secondary schools. This has reached such dimensions that it should be a matter of national concern. It has reached the stage where there should be a national investigation into why so many qualified science teachers are leaving and why so few of them are joining the education system. At the present moment, at the lower level of secondary education, up to the fourth form in Victoria, there is a severe shortage of qualified science teachers, and even in the senior years there is a shortage. The Victorian Teachers Union said last year that there was a shortage of at least 250 qualified mathematics and science teachers in Victoria. In New South Wales in 1962 only 32 per cent of the science teachers in the State were graduates. Today the position is even worse. In 1969, 1 in 10 of that State’s 300 State high schools had no graduate science teachers and 3 in 20 had no science master. That situation has not changed. Even moi: recently the Director-General of Education in Victoria, Mr Brooks, commented that the lack of science teachers and mathematics teachers was likely to continue for at least 3 to 4 years. So there is obviously a need for initiative by the Commonwealth to investigate this chronic shortage of science teachers. It might be interjected at this stage: ‘What has that to do with the Commonwealth?’ I just point out that what the Commonwealth is doing is looking at one side of education alone. It is concentrating on capital development. It is putting up elaborate, attractive and. in many cases, modernly equipped science buildings; hut it cannot guarantee that they are being staffed. It is doing the same with libraries. It is putting up new buildings; but it cannot guarantee that the libraries will have sufficient qualified staff.

Mr Brown:

– You can’t be serious.

Mr KENNEDY:

– One really wonders what sort of society the honourable member for Diamond Valley lives in, that he can say this sort of thing. I find his interjections and those of the honourable member for Denison just incredible; but I cannot waste-

Mr Beazley:

– This is how the Government delayed setting up a Department of Education and Science for 10 years when we were advocating it.

Mr KENNEDY:

– -There is nothing really wrong, you know, although we complain. We just have not been to the schools in which honourable members opposite were educated.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

I regret that we have to speak here at this time of the morning. It is about 40 hours since we started operations on Wednesday morning and most of us have had 1 or 2 hours sleep. I intend to keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can. I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) on behalf of the Opposition. It reads:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to increase the grant for schools conducted by a State to the same amount per pupil as the grant for schools not conducted by a State.’

As the honourable member for Fremantle quite properly said, it is not our wish to take away from anybody, but it is our wish to make sure that students in State schools receive the same kind of assistance as is given to students in non-State schools. This

Bill is quite important. Not only does it provide $43m, which is not an insignificant amount, but it lays down a science school programme for the next 4 years. What we are doing here in these early hours of this morning will be very important for many students who will pass through our high schools over the next 4 years.

We are quibbling at the inequitable distribution of the $43m. As the House has been reminded, for the first 3 years of this scheme the per capita grants to students in State and non-State schools were almost similar. Without going into a lot of detail, I will take the year 1966-67 - the last year when this was the situation. In that year government school students received $12.32, Catholic school students $12.61 and other non-government school students $13.90. In other words, they received much the same. But in 1967-68 the Government decided to double the amount given to non-State school students. As a result of that the position now is - I am taking the round figures without the decimal points - that 75 per cent of the students who attend government schools receive only 60 per cent of the grant, whereas the other 25 per cent of the student population receive almost 40 per cent of the grant. This is quite inequitable.

The reason given for doubling the amount for non-State school students and doing nothing about- the State school students was that the Commonwealth is now providing 5? 10m yearly by way of technical education grants. I am not fully familiar with what obtains in every other State, but I know that in my own State of New South Wales technical education is handled by a com pletely separate department; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the secondary education programme. Therefore it is quite irrelevant to talk about the $10m that is given to technical college students. They are just different people. It simply means that students in government schools are greatly disadvantaged as compared with students in other schools. As a result, it is quite true to say that many private schools with a good deal of affluence have received science blocks and science equipment well ahead of schools in the government system. I know of a big high school at Kogarah in my own electorate which has been waiting for a science block for quite some time. It is not just a case of all or nothing. A number of other high schools of which I am aware have only 2 science class rooms for quite a number of classes. So, there is an inadequacy of class rooms as well as of equipment.

As 1 have already said, government schools with 75 per cent of the students receive 60 per cent of the funds, whereas non-government schools catering for 25 per cent of the students receive 40 per cent of the funds. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard a table which compares the distribution of students in the various systems - government, Roman Catholic and non-government other than Roman Catholic schools - with the relevant percentages of the $43 m that is being allocated under this Bill, and another table prepared by the Parliamentary Library Statistical Service and showing the per capita grants to government schools compared with those to schools in the other systems.

Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from information contained in A Bill for an Act to grant Financial Assistance to the States for Science Laboratories and Equipment in Schools, Schedule, page 4 and School Enrolments 1970 (Preliminary) published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from information contained in A Bill for an Act to grant Financial Assistance to the States for Science Laboratories and Equipment in Schools, Schedule, page 4 and School Enrolments 1970 (Preliminary) published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. Those tables crystallise the point of the inequitability of these grants. All students in government schools in every State of Australia receive $36.83; for students in non-government schools the average is $73.82. In other words, the amount spent on non-government students is just about double that spent on government students. I am grateful to the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** for allowing those tables to be incorporated in Hansard. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- That takes no account of the cost to the Commonwealth of taxation deductions. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- It is quite apart from that. The deductions are another matter altogether. It has been suggested that the reason for this inequitable distribution is that government schools are getting technical facilities. I have referred to this already. But this does not happen with library grants. Commonwealth library grants are about equal on a per capita basis for students in all systems of education in all States of Australia. If honourable members refer to the table which I have incorporated in Hansard they will see a rather interesting variation as between different States. For instance, in Queensland 71 per cent of students are in government schools. One could think that they would probably get a fair bit more than half of the grant but, in fact, they get 48 per cent, which is less than half the grant whereas all non-government schools in Queensland, representing 28.7 per cent of the students, get more than half the grant - 51.96 per cent. In Western Australia the situation is much the same. Nearly 76 per cent of the students are in government schools but they get only 51 per cent of the grant. This is quite inequitable. I am sorry to have to use figures at this hour, hut 1 hope it registers with the Government just how inequitable is this distribution. It is not, as I have said, the sort of thing that applies in respect of the library grant. Even though the Minister does not agree, there is obviously not the same reliance on need as there was in the past. I challenge that there is a confrontation of the needs of private school students on the one hand, and government school students on the other. There might be confrontation of needs within the private school system but there is certainly no matching -of the needs of private schools with the needs of government schools. This is important. Not only is the distribution inequitable, but I suggest that it creates unbalance and at least a distortion, and it is altogether uneconomic. The Commonwealth has spent $80m-odd since this scheme started, but what is the result? This has been referred to already. Many of these costly scientific buildings and much of this scientific equipment are being uneconomically used. We hear frequently about expensive equipment lying around in laboratories simply because there are not enough qualified teachers to use them. This is not idle talk; I personally know of this situation. I am very much aware that there is a gross inadequacy of qualified science teachers in every State school and probably in many private schools. The shortage of science teachers and mathematics teachers in all of our school systems is notorious, so there is uneconomic expenditure in these fields. If the Government puts such priority on science education, it should go the whole hog and make sure that there are sufficient teachers to use the facilities. English teachers, geography teachers and other subject teachers are trying to teach science and hating every minute of it; and so are their students. I can guarantee this. It is most unfortunate. It is only latterly that a scientific look has been had at the science curriculum, if I can put it that way. There has been a good deal of hit and miss, much pragmatic experimentalism, with the science curriculum and science syllabuses. I am glad that now some research is being undertaken in this regard. All over the place there are complaints about the priorities in the learning programme. Many educationists think we are putting an undue emphasis - especially for many students - on science and science study levels. Many students are being led on to study science at higher levels than they are able to manage, and many other students who are doing science subjects have no liking, no ambition and no motivation for science. It seems that students are being pressurised into doing science to the disregard of social sciences. It is true, as I think the honourable member for Denison **(Dr Solomon)** mentioned, that we are now trying to catch up, rather belatedly, with an investigation of a social science curriculum for introduction to schools. There is another form of distortion. This pre-eminence of science has been at the expense of other learning activities in the schools. A school may have a beautiful science building, most elaborate and well equipped, and, if it is lucky, good science teachers in it. But it may, side by side, not have an assembly hall for the kind of activities that can be conducted in it. There are shabby, shoddy looking buildings in which other activities have to be conducted. It has been put to me, and I am sure it has been put to the Minister and to the Government members' Education Committee, that at least in the State school systems it would have been better had they been given grants for education and allowed to make their individual judgments on priorities. The Government is foisting on many schools libraries which they do not need as much as they need other kinds of buildings and other kinds of equipment. The same is being dene in respect of science. As a result of identifying one particular segment of the educational programme there is a lopsided and distorted programme. The Bill provides for the expenditure of $43.295m over the next 4 years. This averages out at $10.83m a year. This is a reduction on the average expenditure of ti 2.573m over the last 4 years. In other words, almost $2m a year less will be provided. The Minister says that this reduction is proposed because we are nearing the end of the programme and because of the present economic position. I do not know how anyone can possibly forecast that we are nearing the end of a science building programme or any other kind of educational programme. After all, a recent survey of educational needs indicates that over the next 5 years, beginning this year, which is almost half gone, the State systems alone will need $ 1,443m extra for education. I do not know how anyone can forecast that we can tail off grants for any particular segment of education. Not only is there a reduction in the actual amount per unit being granted but also as everybody knows, these millions of dollars will not buy as much as they did a few years ago. If anything has gone up in price more than anything else, it is building costs, and this applies to science buildings and science equipment as much as it does to any other kind of building. So there has been erosion by inflation and also an actual reduction in the amount of things provided. Whilst it is true, as my colleagues have said, that there are unfortunately too few students, particularly in government schools and in Catholic schools, who are going right through their secondary educational programme, on the other hand every year there is an increase in the number of students who are staying on to complete a secondary education. As a matter of fact, enrolments in government schools are increasing at a rate greater than in either of the other 2 systems. In the years 1964 to 1968 enrolments in government secondary schools increased by 6.3 per cent each year and in all non-government schools by 4.4 per cent. So it can be said that government school enrolments are increasing by half as much again as those in nongovernment schools, and the Government proposes a programme that reduces the amount of expenditure and then further substantially prejudices the majority of students who attend the government school system. It is time we had a thoroughgoing research programme into the effectiveness of the science laboratories and equipment programme. Finally, I welcome the provisions that enable the presentation of annual reports to the Parliament so that members might be able to make some assessment of the position and to enable the Minister to make some adjustments to the programmes outlined in the Bill. I welcome the Bill for what it does but regret its inequality and its inequitability as it affects government schools. I would not do one thing to reduce what has been done to the other area of schooling - the Catholic schools and other non-government schools - but I would urge the Government to have another look at the well-being of the mass of students who go to our public schools. {: #subdebate-44-0-s7 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP -- in reply - I intend to speak only very shortly. As the honourable member for Barton **(Mr Reynolds)** stated, the Parliament was sitting until the early hours of this morning - until about 6.30- and I do not want to delay the House any more than is necessary. Also I do not think it is necessary for me to do so because the answers to the allegations made by the Opposition have already been given by the honourable member for Denison **(Dr Solomon).** The Opposition has suggested that there is inequality in the distribution of the money to be provided. Members of the Opposition seem to think that this is the only money available to government schools for science laboratories. This is not so at all, of course. State government schools- {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- But in- {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- The honourable member has made his speech. If he does not mind I will make mine. State government schools shall receive about 70 per cent of the money that they use in science laboratories from the Commonwealth Government and about 30 per cent will come from their own funds. As everyone knows - this is a point that has been forgotten by the Opposition - the constitutional authority for education rests with the States. During the course of this debate we have had a wide ranging discussion of everything that is meant to be wrong with education in the States. First of all, that has little or nothing to do with this particular Bill, which is concerned only with science laboratories. Secondly, it is a matter which is the direct constitutional authority of the States. Honourable members opposite seem quite incapable of comprehending the fact that the States do have the authority in the education field and that what we seek to do is to assist them. We assist them, first of all, by seeing that they get as much in uncommitted funds as they possibly can and they can use these in whichever way they feel they can best be used. In fact they use a very large percentage of them in education. Secondly, we seek out areas in which we feel it is necessary to give additional assistance under section 96 grants, and this is one of them here of course. So the Opposition is quite wrong in saying that there is an inequality here. Of course, if one works out the actual figure that is being given to different schools under this Bill one will find that per capita more goes to the independent schools than to the State schools; but, as I have already pointed out, the State schools receive additional money. They have access to capital and they have access to these other recurrent funds. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Did private schools not have laboratories before the Commonwealth gave them money? {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- Certainly they had some. I was disappointed with the honourable member for Fremantle. I have heard him make some excellent speeches here, but unfortunately the speech that he made on this occasion represented a typical Socialist approach. I know that I should not expect anything else, but he used words such as the upper middle classes getting off with the loot. Quite frankly, I do not know what the upper middle class is and I would not think that anyone who had not studied Marx would really know what the upper middle class is. But it is terribly easy to use this old Aunt Sally of Geelong Grammar. I happen to be an old student of that school and proud to have been a student there. It is rather silly to make an Aunt Sally of it. But in fact there is no provision at all in this Bill for any funds for Geelong Grammar. However, it sounds very nice to be able to talk about this school as being for the rich. In fact a great many parents are sending their children to schools such as Geelong Grammar and other independent schools, but they have to make an extreme sacrifice, particularly at the present moment, in order to send them there, lt is interesting to see this reaction of the Opposition. There does seem to be an opinion amongst members of the Opposition that people who can afford to send their children to schools other than the State schools should not under any circumstances receive any grants at all. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- We did not say that at all. We said exactly the opposite. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- Why is it that schools such as Geelong Grammar are pointed out? Why does the honourable member talk about the upper middle class getting off with the loot and say that this Bill favours the affluent? That is the impression one gets from everything that has been said by the Opposition. I was glad that the honourable member for Fremantle did, at one stage in his speech, say that he does not believe in the DOGS. I am extremely glad to hear that. Neverthless the whole trend of the Labor Party thinking is a Socialist approach -that everyone ought to go to a government school and that everything should be given to a government school, or, if not everything, at least the majority should be. I would not have expected that the attack on this Bill would be on the division of funds. After all, let us look at the division of funds. They are exactly the same between government schools and non-government schools as they were in 1967. I have held this portfolio for only a short time. Nevertheless 1 am not aware that any member of the Opposition wrote to me and suggested that this formula should be changed. It may have happened in the time of my predecessor but certainly there has been no great pressure for this. Yet suddenly we are told that this is an incorrect division. But if honourable members opposite were going to attack this Bill I would have expected that it would have been an attack perhaps on the grounds that the funds made available were not as large as previously. Of course, I have explained in this Bill the reason for it. I have explained the fact, first of all, that there is an extremely inflationary pressure in the Commonwealth at the present time and that the Government is particularly anxious to see that it does not add to this inflation. Therefore it is reducing Commonwealth and State expenditure as far as possible. Secondly, this is a finite programme. When it was started off it was made clear that this was not a continuing programme. What we were seeking to do was to improve the quality of the science laboratories, and I believe that in the last 6 years there has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of science laboratories throughout Australia. Most existing Australian secondary schools have already received some form of assistance, often substantial, from the funds made available under this scheme. I do not want to go on, - I am sure you would rule me out of order if I did, **Mr Speaker** - to reply to some of the remarks that have been made about drop-out rates and various other matters which are important from an educational point of view but are not covered by this Bill. Let me just point out once again that the constitutional authority for education rests with the States. We seek, through science laboratories programmes such as this, through the libraries programme, through teacher training and through assistance in so many different ways, to assist the States, whilst leaving the States responsible for the quality of their education. They have the constitutional authority and that is where it rests, but I believe they are handling that authority well. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr** Beazley's amendment) stand part of ihe question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston) AYES: 51 NOES: 40 Majority....11 In division: 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. {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle I wish to address myself briefly to the Schedule and to make one or two comments. The Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** has not justified the Schedule to this Bill. He stated that we can consider that a considerable percentage - 30 per cent - of the expenditure of State schools is coming from State grants. That is a valid enough statement if you just assume that nothing is coming to provide equipment for laboratories or so on to the private schools. Of course before any Commonwealth system of grants existed they had a system of science teaching which was better than the system of science teaching in the State schools. The Minister has accused us of an inverted class snobbery on this business. I mentioned in the course of the debate that my own son went to a private school, Christ Church Grammar School in Western Australia. I would say also that I was given very considerable tax exemptions. If the Minister wishes to know, I would regard myself, compared with the generality of the Australian people, as having an upper-middle class income and that is what we are talking about. It is perfectly clearly set out in the schedules of the Taxation office that there are those sorts of things. As for the hoary old argument that it is just class feeling, as if Karl Marx invented class - does the honourable gentleman not know that for centuries the British had Lords and Commons? What is that but a classification of people? What existed before Marx ever spoke of these things? What the Minister said is complete nonsense. There is no question of antipathy to Geelong Grammar School. I said specifically that I did not believe that this school should be deprived of grants. Our query was why the amount came out as double for the private schools, which the Minister cannot deny. He tries to justify it by saying that the state schools get some money from the States. I say also that the private schools get some money to equip their science laboratories and that they do other things with the money from their fees. If the Minister wants to talk about other sources of funds he should speak about both sides of the ledger. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third reading Bill (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2832 {:#debate-45} ### PUBLIC ORDER (PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY) BILL 1971 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. In Committee Consideration of Senate's amendments. Clause 6. (2.) A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly and without lawful excuse, does an act or things by way of physical violence to another person or damage to property is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding One thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or both. Clause 11. (3.) Notwithstanding section 23 of this Act, the consent of the Attorney-General is not required for the institution of proceedings for the prosecution of an offence against this section. Clause 17. (4.) For the purpose of - >dispersing an assembly in respect of which a direction has been given under this section; or > >dispersing or suppressing an assembly to which paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of this section applies (whether or not a direction has been given under this section, in respect of the assembly), it is lawful for a person to use such force as he believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for that purpose and is reasonably proportioned to the danger which he believes, on reasonable grounds, is to be apprehended from the continuance of the assembly. Clause 22. A constable may, without warrant, arrest a person if the constable has reasonable ground to believe that the person has committed an offence against this Act. Clause 23. (2.) Proceedings for - >the commitment of a person for trial on indictment for an offence against this Act; or > >the summary prosecution of an offence against this Act, shall be instituted only with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General. Senate's amendment No. 1. In clause 6, sub-clause (2.), after 'assembly', insert , wilfully'. Senate's amendment No. 2. In clause M, sub-clause (3.), leave out Attorney-GeneraP, insert 'the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth or Deputy Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth in the State or Territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed'. Senate's amendment No. 3. In clause 17, sub-clause (4.) paragraph (b) after applies', insert 'by reason of its being carried on in a manner involving unlawful violence or damage'. Senate's amendment No. 4. Leave out clause 22, insert the following clause: Senate's amendment No. 5. In clause 23, sub-clause(2.), leave out 'AttorneyGeneral', insert 'the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth or Deputy Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth in the State or Territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed'. {: #debate-45-s0 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- I move: >That amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be agreed to. In explanation of this motion may I mention that the first of these amendments relates to clause 6 (2.) of the Bill, which provides that a person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly, as defined, and without lawful excuse, does certain acts commits an offence. The amendment which was inserted by the Senate requires that it be proved that while taking part in an assembly he wilfully and without lawful excuse committed the act. The Government is prepared to accept this amendment which places an additional onus on the Crown of proving wilfulness as well as lack of lawful excuse before an act is deemed to be an offence. Amendment No. 3 relates to clause 17, which deals with the reading of a direction taking the place of the old Riot Act. In sub-clause (4.) certain powers are given to private citizens where certain offences are being committed to take action, using such force as is reasonably necessary and is reasonably proportioned to the danger that is apparent, *to* apprehend people. The Senate has suggested that one of the sets of circumstances which are set out in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (4.) of clause 17 should have some additional safeguards placed in it. At present it reads: >For the purpose of - > >dispersing or suppressing an assembly to which paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of this section applies (whether or not a direction has been given under this section in respect of the assembly), it is lawful for a person to use such force as he believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for the purpose and is reasonably proportioned to the danger - In those circumstances it is lawful to apprehend the person. The Senate has asked us to agree to an amendment adding in relation to assemblies to which paragraph (b) of subclause (1.) of this clause applies, the following words: by reason of its being carried on in a manner involving unlawful violence or damage This again would add another element which would have to be proved in order to bring that proposed section into effect. The Government finds this amendment an acceptable one. The final amendment that at present is in this group, namely No. 4, relates to clause 22. This is a very short clause as it appeared in the Bill which passed through this House and it reads: >A constable may, without warrant, arrest a person if the constable has reasonable ground to believe that the person has committed an offence against this Act. This was regarded by the Senate as too wide and insufficiently circumscribed a ground on which a constable without a warrant might make an arrest. Senate referred to section 88 of the Crimes Act, and a new section tailored to the circumstances of this Bill was drafted and adopted by the Senate in these terms: >A constable may, without warrant, arrest a person for an offence against this Act if the constable has reasonable ground to believe that the person has committed that offence and that - And this is in addition: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. proceedings against the person by summons would not be effective; or 1. the arrest is necessary in order to prevent persistence by the person in, or repetition by the person of conduct of the kind constituting the offence, or the commission by the person of other offences against this Act. This is a more circumscribed power of arrest than the one passed through this chamber, but the particular restrictions are tailored to this Bill. It is acceptable to the Government, I commend these amendments to the Committee. {: #debate-45-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa -- The first amendment was moved by the Opposition in the Senate. The other two amendments arose from the instigation of the Opposition in the Senate. The Opposition in this chamber cheerfully accepts them. Amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 agreed to. {: #debate-45-s2 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- I move: >That the amendments Nos 2 and 5 be agreed to. Of these amendments the principal one is No. 5, and I will refer the House to that. If No. 5 is accepted it will be necessary to accept amendment No. 2 because it is consequential. Amendment No. 5 relates to clause 23 of the Bill, which provides that for offences against the Act - I summarise the clause broadly - proceedings shall be instituted only with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General. The Senate, in its amendment, has substituted for 'AttorneyGeneral' the following words: the person hording, or performing the duties of, the office of Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth, or Deputy Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth in the State or Territory in which the offence is alleged' to have been committed. The distinction here is that the Bill, as it passed through this chamber, provided that before a prosecution could be brought the consent of the Attorney-General had to be obtained. The view which was taken by the Senate, if I may put it to the Committee very broadly at this stage - was that this should be committed to the Crown Solicitor or the Deputy Crown Solicitor in the particular area. This was not unacceptable to the Government. It has been accepted and I would recommend that amendment to the House. It was necessary, as a consequence, to adopt amendment No. 2, which changes a further reference to the Attorney-General to the persons to whom I have referred. I commend to the Committee amendments Nos 2 and 5 which have been requested by the Senate. {: #debate-45-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa -- These 2 amendments were opposed by the Opposition in the Senate and the Senate divided upon them. It is true that some members of the Opposition object to any consent of the Attorney-General being required before a prosecution can be launched. They take the attitude that this is an application of the principle of dispensation upon which James II insisted and which the Bill of Rights of 1689 expressly forbade. Their idea is that if an act is illegal then prosecutions should be automatic; they should not be in the discretion of the AttorneyGeneral - that is, of the Crown. On the other hand, the Oppoosition does not approve the amendment which has been made, to substitute an official for a Minister - that is, to substitute the Crown Solicitor for the Attorney-General. I pre sume that for some minds the attraction of substituting the Crown Solicitor is that it would be thought that he would be above politics. Being the son of a Crown Solicitor, I can appreciate that point of view. But if there is to be a discretion as to the launching of a prosecution it is better, in the view of the Opposition, that the discretion should reside in the Attorney-General. A highly professionally qualified official like a Crown Solicitor is, by tradition, beyond criticism or supervision by the Parliament. He enjoys a degree of immunity. A Minister, however, is very properly answerable to the Parliament. We may find that under our system and in our Parliament it is very difficult to call them to book. Nevertheless there is still the safeguard that a Minister can be questioned in the House to which he belongs. There are procedures which can cause his actions to be reviewed. There can even be motions of no confidence in him. This is a valuable safeguard. One does not have to specify cases in which an Attorney-General has acted more prudently, more circumspectly and more scrupulously because of the apprehension of what the Parliament may say about him. I am not unaware that Attorneys-General have met with trouble in their own parties, quite apart from the Parliament, because of the way they have exercised their discretion in launching prosecutions. The present incumbent's predecessor, a conservative man in very many respects, nevertheless came under criticism in his party because he did not launch enough prosecutions. He was not sufficiently bloodthirsty in launching political prosecutions. He was politically wise enough to realise that a prosecution which is successful can martyr a man and a prosecution which is not successful can hallow a cause. Accordingly, the honourable member for Berowra **(Mr Hughes),** as he now is, conservative as he is and always has been as I know, came under a very great deal of pressure from those in his party who are still more conservative. I appreciate, however, that he and other Attorneys-General have administered the quite draconian criminal laws of the Commonwealth much better because they had the responsibility of authorising prosecutions. I do not believe that where prosecutions are not automatic but at a person's discretion the democratic system is served. The system of parliamentary democracy is well served by having that discretion exercised by an official as distinct from a Minister. It is better, in our view, for that discretion to be exercised by the AttorneyGeneral rather than by the Crown Solicitor. Accordingly, here is this chamber the Opposition will oppose the amendment, as it did in the Senate. {: #debate-45-s4 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect I would just like to make one point. This deals with all 5 amendments. Normally we find that amendments are rejected by the Ministers when they introduce legislation because they consider every attempt to amend their legislation is an affront to them or as a vote of no confidence in them. I would therefore recommend to the Government that it do what it has done in this case, and that is to change Ministers between the time of introduction of legislation and the time of discussing that legislation in this House, because there is obviously far less reluctance on the part of the present Attorney-General **(Mr N. H. Bowen)** to amend legislation which has been introduced by a previous Attorney-General than there would have been if the legislation had been introduced by the same gentleman. {: #debate-45-s5 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa -- **Mr Chairman,** I for once do not agree with my colleague the honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman).** {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Mr Gorton: -- Is that unusual? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I compliment the right honourable gentleman on being so coherent at this hour, I think his is a vdice from the past, if not from the dead- {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Mr Gorton: -- And the present. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- but with no future. I merely want to make the point that I do believe that successive AttorneysGeneral are the only Ministers who we can readily recall have accepted amendments to legislation. The present Attorney-General **(Mr N. H. Bowen)** did accept some amendments which were made in the Senate during his previous incumbency, and his successor and predecessor also accepted amendments. I concede that Ministers regard it as a point of honour to reject amendments, but amendments have been accepted on legal Bills by successive Attorneys-General during the 1960s, last year and this year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendments agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. {: .page-start } page 2835 {:#debate-46} ### NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE {: #debate-46-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have received the following mesage from the Senate: >Message No, 153 > >The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which has been agreed to by the Senate, and requests the consideration by the House of the Resolution: That the Senate - > >Believing that the decision as to the site of the new and permanent Parliament House is and remains the responsibility of those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who constitute the Parliament of the Commonwealth; > >Recommends that a joint sitting of the two Houses or other form of general conference be convened to express, by resolution, the point of view of the assembled members of the Parliament as between Capital Hill and the Camp Hill area; > >Recommends further for the consideration of the House of Representatives - > >that the proposed joint meeting be held on a day and time to be fixed by **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** and that the joint meeting consist of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; > >that **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** be joint chairman of the joint meeting and be empowered, if they think it necessary, to draw up regulations for the conduct of such joint meeting; and > >that at such a joint meeting there be no debate on the subject matter of the alternative sites and that the question be decided by a majority of votes; > >Invites Members of the House of Representatives to join with Senators in the Senate Chamber or such other place as may be determined by **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** for the purpose of the joint meeting; > >And further invites the House of Representatives to suggest any alternative to or modification of the Senate's proposal, with a view to the convening of a joint meeting of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to determine finally the question where the new and Permanenf Parliament House be situated' Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** agreed to: >That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. {: .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: -- I ask the Minister for National Development to give an undertaking that this motion will be debated by the Parliament at a future date. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The motion has been carried. That is a matter for the Minister. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-47} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1971 Bill returned from the Senate without requests. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-48} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** agreed to: >That the House, al hs rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr Speaker,** which time of 'meeting shall be notified by **Mr Speaker** to each member by telegram or letter. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-49} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** agreed to: >That leave of absence, be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-50} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Crown of Thorns Starfish - Gove: Liquor Licence Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** proposed: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-YF4} ##### Mr CROSS:
Brisbane **- Mr Speaker,** I do not intend to detain the House for long. I am told by my colleagues that that would be a very wise move. 1 regret very much that the House is going to adjourn tonight without some discussion on the very important report of the committee which investigated the problem of the crown of thorns starfish. 1 realise that some honourable members may think that this is a fairly minor matter. It is a fact, however, that a previously rare starfish has now reached plague proportions on reefs, not only in the Great Barrier Reef area but throughout the Indo-Pacific region. A great deal of scientific investigation has been carried out by a large number of scientists and almost all of them agree that the crown of thorns starfish has now developed to plague proportions. The sad part about this is that some of these reports are now 4 or 5 years old and all of them recommended intensive programmes of scientific research and the removal of starfish by various methods. I would be the first to agree that there is no agreement on the best method of removing the starfish but surely this emphasises all the more the need for research. The United States Senate has voted $4.5m to be spent in American territories in the Pacific. The report of the crown of thorns starfish committee recommends the expenditure of $90,000 to $120,000 on this work- $90,000 in the first year and an increase of $20,000 in each of the succeeding years. The big problem, of course, is that reefs are being destroyed and no-one knows whether it will be 20 or 40 years before they develop their previous ecological balance. Professor Hill, in evidence before the committee, suggested that it might be 2 human generations before the reefs were restored. The only point I wish to make in expressing my regret that we have not been able to discuss this matter in the House is to request that consideration be given to bringing the matter before the House again in the Budget session in order that proper consideration might be given to the report. In my view the report represents a whitewash on the part of the Queensland State Government and shows its lack of concern for conservation. I regret very much the way in which the report reflects on the professional integrity of **Dr Endean** and other scientists associated with the Great Barrier Reef committee. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER:
Bradfield **- Mr Speaker,** on 19th February of this year I received a letter from a department of the Church of Christ regarding the granting of a liquor licence to a hotel at Nhulunbuy, the new mining town on the Gove Peninsula. On 26th February I wrote to the then Minister for the Interior, the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Nixon)** seeking information regarding the Government's attitude on this matter. On 11th March the Minister acknowledged my letter but I have heard no more and this is the last opportunity that I have of seeking some information on this matter. A few days ago I advised the present Minister for the Interior **(Mr Hunt)** that I would be seeking information and he is now in the House. After 1 received this letter from the Church of Christ people a young constituent of mine who was recently admitted to practise as a solicitor in Sydney, undertook, before entering upon his profession, a journey of 18,000 miles around Australia by road. He took a particular interest in developmental works, including mining works in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This young man is a very fine type of young man - in fact, the very best type of young Australian. He was Head Prefect of a well-known school in Sydney. He has taken some part in public affairs and is a very level and well balanced young man. I cannot commend him too highly. **Sir, he** wished to go to Nhulunbuy but could not arrange it. I will tell you a little more about this in a moment. However, he was in Darwin at the time that the application, by a syndicate known as Walkabout Hotels-Motels, for a hotel at Nhulunbuy was heard before the licencing court. Missionaries and elders of the local tribes opposed the granting of the licence on the ground that it would be in the worst possible interests of the Aboriginals in the vicinity. I should say, **Sir, that** alcohol is banned from native reserves unless there is a special dispensation by the Social Welfare Department in the Northern Territory. Nhulunbuy has been exempted from this requirement although, of course, it is in the midst of the Arnhem Land reserve. However, there is a wet canteen on the mine site for the mine workers. Opponents of the granting of the licence expressed no opposition to a club licence for the mine workers, including the Aboriginals working on the mine. Firstly, the applicants claimed that the hotel would be a considerable distance from the native village which I believe - but am not sure - was about 20 miles away. Secondly, they claimed that a hotel would be necessary and desirable for the increasing tourist traffic. The opponents claimed that natives had been known to go even 30 miles in order to get liquor - even outside the reserve. At no mining operation visited by my young constituent was encouragement given to visitors to the mine. The mine authorities were much more concerned with getting on with the mining work. Nhulunbuy is about 400 miles by road from Darwin. When my young constituent said that he wished to visit it, he was told that he could go by air but that the mining people ga ve no assistance to anybody arriving at the airstrip to get to the township. So much for the great increase in tourist traffic to the area. The magistrate decided to grant the licence, subject to adequate police arrangements. The time was arriving, he said, when such a community could not avoid being exposed to more and various aspects of 20th century life. Aboriginals in this particular area are living in more or less tribal conditions. They are not on the fringes of the 20th century. Evidence was immediately given by the police that additional accommodation was under way for IS policemen. At the settlements associated with Mount Newman and Mount Tom Price - comparable places, so far as my constituent could see - 2 policemen were regarded as sufficient. The Department of Social Services did not appear to be represented at the hearing and the position of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs in this matter appears to me to be completely obscure. I do not know what part he was supposed to play or what is the demarcation between the Minister for the Interior and the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, but I have reached the conclusion that the matter is one entirely for the Minister for the Interior. These are the observations of a very level-headed, intelligent young man, who is without any bee in his bonnet and without any axe to grind whatsoever. It may be that in some details he was mistaken, but I think it would be only in very small details. On the face of it a great wrong appears to have been done. What explanation has the Government to offer for the action that was taken here in granting the licence against the unanimous evidence of the missionaries and the Aboriginal leaders in this area? The granting of the licence is an exceptional thing in every respect. It would appear that the reasons given included such things as tourist traffic and the fact that the native village was said to be a long way away - a mere 20 miles at the most. These do not appear to be satisfactory reasons. No blame, of course, attaches to the present Minister because this happened before he took over his portfolio, but, of course, he has to answer for what has been done. If this action cannot be justified I suggest that the licence should be revoked and compensation paid, of course, for any expenditure incurred in pursuance of the granting of a licence that should never have been made. I do not believe that merely because something had been done it' should continue forever. An error should be rectified. Finally, so that honourable members may have the opportunity of judging for themselves I ask that the transcript of the evidence in this case be laid on the table as soon as possible. My young friend sought the transcript of the evidence but was informed that it would cost him $50, which he was not in a position to pay. But I suggest that so that we in this Parliament may reach our own opinion and make our own judgment the transcript should be laid on the table. I merely state something that was given to me in all good faith. After 1 received the letter from the Church of Christ people, I had a means of verifying as far as I could from very reliable evidence what they said. I have presented that evidence to the House. I believe it to be true. It may be doubtful in some minor particulars because, as good an observer as he was, he was merely an observer in the court. I do think that the Government has a case to answer and must tell us why it adopted the position it did in regard to the issue of this licence. {: #subdebate-50-0-s2 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I intend to be very brief in my remarks to the House. I have some knowledge of the matters that the honourable member for Bradfield **(Mr Turner)** has mentioned. I commend him for his forthright statements to the Parliament. The liquor interests of this country have tremendous power and influence, and on occasions in order to achieve their objective they will resort to some grievous evils which are worse than any other monopoly organisation would resort to. Recently the Public Works Committee was at Mt Tom Price in Western Australia. We learned there that the price of a 7-ounce glass of liquor was 23c or 24c. The imposition of exorbitant charges in this region of Australia just shows what the liquor interests have been able to get away with. They have been able to get away with incidents such as the one referred to by the honourable member for Bradfield for many, many years I believe that if more members of Parliament - State and Federal - took a greater interest in the evils that the people attached to liquor interests seek to achieve and achieve from time to time, and had them rectified by Parliament, the community in general would be much healthier and politicians in general, would be more respected. {: #subdebate-50-0-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP -- Firstly, I thank the honourable member for Bradfield **(Mr Turner)** for giving me notice that he would be bringing the matter into the House on the motion for the adjournment. I will try to run briefly through the history of the granting of this licence. Nhulunbuy, of course, is a town that has been planned and developed by Nabalco on the Gove Peninsula. It is, as the honourable member says, within the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve and is 13 miles from the Yirrkala Mission. There is a planned population of 5,000 people at Nhulunbuy. The Aboriginal population at Yirrkala is about 800. As the honourable member has said, there are canteens on the Gove Peninsula and they have been operated for some time by mining companies and contractors for employees only. Some Aboriginals employed by the company are therefore entitled to use the facilities, but this has not prevented other Aboriginals who are not employees of the company from obtaining liquor. The history of the case is that in May 1970 the Licensing Court magistrate refused the first liquor licence application by Walkabout Holdings Ltd. Aboriginal objections were based on the argument that in licensed premises not necessary for public accommodation the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood would be disturbed. The magistrate found in view of the population projections of Nhulunbuy and the lack of appropriate public accommodation at the township that grounds were not established for the first objection. Further, in deciding that there was no ground for the second objection, the magistrate noted that the planned hotel would be 13 miles away from Yirrkala and that disturbance must be shown to be more local than the case presented. But he refused the application because the applicant had no authority under section 140 (e) of the Northern Territory Licensing Ordinance to take liquor on to the reserve. The Government then had to consider whether to grant an authority to allow licence applications to be heard in the normal way. In doing so it was felt that consideration should be given to the needs of a potential non-Aboriginal population of 5,000. The Administrator granted the authority therefore to bring liquor into the reserve, into the Nhulunbuy township, which is about 13 miles from the Yirrkala Mission. In a subsequent application for a liquor licence the Northern Territory Administration contributed approximately $1,400 to the legal costs of Aboriginals. This figure represents approximately half the total legal costs and it enabled Aboriginals to employ Queen's Counsel from Adelaide. The Aboriginals objected on the ground that access to liquor would produce adverse results amongst the Aboriginal population, but they claimed that they would support the issue of a club licence instead of a hotel licence. That is a very key point in this matter. They argued that the area is on an Aboriginal reserve and therefore the Aboriginal views should be respected. This was the argument upon which they based their case. However, the Licensing Court granted a hotel licence to Walkabout Holdings Ltd in November 1970. Aboriginals lodged an appeal with the Northern Territory Supreme Court against the Licensing Court's decision, but the judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Northern Territory law did not provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Licensing Court. After the decision on the appeal the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** agreed that the Government would assist to pay the legal costs incurred. As a result of this the Office of Aboriginal Affairs has approached my Department to determine the amount. It is true to say that no Government attitude was expressed at the Licensing Court hearing. I have checked on that. The decision was taken judicially by the Court and the final decision on appeal was taken by a judge of the Supreme Court. Any criticism, therefore, that relates to the deci sion of the Court to grant a particular type of licence and not the principle of alchohol on the reserve itself must be noted here, because the Aboriginals were prepared to accept a club licence. A permit to bring the liquor on to the reserve would be required for either licence. This cannot be read as an implication that the Government supported the application for a hotel licence. The granting of a licence should be seen against this background. Is it realistic that the Nhulunbuy community should not have access to the same social amenities as other Northern Territory towns of the same size? There is a need for public accommodation for business and other visitors to the Gove project. The Aboriginals' preference for a club licence would not be appropriate as it would undoubtedly limit the availability of the facilities to club members. Residents and visitors to the town would be excluded unless they joined the club. Unless a discriminatory club rule prevented it, Aboriginals would be able to join the club and have access to liquor. Moreover, restricted availability of liquor through the club would lead to black marketing, especially in respect to Aboriginal drinkers not wishing to join the club. With respect to the honourable member's request to lay on the table the transcript of the evidence that was heard before the Court, I will endeavour to obtain this and to lay it on the table for the information of honourable members. {: #subdebate-50-0-s4 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle **- Mr Speaker,** I- Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** agreed to: >That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 3.44 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr Speaker.** {: .page-start } page 2840 {:#debate-51} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to question upon notice were circulated: Inter-Departmental Committee on Employees Compensation (Question No. 3336) {: #debate-51-s0 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Departments of Labour and National Service, Repatriation, Social Services and the Treasury, and the Public Service Board are represented on the committee. 1. The Committee was asked to make an extensive survey of the various basic issues involved in compensation schemes. These would include such matters as whether periodical payments should be earnings related, whether lump sum payments should be replaced by periodical payments and the relationship between compensation and various other related payments such as superannuation. 2. The decision to set up the committee was made on 7 April 1971. Colleges of Advanced Education: Fees (Question No. 2425) {: #debate-51-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I interpret 'fees' as tuition fees for diploma-type courses. The only college of advanced education which increased its teaching fees for these courses for 1971 was the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. The increases were as follows: {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Social Services (Question No. 3250) {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >What percentage of aged residents in hostels in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States are receiving the $5 per week personal care subsidy. {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Personal Care Subsidy is payable under Part III of the Aged Persons Homes Act to religious and approved non-profit organisations which conduct hostel accommodation for the aged in which they provide personal care services for residents needing such services. > >The amount of subsidy payable depends on the number of persons aged 80 years and over, residing in the approved accommodation. > >The current percentage of such persons is: Aged Persons Homes Act: Grants (Question No. 3313) {: #subdebate-51-0-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >Which local governing bodies have received grants under the Aged Persons Homes Act since the amending Act was assented to on 8 November 1967. {: #subdebate-51-0-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Local governing bodies as listed have been approved to receive grants since the Aged Persons Homes Act was amended in November 1967. New South Wales- Auburn Municipal Council Gloucester Shire Council Kempsey Municipal Council Manilla Shire Council Penrith City Council Victoria- Moorabbin City Council Oakleigh City Council Sandringham City Council Queensland Bundaberg City Council Cardwell Shire Council Mackay City Council Mareeba Shire Council Murweh Shire Council South Australia Loxton District Council Western Australia Koorda Shire Council Social Services (Question No. 3320) {: #subdebate-51-0-s4 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >What would be the estimated cost of (a) increasing the weekly allowance for the first child of civilian widows to $3.50 and (b) granting an education allowance to the children of civilian widows equal to that of repatriation widows for the year 1971-72. {: #subdebate-51-0-s5 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Based on the number of pensions current at 29th March 1971, the estimated cost of increasing to S3.50 per week the additional pensions paid to civilian widow pensioners in respect of the eldest eligible child would be $2.4m per annum. 1. Allowances paid under the Soldiers' Children Education Scheme vary in amount depending on the age of the child, whether the child resides at home or is living away from home and according to the type of education or training being undertaken. As these details are not available in respect of the children of civilian widow pensioners it is not possible lo determine the cost of paying similar allowances in respect of such children. {:#subdebate-51-1} #### Education: Expenditure (Question No. 3342) {: #subdebate-51-1-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >What was the per pupil recurrent expenditure from (a) Commonwealth, (b) the States and (c) private sources for (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools under (A) government, (b) private Catholic and (C) private non-Catholic control in each of the States in each of the last 5 years. {: #subdebate-51-1-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Information in the form requested is not available. {:#subdebate-51-2} #### Education (Question No. 3341) {: #subdebate-51-2-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Can he give the student retention ratio for the full period of secondary schooling for (a) government (b) private Catholic and (c) private nonCatholic schools in the (i) city and (ii) rural areas for each of the States for the latest year for which figures are available. {: #subdebate-51-2-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Details of retention rates were given in reply to a recent question (Hansard, 20th April 1971, page 1742). As the secondary schools statistics published by the Commonwealth Statistician which were used in that reply are not available separately for (i) city and (ii) rural areas it is not possible to provide retention rates on this basis. {:#subdebate-51-3} #### Dried Fruits (Question No. 3047) {: #subdebate-51-3-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the new markets for dried fruits being explored by the Government to which reference was made by him on 30th March 1971. 1. What new initiatives have been taken by the Government to replace or revive the now defunct international sultana agreement. {: #subdebate-51-3-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The new markets which have been developed in the last decade are designated as 'other markets' in statistics published by the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, to distinguish them from the more traditional markets in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. Sales of sultanas, the major export variety of the dried vino fruits, have expanded to 'other markets' from 3,600 tons in 1960 to 18,070 tons in 1968. In 1969, of course, exports were rationed because of the small crop. Markets included in this category are Japan, the Continent and Ireland, Central and South America, Africa and the Middle East and Asia and the Pacific. 1. The international sultana agreement is not defunct, although it has been subject to considerable pressure in the last couple of years. The Government is not a signatory to the agreement, which is between industries in the producing countries. However, the Government believes that the agreement has been of great value to the producers of dried fruit in all countries. A working party representative of the signatories is at present meeting in London to try to strengthen the present agreement, or to devise a new agreement, to carry forward the benefits achieved under the present arrangements. {:#subdebate-51-4} #### Sugar Cane Growers: Fertilisers (Question No. 3099) {: #subdebate-51-4-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: -- asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: >In view of the recent establishment of Consolidated Fertilizers Ltd, what assurance do Queensland and New South Wales cane growers have that a full range of nitrogenous fertilisers will be made available to them at prices which will be competitive with world ...-A---A, standards. {: #subdebate-51-4-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As a result of the operations of the Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Act, the prices of nitrogenous fertilisers in Australia are closely related to the undumped import price of equivalent fertilisers. The Act provides, inter alia, that subsidy may be paid on imported nitrogenous fertilisers if the Australian manufacturer of like or directly competitive products is not prepared to sell on as favourable terms as the imports, provided the imported goods are not landed at dumped prices. Subsidy is also payable on imports if like or directly competitive fertilisers are not available within Australia. > >The provisions of the Act should ensure that cane growers continue to have a full range of nitrogenous fertilisers availabe at prices which are competitive with world undumped standards. {:#subdebate-51-5} #### Papua New Guinea: Commonwealth Assistance Programmes (Question No. 3056) {: #subdebate-51-5-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: >In what respects and to what extent has Australia sought and received assistance for the Territory of Papua New Guinea under (a) the > >Commonwealth Co-operation in Education Scheme and (b) other Commonwealth programmes. {: #subdebate-51-5-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Australia has sought and received assistance for the Territory of Papua New Guinea under the Commonwealth Co-operation in Education Scheme and other Commonwealth programmes as follows: Internal Waters: Sovereignty (Question No. 3104) {: #subdebate-51-5-s2 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Does the Government still maintain that sovereignty in respect of internal waters of Australia, in relation to the baseline of the territorial sea, is vested in and exercisable by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-51-5-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: >See answer to Question No. 3106. {:#subdebate-51-6} #### Internal Waters: Sovereignty (Question No. 3105) {: #subdebate-51-6-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Does the Government still maintain that sovereignty in respect of the (a) territorial sea, (b) airspace above the territorial sea and (c) bed and subsoil of the territorial sea, is vested in and exercisable by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-51-6-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: >See answer to Question No. 3106. {:#subdebate-51-7} #### Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill (Question No. 3106) {: #subdebate-51-7-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Government on 16th April 1970 as a matter of some urgency introduce the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970 into the House of Representatives. 1. Why has there been 12 months delay in debating this Bill. 2. When will the Bill be debated. {: #subdebate-51-7-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable members question: >I refer the honourable member to the answers given by the Prime Minister to the questions aked without notice on 22nd April 1971 by the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Wine Excise Investigation (Question No. 3118) {: #subdebate-51-7-s2 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What departments are represented on the inter-departmental committee to investigate the effects of the wine excise to which he referred on 30th March 1971. 1. What are the precise terms of reference of this committee and under whose direct authority does it operate. 2. Will the industry have adequate opportunities to confer with the committee and to provide specialist evidence. 3. When was the committee constituted. 4. What was the date of its first meeting, and how many meetings have been held. 5. If the committee has not yet met when will it do so. 6. When is it expected that its report will be completed. 7. Will the report be made available to the industry and tabled in the Parliament. {: #subdebate-51-7-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury, Customs and Excise and Primary Industry. 1. To examine the situation of the wine industry with particular reference to the effects of the excise duty on wine. At the request of the Prime Minister the Department of Primary Industry is the convenor. 2. The Committee is seeking pre excise versus post excise sales and stocks information which various industry organisations are at present collecting and collating. 3. 29th March, 1971. 4. After some preparatory work departmentally, 21st April, 1971. Subsequent working group meetings are in hand. 5. See answer to 5. 6. The Committee desires to complete the report without delay but this is dependent on adequate industry sales and stocks information being available quickly on truly comparable basis with previous years. 7. This is a matter for the Government to decide in due course. {:#subdebate-51-8} #### Poultry Fanners: Bankruptcy (Question No. 3203) {: #subdebate-51-8-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: >What are the names of the poultry farmers in 49 States who, with the authority of the Com monwealth, have been made bankrupt by the respective State Egg Boards because of their inability to pay Commonwealth hen levies. {: #subdebate-51-8-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Only one seqestration order has been made by a Court on the petition of a State Egg Board in respect of a debt owing to the Commonwealth for hen levy. The order was made against James Andrew Jamieson and Millicent Jamieson of Wynnum West, Queensland on 4th March 1971. > >In addition to the persons stated above, a company Merilyn Farms Pty Ltd, of West Ryde, New South Wales - is in liquidation on a petition by the New South Wales Egg Marketing Board in respect of an unpaid judgement debt for Commonwealth hen levy. > >In each of these cases the State Egg Board concerned made every endeavour to come to an arrangement with the debtor for the payment of the amount owing over an extended period. Poultry Farmers: Sequestration Orders (Question No. 3204) {: #subdebate-51-8-s2 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: >Is it a fact that after sequestration orders have been taken out by State Egg Boards against poultry farmers official receivers are forcing the sale of poultry farms and other assets to recoup Commonwealth levies owing to the Egg Boards. {: #subdebate-51-8-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >After sequestration orders have been made by the Court the official receiver has the statutory responsibility of winding up the estate of the bankrupt. In the case where an asset does not exceed the value of $10,000, no approval for its sale is required from the creditors or the Court. Where the value of the asset exceeds $10,000 the official receiver may not sell it by private contract without the authority of the creditors. Decisions by the creditors in this respect are by majority vote with the voting weighted according to the value of their proven claims on the estate. In the case of the only bankruptcy initiated for hen levy, the hen levy debt was less than ten per cent of the total debts. Sporting Teams: Entry Visas (Question No. 3208) {: #subdebate-51-8-s4 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government refused entry visas to any sporting teams during the last18 years? 1. If so, why? {: #subdebate-51-8-s5 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. The teams concerned were Rhodesian teams. Authority to enter Australia was refused under the terms of the Security Council Resolutions on Rhodesia. From time to time there have been inquiries made by Australian sporting organisations concerning the possible admission of teams for international competition here. One example was an inquiry in 1967 concerning the possible entry of a table tennis team from North Vietnam. The Australian table tennis organisation was informed that the grant of visas to a team from North Vietnam could not be guaranteed. No applications were lodged. Chinese Table Tennis Team: Visas (Question No. 3209) {: #subdebate-51-8-s6 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a table tennis team from the People's Republic of China ever been refused an entry permit to Australia. 1. If so, why. {: #subdebate-51-8-s7 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) No. {:#subdebate-51-9} #### Foreign Performers: Grounds of Selection (Question No. 3329) {: #subdebate-51-9-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he received evidence that members of the Moscow Circus or Bolshoi Ballet have been chosen for foreign tours on grounds other than merit in their work. 1. If so, will he either (a) disclose that evidence to those who have objected to his tolerance of the South African foreign policy to choose international sporting teams exclusively from a racial minority or (b) review his public comparison of the Soviet and South African regimes in this connection. {: #subdebate-51-9-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. See (1). The Minister for Foreign Affairs has not made the public comparison referred to in (b). {:#subdebate-51-10} #### International Conventions (Question No. 2330) {: #subdebate-51-10-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date the information on international conventions in his predecessor's answer of 12 June 1970 (Hansard page 3595). {: #subdebate-51-10-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Yes. The information is being sought but will not be available until after the Parliament rises. British Solomon Islands (Question No. 2363) {: #subdebate-51-10-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the motion carried by the Governing Council of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate on 16 November 1970 that a timetable of constitutional and economic development be drawn up leading to independence and did he note that the official members of the Council did not oppose or vote on the motion on the ground that the matter was one for Solomon Islanders to determine for themselves. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If so, has an instruction been given that official members of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua New Guinea should now take a similar attitude on any such motion. {: #subdebate-51-10-s3 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes to both parts. 1. No. Official members are guided by Government policy in this as in other matters. The Government looks to the House of Assembly to represent the views of the majority of the people and to take the initiative in such matters as the pace and nature of constitutional development. Reservations previously expressed about a timetable have been based on objections to ae externally imposed or arbitrary timetable. They do not apply to a timetable of Papua New Guinea's own choosing. In the final report of the Select Committee approved on 11th March, there is reference to an approximate timetable for internal self-government. Official members took no part in the debate nor did they vote, except for the member who was vice-chairman of the Select Committee who voted in favour. Papua New Guinea Enterprises: Government Shareholdings (Question No. 2390) {: #subdebate-51-10-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In what enterprises in the Territory of Papua New Guinea are shares held by the Commonwealth or the Administration or their authorities. 1. What number and percentage of the shares does each hold in each enterprise. 2. What number and percentage of the directors does each nominate to the board of each enterprise. 3. What are the names and positions of the directors whom each has nominated to each board. {: #subdebate-51-10-s5 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Commonwealth, the Administration and 1 Territory Authority, the 'Papua New Guinea Development Bank, beneficially hold shares in one or more enterprises in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The information required about each is respectively set out below: > >The Commonwealth is the beneficial owner of shares held in 2 enterprises in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The enterprises are - > >Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Ltd; and > >New Guinea Resources Prospecting Co. Ltd. The information requested about these 2 enterprises in parts (2), (3) and (4) of the question is set out below:___ {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Administration is the beneficial owner of shares in only I enterprise, Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd. The information requested in parts (2), (3) and (4) of the question about Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd is set out below - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. 25,000,000 shares of SI. 00 each fully paid, representing a 20 per cent equity. 1. One director out of total of 6, representing 16.6 per cent of total board membership. 2. D. Morland, Assistant Secretary (Projects Co-ordinataion), Department of ;he Administrator. 3. The Papua New Guinea Development Bank is the only Territory authority to beneficially own shares in enterprises in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The answers to parts (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the question in relation to the Papua New Guinea Development Bank is set out below: {:#subdebate-51-11} #### Papua New Guinea: Political Appointments (Question No. 2388) {: #subdebate-51-11-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which former members of the Legislative Council or the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua New Guinea have received appointments in the public service or on statutory bodies or with companies in which the Commonwealth or the Administration or their authorities hold shares. 1. What appointments did each of them receive. 2. When did each receive the appointment. {: #subdebate-51-11-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Detailed records of this nature have not been kept in the Territory but the following information is supplied from those records which are available: {:#subdebate-51-12} #### Tariff: Acrylic Fibre (Question No. 2939) {: #subdebate-51-12-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the tariff on acrylic fibre coming from Hong Kong been removed thus enabling the imported fibre to undersell the local product by $1 per lb. 1. Have leading Australian wool manufacturers claimed that this action is helping to depress the price of wool. 2. Does acrylic fibre sell in Australia for $1.40 per lb compared with a price of wool to manufacturers of $2.40. 3. Are acrylics and wool in direct competition in the Australian market. 4. Is be able to say whether one importer has arranged to bring 100,000 lb of synthetics into Australia in April and whether other importers are planning similar actions. 5. Does the importation of 100,000 lb of synthetics represent an equivalent of 200,000 lb of greasy wool which will not be wanted. 6. In view of the Government's aid to wool growers by subsidy, what is the reason for an action which is enabling foreign synthetics to push wool off the market. {: #subdebate-51-12-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For may years, acrylic fibre has been admitted to Australia free of duty with most imports coming from Japan. Australian spinnners have been converting the fibre into yarn mainly fur knitting and carpet making. The local spinners have had to compete with imported acrylic yarn and have been supplying virtually all the Australian market. In April 1970, following a recommendation by the Tariff Board, the duties on acrylic yarn were reduced. To date, local spinners have continued to supply the bulk of the local market. 1. 1 have no personal knowledge of any such allegations. 2. Selling prices for both acrylic and wool yearns vary over a wide range and depend upon such factors as the thickness of the yarn, its quality, the quantity sold and the method used to spin the fibre into yarn. For this reason it is not feasible to make a general comparison between the selling prices of these yarns. 3. Acrylics compete directly with wool mainly in knitted goods and carpets. It should be noted that Australia has to import practically all of its requirements of carpet wool. 4. No advice has been received on the import plans and intentions of importers. 5. To suggest that the importation of 100,000 lb of synthetics represents an equivalent of 200,000 lb of greasy wool which will not be wanted assumes that all synthetic fibres imported are used in substitution for wool. This is not the case as in many instances synthetic fibres are imported for industrial end-uses and so do not compete with wool. 6. The ' reasons indicating the desirability of reducing the duties on acrylic yarn were set out by the Tariff Board in its report on the subject. There is no evidence that the reduction in these duties has altered the pattern of fibre usage in Australia. {:#subdebate-51-13} #### Beef and Dairy Production: Artificial Breeding (Question No. 2986) {: #subdebate-51-13-s0 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr Kirwan: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has artificial breeding proved beneficial in the fields of beef and dairy production; if so, what evidence is available to support this view. 1. Does this evidence indicate that the several State Artificial Breeding Boards are providing a desirable and necessary service to these industries. 2. Is it a fact that sales tax charges on motor vehicles constitute a major proportion of the budgets of Artificial Breeding Boards. 3. If so, will he take steps to have this sales tax burden removed from the Boards. {: #subdebate-51-13-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Artificial breeding has provided cattle producers with an economic and scientifically sound method for rapid improvements in livestock quality. Veterinarians agree that artificial breeding will control certain infertility diseases and geneticists agree that herd improvement can be speeded up by the use of artificial breeding. 1. Yes. 2. Artificial breeding boards enjoy exemption on a wide range of goods for use but not for sale, but the exemption does not extend to motor vehicles. It would be unlikely that sales tax paid by Boards on their motor vehicles would represent a major proportion of their budgets. 3. The question of allowing artificial breeding boards exemption from sales tax on motor vehicles (and other taxable goods) has been considered several times in recent years in conjunction with my colleague, the Treasurer. It would be difficult to justify granting exemption to artificial breeding boards while withholding it from the large number of other semi-governmental authorities and boards which do not enjoy exemption. Many of these other bodies can be regarded as providing desirable and necessary services, either in agriculture or some other field of activity, and it could not be said that artificial breeding boards had a better claim to exemption than they did. In any case, the granting of an exemption to artificial breeding hoards whether in isolation or along with the other bodies I have referred to, would be productive of anomalies; for example the exemption would not extend to co-operative companies, pastoral companies and private pastoralists engaged in artificial breeding activities, who might well consider that they too should be granted exemption. In spite of the difficulties in the way of the particular concession that the Honourable Member has mentioned, 1 remain willing to explore other practicable means of encouraging artificial breeding in this country. International Year to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (Question No. 3004) {: #subdebate-51-13-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) date and (b) tenor of the information which Australia has given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the programmes and activities undertaken during 1971, which the 1970 General Assembly designated as International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. 1. What action has been taken on the Secretary-General's suggestion that Australia should celebrate the Year by ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966. 2. What countries have ratified the convention. {: #subdebate-51-13-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Information of this kind has not been conveyed *to* the Secretary-General. General Assembly resolution 2S44 (XXIV) requested Governments to inform the Secretary-General of the programme and activities undertaken during the year. Consideration will be given to the provision of this information later in the year when such programmes and activities are more advanced. 1. The honourable member is referred to the answer to part 4 of Question 2303. 2. Forty-eight countries have ratified or acceded to the Convention. They are as follows: {:#subdebate-51-14} #### Apartheid (Question No. 3308) {: #subdebate-51-14-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid decide to appeal for the release of Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe who was detained by South African authorities for 9 years after inciting his fellow South Africans to defy unjust racist laws and to demonstrate peacefully. 1. Can he say whether the South African Government released Sobukwe 2 days later but hat refused to allow him a passport or even a oneway exit visa to take up an appointment at the University of Wisconsin. 2. Will he initiate further action at the United Nations on behalf of Sobukwe {: #subdebate-51-14-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- As Acting Minister I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2440 (XXI II) of 19th December 1968 on the Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on the Treatment of Political Prisoners in South Africa inter alia called for the release of Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe. 1. **Mr Sobukwe** was released from detention on 13th May 1969 and immediately placed under bouse arrest in Kimberley. In March 1971 **Mr Sobukwe's** application for an exit permit was approved by the South African Minister of the Interior who said that, as Minister for the Interior, he had no power to refuse an exit permit to a restricted person who wished to leave South Africa permanently. However, the Minister of Justice has refused to lift the restriction order to enable Sobukwe to leave Kimberley and hence South Africa. 2. No. **Mr Sobukwe** has given notice of intention to bring an action in the Supreme Court to compel the Minister of Justice to lift the order restricting him to Kimberley. {:#subdebate-51-15} #### Aboriginals (Question No. 2269) {: #subdebate-51-15-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Office of Aboriginal Affairs give financial assistance to organisations involved in Aboriginal activities to enable Aboriginal officers or delegates to attend meetings of these organisations. 1. If so, what organisations have been assisted over the last 2 years, what amounts have been allocated and under what conditions is this financial assistance made available. {: #subdebate-51-15-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The following organisations have received urns of money to cover expenses for conferences as listed: {:#subdebate-51-16} #### Education: Handicapped Children (Question No. 2895) {: #subdebate-51-16-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What (a) Commonwealth and (b) State subsidies are paid in respect of the education of students in special schools for the physically or mentally handicapped. 1. What age and other limitations apply in each case. {: #subdebate-51-16-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2). The subject of Commonwealth and State assistance for the education of students in special schools for the physically or mentally handicapped is an extremely complex one. Whilst it is possible to identify some direct grants or subsidies, others are not so easily identifiable. For example the Commonwealth, in its programme of per-capita grants to independent schools pays per capita grants to eligible institutions operated by voluntary organisations on the basis of $35 per primary pupil per annum and $50 per secondary pupil per annum, as it does to independent schools. But there are many other arrangements in the States and Commonwealth Territories which contribute to the support of handicapped students. Some of these take the form of special classes for the handicapped, training of more specialist teachers, subsidies to voluntary organisations to enable them to pay salaries of supervisors and subsidies for the construction of special centres. Naturally arrangements vary greatly from State to State. A brief summary of the facilities made available by the Commonwealth and State Governments and independent organisations for the education and training of mentally and physically handicapped children in Australia is contained in a bulletin prepared and issued by my Department entitled: 'The Education of Handicapped Children'. It is at present being updated and I will arrange for the honourable member to receive a copy of the new edition when it becomes available. The honourable member will also be aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare is currently taking evidence. There are several transcripts of evidence available dealing specifically with handicapped persons. Dates of these transcripts are: 26th October 1970, 24th November 1970, 25th November 1970, 26th November 1970, 26th January 1971. However, at this stage I am able to supply up to date details of existing arrangements for assisting both the intellectually handicapped and the physically handicapped in the Commonwealth Territories. These are as follows: {: .page-start } page 2849 {:#debate-52} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Intellectually-Handicapped Government Facilities There are eight special classes for mildly intellectually handicapped children in Canberra primary schools and two classes in a high school. Moderately intellectually handicapped children attend Koomarri and Malkara Schools which serve the Northern and Southern parts of Canberra respectively. Pre-school education for these children is provided at Malkara, while 16-18 year olds are enrolled in a special extension class at Koomarri. Transport is provided for pre-school children and others pay the normal 2 cents per journey. Aphasic children attend a special Opportunity L class at the Forest Primary School. Non-Government Facilities A voluntary organisation conducts a training group for severely intellectually handicapped children with IQs less than 30, a sheltered workshop and residential facilities on a site adjacent to Koomarri School. The training group premises were built and are run by the voluntary organisation with a subsidy towards running costs from the Government. Subsidies paid by the Department of the Interior amount to $2000 a year for operating costs, the full salary of teachers and $2400 towards a Social Worker's salary. The cost of transport of these children is paid by the Department of the Interior. The hostel and workshop were established by the voluntary organisation which received a government subsidy of $2:$1 for equipping the buildings. No subsidy is paid towards the running costs. Special bus transport is provided by the voluntary organisation for travel between home and the Centre but fares are charged. Physically Handicapped Government Facilities Specially equipped classrooms are available for teaching deaf and partially deaf children at Ainslie and Mawson Primary Schools. There are at present' no classes for the blind or partially sighted children, the latter attending normal schools and being provided with special equipment. With a fast growing population in the Australian Capital Territory, the provision of special classes for children handicapped in this way will be necessary in the near future and planning for these is proceeding. Three special classes are conducted at the Canberra Hospital for children suffering physical handicaps who are not able to attend normal school. A pre-school for these children also commenced in 1971. Most of the children are transported by taxi, a conveyance subsidy being paid by the Department of Education and Science. For children who are hospitalised a ward teacher is provided by the Department. {: .page-start } page 2849 {:#debate-53} ### NORTHERN TERRITORY Intellectually Handicapped Government Facilities There are four classes for mildly intellectually handicapped children, one at Darwin High School and the others at primary schools. Moderately intellectually handicapped children attend the- Darwin Special School at Ludmilla and Sunny Centre' in Alice Springs. Non-Government Facilities A voluntary organisation runs a pre-school in Darwin for moderately intellectually handicapped children. The Department of Education and Science subsidises the salaries of the pre-school teacher and the assistant teacher. Physically Handicapped Government Facilities There are three speech and learning classes for deaf and hard of hearing pupils. Two classes are at Stuart Park Primary School in Darwin and one is at Traegar Park Primary School in Alice Springs. {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Papua New Guinea: Industrial Accidents (Question No. 2946) {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many native workers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea died from Industrial accidents in each of the last 10 years. 1. What was the average amount of compensation paid to the widows of these workers. {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The matters referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Labour in the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Labour has provided the following information: > >The number of deaths caused by industrial accidents in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in each of the years since 1960-61 is set out below: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The amounts of compensation payments made through the Labour Department for each of the last 5 years are as follows: The above tabulation, includes both fatal and non-fatal accidents and no further breakup is available unless each individual file is examined. All files before July 1963 were destroyed, and since July 1965 more than 3,800 workers compensation files have been compiled for investigation and review. At present only 1 officer is engaged on processing workers compensation claims and to take out the figures requested in the question for even 1 year would fully occupy this officer for at least 3 weeks which would entail suspension of processing workers compensation claims and payments for this period.' Employment: Retraining Schemes (Question No. 2950) {: #subdebate-53-0-s2 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr Kirwan: asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What Government supported schemes are currently operating to retrain workers (including farmers) in depressed industries. 1. What steps does the Government intend to take to provide retraining or other rehabilitation for persons affected by economic and technological changes In the primary and secondary industries. {: #subdebate-53-0-s3 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are no Government supported schemes currently operating which specifically aim to retrain workers (including farmers) la depressed industries. 1. The Government is considering retraining proposals for farmers obliged to leave their properties because they do not have prospects of successful operation even if assisted under the rural reconstruction programme which my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry has recently announced. The scheme is intended to provide such farmers with opportunities to train for employment in other industries. The Government has approved, for commencement on 1st July, a training scheme for workers affected by technological change in any industry. Details were announced in the House on 20th April 1971. (See Hansard, pp. 1671-1684.) Australian Capital Territory: Crown Lessees (Question No. 3028) {: #subdebate-53-0-s4 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the names of the Crown lessees with the twenty highest unimproved capital values of (a) commercial, (b) industrial and (c) residential land in the Australian Capital Territory on 30 December 1970. 1. What land rent was payable in each case on the same date. {: #subdebate-53-0-s5 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="l"} 0. and (2) 1. commercial {: type="a" start="b"} 0. industrial {:#subdebate-53-1} #### Wool (Question No. 3061) {: #subdebate-53-1-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: >What (a) proportion and (b) amount of Commonwealth moneys expended to date in connection with the recent emergency grant to woolgrowers has gone to the growers in Western Queensland. {: #subdebate-53-1-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics of the payment of grants under the emergency financial assistance scheme for woolgrowers have not been compiled on the basis of areas within States. As at 8th April payments made to woolgrowers in Queensland represented 22 per cent of the total amount paid out. The amount paid to Queensland growers was $4,402,965.98. {:#subdebate-53-2} #### Primary Industries (Question No. 3065) {: #subdebate-53-2-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total amount of Commonwealth non-repayable grants, other than devaluation compensation, made available to the (a) wool, (b) beef, (c) dairying, (d) wheat, (e) sugar and (f) fruit industries during the last 10 years. 1. What was the total value of exports of each of these rural industries during the same period. {: #subdebate-53-2-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The total amount of Commonwealth nonrepayable grants, other than devaluation compensation, made available during the 10 years ending 30th June 1970 to the various industries listed was as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. nil, (b) nil, (c) 8279.6m, (d) $ 178.6m, (e) nil, (0 nil. 1. The total value of exports of each of these rural industries during the same period was: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. $8,378.5m, (b) $l,892.7m. (c) $983.65m, (d) $3,230.6m, (e) $l,032m, (f) S872.2m. The amounts listed in (1) do not include funds made available by the Commonwealth Government for research and promotion. In addition, assistance given in the form of fertiliser subsidies, drought relief and extension services gran's, which cannot be allotted to specific industries, has not been included. {:#subdebate-53-3} #### Rural Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 3100) {: #subdebate-53-3-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the reasons for not informing the Parliament of the details of the Government's decision to establish a $100m rural reconstruction scheme. 1. Have the States been informed of the details of this scheme. 2. When will the Parliament be given some information regarding the scheme. {: #subdebate-53-3-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Full details of the scheme are included in the State Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill which was introduced on 29th April 1971 and which contains as a schedule the terms of an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the States. {:#subdebate-53-4} #### Industrial Relations (Question No. 3193) {: #subdebate-53-4-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On bow many occasions during the last 5 years has the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd appealed against decisions given in industrial proceedings before Commissioners of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in matters affecting its employees at Whyalla, South Australia. 1. On how many occasions has the company been successful in these appeals. 2. What was the nature of the industrial decisions mat were subject to these appeals. {: #subdebate-53-4-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Three appeals have been lodged by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd during the period 1st May 1966 to 1st May 1971. 1. In each case a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has upheld the Company's appeal. 2. The decisions that have been the subject of appeal were: 3. Orders of Commissioner Winter made on 27th September 1967, varying the Metal Trades Award, 1952, Ship Painters and Dockers' Award, I960, Shipwrights (Shore) Award, 1961, and Engine Drivers and Firemen's (S.A.) Award, 1950, regarding special payments for classifications engaged on the construction of the oil rigger 'Ocean Digger' at Whyalia. (See Industrial Information Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 9, page 1295). 4. Orders of Commissioner Winter made on 21st July 1970, concerning special rates under the Metal Trades Award in respect of operations of 'he Company's pelletising plant at Whyalia, (See Industrial Information Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 7, page 1352). 5. Orders of Commissioner Horan made on 29th September 1970, varying the Ship Painters and Dockers' Award, 1969, by the deletion of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 30 (Exemptions) of that Award. (See C. No. 1,706 of 1970). Aged Persons: Hostel Beds (Question No. 3248) {: #subdebate-53-4-s2 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total number of hostel beds for the aged in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 1. How many of these beds are (a) privately owned, (b) voluntarily (charitable and religious) owned, and (c) State owned. 2. What are these figures expressed as a percentage of the total number of beds in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 3. What is the annual growth rate by which the total number of hostel beds for the aged is increasing in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. {: #subdebate-53-4-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) The following information is supplied in relation to questions (1-3). Details of privately owned hostels are not available. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Hostel accommodation subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act is increasing by approximately 1,000 beds per year. The following table shows details of the increases for the last two complete financial years and the current year to 31 March - Aboriginals (Question No. 3259) {: #subdebate-53-4-s4 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister-in- Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: >What financial assistance has been given by the Commonwealth to the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. {: #subdebate-53-4-s5 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Office of Aboriginal Affairs has made grants to the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders amounting to $6,318.80 as follows: $2,000.00 - Fares for delegates to annual conference 1969 $1,192.00 - Fares to Executive Committee $2,000.00 - Fares for delegates to annual conference 1970 $1,126.80 - Fares for delegates to annual meeting 1971. {:#subdebate-53-5} #### Education: Teacher Training (Question No. 3266) {: #subdebate-53-5-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >What is the estimated cost of training a student to be a (a) kindergarten, (b) primary and (c) secondary teacher in each State at the teachers' colleges for which financial assistance has been authorised under the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Acts and the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Act. {: #subdebate-53-5-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I do not have the necessary information to answer the honourable member's question. > >The grants made by the Commonwealth under the provisions of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Acts and the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Act are for capital works only. The Commonwealth does not contribute to the recurrent costs of the institutions built under these schemes. I suggest that it would be more appropriate for the honourable member to take the matter up with State Ministers for Education as far as teachers' .colleges are concerned and with the appropriate organisations in the States responsible for pre-school teachers' colleges. ILO Maritime Conventions (Question No. 3268) {: #subdebate-53-5-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Which of the following International Labour Organisation conventions will Australia be able to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed:(a) No. 23 - Repatriation of Seamen. 1926, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 16th April 1928, (b) No. 53 - Officers' Competency Certificates, 1936, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 29th March 1939, (c) No. 54 - Holidays with Pay (Sea), 1936, which Australia supported, (d) No. 55 - Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 1936, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 29th October 1939, (e) No. 56 - Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936, which Australia opposed and which entered into force on 9th December 1949, (f) No. 58 - Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936, which Australia supported and which came into force on 11th April 1939, (g) No. 68 - Food and Catering (Ships' Crews), 1946, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 24th March 1957, (h) No. 69- Certification of Ships' Cooks, 1946, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 22nd April 1953, (i) No. 70- Social Security (Seafarers), 1946, which Australia supported, (i) No. 71 - Seafarers' Pensions, 1946, on which Australia abstained and which entered into force on 10th October 1962, (k) No. 72- Paid Vacations (Seafarers), 1946, which Australia supported, (1) No. 73 - Medical Examination (Seafarers), 1946, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 17th August 1955, (m) No. 74 - Certification of Able Seamen, 1946, which > >Australia supported and which entered into force on 14th July 1951, (n) No. 75 - Accommodation of Crews. 1946. which Australia supported, (o) No. 91 - Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised), 1949, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 14th September 1967, (p) No. 92 - Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 1949. which Australia supported and which entered into force on 29 in January 1953, (q) No. 108 - Seafarers' Identity Documents, 1958, on which Australia abstained and which entered into force on 19th February 1961, (r) No. J 09- Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised), 1958, which Australia supported, (s) No. 133 - Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions), 1970, which Australia supported and (t) No. 134 - Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers), 1970, which Australia supported. {: #subdebate-53-5-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is not possible, at this stage, to say which of the International Labour Organisation conventions enumerated by the honourable member, it will be possible for Australia to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed. > >The possibility of including provisions in the proposed Bill for the purpose of allowing Australia to ratify these conventions will bc kept in mind. ILO Maritime Conventions (Question No. 3269) {: #subdebate-53-5-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Which of the following conventions will Australia be able to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed: (a) Convention on Arrest of Sea-going Ships, 1952. which entered into force on 24th August 1955, (b) Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of the Owners of Seagoing Ships, 1957, which Australia supported, (c) Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Carriage of Passengers at Sea, 1961, which Australia supported and which entered into force on 4th June 1965 and (d) Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships, 1962, which Australia supported. {: #subdebate-53-5-s5 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is not possible, at this stage, to say which of the conventions, enumerated by the honourable member, it will be possible for Australia to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed. > >The possibility of including provisions in the proposed Bill for the purpose of allowing Australia to ratify these conventions will be kept in mind. IMCO Conventions (Question No. 3270) {: #subdebate-53-5-s6 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Which of the following conventions which Australia supported in the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation will Australia be able to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed: (a) Convention for the Facilitation of Maritime Traffic, 1965, which entered into force on 5th March 1967, (b) 1966 Amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960, (c) 1967 Amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960, (d) 1968 Amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960, (e) 1969 Amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960, (f) International Tonnage Measurement Convention, 1969, (g) International Convention Relating to Intervention on High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 and (h) International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. {: #subdebate-53-5-s7 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is not possible, at this stage, to say which of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation conventions enumerated by the honourable member, it will be possible for Australia to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed. > >The possibility of including provisions in the proposed Bill for the purpose of allowing Australia to ratify these conventions will be kept in mind. {:#subdebate-53-6} #### Brussels Maritime Conventions 1967 (Question No. 3271) {: #subdebate-53-6-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Which of the following conventions drawn up at the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law at Brussels in May 1967 will Australia be able to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed: (a) International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Martitime Liens and Mortgages, (b) International Convention relating to Registration of Rights in respect of Vessels under Construction, (c) International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Carriage of Passenger Baggage by Sea and (d) Protocol Modifying the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting assistance and Salvage at Sea, 1910, which Australia supported. {: #subdebate-53-6-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is not possible at this stage, to say which of the conventions drawn up at the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law at Brussels 1967, enumerated by the honourable member, it will be possible for Australia to ratify after the current revision of the Navigation Act is completed. > >The possibility of including provisions in the proposed Bill for the purpose of allowing Australia to ratify these conventions will be kept in mind. Road Safety (Question No. 3301) {: #subdebate-53-6-s2 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did his predecessor announce on 13th August 1970 the formation of a new Commonwealth Expert Road Safety Group. 1. If so, when and where has this Committee met. 2. What specific projects have been commenced. 3. What staff (a) has been appointed and (b) is planned. {: #subdebate-53-6-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Expert Group has met on the following occasions: 17th December 1970- Melbourne 5th March 1971- Canberra 16th April 1971- Melbourne 2. The Expert Group has intitiated a survey of the present state of knowledge regarding road safety in Australia and overseas where applicable This will form a basis for recommending effective road safety measures and pointing to areas which require further research. 3. The Expert Group has no staff directly responsible to it. However, a Road Safety Research Section has been established in the Department to service the Expert Group, to assist in the formulation of road safety research programmes and to arrange for the carrying out of research projects. {:#subdebate-53-7} #### Motor Vehicles (Question No. 3310) {: #subdebate-53-7-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say whether dangerously rusted second-hand cars are sold to unsuspecting buyers in Australia. 1. Has his attention been drawn to a report of the British Automobile Association claiming that rustproofing of new vehicles is possible for a cost of little more than $1 per vehicle. 2. Can he say whether any State Minister has declined, unilaterally, to compel rustproofing of new cars while other States manufacture the cars. 3. Is he able to say whether it is economically possible to have cars inspected for dangerous faults before resale by registered dealers {: #subdebate-53-7-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The administration of the sale of motor vehicles is in general in the hands of the States. 1. Yes. 2. I am not aware of any requests to State Ministers. 3. Two systems are in operation in Australia to ensure that unroadworthy vehicles are not operated on the roads. In. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory compulsory annual inspections are carried out. In Victoria the owner of a vehicle is required to produce a Certicate of Roadworthiness when the vehicle is sold. I understand that similar legislation has been introduced into the Queensland Parliament. In addition enforcement authorities in all States carry out spot checks on any vehicles thought to be unroadworthy. {:#subdebate-53-8} #### Social Services (Question No. 3321) {: #subdebate-53-8-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice: >What would be the estimated cost of insuring the wives of all T.P.I. men, not now covered by the pensioner medical service, with a medical and hospital benefit organisation for the year 1971-72. {: #subdebate-53-8-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is estimated, on current charges, that the cost of insuring the wives concerned would be $241,500 for a full year. This estimate is based on providing for hospitalisation in public wards, as is available under the pensioner medical service. {:#subdebate-53-9} #### Repatriation: Funeral Grant (Question No. 3323) {: #subdebate-53-9-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Repatriation upon notice: >What would be the estimated cost of Increasing the repatriation funeral grant from $50 to $200 for the year 1971-72. {: #subdebate-53-9-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is estimated that the cost of increasing the repatriation funeral grant from $50 to $200 would be $1.13m for the full year. {:#subdebate-53-10} #### Social Services (Question No. 3328) {: #subdebate-53-10-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is , the estimated: expenditure for the full financial year 1970-71 for (a) additional pension for second and subsequent children, (b) supplementary assistance for pensioners, (c) mother's allowance for widow pensioners with children, (d) guardian's allowance for aged and invalid pensioners with children, (e) double pension entitlement to widows or widowers for 12 weeks following the death of a spouse, (f) the aged persons' homes scheme, (g) home nursing subsidy, (h) nursing home benefits, (i) subsidies for the provision of accommodation for disabled persons, (j) sheltered employment allowances, (k) training scheme for widow pensioners, (1) subsidies for dwellings for aged persons, (m) personal care subsidy for aged pensioners, (n) home care and paramedical services, (o) the meals on wheels subsidy, (p) television licence concessions for pensioners, (q) telephonerental concessions for pensioners, (r)Pensioner Medical Service Scheme, (s) pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners, (t) hearing aid service for pensioners and (u) aged persons' income tax concessions. 1. What would be the estimated annual cost of a 50 per cent per week Increase in the rate of age, invalid, widows' and- war service pensions. {: #subdebate-53-10-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Based onthe number of pension's current on 29th March1971, the estimated annual cost of an increase of 50 cents a week in the rate of age, invalid,widows' and servicepensions would be $28.2m. Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 3371) {: #subdebate-53-10-s2 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >What conditions apply to eligibility for payment of social , service unemployment benefits to employees stood down as a result, of an. industrial dispute where members of the same, union are involved in a, dispute (a) in the same' vicinity and (b) In areas remote from the dispute that has been the cause of the stand down. , {: #subdebate-53-10-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Where a unionis involved in an industrial dispute all its members are parties to the dispute. If a member is unemployed as a result of a strike supported by. his union he is not. qualified for unemployment benefit. {:#subdebate-53-11} #### Merino Ram Exports (Question No. 2606) {: #subdebate-53-11-s0 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To which countries may merino rams be exported under the existing approval. 1. Howmany of these ramshave been approved for Export to each of these' countries. 2. Is he able to state the names of the . buyers of the rams in each of these, countries. 3. What are . 'the names of the exporters of- the rams. {: #subdebate-53-11-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The terms on which the merino export embargo was partially relaxed did not contain any restriction as to the countries to which merino rams may be exported. ' No such restriction was sought by the Australian Wool Industry Conference which had recommended the relaxation. 1. Since the partial relaxation was implemented on 1st February 1970, 170 rams have been exported. The countries to which, they were exported and the number involved in each case are as follows: Argentina- 20 Brazil- 11 Rumatiia - 9 Italy- 1 {: .page-start } page 2856 {:#debate-54} ### USSR - 129 {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Housing (Question No. 2729) {: #subdebate-54-0-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did his predecessor state on 29th September 1970 that, one of the major aims of the Govern ment's. housing contribution, in the next 3 years would be to encourage the States to provide decent housing for lower income families. 1. If so, will he provide details of positive assistance subsequently provided by the Commonwealth to implement these aims. 2. Is he able to say how many dwelling were completed by (a) each State Housing. Authority and (b) the Commonwealth during (i) each of the last 3 years and (ii) the year 1954-11955. 3. If so, what percentage of the total number of completed dwellings was completed by . each; of the State Housing Authorities in each of those years. 4. What interest rate was charged on loans by the Commonwealth to State Housing Authorities in each of the years (a) 1968-69, (b) 1969-70 and (c) 1970-71. 5. Is he able to say what amount the increased interest charge has added to the weekly rental for new tenants of Housing Commission homes. 6. Is he able to say what amount is paid in rent for a new 2-3 bedroom cottage constructed by each State Housing Authority under the prevailing interest rate. {: #subdebate-54-0-s1 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On 29th September 1970 in an address to the Building and Construction Forum in Melbourne, my predecessor, **Senator the Hon.** Dame Annabelle Rankin, D.B.E., did say that: 'One of the major aims of our housing contribution in the next few years will be to encourage the States to provide decent housing for lower income families who are unable to obtain satisfactory private rental accommodation, or are paying more for it than they can really afford. The housing of these people must be given a high priority.' 1. The main contribution by the Commonwealth Government towards this end is througb the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and more recently through the Dwellings for Aged Pensioners Scheme. The Commonwealth Government has . continued to provide assistance under these 2. provisions. Active consideration is also being given, to the future offer of housing assistance to the States after the expiry of the period of advances under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. 2. (a) The numbers of dwellings completed . by each State . housing authority, using funds from all sources, in each of the last three years and in the year 1954-55 were: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The number of dwellings completed by the Commonwealth in each of the fast 3 years and in 1954-55 has been estimated to be: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The percentage of the - total number of dwellings completed in each State which was completed by each of the State housing authorities in each of the lasi 3 yearsand in 1954-55 is as follows: (5). Advances made to . the.. States under, the 1956-1966 Housing . Agreements attract interest at a rate per annum of 1 per cent below the longterm Commonwealth . bond . rate applying at the time the advance is made. The table below shows the interest rates charged on advances made to the States under the Housing Agreements during the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71: {: type="1" start="6"} 0. and (7) The policies followed in the calculations and charging of rents vary among State housing authorities. Variations also occur within the States according to design types, materials used for construction, location of dwellings and for other reasons. It is therefore impossible to give actual figures of the effect on rentals of interest rate variations in the past. However, typical rents for recently constructed 3 bedroom brick veneer cottages in the metropolitan area of each State capital ctiy are: {:#subdebate-54-1} #### Shipping Freights (Question No. 2906) {: #subdebate-54-1-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >On what date and by what amounts were shipping freights increased by each shipping conference in respect of (a) conventional, (b) cellular container and (c) roll-on, roll-off ships over the last 10 years. {: #subdebate-54-1-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Detailed information is not available on individual freight rate variations in Australia's inward trades. > >With the exception of the New Zealand trade, the basic sea freight component of the freight rate on Australian exports is the same for transport by conventional, roll-on/roll-off, or cellular container vessels, on the same trade route. > >General freight rate variations sometimes exclude certain commodities and it will be appreciated that it is only practicable to list the major groups of cargo. Rate changes with respect to these are as follows - In this trade a surcharge of 3£ per cent was imposed in July 1967, consequent to the closure of the Suez Canal. This was increased to 6 per cent in April 1968, and merged into the General Freight Rate in September 1968. Prior to December 1967, freight rates were quoted in Sterling. Consequent to devaluation of Sterling at that time an adjustment was made in the form of a 12£ per cent increase in terms of Australian currency. Since that date, freight rates are now quoted in US dollars. {: .page-start } page 2858 {:#debate-55} ### JAPAN (Australia Northbound Shipping Conference) Up to 1970, rates in this trade were adjusted on an individual commodity basis; from April 1970, however, the adjustments cover all cargoes on an acrosstheboard basis, with the exception of wool,. which is listed as a separate commodity. New Zealand Trade (Trans-Tasman Freight Conference) Consequent . on the devaluation of Sterling' in December 1967, an adjustment was made in the form' of an 11 per cent increase in terms of Australian currency.- Freight rates for this trade" are now quoted in NZ dollars. {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Pollution (Question No. 2918) {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the environmental message of President Nixon of 8th February 1971 wherein he said in regard to ocean dumping, that protection of . the total: marine environment from suchpollution can only be assured if other nations, adopt similar measures and enforce them. 1. If so, was his attention also drawn to the plans of President Nixon to {: type="a" start="a"} 0. recommend a national policy banning unregulated ocean dumping of all materials and placing strict limits on ocean disposal of any materials harmful to the environment; and 1. recommend legislation which will require a permit from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the dumping of any materials into the oceans, estuaries or the Great Lakes and will authorise the Administrator to ban the dumping of wastes which are dangerous to marine ecosystems. 2. Is it a fact that while the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill remains . unenacted a large amount of unregulated dumping of toxic, materials continues on the continental shelf. - 3. Has his attention been drawn to a report 'in the Daily News of Perth on 24th June 1970 of the regular - dumping of arsenic by the BP Refinery Pty -Ltd at Kwinana- in Western Australia; if so, is a serious threat to marine ecosystems occasioned 6y such acts. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. How many officers in his- Department have the scientific competence to judge whether a particular act of ' dumping is or is hot toxic to marine ecosystems. 1. Will he provide a detailed' account of how, under present licensing: conditions,' permission is given to allow' ocean dumping and; iii particular, how the possible, danger', of the- dumping to marine ecosystems is assessed. 2. Is there 'an urgent need for theCommonwealth Government to act' to ensure that the' present level of 'dumping is immediately stopped and- that a more thorough licensing scheme is instituted to ensure that nothing which is dangerous, to. marine. life is. dumped, {: #subdebate-55-0-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to . the honourable member's question is as. follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. It cannot be taken as a 'fact that the dumping of materials. at' sea takes place solely becausethe Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill remains, unenacted. The Beaches Fishing Grounds and Sea Routes Protection Act , 1932r1966, regu- . lates.the discharge of any garbage, rubbish, ashes", or organic refuse from ships within . a prescribed, area off the coast of New South' Wales. To date it has not been found necessary to control such, dumping at other places off the coast. '' 2. The report in the Perth 'Daily News' on 24th June 1970 has been brought to my attention. My Department was approached before this' dumping took place. The company involved was informed , the Department would not object to the material being dumped at sea providing the State Departments of Fisheries 'anil Public Health ' agreed and oh the condition that the dumping would take place in a recognised manner outside the limits of the continental., shelf. Subsequent: checks by - the Department - confirmed that the dumping was in fact carried out as required. 3. My Department itself 'has no such experts but scientists and other persons expert in the field of. marine, biology . employed - by both the Commonwealth and State Governments are available to assist in determining whether any particular proposal to dump is or is not likely to be toxic to marines- ecosystems. 4. Although, as mentioned in' (3) above, only one prohibited area for dumping has been proclaimed; ' those involved from time to time in disposing of waste materials at sea are generally" well aware of the need to avoid pollution of the ' ocean and obtain expert guidance before dumping chemicals. I am not aware of any case in which instructions given by the Department of Health or my Department as to how or where waste is to be disposed of at sea have been ignored and it has not been felt that at this stage further con-'' rols should be . imposed. 5. I have asked my Department, in conjunction with other interested authorities, to undertake an examination of the problem of ocean dumping' in Australia ' with a view to the Commonwealth being in a position to take action1 as necessary in the future. {:#subdebate-55-1} #### Canberra-Tumut Road (Question No. 3054) {: #subdebate-55-1-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will be give further consideration to the construction of the Canberra-Tumut road in view of (a) the greatly changed situation in the region, including the completion of the Blowering Dam, (b) the fact that the original cost-benefit analysis excluded all monetary benefits flowing from that Dam which was not then in existence and (c) amenities such as the Burrinjuck Dam. 1. Was the original proposal for an all weather road referred to the Government as long ago as 1950. 2. Did the Government subsequently refer the question to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in May 1959. 3. Was the report of the Committee received in the same year. 4. Did the Government then agree to a joint examination of the project with the Government of .New South Wales 5. Did the examination take almost 6 years to complete, and did the recommendations indicate that the cost of $1,000,000 was too high in relation to the benefits. ' 6. Has any further consideration been given by the Government to the project in the 2 years since the negative report was received. 7. If not, will he take the action suggested in part (1) of this question. {: #subdebate-55-1-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No justification is seen at this stage for Commonwealth involvement in any further investigation into the matter which is primarily a responsibility of the New South Wales Government. 1. In 1948 a conference of Commonwealth and State officials agreed that consideration of a road connection to Tumut should be limited only to local needs and advantages. 2. , (4) and (5) Yes. 3. A technical evaluation of alternative routes through Wee Jasper and Brindabella, which was received slightly more than 4f yean after the Governments had agreed to the joint examination, indicated that in either case the cost would be approximately $9m. Both Governments closely examined the report and some 12 months later jointly indicated that they accepted its recommendation that at that time construction of the road at the expense of other more urgent works was not justified, although there would be an ultimate need for a better road connection. 4. As indicated in the answer to part (6), the report was not negative in that it recognised that a future need would eventuate and that the road may become a viable proposition in 10 or 15 years time. The matter has not been re-examined by my Department since that report. 5. See answers to parts (1) and (7). {:#subdebate-55-2} #### Wool (Question No. 3182) {: #subdebate-55-2-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that Australia, for some years, has been extending technical assistance to help modernise the spinning of wool and the manufacture of woollen textiles in Communist China. 1. If so, what has been the extent of this assistance, and who authorised it {: #subdebate-55-2-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In February 1964 the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, accompanied by the Director of the Board's Technical Department and the International Wool Secretariat's Director of Market Development (Asian Region), visited Mainland China. The visit was the result of a long-standing invitation extended to the Wool. Board by the Chinese and was arranged by the China National Textiles Import and Export Corporation. There was no contact at the government level. The Wool Board mission visited several Chinese woollen and cotton mills. It explained to the Chinese the efforts of the Australian Wool Board and the International Wool Secretariat to promote greater use of wool and that as part of these efforts, technical advice was given to wool textile industries in wool-consuming countries to help them modernise their wool textile manufacturing techniques and to apply new processes. Arising from this mission the Wool Board arranged for a group of textile technologists from Mainland China to visit Australia in November 1964. The group visited selected wool textile mills, had discussions with leading wool textile manufacturers and also visited the wool textile laboratories of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other research centres. Since the visit the Australian Wool Board has arranged for technical literature to be made available to Mainland China but no other contact has taken place between the Wool Board and Mainland China. {:#subdebate-55-3} #### Pollution (Question No. 3395) {: #subdebate-55-3-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution in Sydney on 24th March 1969 by representatives of the New South Wales Citrus Growers' Council and the Principal Fruit Officer (Citrus) of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, particularly the data supporting the contention that dust is of greater economic significance to horticulture production in New South Wales than other forms of air pollution and that losses of $5m a year through dust were being suffered. 1. If so, was it submitted- that, if Federal aid for road grants were extended to allow money to be used by local government authorities for the specific purpose of tar sealing of public roads within a distance of 300 feet of orchards, much of the problem to horticulture could be overcome. 2. What consideration has been given to these submissions since the presentation of the report of the Select Committee. {: #subdebate-55-3-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)Yes. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. 1. The Senate Select , Committee made no recommendation regarding the matters mentioned, but it did comment that State Governments should examine the problem closely when establishing road-sealing programmes. The Commonwealth Air Roads Act 1969 provides for the granting of financial assistance to the States for roads. Specific grants are made under the Act for construction and reconstruction or rural arterial roads- and for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of 'other' rural roads. The actual allocation of the funds to particular roads within- classes, is determined by State authorities. {:#subdebate-55-4} #### Road Fatalities (Question No. 3407) {: #subdebate-55-4-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >How many occupants of motor vehicles were killed and how many of those killed' were wearing seat belts in each State in each of the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. {: #subdebate-55-4-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >A separate figure for occupants of motor vehicles is not published by the Bureau of Census- and Statistics. The figures for. drivers and' for. passengers of all road vehicles are. set out below. The only figures located' by my Department regarding the wearing of seat belts are in respect of South Australia. These . figures, which relate only to drivers and left-seat' front passengers, are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Does not agree with total drivers killed figure because seat bell statistics exclude parked vehicles. {:#subdebate-55-5} #### Railways: Tocumwal-Mangalore Link (Question No. 3416) {: #subdebate-55-5-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When was the investigation carried out of the Tocumwal-Mangalore rail . link to which he referred on 4th May 1971. 1. Is it a fact that the volume of traffic on this rail link has altered significantly since the survey was completed. 2. Is it also a fact that authorities and industries in the area were not consulted in the course of the survey. 3. In view of the inadequacies of the original survey and the changed circumstances will he refer the project to the newly established Bureau of Transport Economics. {: #subdebate-55-5-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The survey of the feasibility of standardising the railway link between Tocumwal and Mangalore, to which I referred on 4th May 1971, was carried out in September 1965. 1. I am informed that in the opinion of Victorian Railways there has been no significant increase in transfer traffic through Tocumwal in the last 5 years sufficient to change the conclusion reached in 1965, namely that standardisation could not be justified 2. The 1965 survey was carried out by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner in conjunction with the Commissioner for Victorian Railways who are experts m matters of rail standardisation and who were and are fully aware of the transport requirements and problems in the area. 3. lt is not considered that the survey was inadequate. It is the policy of the Government to consider proposals for standardisation on the basis of submissions by the State Governments. We have received no submission on this proposal and therefore I do not Intend to refer the proposal to the Bureau of Transport Economics. {:#subdebate-55-6} #### Railway Gauges: Standardisation (Question No. 3426) {: #subdebate-55-6-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Can he give any information relating to the negotiations that have taken place between himself and the South Australian Minister for Transport, relating to the link-up of the Adelaide metropolitan area to the east-west standard gauge railway at Port Pirie or thereabouts. {: #subdebate-55-6-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honour able member's question is as follows: >As the honourable member will know I recently had a most useful discussion with the South Australian Minister for Roads and Transport concerning the provision of a standard gauge railway link between the Adelaide metropolitan area and the east-west standard gauge railway. As a result of those discussions I intend shortly to place certain proposals before the Government for consideration. The South Australian Minister will also submit the proposals to the South Australian Government for consideration. Pending agreement of both Governments to the proposals, it would be inappropriate at this stage to provide details. {:#subdebate-55-7} #### Housing (Question No. 3445) {: #subdebate-55-7-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he recently inform me that the weekly rental charged by the Housing Commission of Victoria for a 3-bedroom house varied from $10.40 to $12.30. 1. Are the figures released in March by the Brotherhood of St Laurence which he stated on 7th April that he had received at variance with the figures he supplied to me. 2. If so, is he able to state the reasons for the disparity. {: #subdebate-55-7-s1 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. The Brotherhood of St Laurence report which stated the economic rental on a 3- bedroom flat to be $22:20 went on to explain that the Victorian Housing Commission's policy of averaging rents cushions the effect of high current costs for occupants of new dwellings. In short there is a difference between economic rental and rent actually charged. 2. See answer (2). Mineral Exploration at Woomera (Question No. 3084) {: #subdebate-55-7-s2 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice: >In view of the reduced activity at the Woomera Rocket Range in South Australia, will the Minister consider re-examining the vast areas now classed as prohibited areas to determine whether sections of the areas can be opened for mineral exploration and other activities. {: #subdebate-55-7-s3 .speaker-KH5} ##### Mr Gorton:
LP -- The Minister for Supply has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The major prohibited areas in South Australia are the Woomera Prohibited Area and the adjoining Maralinga Prohibited Area. > >These prohibited areas are declared as such to enable the Government to control entry in the interests of security and safety. There are established pastoral activities in the areas, and additionally, tourist and mineral exploration activities are permitted insofar as security and safety requirements allow. In relation to mineral exploration it will be appreciated that no guarantee could be given that companies would be permitted to set up permanent establishments such as mines and that such a possibility would need to be considered in each case in the event of significant mineral finds. > >As recently announced by Ministerial Statement to the Parliament, an ample workload at Woomera is assured at least until 1974. The Woomera Prohibited Area will need to be retained for reasons of security and safety in carrying out this work. However, the honourable member may be assured that my Department reviews this matter from time to time and that restrictions will not be imposed any longer, or to an extent greater, than is necessary. > >In regard to the Maralinga Prohibited Area my Department, in consultation with Department of Defence, is currently reviewing both- the extent to which this area might be reduced and the extent to which restrictions can be eased within the localities which need to remain . a prohibited area. IKARA Anti-Submarine Missile System (Question No. 3082) {: #subdebate-55-7-s4 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice: >What was the total cost of the research, development and prototype production of the IKARA anti-submarine missile system, including feasibility studies and associated administrative costs. {: #subdebate-55-7-s5 .speaker-KH5} ##### Mr Gorton:
LP -- The Minister for Supply has provided the following reply: >The total cost to date of the research, development and prototype production of the IKARA anti-submarine missile system for use by the Royal Australian Navy is $23,446,553. > >These costs include basic research and development, feasibility studies and associated administrative efforts, and also manufacture of prototype and pre-production missiles and equipments used in research and development trials, compilation of initial draft handbooks and provision of equipments used for environmental tests on elements of the IKARA system. {:#subdebate-55-8} #### Education: Graduate Teachers (Question No. 3343) {: #subdebate-55-8-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice; {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say what percentage of the total number of teachers had (a) one degree, (b) two degrees and (c) more than two degrees in (i) government, (ii) private Catholic and (iii) private non-Catholic schools in each of the States in each of the last 5 years. 1. What percentage of teachers had (a) a master's degree and (b) a Ph.D. degree in the- (0 government, (ii) private Catholic and (iii) private non-Catholic schools. 2. What percentage of science teachers had a science degree in each of these classes of schools. 3. Can the information requested be further sub-divided as between (a) primary and secondary schools and (b) city and rural areas. {: #subdebate-55-8-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Information in the detail requested is not available but the annual reports of the State Ministers for Education do contain some information on the qualifications of teachers and I would also refer the honourable member to a report of a survey undertaken by the Australian College of Education in 1963. The report entitled Teachers in Australian Schools' was published by The Australian College of Education. {:#subdebate-55-9} #### Education: Departmental Teachers (Question No. 2421) {: #subdebate-55-9-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date the tables on departmental teachers (a) resigning, (b) in employment and (c) in training in his answers to me on 9th April 1970 (Hansard, page 1013) and 20th May 1970 (page 2486). {: #subdebate-55-9-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Previous question 90 (Hansard, 20th May 1970, page 2486) > >The latest available information on the numbers and percentages of teachers who have resigned from Education Departments in each State is currently being collated and I shall provide this information to the honourable member in the near future. > >The number of full-time teachers employed by Education Departments in Government schools in each State are shown below: These figures have been taken from reports of the State Education Departments. Owing to differences in methods of compilation they are not precisely comparable from State to State. Casual and part-time teachers are not included. In Victoria teachers at the secondary level in technical schools and at tertiary level in technical colleges cannot be separated; they numbered 4,634 (3,596 men, 1,038 women) in 1969 and have been included here as secondary. Due to different sources of information the above statistics differ slightly from those published by the Commonwealth Statistician which do not show separate details of primary and secondary teachers. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (a) (b) The following table, supplied by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician, shows details of the numbers of Departmental teachersintraining for 1969. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Includes departmental students enrolled at teachers colleges, universities and other institutions of higher learning. (b) Excludes enrolments for part-time courses at the technical teachers college and those undergoing industrial experience. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Separate information in respect of (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers has been given wherever possible in the above answers. Previous question 91 (Hansard, 9th April 1970, page 1013) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The following table, supplied by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician shows the numbers of Departmental students enrolled in the first year of teacher training courses in each State in 1969. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Includes departmental students enrolled at teachers' colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning. One year courses are included. (b) Excludes enrolments for part-time courses at the Technical Teachers' College. {:#subdebate-55-10} #### Commonwealth Scholarship Awards (Question No. 3206) {: #subdebate-55-10-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many students at (a) Geelong High School, (b) North Geelong High School, (c) Norland High School, (d) Bell Park High School, (e) Matthew Flinders Girls' High School, (f) Geelong Grammer School, (g) Geelong College, (h) St Joseph's College (Geelong), (i) Sacred Heart Col lege (Geelong), (j) The Hermitage (Geelong), (k) Clonard College, and (l) Morongo Presbyterian Girls' College were candidates for Commonwealth Secondary School Scholarships in each of the past 5 years. 1. What percentage of the candidates in each school was successful {: #subdebate-55-10-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honourable member's questions are set out in the following table: {:#subdebate-55-11} #### Tertiary Education (Question No. 2894) {: #subdebate-55-11-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >How many (a) undergraduate enrolments and (b) Commonwealth scholars in training were there in (i) Australian universities and (ii) colleges of advanced education in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. {: #subdebate-55-11-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="i" start="a"} 0. (i) The number of undergraduate students enrolled (including part-time students) in Australian universities was 99,127 in 1969 and 165,226 in 1970. 1971 statistics are not yet available. The figures for undergraduate enrolments include students studying for post-graduate diplomas and masters degree gualifying exams. 1. The number of students enrolled (including part-time students) in advanced level courses at Colleges of Advanced Education, as published by the Commonwealth Statistician in the Quarterly Summary - of Australian Statistics. March Quarter 1971, were 30,713 in 1969 and 37,244 in 1970. Statistics for 1971 are not yet available. These statistics include a number of post- diploma students, separate details of which are not available. The enrolments in advanced level courses relate to enrolments in courses and parts of courses approved under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act as well as to courses at the Canberra College of Advancel Education. In addition there are a number of students who are enrolled in those parts of courses at Colleges of Advanced Education which are not approved under the above Acts (mainly first year diploma enrolments in Victoria). These amounted to about 5,800 in 1970. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i) The number of scholars in training (including part-time) under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme (at 30th June each year) was 27,320 in 1969 and 30,510 in 1970. Included in these figures are students enrolled in bachelor degree and diploma courses at Australian universities. 2. The number of scholars in training under the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme (at 30th June each year) at institutions classified as Colleges of Advanced Education was 2,446 in 1969 and 3,734 in 1970. These figures relate in the main to students enrolled in courses or parts of courses approved under the States Grants (Advanced Education) {:#subdebate-55-12} #### Education: Secondary School Students (Question No. 2277) {: #subdebate-55-12-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Edu- cation and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he give the (a) number and (b) proportion of (i) male and (ii) female students who sat for final year secondary school examinations from {: type="A" start="A"} 0. State, (B) private non-Catholic and (C) Catholic schools who enrolled the following year at (I) universities (II) colleges of advanced education, (III) teachers colleges and (IV) technical, colleges on (A) a full-time, (B) a part-time and (C) an external student basis. 1. Will he supply these details for the latest year for which figures are available and, where appropriate, for the year (a) five, (b) ten and (c) twenty years prior to that year. {: #subdebate-55-12-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: > The information 'requested is not available. This - kind of information would have to be obtained : either1 from ' the records ' of the universities, col- -' leges 'df advanced education, etc. at which' the students : enrol or by means of comprehensive sur- veys of school leavers. Statistics in this form have ' ; not been collected from these education institu-: lions '(apart ''from some small research studies for 1 particular institutions). A survey of school leavers :was carried ' out by **Dr W.** C. Radford of the Austraiian Council' for Educational Research in 1939-60 which obtained some of the information requested by the honourable member. The survey however ' 'only covered about - 80 per cent of ali school leavers and the coverage of those leaving from the highest forms was considered to be rather less than that. The survey results were published in a report entitled 'School Leavers in Australia, 1959-60' by W. C. Radford, published by the Australian Council for Educational Research. {:#subdebate-55-13} #### Education: Bendigo Electorate (Question No. 2998) {: #subdebate-55-13-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked- .the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >How many students were (a) enrolled for the Intermediate certificate examination, (b) candidates at Commonwealth secondary scholarships examinations and (c) awarded scholarships at each of the. following schools in each year since the introduction of the Commonwealth secondary scholarships scheme: (i) Bendigo High School, (ii) Eaglehawk High School, (iii) Bendigo Girls High School, (iv) Golden Square High School, (v) Castlemaine High School, (vi) Broadford High School, (vii) . Seymour High School,;, (viii) St Vincent's (Junortoun), (ix) Marist Brothers (Bendigo), (x):St Mary's (Bendigo), (ix) ? Assumption College (Kilmore), (xii) St Joseph's (Kilmore), (xiii) St Mary's (Seymour), (xiv) St Gabriel's (Castlemaine), and (xv) Girton CEGGS (Bendigo). {: #subdebate-55-13-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The. "answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: . My Department does1 not ' collect information which would enable me to answer part (a). The details requested in parts (b) and' (c) of the question are set out in the following table: {:#subdebate-55-14} #### : Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 3007) {: #subdebate-55-14-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, -upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by a Victorian Minister is which he quoted with approval from the. 1966 International Covenant on Civil and. Political Rights (Victorian Hansard, 16th December 1970; page 3644). 1. Does this mean that the,. Victorian Government has now agreed to' the' Commonwealth ratifying this Covenant (Hansard,. 29th May 1969, page 2556). {: #subdebate-55-14-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. It is not for me to say what Minister in the Victorian Government meant by a certain remark or, more particularly, to attempt to interpret, it for the honourable member. {:#subdebate-55-15} #### Commonwealth Public Servants: Jury Service (Question No. 3083 {: #subdebate-55-15-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are Commonwealth public servants debarred from jury service in any State under existing State laws. 1. If so, in what Slates do these restrictions apply. {: #subdebate-55-15-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. {:#subdebate-55-16} #### Decentralisation (Question No. 3117) {: #subdebate-55-16-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the committee established by decision of the Premiers Conference in July 1964 to consider the benefits of decentralisation met since February 1969. 1. If so, what progress has been made since that date. 2. Were a number of reports commissioned by the committee at its meetings on 4th and 5th March 1965, 30th November 1966 and 7th February 1969. 3. Have the contents of one of these reports dealing with comparative costs of public services in Melbourne and a number of small country towns been released in Victoria. 4. Will he arrange to table progress reports in the Parliament to enable (a) a review of this Commonwealth activity in decentralisation to be made by the Parliament and (b) Members to assess whether the pace of work and results over the past 7 years are adequate. {: #subdebate-55-16-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As stated by my predecessor in reply, to Parliamentary Question No. 1179, on 17th April 1969 (Hansard, page 1274), the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation established a Technical Sub-Committee ' to supervise the detailed work being undertaken by the Committee. As also indicated in that reply the Technical Sub-Committee in turn agreed that its work should be carried on by means of direct contacts between the Commonwealth and State officers concerned; these contacts have included meetings of working groups composed of these officials. No meeting of the parent Committee has been held since 7th February 1969. However, direct contact between Commonwealth and State officials has been continued and there have been two working group meetings, on 18th May 1970 and 6th April 1971. 1. The following progress has been made since February 1969: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. A. report has been completed on the New South Wales study of the costs involved for firms and individuals locating in city and country locations. 1. The New South Wales study of the relative costs of providing public services in various locations, based on the estimated cost of hypothetical future development, has been completed and a report prepared. 2. The Victorian study of the relative costs of providing public services in various locations, based on historical costs, has been completed and a report prepared, 3. A report on the estimated cost of water in the Greater Sydney region to the year 2001 has been completed. 4. A report on sociological aspects of life in New South Wales country towns has also been completed. 5. Work on a traffic congested cost study is now well advanced, and some preliminary results have been produced. 6. Work has been put in hand on the preparation of the Committee's general report. 2. The Committee set studies in hand at its meetings of 4-5th March 1965 and 30th November 1966, but no new studies were initiated at the meeting on 7th February 1969. 3. A report entitled 'A Study of Comparative Costs of Providing Public Utilities and Services in Melbourne and Selected Victorian Centres' has been completed (see (2) (iii) above), but has not been officially released. 4. Information on the progress of the Committee's work has been supplied in a statement by my predecessor on 15th August 1968 and answers to Parliamentary Questions Nos 1179 (17th April' 1969) , 1643 (9th September 1969), 468 (14th April 1970) and 2086 (16th February 1971). On the question of tabling reports, see answer to part (6) of Parliamentary Question No. 486, Hansard, 14th April 1970. Off-shore Areas: Control (Question No. 3165) {: #subdebate-55-16-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is be able to say whether section 8 of the New South Wales Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act 1970 and consequential provisions in the lease scheduled to the Act stand in serious legal doubt because of the views expressed by Barwick CJ. and Windeyer J. in Bonser v. Lamacchia that the States have neither property in nor constitutional control over territorial waters below the low tide mark. 1. Does the Commonwealth have a' prerogative over the off-shore area, the effect of which is to render invalid those provisions and schedules to the Act which purport to vest the prerogative in the Government of New South Wales. 2. If the legality of the Act is in doubt, by what process can the matter be clarified and in what way can the Commonwealth assist persons or organisations seeking to restrain the carrying out of the provisions of the Act and of the agreement scheduled thereto, insofar as this involves an assertion of competence beyond the powers of the Government of New South Wales. {: #subdebate-55-16-s3 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) After close consideration I have found it impossible to reply without expressing a legal opinion. It would not be in accordance with the practice of the House for me to follow that course. 1. On the question of assistance to persons or organisations I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 2S39. {:#subdebate-55-17} #### Butter (Question No. 3171) {: #subdebate-55-17-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: (l)What percentage of the butter production of each Australian State is exported. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What is the net return per lb in each State from (a) export and (b) home consumption. 1. What are the gross earnings of each State from (a) exported and (b) home consumption butter. {: #subdebate-55-17-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The percentage of butter (excluding butteroil) exported overseas by each State in respect of the production year 1969-70 is: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Under the price equalisation scheme there is an annual pooling on a nationwide basis of local and export sales of butter so that all factories throughout Australia receive the same return for their butter. The Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Ltd provided the following estimates for butter (excluding butteroil) in 1969-70: Net Returns (excluding production bounty and devaluation compensation) {: type="a" start="a"} 0. exports- 21.60 cents per lb. 1. home consumption- 45.66 cents per lb. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The gross realisations from sales of butter (excluding butteroil)from each State in 1969-70 are estimated by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisataion Committee Ltd to be: {:#subdebate-55-18} #### Public Service: Bachelors of Veterinary Science (Question No. 3181) {: #subdebate-55-18-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Has the Public Service Board' approved of public servants who hold the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science using the title 'Doctor'; if so, why. {: #subdebate-55-18-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >No. The Public Service Board has advised me that it has taken no action to accord the courtesy title 'Doctor' to Commonwealth public servants holding . the degree of- Bachelor of Veterinary Science. Kindergartens-cum-Childminding Centres (Question No. 3297) {: #subdebate-55-18-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Labour and NationalService, upon notice: (1). Which Departments are represented on the Inter-departmental Committee established to report on the proposal for kindergartens.cumchildmining centres. (Hansard, 21st April 1971, page 1762). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What are the terms of reference of the Committee. 1. What was the date of the establishment of the Committee. {: #subdebate-55-18-s3 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: . {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) The Departments represented on the Inter-departmental Committee are: ' Prime Ministers, Treasury, Social Services, Education and Science, Health, Immigration, Interior and Labour and National Service. The Committee was established in July 1970 and was asked to examine what is required in the. way of care of pre-school aged children. In the meantime the Government has faced the necessity of restraining inflationary pressures evident in the community and : has embarked on a policy of curtailing Commonwealth expenditure. So, although it still regards the proposal for kindergartenscumchild care centres as a favourable and important one, it has to be deferred for the time being. Meanwhile the proposal and issues relating to it will continue to be examined by -the Interdepartmental. Committee. Its eventual report, together with the advice of the Government Members Committee also looking into' the matter, will guide the Government when this matter is further considered. Commonwealth Industrial Court: Moore v. Doyle (Question No. 3334) {: #subdebate-55-18-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Attorney- General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what date did the Commonwealth Industrial Court refer to him the judgment and remarks it delivered in Moore v. . Doyle on 25th February 1969. 1. On what dates, by what means and with what results has he of his successor and predecessor consulted with State Attorneys-General, the trade unions, both Federal and State, and other interested government authorities to arrange for the examination of the important organisational matters to which' the Court referred. 2. Which have been the other interested government authorities consulted. {: #subdebate-55-18-s5 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) The matter was brought to my attention after the judgment was delivered in February 1969. The National Labour Advisory Council considered the judgment and the Court's remarks in May 1969 and agreed that there should not be any proposals for legislative amendment until the employers and the ACTU had had ample time to discuss the problem in detail. At a later meeting in December 1969, the National Labour Advisory Council agreed that a committee should be convened comprising representatives of the Departments of Labour and National Service and Attorney-General together with representatives of the ACTU, employers and the State Labour Departments and other interested authorities. The committee was formed and met in September 1970; a sub-committee was set up to look at the problem in greater detail and report back to the main committee. The sub-committee met in September 1970 and again in April 1971. It has not yet completed its work. {:#subdebate-55-19} #### State Housing: Cost of Land (Question No. 3393) {: #subdebate-55-19-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: >What has been the average cost of (a) acquiring and (b) developing the blocks of land in each State capital on which the State housing authority is at present building houses under the Housing Agreement. {: #subdebate-55-19-s1 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have arranged for approaches to be made to theappropriate State authorities and I shall pass on to the honourable member such information as they are able to provide. Papua New Guinea Supreme Court: Rabaul Appeals (Question No. 2370) {: #subdebate-55-19-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In how many cases has the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua New Guinea acquitted or discharged the persons committed for trial by **Mr Walters** as resident magistrate at Rabaul in and after December 1969. 1. In how many cases has the Supreme Court quashed or reduced the sentences of the persons sentenced by **Mr Walters** at Rabaul in that period. {: #subdebate-55-19-s3 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Three persons committed for trial by **Mr Walters** have been . acquitted since December, 1969. Two persons committed for trial during this period were discharged after the Crown declined to proceed further on the indictments. 1. The Supreme Court has allowed appeals against convictions by **Mr Walters** since December 1969 in 6 cases involving 10 charges. Four of the 6 cases were remitted for rehearing. Three of these cases were remitted because the same procedural requirement had not been followed. In a further 4 appeals involving 4 charges sentences imposed by **Mr Walters** since December 1969 were reduced. {:#subdebate-55-20} #### Appeals to High Court (Question No. 2469) {: #subdebate-55-20-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many appeals to the High Court from the Supreme Court in each Territory and from each Federal Court were (a) instituted and (b) heard in 1970. 1. How many (a) taxation matters and (b) industrial property matters were heard by (i) single justices and (ii) the Full Court of the High Court in 1970. 2. How many cases were (a) set down for hearing and (b) heard by single justices of the High Court in 1970. {: #subdebate-55-20-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The number of appeals (including applications for leave or special leave to appeal) to the High Court from the Territory Supreme Courts and Federal Courts (including, for the purposes of the answer, as in the answers to similar questions asked by the honourable member in previous years, State Courts exercising Federal jurisdiction) in 1970 was as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of taxation matters and industrial property matters, heard by single justices and by the Full Court of the High Court in 1970 was as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The number of cases set down for hearing and heard by single justices of the High Court in 1970 was as follows: Clutha Development (Question No. 2539) MrUren asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: >Has his attention been drawn to a series of articles which appear in the Financial Review on the proposed building by Clutha Development of a railway and an off-shore loader at Coalcliffe, New South Wales, to export coal from its collieries in the Burragorang Valley. > >Has his attention also been drawn to an article in the same paper of 3 February 1971 which ' suggests that the Commonwealth should give financial help to some South Coast conservation organisations to enable them to test in the High Court the legal difficulties surrounding the building of an off-shore loader, and the right of the State of New South Wales to make such an agreement with Clutha Development. > >Is it a fact that the Commonwealth promised to pay the costs of a legal challenge to the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill when enacted and is paying all legal costs for conservation groups in the Royal Commission on the drilling of oil on the Great Barrier Reef; if so, is the Commonwealth prepared to finance a challenge in the High Court by the South Coast conservation organisations. {: #subdebate-55-20-s2 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP en - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. The Commonwealth did agree to meet the costs of a State challenge to the validity of the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill, if enacted, and also to meet the reasonable costs of five of the conservationist bodies represented before the 2 Royal Commissions (Commonwealth and Queensland) enquiring into oil-drilling in the Great Barrier Reef area.. In the Clutha matter, the power of a State to authorise the building of a jetty out from shore, for loading coal mined inland, involves different questions of law and policy, in relation to which the commitments mentioned by the honourable member do not provide a precedent. {:#subdebate-55-21} #### Ministerial Visits Overseas (Question No. 2562) {: #subdebate-55-21-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked, the. Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which Ministers journeyed overseas (hiring the recent Parliamentary . recess at government expense. 1. What were the names of the people who accompanied the respective Ministers at government expense. 2. What countries were' Visited and what was the purpose of each visit. 3. Who authorised each., journey and what was the total cost in each case. {: #subdebate-55-21-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- I am informed that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) {: type="1" start="4"} 0. These visits were authorised by the Prime Minister. The final costs of the visits are not yet available. Superannuation Manual (Question No. 2798) {: #subdebate-55-21-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did his predecessor on 17th December 1970 advise the Secretary of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations that the Superannuation Board had recently decided to make copies of the Superannuation Manual available to organisations representing Commonwealth employees. 1. If so, when is it expected that copies of the manual will be available. 2. What are the reasons for the delay in making copies of the manual available. {: #subdebate-55-21-s3 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) I have been informed that the Superannuation Board issued copies of the Superannuation Manual to certain employees' organisations for reference purposes on 8th March 1971. {:#subdebate-55-22} #### Judiciary: Retiring Age (Question No. 2908) {: #subdebate-55-22-s0 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say whether the compulsory retiring age for judges in all States, except Victoria, is 70. 1. If so, will the Government initiate steps for a" referendum to be held to alter the Constitution in order to -require all judges appointed under Federal jurisdiction to retire at the age of 70. {: #subdebate-55-22-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. This is a matter of Government policy. {:#subdebate-55-23} #### Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2909) {: #subdebate-55-23-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What statutory authorities other than those listed inanswer to question No. S39 (Hansard, 10th March 1971, pages 762-810) have been established by the Commonwealth. 1. What are the (a) names, (b) salaries, (c) fees and (d) terms of office of the governing bodies of each Authority. 2. What is the legislative authority for each body andwho is the responsible Minister in each case. {: #subdebate-55-23-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Much of the information sought by the honourable member will be contained ' in a statement, which the Government proposes' to table, showing the salaries, fees and annual allowances of all the holders of statutory offices. This' statement is now in course of preparation, and will be made available in due course. Part of the other information sought is to be found in the Commonwealth Directory. > >Preparation of a complete, detailed answer to the honourable member's question at this time would involve considerable time" ' and expense in all Commonwealth Departments, which in the circumstances I am reluctant to authorise. However, if advice oh a particular statutory authority is desired, it can be provided on request. {:#subdebate-55-24} #### Drought Relief Funds (Question No. 2910) {: #subdebate-55-24-s0 .speaker-KGH} ##### Mr Hansen: asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did Commonwealth investigators, during April 1970, inquire into fraudulent misuse of funds made available by the Commonwealth Government to the Queensland Government as freight rebates on fodder for drought relief. 1. If so, were these investigations carried out at the request of the Queensland Government. 2. Did these investigations extend into the South Burnett district of Queensland. 3. Was any misuse of funds revealed. 4. Have any prosecutions resulted from these , or associated inquiries. 5. If so, were the prosecutions made by the Queensland Government or the Commonwealth . Government. 6. Has the Queensland Government requested a further investigation into . the illegal claiming of rebates for drought relief fodder. {: #subdebate-55-24-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)No. (2), (3) and (4) See answer to (1) above. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. and (6) There have been no Commonwealth investigations' or prosecutions. I understand that there have been investigations by Queensland police, but I am not aware whether the Queensland Government has brought any prosecutions. (7)No. {:#subdebate-55-25} #### Commonwealth Railways: Employees Compensation (Question No. 3425) {: #subdebate-55-25-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the amount of the lump sum payments paid to Commonwealth Railways employeesas compensation : for deafness due to noise. 1. What is the total cost of hearing aids, issued to Commonwealth Railways employees suffering from noise-caused deafness. {: #subdebate-55-25-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {:#subdebate-55-26} #### Civil Aviation: Kalgoorlie Aerodrome (Question No. 3375) {: #subdebate-55-26-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has consideration been given to changing the site of the Ralgoolie aerodrome. 1. If so, why is the aerodrome being moved. 2. How far from the existing site is the new site expected to be. 3. When will the move be made. {: #subdebate-55-26-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Kalgoorlie and Boulder Councils asked that consideration be given to moving the aerodrome, bearing in mind that the existing aerodrome occupies the only area into which the city may now expand. 2. and (4) It will be appreciated that these answers can only be provided' after quite detailed and time-consuming 'study in close co-operation with the State . and Local Government planning authorities. If may be some time before precise answers can be provided. {:#subdebate-55-27} #### Civil Aviation: Kalgoorlie Aerodrome (Question No. 3373) {: #subdebate-55-27-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it intended that- the passenger terminal at Kalgoorlie Airport will be extended and improved. 1. If so, when is it expected that the work will be: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. commenced; 1. completed. 2. What will, be the extent of the improve meats. {: #subdebate-55-27-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided, this following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. . The work . will, require less than' 6 months and the starting, date, will be influenced by what is finally decided in respect of our 1971-72 Works Programme Australia-wide. 2. The modifications to the building will almost double the space available for passengers and their friends. {:#subdebate-55-28} #### Civil Aviation: Kalgoorlie Aerodrome (Question No. 3372) {: #subdebate-55-28-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that existing parking facilities at the Kalgoorlie Airport are inadequate and that, in addition, a danger exists with regard to the movement of motor vehicles and small children. 1. If so, will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, arrange for the provision of a larger parking area and a clear walkway for pedestrians. {: #subdebate-55-28-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There is crowding during peak periods in the car park at Kalgoorlie Airport. It is not dangerous provided drivers exercise normal caution within the relatively confined space that is characteristic of any car park. 1. Consideration is being given to extending the car park and there will be due regard to the suggestion to provide a clear walkway for pedestrians. {:#subdebate-55-29} #### Sydney Airport: Development Works (Question No. 3370) {: #subdebate-55-29-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What developmental works have taken place at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport since 1951. 1. Has approval for these works been obtained from the Local Government Authority in the area and have the proposals always been submitted to this Authority for approval in die first instance. 2. Havethe proposals tor the future development of the airport now been finalised; if so, do they provide for parallel runways. 3. Have the proposals for the current and future development of the airport been submitted to the Local Government Authority and the New South Wales Planning Authority for approval; if so, what were the decisions in each case. 4. Has Qantas Airways Ltd acquired and redeveloped certain properties adjacent to the airport; if so, have these developments received the approval of the Local Government Authority. 5. Will the Minister ensure that all proposals for the development of the . airport and its surrounds will be submitted to Local and State Planning Authorities for consultation and approval. {: #subdebate-55-29-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The modernisation of Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport in its present form took place over the 10 years 1946-1955. In addition, the following major projects have been approved since 1951: Extension of the 16/34 runway to 8,500 feet (1963). Ground preparation for Instrument Landing Systems (1965). Site preparation in the north-west building area (1965). Operations and control tower building (1965). Buildings and services for international terminal complex (1965). Extension of the 16/34 runway to 13,000 feet (1968). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. All of the above projects were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and were the subject of public hearings. Both State and Local Authority representatives appeared at three of the- hearings; the State was not represented on the Instrument Landing Systems or Operations and Control Tower building hearings and the Local Authorities were not represented at the site preparation in the northwest building area hearing. 1. No. 2. and (6) These studies are being undertaken in close consultation with the State Planning Authorities and any major projects which are approved as a result will be the subject of the normal Parliamentary Works Committee hearings. 3. Yes. In these situations Qantas is subject to the usual Local Government regulations. {:#subdebate-55-30} #### Television Companies: Shares (Question No. 2477) {: #subdebate-55-30-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: >What changes in (a) the beneficial ownership of the shares in television companies and (b) the memoranda or articles of association of television companies (i) was he asked to approve and (ii) did he approve during 1970. {: #subdebate-55-30-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The attached statement contains details of the applications made to the Minister during 1970, for approval of changes in the beneficial ownership of shares in companies holding licences for commercial television stations and changes in the memoranda and articles of association of such licensee companies. {:#subdebate-55-31} #### Taxation: Education Deduction (Question No. 2294) {: #subdebate-55-31-s0 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the cost to the Commonwealth of the $300 education concessional deduction offered under section 82 J (4.) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. 1. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if this deduction was increased to $600. 2. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if a concessional deduction up to (a) $300 and (b) $600 was granted to taxpayers who pay the education expenses for full-time students (i) under 26 years of age and (ii) under 30 years of age. 3. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if a concessional deduction up to (a) $300 and (b) $600 wds granted to full-time students (0 under 26 years of age and (ii) under 30 years of age who pay their own personal education expenses. 4. What is the cost to the Commonwealth for the allowance of deductions for education expenses under section 51 (1.) of the Income Tax Assessment Act where the student is (a) part-time and (b) full-time. 5. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if a concessional deduction up to (a) $300 and (b) $600' was granted to taxpayers who pay education expenses in respect of parttime students (i) under 21 years of age, (ii) under 26 years of age and (iii) under 30 years of age. 6. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if part-time students were exempt from tax on non-bonded scholarships. 7. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if (a) full-time and (b) part-time students were exempt from tax on bonded scholarships; 8. What is the cost to the Commonwealth of the maintenance allowance for student children under section 82b (2.) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. 9. What would be the estimated *cost to tha* Commonwealth if the allowance under section 82b (2.) of the Act in respect of a student child was increased to $313. 10. What would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if the definition of a student child under section 82b (5.) of the Act was redefined to include (a) part-time students, (b) students under 26 years of age and (e) students under 30 years of age. 11. What would be the estimated cost for each category in the previous question if the maintenance deduction for a student child was increased to $312. {: #subdebate-55-31-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The cost to income tax revenue of concessional deductions for education expenses allowed under section 82j of the Income Tax Assessment Act is estimated at $75m per annum. 1. The annua] cost of increasing to $600 per student the maximum deduction allowed under section 82j is estimated to be approximately $8m. 2. and (4) No statistics are available that would permit reliable estimates to be made of the cost to revenue of extending the deductions allowed for education expenses to each of the classes of education expenses referred to, but it has been estimated that the annual cost to income tax revenue of extending the deduction to cover education expenses up to a maximum of $600 per student incurred in respect of full-time students aged 21 years and over would be about $2m. 3. No statistics are available of deductions la respect of education expenses allowed under see* tion 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 4. No statistics are available that would permit reliable estimates to be made of the cost of extending the deductions allowed to taxpayers for education expenses to cover expenses in respect of students in each of these age groups, but it has been estimated that the cost to revenue of allowing concessional deductions for education expenses, to a maximum of $600 per student, in respect of all part-time students would not exceed $5m per annum. 5. and (8) No statistics are available on which satisfactory estimates could be based. 6. The annual cost to income tax revenue of deductions allowed under section 82b of the Income Tax Assessment Act for the maintenance) of student children is estimated to be approximately $13m. 7. The cost to income tax revenue of increasing the' maximum deduction for the maintenance of student children to $312 per student child ls estimated at approximately $6m per annum. 8. and (12) The cost to income tax revenue of changing the definition of student children under section 82b (5.) of the Income Tax Assess? ment Act as in (a), (b) and (c), and the cost oj increasing the maximum deduction for student children to $312 are not known. However, tha amounts involved are unlikely to be considerable as the separate net income of most part-time students would exceed $338 per annum, and therefore no deduction for their maintenance would be allowable in these cases. Public Revenues in Other Federations (Question No. 2317) {: #subdebate-55-31-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Can he prepare tables of the percentage of public authority revenue received by authorities at each level of government in the United States of America, West Germany and Canada corresponding to the table he gave for Australia on 30th October 1970 (Hansard, page 3192). {: #subdebate-55-31-s3 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following particulars. > >The following table shows the percentage of public authority revenue raised from their own sources by authorities at each level of government in the United States of America, West Germany and Canada. These percentages are based on revenue figures which have been adjusted (as far as possible from the available information) to a basis similar to that of the revenue figures used for calculating the percentages of public authority revenue in Australia given in reply to Question No. 1383 on 30th. October 1970. > >In making comparisons between countries, "it should be borne in mind that the revenue from their own sources raised by various levels of government is affected' by considerable differences in the distribution of (a) responsibilities to provide government services, (b) the power to levy taxes arid (c) the extent to which, transfers of funds are made between the different levels of government. > >GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES PERCENTAGES OF GOVERNMENT REVENUE RAISED BY FEDERAL; STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES(a) > >United States of America(b) {: type="1" start="2"} 0. West Gennany(c) 3.Canada(e) {:#subdebate-55-32} #### Papua New Guinea: Trading Banks (Question No. 1736) {: #subdebate-55-32-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates had deposits with each trading bank in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea at (i) 30th June 1969 and (ii) 30th June 1970 and what were the total and average deposits of indigenes and expatriates in each bank. 1. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates had advances from each bank at those dates, and "what were' the total and average advances to indigenes and expatriates by each bank. ' 2. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (j) employed and (ii) housed by each bank in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. 3. What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average salaries and allowances paid by each bank to its (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate employees. {: #subdebate-55-32-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's'questton is as follows: Other ' information requested is not available. It may be noted that even 'if statistics of the number of trading bank depositors were available the incidence! of business accounts and interest-bearing deposits would complicate interpretation of average balances. (2 Totaladvances of each trading bank in the Territory were as follows: Other information requested" is not available. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Banks are not required to furnish information of this nature, nor that requested in sub-item (4) of the question. However, in view of the special circumstances applicable to the Territory, they have provided and have agreed to public disclosure of the following, 'which relates to combined trading and savings. bank functions as at 3 1st December 1970: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Number of banking staff employed by each bank in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. 1. Indigenes - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Non-indigenes - {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Number of staff housed by each bank in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. 1. Indigenes - In terms of the Native Employment Ordinance all banks provide housing to staff who are not bona fide residents of a village which is reasonably acces- ' sible to their place of employment. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Non-indigenes - The majority of non-indigene staff are on transfer from Australia and all banks make provision for their accommodation. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. (a) (i) and (ii) Highest . salaries and allowances: BankB have not provided this information since it would reveal the salaries paid to individual officers. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Lowest salaries and allowances: 1. Indigenes- Starting salaries for an indigene cler ical employee of Form IV education: {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Non-indigenes - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Average salaries and allowances: Ranges for the four banks - Indigenes- $1,090 per annum to $1,363 per annum Non-indigenes (excluding managers and accountants) - $2,910 per annum to $3,362 per annum. {:#subdebate-55-33} #### Gross National Product: Expenditure on Health, Education and Welfare (Question No. 2274) {: #subdebate-55-33-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What percentage of the gross national product was spent on health, education and welfare and what percentage was spent by (a) all public authorities and (b) all private sources, during each of the past S years. 1. Can he state for the latest years available those countries in which the total expenditure on health, education and welfare expressed as a percentage of their gross national product exceeds that of Australia. {: #subdebate-55-33-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician advises that he is unable to provide all of the information sought by the honourable member in the first part of his question. Complete information is not available for personal consumption expenditure on health and no estimates are prepared for private sector expenditure on welfare services. The Australian National Accounts (see table 49 of the 1968-69 issue) show an item, 'Medical, hospital and funeral expenses', and another item 'Chemists goods'. The' latter item includes much expenditure . which cannot be ' regarded' as expenditure on health, and a satisfactory estimate of the health expenditure included in this item cannot be mads at present. Estimates of public authority current and capital expenditure on public health and welfare are published jn Australian National Accounts (tables 64 and 74 of the 1968-69 issue), and an estimate of private gross fixed capital expenditure on new buildings for health services is available from the building statistics collection. > >The Statistician also prepares estimates of public authority and private expenditure on education for the Australian National Accounts (see again tables 49, 64. and 74 of the 1968-69 issue). These latter estimates are made available each year, together with supplementary figures and explanatory notes, in a statement entitled 'Expenditure oa Education*. > >The information which the Statistician has been able to provide in answer to part 1 of the question is set out in the accompanying table. > >With regard to part 2 of the question I ant unable to provide the information sought by the honourable member. The estimates of expenditure on education and public health in the accompanying table may of course be compared with similar figures for other countries, and the honourable member is referred to the United Nations Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics', which shows for many countries, current expenditure oa education and health, and public authority current expenditure on welfare. He is reminded, however, of the difficulties involved in making such comparisons, and in that connection I should like to draw his attention to the views expressed in a statement issued by the Department of Education and Science as a supplement to the Department's Education News' of April 1969, and entitled 'Education and the Gross National Product'. Many of the observations in that paper apply with equal force to international comparisons of expenditure on health services.' {:#subdebate-55-34} #### Papua New Guinea: Savings Bank (Question No. 1737) {: #subdebate-55-34-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates had active accounts with each savings bank in the Territory of Papua New Guinea at (i) 30th June 1969 and (ii) 30th June 1970 and what were the total and average balances in the accounts of indigenes and expatriates at each bank. 1. What were the (a) number and (b) largest, smallest and average amounts of the outstanding housing loans to (i) indigenes and (ii) expatriates by each bank at those dates. 2. How much had each bank invested in Territory loans at those dates. 3. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (i) employed and (ii) housed by each bank in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. 4. What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average salaries and allowances paid by each bank to its (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate employees. {: #subdebate-55-34-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Information for individual savings banks is hot published. The Quarterly Summary issued by the Papua New Guinea Bureau of Statistics shows the following details for all savings banks in the Territory, as at 30th June 1969: Similar details as at 30th June 1970 have not yet been published. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Information is not available. 1. Information for individual banks is not published. The Supplement to the Reserve Bank's Statistical Bulletin of December 1970 shows holding's by all banks of $13,858,000 at 30th June 1969 and $16,551,000 at 30th June 1970. 2. and (5). Information is not available separately for savings banks. See answers to subitems (3) and (4) of Parliamentary Question 1736 for information in respect of savings banks and trading banks combined. Australian Broadcasting Commission: Commentators (Question No. 2560) **Sir Alan** Hulme - >With reference to the above question, the answer to which was given on 6th April 1971 (Hansard, page 1544), I have now been advised by the Australian Broadcasting Commission that in relation' to part (2) the fee paid for 'News Com-' mentary' is $15 not $10 as indicated previously. {:#subdebate-55-35} #### Insurance Assessors (Question No. 2509) {: #subdebate-55-35-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Is he able to state the estimated number of assessors employed by all insurance companies and government insurance offices in connection with claims for compensation and damages arising out of personal injuries caused by industrial accidents or diseases and by road accidents. {: #subdebate-55-35-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the Bureau of Census and Statistics does not have any information which would provide an answer to this question. {:#subdebate-55-36} #### Workers Compensation (Question No. 2988) {: #subdebate-55-36-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >What was the total amount of workers' compensation payments paid to Commonwealth employees in each of the last 5 financial years, and what amount is expected to be paid during this financial year. {: #subdebate-55-36-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The total amount of workers' compensation payments made under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act in respect of Commonwealth employees and employees of Commonwealth Authorities, including payments for medical and funeral expenses, was: It is estimated that the total amount to be paid during this financial year will be $3,900,000. {:#subdebate-55-37} #### Papua New Guinea: Expatriate Banks (Question No. 2359) {: #subdebate-55-37-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the findings, in September 1970 by the Board of Inquiry under Professor Cochrane concerning the inadequate and inactive role taken by the expatriate banks towards indigenous enterprise in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. 1. If so, when did he bring the findings to the attention of the banks and what has been their response. {: #subdebate-55-37-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Board of Enquiry under the chairmanship, of Professor Cochrane did not describe the role of the expatriate banks as inadequate and inactive. It did express the view that they have been slow to take an active role towards indigenous enterprise and that there was much they could do to help. > >It has to be recognised, however, that at this stage of the Territory's development most indigenous enterprises do not lend themselves to the type of financing undertaken by commercial banks. Nevertheless, the commercial banks in the Territory have provided finance for indigenous organisations such as co-operatives, marketing bodies and local government councils as well as to some private Indigenous individuals. > >One of the main objectives in setting up the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank was to meet the requirements of indigenous persons and enterprises who are unable to obtain development finance from other sources. In a few cases the Development Bank has been involved in financing indigenous enterprises jointly with commercial banks. {:#subdebate-55-38} #### Productivity (Question No. 3075) {: #subdebate-55-38-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Will he give a man-day breakdown and the cause of the reduction of 200,000 persons from the Australian work force to- which he made reference in his Productivity Statement on 23 February 1971. {: #subdebate-55-38-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to. the honourable member's question is as follows: >In my statement on 'Productivity and the Community' on 23 February 1971 (in my then capacity as Minister for Labour and National Service), I drew attention to the fact that the incidence of absence from work is equivalent to the loss of about 200,000 persons from the workforce. The estimateis a projection of average absence rates in 186 firms previously surveyed by the Department of Labour and National Service, and because this is a projection a man-day breakdown is not possible. > >The causes of absence resulting in such loss are sickness, industrial and other accidents, and domestic reasons. The statement of 23 February 1971 gave the available projection relating to time-lost accidents. {:#subdebate-55-39} #### Building Societies: Loans (Question No. 2325) {: #subdebate-55-39-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date the answer which he gave me on 3rd June 1970 (Hansard, page 2880) on loans by building societies. {: #subdebate-55-39-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In regard to the information sought on the amounts advanced in housing loans by (a) terminating and (b) permanent building socieites in each State, the Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that official statistics of the activities of permanent and terminating building societies by State are now available for 1968-69. The statistics shown below refer to loans paid over* during the financial years of societies ending in the years shown. Annual figures for 1969-70 are not yet available. However, in June 1969 the Commonwealth Statistician started collecting information each month direct from permanent building socieites and details for the months of May 1969 to December 1970 are as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Information was also given on 3rd June 1970 on the interest rates charged (a) to and (b) by these building socieites. The tables below update this information. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. (i) Terminating Socieites. The two main sources of funds for terminating societies are still governments (under the Housing Agreements) and savings banks. The table below shows the interest rates charged by States to building societies on loans made from Commonwealth Advances in April 1970, October 1970 and March 1971. Rates charged by savings banks on government guaranteed loans since the most recent updating of this question have not altered (the footnote to the- relevant table in the previous answer no longer applies). (ii). As previously pointed out comprehensive information on the rates paid on share capital is not available. However, most permanent building societies raised their rates in the middle of 1970. The predominant rate on share capital that has prevailed in New South Wales since 1st June 1970 is 61 per cent. There also appears to have been some increase in rates paid by socieities for deposits. To the extent that societies borrow from trading banks, the rates of interest charged to them on such borrowing would not have exceeded the maximumoverdraft rate. This has not changed since the last updating of this' information. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (b) Predominant interest rates charged by Terminating and Permanent Building Socieities. Terminating societies usually charge- their members the same interest as 'the pay for- their funds, plus a- management fee which' is' equivalent to an additional 4-1 per cent per annum. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Rates for loans from funds guaranteed by State governments (slightly different rates would apply for loans from 'Home Builders' Account') (b) Plus management fees of approximately½ per cent per annum, (c) Plus management fees of approximately¼ per cent per annum. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. This table contains information on the most common range of interest rates charged by permanent societies. More detailed information on the wide range of interest rates charged by different societies may be obtained from the Department of Housing publication 'Housing Finance - Lending Terms and Conditions'. {:#subdebate-55-40} #### Taxation: Donation to Appeals for Overseas Relief (Question No. 2867) {: #subdebate-55-40-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What appeals for overseas relief have been accorded tax deductible status in the last 5 years. 1. What was the (a) value of donations made to these appeals and (b) cost to revenue. 2. Is he able to state the estimated value of all overseas relief raised by donation in the last f years. 3. If so, what would have been the approximate cost to revenue if all these donations had been tax deductible. 4. Will the Government consider granting tax deductible status to a' wider range of overseas relief donations, particularly those raised under the auspices of United Nations agencies. {: #subdebate-55-40-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. None 1. (a) The value of donations made to overseas relief appeals over the past 5 years Is not known. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. As such donations have not been allowed as deduction for income tax purposes, there has been no cost to revenue. 2. No 3. As stated above the value of donations to overseas relief appeals is not known. The potential cost to revenue of allowing them cannot, therefore, be estimated. 4. The question of allowing deductions In respect of donations for overseas relief purposes is being kept under review. {:#subdebate-55-41} #### Road Accidents (Question No. 2504) {: #subdebate-55-41-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >What percentage of road accidents result ins > >permanent total disability, > >permanent partial disability, > >temporary total disability and > >temporary partial disability {: #subdebate-55-41-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the Bureau of Census and Statistics does not have any information which would provide an answer to this question. {:#subdebate-55-42} #### Motor Vehicle Sales (Question No. 2927) {: #subdebate-55-42-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many new motor vehicles were sold in each of the last 5 years. 1. What were the makes and designs of these vehicles. 2. What percentage of the total number of vehicles sold were new vehicles sales. {: #subdebate-55-42-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable member's question. > >Particulars of the number of new motor vehicles sold in Australia during the last five years are not available in the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. However, details of registrations of new motor vehicles in Australia are available and this information, for the periods indicated, is shown below. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Particulars of make and model of new motor vehicles registered during each of the years 1966 to 1969 may be obtained by referring to the relevant annual publication: Motor Vehicle Registrations - Ref. No. 14.1: issued by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. Particulars of make and model for new motor vehicles registered during the year ended 31st December 1970 are expected to be' available during April . 1971. 1. There is no information ' available ' in the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics to show what percentage of the total numbers of vehicles sold are new vehicles. {:#subdebate-55-43} #### Workers Compensation (Question No. 2498) {: #subdebate-55-43-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say what amount was paid in claims for workers' compensation in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available. 1. What was the ratio of claims to premiums paid 'in each of those years. ' {: #subdebate-55-43-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the. honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. See answer given in reply to Question No. 416 (Hansard, 16 February 1971, pages 65 and 66). 1. See answer given in reply to Question No. 2633 (Hansard, 20 April 1971, page 1733). Factory Production Indexes (Question No. 3076) {: #subdebate-55-43-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon ontice: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. What progress has the Commonwealth Statistician made in' the re-basing of his factory production indexes as at 1968-69. 1. Has the Statistician examined the desirability of compiling and publishing annual indexes of factory production and work force particulars from the annual factory censuses on which the indexes are based. {: #subdebate-55-43-s3 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Acting Commonwealth Statistician advises that the re-basing of his factory production indexes' as at . 1968-69 is ' dependent on a number ' of tabulations of data . from, the. 1968-69 Census of Manufacturing Establishments. It is currently expected that these tabulations will not be available before October this year, following which it will be possible to continue work on the re-base. 1. It is assumed that the honourable member is referring ,.to. a combination of these two measures, both of which have been published separately. The question of their combination is one of the matters which will be included in the examination referred to in the answer given on 30 October 1970 to Question No. 2028. Papua New Guinea: ForestryEmployment (Question No. 2360) {: #subdebate-55-43-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon, notice: >What action has been taken on the finding in September 1970 'by the Board of 'Inquiry under Professor Cochrane that the inflexible and unhelpful attitude maintained by the Treasury towards the method of paying wages has reinforced the situation in Commonwealth-New. Guinea Timbers Ltd at Bulolo where there is a labour turnover of over 90 per cent a year and a loss of- issues worth $15,000 a year. {: #subdebate-55-43-s5 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as. follows: >This matter falls within the. responsibility of the Ministerial Member for Labour in the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea.. > >The Ministerial Member has advised that the nearby concern operated by . the Government' . referred to in paragraph 7.16 of. the Report of the Board of Inquiry on Rural Minimum Wages was the. Department of Forests at both Bulolo and Wau, and . not Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd. The reference to 'the Treasury' by Professor Cochrane, of course, related to the Territory Treasury,- not the Commonwealth Treasury. > >The- Ministerial Member has further advised that the situation referred to can not be attributed to the Territory 'Treasury but stems from the followingcauses: > >general dissatisfaction existing '-at the time of the establishment of the Board of Inquiry; . > >experimentation with casual labour; > >the impersonal nature' of Government, employment coupled with a lack of continuity in staff compared with that enjoyed by those working with Placer Development. Corporation Ltd. > >differing work situations. > >The Ministerial Member says that the compari son drawn was between the conditions of employment with Placer Development Corporation Ltd, at Bulolo and those with the Department of Forests at both Bulolo and Wau. The former, being a private enterprise, can be flexible in its approach to labour problems. The Department of Forests, on the other hand, being a Government Department accountable for considerable expenditure of public moneys within a fixed budget and having to woih within fixed wage standards, cannot be so flexible. Employees of the Department have generally been paid in accordance with the local award. > >The Ministerial Member reports that the Department of Forests has for some time been experiencing Territory-wide labour difficulties. Indeed, this led to the establishment of the Board of Inquiry. Because labourers were not forthcoming from the Highlands Labour Scheme, the Department had been forced to experiment at Bulolo and Wau with casual labour from' the neighbouring Manyamas Sub-district. > >The Ministerial Member has kept the . situation under review -and proposes to continue to do so in future. {:#subdebate-55-44} #### Bond Rate (Question No. 3033) {: #subdebate-55-44-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: What is the annual cost to. the Commonwealth in debt repayments for each 1 per cent added to the bond rate. {: #subdebate-55-44-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An increase in the bond rate at any point of time results in increased cost to the Commonwealth only la respect of securities issued on account of the Commonwealth of increasing by one per cent per annum the rate on all bonds issued from a certain date would therefore depend entirely on the amount of bonds issued on account of the Commonwealth at the new rate. If, for example, all debt issued on account of the Commonwealth in the form of Treasury bonds, Special Bonds and Treasury Notes, including inscribed stock, during 1969-70 had been issued at rates one per cent per annum higher than the rates which actually applied, the additional cost to the Commonwealth in a full year would have been (3.8 million. If. rather, the question alludes to the cost of adding one per cent per annum to the interest rates payable on all existing debt issued on account of the Commonwealth and outstanding at, say, 30 June 1970 and domiciled in Australia (other than Treasury Bills), the amount involved over a period of one year would be approximately $19m. This takes into account Treasury bonds, Special Bonds and Treasury. Notes (including inscribed stock in each case) as evidenced by securities on issue. The actual cost to the Commonwealth in both cases would be reduced . to the extent that the Corrrmonwearrh held the securities as investments in its Trust Funds, as well as to the extent that recoveries were made from the States such as, for example, where the proceeds of borrowings on account of the Commonwealth were used to provide housing advances to the States. {:#subdebate-55-45} #### Productivity (Question No. 2872) {: #subdebate-55-45-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Bureau of Statistics had representatives or observers at any international conferences on (a) production indices and (b) productivity statistics. 1. If so, where and when and under whose auspices were the conferences held. 2. What, recommendations (aj'were made by the conferences and (b) have been adopted in Australia. {: #subdebate-55-45-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourale member's question is as follows: 1 am advised by the Commonwealth Statistician that the. subjects of production indexes and of productivity statistics as well as those of - associated matters such as quantum measures and employment and labour force statistics have been discussed' jat a number of international meetings of statisticians under varying agenda headings. These discussions have occurred at some, of the sessions of the United Nations Statistical Commission and of its regional counterpart (e.g. at sessions of the Conference of Asian Statisticians); at some of the International Conferences of Labour Statisticians (convened by the International Labour. Office); and at some of the Conferences of (British) Commonwealth Statisticians. The Bureau of Census and Statistics has been represented at most of the meetings of the Conference of Asian Statisticians and the International Conferences of Labour Statisticians and at each of the Conferences of Commonwealth Statisticians. In keeping with Australia's membership of the United Nations Statistical Commission, the Bureau has been represented at sessions of the Commission from 1952 to 1957 and from 1960 to 1970. Discussions at the sessions of the United Nations Statistical Commission and at the International Conferences of Labour Statisticians have resulted in resolutions, recommendations and methodolical studies relating to production indexes and quantum measures and to employment and labour force statistics. The methodological studies in particular deal with technical problems in considerable detail. Production Indices. A major document concerning these is 'Studies in Methods No. 1, Index Numbers of Industrial Production', Statistical Office of the United Nations (1950). The Statistician's annual indexes of factory production are in accordance with methods set out in this document. These annual measures have been published in advance of and to some extent, in preference to monthly or quarterly measures which are necessarily less well-based. The problems inherent in the preparation of short term production indexes for Australia are continuing to receive consideration with a view to eventual publication of sufficiently reliable measures. At the 15 th session of the Statistical Commission held at New York in 1968 a resolution was adopted requesting the Secretary-General to prepare a revised version of Studies in Methods No. 1.' The Bureau was represented at this session. The revision has not yet been completed, but some relevant material concerning index numbers is contained in the 1968 publication 'A System of National Accounts' (see below). Productivity Statistics. An item 'Methods of statistics of productivity of labour' was on the agenda of the Seventh International Conference of Labour Statisticians held at Geneva in 1949. The Bureau was not represented at this Conference, which adopted a resolution concerning the Productivity of Labour. The main feature of this Resolution was a request that the Governing Body of the I.L.O. arrange for its staff to continue studies on statistics of labour productivity and their development. Although studies have continued and although the I.L.O. Year Book of Labour Statistics contains indices of 'Labour productivity' which have been estimated for a number of countries, no international standards have been laid down, . either for statistics of labour productivity, or for statistics of productivity. The Bureau has been represented at the sessions of the United Nations Statistical . Commission which were associated with - the development of the. document 'Studies in Methods Series F, No. 2, Rev. 3, A System of National Accounts', Statistical Office of the United Nations (1968). This system supplies a comprehensive and. detailed framework and guidelines for systematic and integrated statistics. In developments - currently under way and at reviews and re-basing of all relevant series, including those considered basic in productivity studies, the Bureau intends to acheive as much consistency as possible with the guidelines and options in the System of National Accounts and its developing complementary systems. Some discussion on the measurement of factor inputs and productivity is included in 'A System of National Accounts'. This discussion stops a long way short of suggesting standards. It states some general aims and briefly discusses the concentual and practical difficulties, but indicates that its suggestion can only be regarded as tentative until more experience has been gained. It is expected that the subject of statistics of productivity will be considered at some future sessions of the United Nations Statistical Commission. {:#subdebate-55-46} #### Motor Vehicle Accidents (Question No. 2926) {: #subdebate-55-46-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has there been any analysis of motor vehicle accidents to show what proportion of (a) deaths and (b) injuries occur on (i) rural and (ii) urban roads. 1. If so, what were the results. {: #subdebate-55-46-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the. honourable member's question is as. follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable member's question - > >Particulars of road traffic accidents which occur outside' and 'inside' built-up areas are available for Victoria only. In that state, ' during the year ended 31 December 1969, there were 546 fatal accidents in built-up areas and 537 'outside built-up areas. During the same period injury accidents which . occurred. ..inside built-up,areas numbered 12,881 while those outside builtup arias numbered 2,763. > >The only dissection for which details of road traffic accidents can be provided- on a- basts which is common' to all States is. a break-down between (i) metropolitan area and (ii) rest of Slate. This information, for the year ended , '31 December 1969, is shown in the following tableV . ' {: type="a" start="a"} 0. For statistical purposes, all road traffic accidents occurring in the Northern Territory are recorded as rest of State'. (b) All road traffic accidents occurring in the Australian Capital Territory are recorded as metropolitan'. {:#subdebate-55-47} #### Motor Vehicles: Accident Rate (Question No. 2925) {: #subdebate-55-47-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: What was the motor vehicle (a) accident, (b) injury and (c) fatality rate for each of the. States (i) per 100,000,000 vehicle miles, (ii) per 100,000 population and (iii) per 100,000 registered ' motor vehicles, in each of the last 5 years. {: #subdebate-55-47-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: *The* Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to tha honourable member's question- " {: .page-start } page 2886 {:#debate-56} ### ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Explanatory Notes Details of road traffic accidents involving casualties relate to accidents which were reported to the police and which satisfy the following conditions: {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Taxation: Grants to Wool Growers (Question No. 3397) {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has advice been given to some farmers and graziers that grants made by the Government under the scheme of emergency assistance to wool growers are taxable. 1. Is this advice correct. 2. If so, will taxation of the emergency grant defeat the purpose of the grant. 3. If the position is as stated, will he take the necessary action to free the grants from tax and then take urgent action to advise all concerned that grants are not to be taxed. {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. This advice is based on a ruling given by the Commissioner of Taxation who is responsible for the administration of the income tax law. 2. No. As the purpose of the grant is to offset a reduction in income from wool growing during the year ended 30th June 1970, the inclusion of the grants in assessable income is consistent with long-standing income tax principles. 3. No. {:#subdebate-56-1} #### Qantas: Effect of Sales Tax (Question No. 3378) {: #subdebate-56-1-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What effect has the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1970 had on Qantas Airways Limited in this financial year (Hansard, 38th April 1971, page 2131) 1. What effect is it estimated that the Act will have on Qantas in a full financial year. {: #subdebate-56-1-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The following information has been provided by Qantas Airways Ltd. The amount of sales tax payable by the Company because of the repeal of the specific exemption of goods for their use is estimated at $400,000 in the year ending 31st March 1971 and approximately $1,500,000 in the year ending 31st March 1972. Taking into account the depreciation over several years of the cost of some of the equipment on which tax has been or will be paid, the effect in those two years on profits before income tax is estimated at $300,000 and approximately $750,000 respectively. The effect on profits net of income tax would be substantially less. {:#subdebate-56-2} #### Motor Vehicle Insurance (Question No. 3332) {: #subdebate-56-2-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to a statement on 23rd April 1971 by the New South Wales Attorney-General that the Federal Government was expected to legislate next month to strengthen controls in the car insurance field. 1. Does the Government intend to take this action; if not, when will he introduce legislation to control general (non-life) insurance companies. 2. Can he state (a) what motor insurance companies and brokerage firms have been placed in the hands of liquidators and (b) what sum was involved in each case during the last 5 years. {: #subdebate-56-2-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. As stated by my predecessor on 23 February 1971 in answer to a question without notice by the Honourable Member, an outline of a scheme to control the activities of general insurance companies has been prepared and is currently under consideration by the Government. The scheme will apply to companies conducting all kinds of insurance other than life insurance and not only to those involved in motor insurance. It has not proved practicable to introduce legislation during the present Session, but it is hoped that legislation will be ready for introduction during the Budget Session. 2. (a) Insurance companies which have been placed in the bands of liquidators, both official and provisional, during the last five years are set out below. Whilst each company was engaged in motor vehicle insurance this was not necessarily the only form of insurance business undertaken: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Cambridge Insurance Co. Pty Ltd (In liquidation) 1. Mid-Pacific and International Insurance Co. Pty Ltd (In liquidation) 2. East Australian Insurance Co. Ltd (in liquidation) 3. Bonus Benefit Insurances (Underwriters) Pty Ltd (In liquidation) 4. The Oxford Insurance Co. Pty Ltd (In liquidation) 5. Travellers' Insurance Corporation Ltd (In liquidation) 6. Riverina Insurance Co. Ltd (In liquidation) 7. Property Accident Commercial and Executive Insurance Co. Ltd (In liquidation) 8. Motor Marine and General Insurance Co. Ltd* 9. Vehicle and General Insurance Co. (Aust.) Ltd* 10. The Country Traders' Mutual Insurance Ltd* * In provisional liquidation. The Insurance Act 1932-1966 does not apply to insurance brokers operating solely within Australia and accordingly I have no official information on any such brokers which may have been placed in liquidation. No insurance brokers carrying on insurance business under the legislation, that is brokers who transact part or all of their business overseas, have gone into liquidation. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (b) The information requested is not available; the Insurance Act does not require the furnishing of information other than that relating to the system of deposits and in any event I understand that even in those cases where official liquidators have been appointed the process of determining claims has yet to be completed. {:#subdebate-56-3} #### Australian Wheat Board (Question No. 3317) {: #subdebate-56-3-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >What rates of interest were paid or are payable by (a) the Government for loans advanced by the Reserve Bank and (b) the Australian Wheat Board for moneys made available by the Government in respect of advances made by the Commonwealth to the Australian Wheat Board during each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. {: #subdebate-56-3-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Commonwealth Government did not borrow from the Reserve Bank to finance an advance to the Australian Wheat Board in 1969. On 31st March 1970, the Commonwealth borrowed an amount of $250,230,000 for that purpose on the security of Treasury Notes issued to the Reserve Bank, and on 31 March 1971 an amount of $190,000,000 was similarly borrowed. Treasury Notes do not bear interest but are sold at discounted prices which give effective yields to the investor which are equivalent, in income terms, to interest. Since 31st March 1970 the prices and yields of Treasury Notes, expressed as percentages, have been as follows: - At the time of issue on 31st March 1970, the amount of 13-week notes issued to the Reserve Bank was $125,000,000 and the amount of 26- week notes was $125,230,000. The issue on 31st March 1971 was made half in the one series and half in the other. The proportion of 13-week and 26-week Notes on issue varies from time to time, depending upon the precise timing of repayments by the Wheat Board to the Commonwealth, but the cost of the borrowing to the Commonwealth is approximately the average at any time of the yield of 13-week and 26-week Notes. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The rates of interest payable by the Australian Wheat Board were set at 5 per cent for the loan made in March 1970 and at 51 per cent for the loan made in March 1971. {:#subdebate-56-4} #### Australian Wheat Board (Question No. 3316) {: #subdebate-56-4-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Is it a fact that profits made by the Government from interest charges on loans made to the Australian Wheat board are used as an offset against the moneys paid to the Australian Wheat Board to raise the export price to the guaranteed price under the provisions of the Wheat Stabilization Plan. {: #subdebate-56-4-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >No. The cost of borrowings by the Commonwealth from the Reserve Bank for the purpose of making *loans to the* Australian Wheat Board has been in excess of the interest paid by the Board on such loans. {:#subdebate-56-5} #### Taxation: Exempt Organisation (Question No. 3306) {: #subdebate-56-5-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether tax-exempt organisations conducting laundries, wineries, distilleries and other commercial enterprises use members of religious orders, expectant unmarried mothers and others under their care as an unpaid of underpaid work force and pay no income, pay-roll or company taxes because the profits got to tax-exempt activities. 1. If so, are these enterprises required by law to file regular returns for each kind of tax. 2. If returns ate required are they regularly filed. 3. What revenues would accrue from each kind of (a) tax, (b) enterprise and (c) exempt organisation if these tax exemptions were removed. {: #subdebate-56-5-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as fololws {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Organisations which are exempt from income tax include religious, scientific, charitable and public educational institutions, trade unions and associations of employers and employees registered under an Act relating to the settlement of industrial disputes, public hospitals and hospitals which are carried on by associations otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to their individual members. Religious institutions, public benevolent institutions, public hopitals and non-profit hospitals are exempt from pay-roll tax in respect of wages paid to their employees. No information is available as to the classes of persons employed by organisations which qualify for tax exemptions or to their rates of pay. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) Where it is established that an organisation is exempt from income tax it is the administrative practice of the Commissioner of Taxation not to require lodgment of returns. The same procedure is followed in relation to organisations which are exempt from pay-roll tax. 1. No statistics are available that would enable reliable estimates to be made of the gain to revenue which would result if existing income tax and pay-roll tax exemptions were removed. {:#subdebate-56-6} #### Workers Compensation (Question No. 3157) {: #subdebate-56-6-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that lump sum compensation for industrial incapacity and impairment of health is exempt from income tax while periodical pay ments are not; if so, what are the reasons foi these apparently contradictory attitudes. 1. Is the income of retired dusted miners, who are receiving pensions for permanent impairment of health, subject to income tax. 2. If so, what would be the estimated cost of exempting these pensions from income tax. 3. Will he honour the undertaking of his predecessor to review this matter when the relative provisions of the income tax law are next under review. {: #subdebate-56-6-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For income tax purposes, there is a fundamental distinction between receipts of a' capital nature which are not subject to tax and those of an income nature which are liable to tax in the hands of the recipient. A lump sum paid as compensation for a specific injury is a capital receipt and accordingly does not attract income tax. On the other hand, periodical payments made to replace earnings lost through disablement or injury possess the character of income and are liable to tax. 1. A retired miner who receives a pension, e.g., under the New South Wales Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act, is liable to tax on that income. However, if he is aged 65 years or over, he may be entitled to the income tax concessions available to aged persons generally. 2. Statistics that would enable a reliable estimate to be made of the cost of exempting from income tax pensions received by retired dusted miners for permanent impairment of health are no available. 3. The question of amending the law to exempt periodical payments of an income nature from tax will be kept under review. {:#subdebate-56-7} #### Alumina (Question No. 3094) {: #subdebate-56-7-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does his Department assess national profitability of alumina production in Australia for purposes of Company tax. 1. If so, is this based primarily on the industry's figures for payment received from its shareholders, based largely overseas, on independent audit and technical assessment, or other factors. 2. Is he able to say how the aluminium production by Conzinc-Riotinto of Australia compares in profitability with Gladstone alumina production, based on (a) capital committed, (b) gross production cost and (c) the processing of 1 ton of alumina. 3. If so, can he also say how this profitability of CRA compares with that of other principal shareholders in Queensland Alumina Limited outside Australia, and with that of Bell Bay Refinery. {: #subdebate-56-7-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Income tax is imposed on the taxable income derived annually by every taxpayer as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1. The taxable income is ordinarily calculated by deducting all allowable deductions from the gross assessable income. However, where any business carried on in Australia is controlled by nonresidents, and it appears to the Commissioner of Taxation that the business produces no taxable income or less than the amount of taxable income which might be expected to arise from that business, the Commissioner is empowered by section 136 to impose tax on a taxable income of such amount of the total receipts of the business as the Commissioner determines. 2. and <4) Subject to certain specific exceptions which do not affect the present enquiry, the Commissioner is prohibited from disclosing any information relating to the affairs of particular taxpayers. For this reason, it is not possible to furnish answers to these questions. {:#subdebate-56-8} #### Taxation (Question No. 3093) {: #subdebate-56-8-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Does his Department accept the right of a rural lands developer to earn several times the value of his properties by resales over a period of years tax free while submitting income tax returns as a primary producer showing a net loss of earnings each year. {: #subdebate-56-8-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >A specific provision of the income tax law requires the inclusion in a taxpayer's assessable income of the profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property acquired by him for the purpose of profit-making by sale, or from carrying on or carrying out any profit-making undertaking or scheme. The law draws no distinction between a person who acquires rural land for the purpose of profit-making by sale and one who buys any other kind of property for the same purpose. A profit resulting from the sale of rural land is, therefore, assessable income if the taxpayer's dominant purpose, at the time of acquiring the property, was to make a profit by reselling it or if the acquisition of the property was part of -a profit-making undertaking or scheme. > >Where primary production is carried out on land acquired for re-sale at a profit, the taxpayer is treated as a primary producer pending the disposal of the property and is entitled to deductions for expenditure on pest extermination, the preparation of the land for agriculture, water conservation and certain other outgoings designed to improve the productivity of the land. Deductions are also allowed for fencing erected on land subject to the ravages of animal pests or on land adversely affected by naturally occurring deposits of mineral salt. > >Although the deductions allowed for outgoings incurred in improving the property are again taken into account in determining the eventual profit or loss on sale, the law contains a provision which ensures that the total tax saving resulting from the expenditure does not exceed the amount of the expenditure. {:#subdebate-56-9} #### Survey of Family Incomes and Expenditure (Question No. 3087) {: #subdebate-56-9-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the Bureau of Census and Statistics has been forced to abandon a proposed survey of family incomes and expenditures because of the economy measures forced on the Bureau by his Department 1. Is he able to say whether similar surveys are carried out in other advanced countries; if so, do these surveys form the basis of welfare policies in those countries. 2. If the position is as stated will he direct that this important survey be conducted and repeated at reasonable intervals so that the welfare policies of Australia can be continually improved by regular comparison with other comparable countries. {: #subdebate-56-9-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. The Bureau of Census and Statistics has recently completed a study to determine whether a Household Expenditure Survey would be feasible in Australia and would supply results which would warrant the work and expense estimate to be required. I have been advised by the Statistician that the study shows that successful surveys of household expenditure and income could be carried out. The Statistician has also advised that he can not for the time being, without suspending other important projects already entered upon, allocated the skilled resources necessary to proceed with such a survey. On present expectations, it is unlikely that the further necessary preparatory work could be taken up before June 1972 at the earliest. The economy measures have not greatly affected this position. 1. Many countries conducted official surveys of family or household incomes and expenditure, and it is understood that the results of such surveys are useful in connection with welfare policy and administration. 2. The matter will be considered as soon as it appears that the necessary resources could be allocated to this project. {:#subdebate-56-10} #### Mental Hospitals: Staff {Question No. 2284) {: #subdebate-56-10-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say how many doctors were employed in mental hospitals in each of the States and how many were qualified psychiatrists, during each of the past 5 years. 1. How many (a) male and (b) female nurses were employed, and how many were qualified pyschiatric nurses in each case, during the same years. {: #subdebate-56-10-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The information requested is not normally kept by my Department; however, following the honourable member's question, the various State Authorities were requested to supply the relevant details. These authorities have now supplied the following information relating to mental health institutions in their respective States. {:#subdebate-56-11} #### Nurses (Question No. 2441) {: #subdebate-56-11-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many nurses (a) commenced and (b) completed training in each State and Territory in 1970. 1. Have statistics yet been compiled on (a) the number of nurses employed, (b) the ratio of nurses to hospital beds and population and (c) the number of nurses resigning and retiring (Hansard, 19 May 1970, page 2380). {: #subdebate-56-11-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The word 'training' was taken to mean basic general training. Where relating to State nursing activities, the information has been provided by the various State authorities. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. There is no single source from which accurate and comprehensive statistics of the number of nurses employed, or the number of nurses resigning and retiring, can be derived. Consequently it is not possible to provide all the information sought. Figures supplied by the Northern Territory include all designations of nursing staff, and cover ancillary services. New South Wales figures include all full and part time nurses employed in hospitals controlled by the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales, as at 30 September 1970. Western Australian figures are for nurses employed in State Public Hospitals. Hospital bed figures for the Northern Territory are figures for the actual approved nursing establishments for all areas. Victorian bed figures are for public hospital beds. New South Wales figures relate only to hospitals controlled by the Hospital's Commission of New South Wales and does not include Mental Hospitals and Convalescent Homes etc. {:#subdebate-56-12} #### Health Funds (Question No. 2597) {: #subdebate-56-12-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >How many (a) partly and (b) fully subsidised health fund contributions were there in each State on (i) 1st September 1970, (ii) 1st December 1970 and (iii) 1st February 1971. {: #subdebate-56-12-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >It is not possible to supply the information at the *dates requested by the* honourable Member. However, the following tables set out available information concerning the number of contributors enrolled in health insurance organisations through the Subsidised Medical Services Scheme. These figures include those persons eligible for assistance under the Scheme by virtue of being in receipt of unemployment, sickness or special benefits, as well as members of low income families. {:#subdebate-56-13} #### Artificial Limbs and Surgical Aids (Question No. 2683) {: #subdebate-56-13-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that artificial limbs and surgical aids are not available under the pensioner medical scheme. 1. If so, does this cause severe hardship for those persons who are fully dependent on social services and who require these aids. 2. Why are these basic health requirements denied to pensioners. 3. Are telephones, etc., regarded as being more important to pensioners than essential surgical aids. 4. Is it a fact that the cost of a bowel re-section operation is borne by the Commonwealth but the colostomy bags which are necessitated by this operation are not provided; if so, what is the reason for this apparent anomaly. {: #subdebate-56-13-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable members question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. to (5) The National Health Act limits the provision of pharmaceutical benefits to drugs and medicinal preparations. The question of extending the Act to include medical apparatus or appliances, such as artificial limbs and surgical aids, has been given consideration from time to time, along with the claims for other medical apparatus such as artificial kidney machines for home dialysis and implantable heart pacemakers. After due consideration, it has been decided, at this stage, not to extend the present scheme to provide for these items. {:#subdebate-56-14} #### Qantas Services (Question No. 2850) {: #subdebate-56-14-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) charter and (b) scheduled flights were flown during 1970 by Qantas Airways Limited between Sydney and (i) London, (ii) Athens and (iii) Rome. 1. How many passengers were carried in each flight. 2. What was the (a) average percentage loading and (b) profit per flight. {: #subdebate-56-14-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Charter Flights Westbound - Sydney/London - 117 Sydney/ Athens- 17 Sydney/Rome - 9 Eastbound - London/ Sydney - 135 Athens/Sydney- 17 Rome/Sydney- 7 {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Scheduled Services 620 round trips (1,240 flights) were operated on the Kangaroo route between Sydney and London, of these 316 operated through Athens and 476 operated through Rome. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Qantas does not keep records of passengers set down or picked up at points on its network on each flight. An indication of the average loading on Kangaroo route services is provided by the seat factors given in answer to question (3). {: type="i" start="3"} 0. (a) (i) The average seat utilisation factor for scheduled services to London on the Kangaroo route in 1970 was 54 per cent. 1. Seat utilisation factors for charter flights were: Sydney/London/Sydney- 86 per cent. Sydney/ Athens/Sydney - 80 per cent. Sydney/Rome/Sydney- 69 per cent. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The information requested on profit per flight cannot be provided. Information on Qantas operating results for the financial year ending 31st March 1971 is expected to be available to Parliament by August. {:#subdebate-56-15} #### Health Benefits Organisation (Question No. 2793) {: #subdebate-56-15-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names of registered benefits organisations which have been granted registration in more than one State, and what percentage of the membership of each organisation is enrolled in each State. 1. What are the names of registered benefit organisations which have (a) been denied registration of (b) voluntarily ceased operation in any State since the proclamation of the National Health Act 1970, and what percentage of its contributors was lost by each organisation in each case. {: #subdebate-56-15-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The names of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations which have been granted registration in more than one State are: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) The names of the medical and hospital benefits organisations which have been denied registration since the proclamation of the National Health Act 1970 are: * Ancient Order of Foresters' Friendly Society in Queensland. WA. Railway and Metropolitan Transport Hospital Fund. 'Warley' Cowes Bush Nursing Hospital. * This organisation has lodged an appeal against the refusal ofits applicationfor registration in accordance with section 63 (3.) of the National Health Act 1970, PartIII, Transitional Provision and is continuing to operate as a registered organisation pending the determination of the appeal. It is not known what percentage of contributors was lost. However, these organisations are continuing to operate outside the provisions of the National Health Act. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Those benefits organisations which voluntarily ceased operations in any State since the proclamation of the National Health Act are: {:#subdebate-56-16} #### Medical Benefits Schemes (Question No. 2868) {: #subdebate-56-16-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What purposewas intended to be served by the introduction of notice of referral to a specialist forms. 1. Is the purpose being achieved; if so, with what public benefit. {: #subdebate-56-16-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Referral of a patient by a general practitioner to a specialist has been a long established practice within the medical profession. When the new Medical Benefits Scheme was introduced on 1st July 1970, provision was made for differential benefits for over 300 medical services which may be rendered either by a general practitioner or specialist. The new Scheme therefore recognised the fee charging policy of the medical profession and provided appropriate levels of benets. In view of the large number of services involved and in the interest of all parties, including patients and general practitioners, it was considered that a stricter referral system should be introduced. The formal Notice of Referral is part of the system. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The public benefits from the system is directly related to the purpose for which it was introduced. In general, it is considered that the interest of patients and doctors are best served by the system of referral. Furthermore, it facilitates the control of Commonwealth expenditure. {:#subdebate-56-17} #### Drug Evaluation: L-Dopa (Question No. 2869) {: #subdebate-56-17-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee yet approved of the marketing in Australia; of L-Dopa. 1. If so, has it been approved or is it under consideration for listing as a pharmaceutical benefits item. 2. If the marketing of the drug has not yet been approved, when is it expected that a report from the Drug Evaluation Committee will be available. {: #subdebate-56-17-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. However, approval has been confined to the Roche brand (Larodopa) of L-Dopa tablets (500 mg.) at present. 1. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended listing of L-Dopa as a Pharmaceutical benefit. The Roche brand of the drug was made available as a benefit from 1st April. 1971, on authority of the Commonwealth Director of Health in each State and Territory, for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease. 2. Not applicable. {:#subdebate-56-18} #### War Service Land Settlement (Question No. 2949) {: #subdebate-56-18-s0 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr Kirwan: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount is received each year by way of rents from war service land settlement farms in the south-west of Western Australia. 1. What has been the cost to the Commonwealth of the war service land settlement scheme in this area. 2. Are the annual rentals of the War Service Land settlers able to be abolished or substantially reduced under prevailing conditions. {: #subdebate-56-18-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following figures relate to the war service land settlement scheme in Western Australia. I hope this information will be satisfactory to the Honourable Member. Any dissection against geographical areas etc. would entail an excessive amount of work. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Of the 1017 settlers who were allotted farms in Western Australia under war service land settlement, 431 have sold their leases, 24 have paid to convert their tenure from leasehold to freehold and 14 surrendered their holdings which were then sold on the open market. 548 are still on their farms under the scheme. The Honourable Member will appreciate that the present problems of rural producers are industry-wide and not specific to war service land settlers. The reduction or abolition of rentals payable by these settlers would have to be considered in conjunction with measures designed to assist farmers experiencing the same or similar problems. Measures have already been introduced on an industry-wide basis and the Government is making sizeable funds available to the State to assist and relieve the economic difficulties of primary producers especially in the seriously affected wool and dairy industries. {:#subdebate-56-19} #### Biochemical Tests (Question No. 3010) {: #subdebate-56-19-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement by **Dr J.** A. Bonnin, Director, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide that a laboratory can perform the twelve biochemical tests in the Technicon S.M.A. 12/60 profile for a total cost of $3.11, that is, 26 cents per individual test, including capital repayment over 2 years. 1. Is it a fact that no single test in the S.M.A. 12/60 profile attracts a combined rebate of less than $6.00 under the Commonwealth Medical Benefits Scheme whilst five or more tests done in such a multichannel profile attract a rebate of $13.00. 2. Did the estimated cost of pathology services under the scheme increase from about $3,000,000 in 1960 to nearly $15,000,000 in 1969. 3. Was there evidence of an increasing growth rate during 1970. 4. If so, what steps does the Minister propose to prevent the huge payout of Commonwealth funds for the benefit of the scientific instrument industry and a few owners of large laboratories. {: #subdebate-56-19-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. A number of tests in the S.M.A. 12/60 profile attract combined benefits of $4.00 in South Australia. The combined benefit for item 1276 (chemical analysis of blood or serum, five or more tests performed simultaneously on a single specimen on one multi-channel analyser) is $12.00 in New South Wales and $13.00 in other States. 2. and (4) This information is not available to my Department 3. The matter of items and common fees for autmated multi-channel pathology equipment was referred to the Medical Benefits Schedule Advisory Committee for advice. The Committee has made recommendations which are currently under consideration. {:#subdebate-56-20} #### Brisbane Airport: International Airport (Question No. 3112) {: #subdebate-56-20-s0 .speaker-KGH} ##### Mr Hansen: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When is it proposed to upgrade the international terminal at Brisbane Airport in keeping with other capital city standards. 1. What is the present weekly inward and outward movement of international flights at Brisbane Airport {: #subdebate-56-20-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Department, in co-operation with the State and Brisbane City representatives, is currently revising the master plan for Brisbane Airport and it is expected that the need for a new terminal area to cater for both international and domestic aircraft, passenger and freight handling will be confirmed. However, this involves a detailed and necessarily time-consuming study which has nevertheless been given high priority by both the Commonwealth and State Governments. Immediately that study is completeed we will be in a position to more specifically consider what needs to be done and the possible timing of some major airport developments. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. At present, there are eight inward and eight outward movements of international flights at Brisbane Airport. Of the total of sixteen movements ten are performed by Boeing 707's four by DC8's and two by Lockheed Electras. {:#subdebate-56-21} #### Medical Benefits Scheme: Prescription of Spectacles (Question No. 3191) {: #subdebate-56-21-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the reasons for the non-payment of a Commonwealth medical benefit for the prescription of spectacles. 1. Can he say whether some medical benefit funds pay a small benefit for the prescription of spectacles when prescribed by a registered medical practitioner but no benefit when prescribed by a registered optometrist. 2. If so, what are the reasons for this differentiation. {: #subdebate-56-21-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourables member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Medical Benefits Scheme was introduced to provide financial assistance towards meeting the cost of medical services rendered by qualified medical practitioners to members of registered medical benefits organisations. Section 4(4) of the National Health Act specifically precludes the payment of Commonwealth benefit for a professional attendance at which an examination of the patient's eyes is made in consequence of which spectacle lenses are prescribed. This provision applies even though the prescription of spectacle lenses is incidental to the main purpose of the consultation and irrespective of whether or not the doctor is a specialist. The decision to preclude payment of Commonwealth medical benefit in the above circumstances was made to ensure that the Medical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against allied professions such as optometry. By this exclusion the patient is in the same position whether the spectacles are prescribed by an ophthalmologist or by an optometrist. This matter was the subject of considerable discussion in both Houses of Parliament last year during the debate on the National Health Bill, as a result of which the Parliament decided to make no change in the situation. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. 1. The nature of the service for which the health insurance organisations provide an ancillary benefit and the conditions under which organisations pay, such benefits are matters for organisations management Committees to determine. {:#subdebate-56-22} #### Aircraft Noise (Question No 3243) {: #subdebate-56-22-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did Recommendation No. 23 of the Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise presented in October 1970 recommend that the Department of Civil Aviation should press for the reduction of aircraft noise certification limits and pursue a relentless course of imposing restrictions on any airline whose aircraft repeatedly exceed acceptable noise standards. 1. If so, what steps (A) have been taken and (B) are intended to be taken by the Department of Civil Aviation to implement this recommendation. {: #subdebate-56-22-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The 15th Session of the Assembly of ICAO which was held in Buenos Aires during the latter part of 1968 adopted an Australian proposal which called for the convening of a special Meeting on Aircraft Noise, and for the inclusion of any noise limitations and procedures that were developed in a new Annex to the Convention. The meeting was held during the following year and about 3 weeks ago the Council of ICAO adopted Annex 16 which sets out noise limitations which will be used in future aircraft certification programmes. In effect, this means that future subsonic jet aeroplanes will be substantially quieter than comparable types in operation at the present time. The Department of Civil Aviation, through its representation on the ICAO Committee on Aircraft Noise, will press for international limitations that will mean noise reduction in V/TOL, STOL and SST aircraft. The Committee has also been instructed to review at periodic intervals the feasibility of making existing noise certification standards more stringent. Action to introduce Commonwealth legislation to reflect the provisions of Annex 16 is in hand. This will, of course, involve Government and Parliamentary approval. It is expected that noise monitoring equipment will be installed at Sydney Airport by mid-1972 and this will enable the Department of Civil Aviation to measure the noise emitted by individual aircraft and to adopt any measures that are appropriate to the case. {:#subdebate-56-23} #### Medical Benefit Schemes: General Anaesthesia (Question No. 3312) {: #subdebate-56-23-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Is it a fact that the Department of Health pays for general anaesthesia at the prescribed rate in connection with a series or combination of professional services only to the extent that these services do not include assistance at an operation or series or combination of operations. {: #subdebate-56-23-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The amounts of Commonwealth and fund benefits payable for general anaesthesia are determined by reference to the type of anaesthetic administered and the amount of Commonwealth benefit payable for the specific operation or combination of operations for which the anaesthetic is administered. For the purposes of calculating the benefit payable for the anaesthesia service no account is taken of any benefit payable in respect of assistance at the operation. {:#subdebate-56-24} #### Health: Expenditure (Question No. 3348) {: #subdebate-56-24-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the details of (a) public and (b) private expenditure on health expressed as a percentage of the gross national product in each of the last 10 years. 1. What are the details of expenditure (a) in aggregate and (b) as a percentage of the total expenditure on health under the main heads of expenditure by <i) the Commonwealth (ii) the States, (iii) local authorities, (iv) private sources and (v) other sources in each of the last 5 years. {: #subdebate-56-24-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (il) At present comparable estimates of current account expenditure on health services in Australia are only available for the 3 years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1966-67. On the basis of these estimates (a) public and (b) private current account expenditure on health services expressed as a percentage of gross national product would be: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Estimates of current account expenditure on health services in Australia are only available in respect of 1 of the last 5 years, namely 1966-67. According to the estimates in that year the requested figures were as follows: {:#subdebate-56-25} #### Australian Wool Commission (Question No. 3435) {: #subdebate-56-25-s0 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr Gun: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount has the Government already lent to the Australian! Wool Commission to cover its operations, apart from the recent loan of 133.5m. 1. What is the full loan estimate for 1970-71. 2. What are the terms of the loan. 3. what sum has been advanced to the Commission by the private trading banks, and on what terms was this money advanced. 4. Will the Commission have difficulty in servicing the loan due to the fact that it has sold little wool from its stockpile and is not therefore accumulating any revenue. {: #subdebate-56-25-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government has already lent $12m to the Australian Wool Commission this financial year. 1. The estimate of the full loan by the Commonwealth to the Commission for 1970-71 is $17.3m. 2. The money lent by the Commonwealth is at an interest rate of 61 per cent per annum. 3. The trading banks have agreed to lend the Commission up to $34m, at an interest of 64 per cent per annum for the purchasing of wool under its reserve price operations. 4. Because of the present state of the wool market the Wool Commission has adopted a cautious approach in the re-selling of wool from its stocks. This is not to say that the present market situation will continue indefinitely. The Commision will sell its stockpile wool as and when the market conditions are propitious. {:#subdebate-56-26} #### States Finances: Receipt Duties (Question No. 1814) {: #subdebate-56-26-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the Premier of New South Wales in his 1970 budget speech that from his inquiries he was satisfied that the States would receive the revenue which was involved in the pending Commonwealth receipts duties legislation. 1. What was the (a) date and (b) form of the Premier's inquiries. 2. What reply was given to the Premier's inquiries. 3. Will he furnish an answer before the debate on the second reading of the legislation. {: #subdebate-56-26-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="O"} 0. *Yes.* {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (3) and (4) I do not know what inquiries the Premier was referring to, but the honourable member will know that legislation has been introduced to provide for the payment of additional grants to the States as compensation for loss of receipts duty revenue. {:#subdebate-56-27} #### Ambulance Charges (Question No. 2266) {: #subdebate-56-27-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether the minimum charge in Sydney for the use of an ambulance is 320 and $10 for pensioners, with an additional charge of SO cents per mile for the return journey from the ambulance station. 1. If so, is this charge greater than the most common fees for a visit to the patient's home by a qualified nurse and to the hospital by a doctor, using separate vehicles. 2. Can he provide details of the corresponding costs in other capitals and provincial centres. 3. Can he say what is the cost, and who pays the cost, of (a) training an ambulance bearer in Sydney, (b) wages of (i) ambulance men and (ii) trainees, (c) capital equipment and annual depreciation of an ambulance and (d) non-capital running costs per mile of an ambulance. 4. Can he also give the average training time of an ambulance bearer and the average length of service given after training. {: #subdebate-56-27-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Current ambulance transport charges in Sydney are $20 for the first five miles plus 50 cents per running mile theerafter. Pensioners are charged half-rates. Subscribers to the Central District Ambulance Service obtain free ambulance transport in New South Wales for an annual subscription of $5.00, and half-rates apply to pensioners and apprentices. 1. There is no most common fee prescribed for a visit by a qualified nurse to a patient's home. The most common fee for a visit to a hospital by a doctor or a specialist varies from State to State as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Ambulance authorities within the various States have advised the following corresponding costs in State Capitals and provincial centres. Information relating to ambulance charges for pensioners in some areas was not available from these State authorities. New South Wales The level of charges is the responsibility of each District Ambulance Service. The fees charged in Newcastle and Wollongong are the same as for the Sydney metropolitan area. In centres such as Goulburn, Tamworth and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, comparable charges are, respectively, $17.25 for 3 miles and 30 cents per mile thereafter; $20.00 call fee and 30 cents per mile; and $24.00 call fee and 50 cents per mile. Victoria-Melbourne Area $10 for the first 5 miles, $1 per mile thereafter. No charge is made to pensioners. The annual subscription to non-pensioner families for free ambulance transport in the Victorian Central Ambulance District is $3.00. Provincial Centres (Geelong, Ballarat, Peninsula and Bendigo) $7.50 for the first 5 miles, 60 cents per mile thereafter. Pensioners are transported free. District annual subscription rates are - Geelong $2.00; Ballarat $3.00; Peninsula $3.00; Bendigo $2.00 single, $3.00 family. General annual subscription rates are - Ballarat $5.00 (Victoria only); Peninsula $6.00 (all of Australia); Bendigo $4.00 single and $6.00 family (all of Australia). Queensland (Brisbane Area) Non-contributors to the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade are charged a flat amount of $10 per trip. Subscribers to the ambulance transport subscriber service obtain free transport for an annual fee of $5.00. Provincial Centres Charges are determined by a local committee of the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade. However, the standard charge, recommended by the Brigade's State Council, and ordinarily adopted is 30 cents per mile with a minimum charge of $9.50. Subscribers to the ambulance subscriber service obtain free transport for annual fees ranging from $5.00 to $10.00. South Australia (Metropolitan Area) Minimum charge (call out fee) is $10.00, with an additional charge of 50 cents per mile or part thereof. Pensioners are charged at flat rate of $6.00. In cases of hardship, this amount may be reduced or waived. Subscription fees for the ambulance transport subscriber service range from $4.00 p.a. ($40.00 rebate on any one call) to $8.00 p.a. ($200 rebate). Pensioners contribution rates range from $1.00 p.a. ($40 rebate) to $2.00 p.a. ($200 rebate). Provincial Centres Minimum charge is $10.00. Charges are calculated at 25 cents per mile from ambulance station to hospital and return. These charges also apply to pensioners. Subscription fees for pensioners and non-pensioners are identical to those applicable in metropolitan areas, with the addition of a lower non-pensioner contribution tables - $2.00 p.a. with $20 rebate. Western Australia The 14 paid ambulance services in the State make the following charges - Minimum $5.00; 50 cents per mile for the first 20 miles and 35 cents per mile thereafter, calculated on total ambulance mileage. Pensioners are charged half-rates. The St John Ambulance operates an ambulance transport subscriber service in metropolitan areas only. Charges are as follows: Charges made by the 90 volunteer ambulance services in Western Australia vary from 10 cents to 20 cents per mile. Tasmania Charges, State-wide, are $5 for the first three miles and 40 cents per mile thereafter An ambulance transport subscription scheme as such does not operate in Tasmania. However, ratepayers in municipalities which are members of an ambulance board have a levy of 0.2083 of one cent per dollar placed on their rate payments. This entitles these ratepayers to free ambulance transport. This system covers some 90 per cent of the population. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The New South Wales Ambulance Transport Services Board has furnished the following information - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Costs of training ambulance officers are shared jointly by the ambulance District employing the officer and the New South Wales Ambulance Transport Service Board. The District pays the officer's wages whilst he is attending the training school and the Board meets the cost of travel, accommodation and the conduct of the school. The estimated annual cost of running the training school is of the order of $28,000, an estimated $120 for each officer trained. 1. (i) and (ii) Wages of ambulance officers are paid by each District Committee from its own resources. These funds are supplemented by the District's share of grantsinaid paid by the State Government and allocated by the New South Wales Ambulance Transport Service Board. The current rates of pay for ambulance officers in Sydney, including the recent 6 per cent National Wage rise, are - There salaries are subject to additional amounts for the appropriate penalty rates for weekend work and 'on-call' alowances. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. The current cost of purchasing and equipping an ambulance in Sydney is of the order of $6,000 to $6,500 depending upon whether the vehicle is air-conditioned. Depreciation of a vehicle in the metropolitan area is usually over five years. Vehicles are purchased fromDistrict Committee's funds. 1. Non-capital running cost per mile of an ambulance in the Sydney metropolitan area is 68 cents including staff costs. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. In Sydney, ambulance officers (who must hold the St John's First Aid Certificate) undergo 3 weeks initial training in the Board's training school, which is supplemented by revisionary training in the officer's own District, and 'onthejob' training. Officers also receive periodical refresher courses of three weeks' duration. The average length of service given after training by ambulance officers in New South Wales is 111 years, {:#subdebate-56-28} #### Parliament House (Question No. 2300) {: #subdebate-56-28-s0 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have extensions to the Parliamentary building estimated to cost $3m been commenced this year? 1. What reasons can be advanced for this large expenditure at this time? 2. Why did the Government not permit discussion of the Order of the Day relating to the new and permanent Parliament House and the General Business notice relating to the site for the new building, which have been on the Notice paper since 8 April and 3 June 1970, respectively, before it agreed to the extensions to the present building? 3. Will he, when items of buisness have been dealt with by the House, order that urgent attention be given to the planning and construction of the new and permanent Parmanent House thus avoiding further wasteful expenditure on the present building? {: #subdebate-56-28-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A contract for extensions to Parliament House was let in late 1970 for approximately $2m and work commenced on site in the second week of January 1971. 1. The decision to proceed with the extensions was made by the government last year following consideration of urgent representations from the Presiding Officers regarding the critical shortage of parliamentary accommodation which has developed in recent years. However, in the light of the economic situation, the Government decided to defer the construction of the front east and front west elements of the extensions. The total extensions have been planned to provide reasonable but minimal accommodation and as such will not provide a longer term solution to parliamentary requirements. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Several more pressing matters have taken precedence over the two subjects mentioned. The Honourable Member will appreciate that in a situation where a new House would take quite some years to design and construct the Government has been faced with the need in the intervening period to provide some amelioration of urgent accommodation problems. 1. The question of the planning and construction of the New and Permanent Parliament House will be considered by the Government in the light of the parliamentary debate of the two matters mentioned by the Honourable Member in part 3 of his question. {:#subdebate-56-29} #### Third Party Insurance (Question No. 2522) {: #subdebate-56-29-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the situations in a Territory of the Commonwealth in which (a) the owner and (b) the driver of a motor car cannot succeed in a claim under third-party insurance for damages caused by a road accident. 1. What are the circumstances in a Territory of the Commonwealth which would prevent a passenger or a pedestrian from succeeding in a claim under third-party insurance for damages caused by a road accident. 2. Is there any merit in introducing legislation which will ensure that no person injured in a road accident will be excluded from coverage for damages. {: #subdebate-56-29-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In general terms, third-party claims by an owner or other affected persons will fail where negligence on the part of the other party cannot be proved. 1. The introduction of legislation to ensure that no person injured in a road accident will be excluded from coverage for damages would require the acceptance of the principle of 'absolute liability'. This question was considered in Victoria in 1959 by the Victorian Royal Commission on Third Party Insurance. The Royal Commissioner invesigated alternative schemes based on this principle but did not recommend its adoption. No State has accepted absolute liability as a basis for compensation of road traffic accident victims. Third Party insurance is the prerogative of State Governments and as the application of the principle would require simultaneous legislation in all of the States and Territories I do not think that it is appropriate for me to express a view. {:#subdebate-56-30} #### Medical Benefits Funds (Question No. 2792) {: #subdebate-56-30-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What is the (a) number and (b) percentage of contributors to registered medical benefits organisations who have not transferred to the new contribution table. {: #subdebate-56-30-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Mnister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The actual (a) number and (b) percentage of contributors to registered medical benefits organisations who have not transferred to the new contribution table is not available. However, information supplied by organisations indicates that as at 31st December 1970 there were approximately 45,000 contributors, equivalent to 1.2 per cent of total membership, still insured under the previously established medical tables. > >I wish to point out that the 1970 amendments to the National Health Act required that the registration of medical benefits organisations was to be conditional on their rules stipulating, among other things, that: > >contributors, other than those who as at 30th June 1970 had paid contributions in advance for a period extending beyond 30th September 1970, could not retain their membership of the previously established medical benefits tables after 30th September 1970; and > >Where contributions had been paid in advance for a period extending beyond 30th September 1970, the contributors could if they so wished, retain their membership in the previously established medical benefits tables up to and including the date to which the contributions were paid. > >Accordingly, the last date to which a contributor can retain membership of a previously established medical benefits table is 30th June 1971. {:#subdebate-56-31} #### Cyclamates (Question No. 2858) {: #subdebate-56-31-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What cyclamate-containing foods are marketed in Australia. 1. Is he able to say whether the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has imposed a ban on cyclamates. 2. If so, is similar action contemplated in Australia. {: #subdebate-56-31-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Cyclamates are permitted in low calorie foods and foods intended for consumption by diabetics. Low calorie foods as defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council are foods having a restricted calorie content, and include - soft drinks, cordials, biscuits, bread substitutes, jams, sauces, soft drinks basis in powder or solid form, jelly crystals - tablets - cubes and mix, fruit and vegetable juices, confectionary, and ice block mixes in powder or solid form. Foods intended for consumption by diabetics are those in which the normal sugar content has been replaced by artificial sweeteners such as cyclamates. This process of replacement of natural sugar for the benefit of diabetes sufferers is applied to a very wide range of foods marketed in Australia. 1. Yes. 2. Legislation with respect to food and drugs is the responsibility of the individual State Governments, the Commonwealth having responsibility only for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In these Commonwealth Territories, no action to impose a ban on cyclamates is at present contemplated. However, the National Health and Medical Research Council, which advises the States and the Commonwealth on health matters recommended at its 69th Session (November 1969) that cyclamates should continue to be permitted in low calorie foods and beverages in the amounts at present prescribed in the Standard for Artificial Sweetening Substances as published in Appendix VIII to the report of the Sixty-third Session of Council, provided that such foods and veverages are labelled "TAKE ON MEDICAL ADVICE ONLY" '. At the Seventieth Session (April 1970) the Uniform Poisons Schedule was amended by adding to Schedule 3 the new entry 'Cyclamic Acid and its salts other than as permitted in the Standard for Artificial Sweetening Substances' together with the warning 'TAKE ON MEDICAL ADVICE ONLY" '. {:#subdebate-56-32} #### Nursing Homes Benefits (Question No. 3011) {: #subdebate-56-32-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many days of nursing homes benefits were paid by the Commonwealth during 1968-69 and 1969-70. 1. How many of these days also attracted intensive care benefits. 2. How many days of benefits were paid to patients discharged into nursing homes from (a) public hospitals and (b) psychiatric hospitals during 1968-69 and 1969-70. {: #subdebate-56-32-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Supplementary nursing home benefit was introduced with effect from 1st January 1969. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. This information is not available. {:#subdebate-56-33} #### Television: Advertising by Tobacco Interests (Question No. 3048) {: #subdebate-56-33-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether there is a ban on television advertising by tobacco interests in the United States of America. 1. If so, can he say whether the ban has led to (a) unprecedented Press advertising by those interests, (b) cessation of widespread mandatory anti-smoking propaganda introduced to balance tobacco advertising on television, (c) a slow increase, also evident in Australia, of (i) free advertising in the form of placards displayed by sponsors at televised sports events, (ii) frequent broadcast mention of sponsors of special airconditioned mobile broadcasting facilities for country shows and special events, (iii) free equipment for surf lifesavers and (iv) more frequent depiction of smoking in televised fiction. {: #subdebate-56-33-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Television advertising of cigarettes in the United States of America has been banned since 1st January 1971. 1. Since the imposition of the ban, there has been a cancellation of the previous requirement that a certain amount of time had to be devoted to publicising the hazards of smoking. I am unable to say whether the ban has had the other suggested results. {:#subdebate-56-34} #### The Parliament: Legislation (Question No. 3067) {: #subdebate-56-34-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: How many Bills have been introduced under each Ministerial portfolio during the last five years. {: #subdebate-56-34-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of the Bills introduced are shown on the attached schedule. 13932/71- JJ- J05J {:#subdebate-56-35} #### Questions Without Notice (Question No. 3180) {: #subdebate-56-35-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >How many questions without notice have been asked by each Opposition Member during each of the last five years. {: #subdebate-56-35-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the 'honourable member's question is as follows: >A distribution of the questions asked is shown on the attached schedule. Electoral (Question No. 3188) {: #subdebate-56-35-s2 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons have been charged and convicted for offences under the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the last 10 years. 1. What was the (a) nature of the offence and (b) penalty imposed in each case. {: #subdebate-56-35-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 10,161. (2)- {:#subdebate-56-36} #### Public Service (Question No. 3237) {: #subdebate-56-36-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Haw many officers are in the (a) first division, (b) second division and (c) third division of the Commonwealth Service. 1. How many officers in each of these divisions receive an actual salary in excess of $9,500 per annum. {: #subdebate-56-36-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- I have been informed by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The exact numbers of officers at today's date are not readily available. Precise figures (excluding Parliamentary Departments) are available for 30th June 1970 and would not have changed very significantly. On this basis the answer is: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. First Division - 27 1. Second Division - 720 and 2. Third Division- 57,127. 1. Current actual salaries for the numbers employed at 30 June 1970 (see (1) above) exceed $9,500 in respect of: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. First Division - 27 1. Second Division - 720 and 2. Third Division- 5,276 Note that, for officers on a salary range, the maximum of the range has been used in the figures shown. {:#subdebate-56-37} #### Immigration: United States (Question No. 3340) {: #subdebate-56-37-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >How many applications for assistance under the United States Passage Assistance Programme for persons of (a) European and (b) other descent have been (i) received, (ii) approved and (iii) rejected in the latest year for which statistics are available. {: #subdebate-56-37-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics arc not maintained to record separately the number of applications or persons applying for assistance underthe United States Passage Assistance Programme received from persons of European, or other descent. > >The following statement provides an estimate of the number of European persons and persons of non-European descent who applied for passage assistance during 1970: The difference between (i) and the total of (ii) and (iii) broadly represents applications withdrawn and applications still under active consideration, although some applications approved in 1970 would have been lodged before 1970. {:#subdebate-56-38} #### Political Broadcasts (Question No. 3202) {: #subdebate-56-38-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: >What total amount was expended on each (a) television channel and (b) radio station in each of the States by each of the political parties which contested the recent Senate election. {: #subdebate-56-38-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The total amount expended by political parties is not available as all parties have not submitted returns of expenses. The information shown below has been extracted from the only returns submitted by the various political parties which contested the 1970 Senate Elections. Immigration: Britain (Question No. 3339) {: #subdebate-56-38-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >How many applications for assisted passages from Britain for persons of non-European descent have been (a) received, (b) approved and (c) rejectedin the latest year for which statistics are available. {: #subdebate-56-38-s3 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics are not maintained to record separately the number of applications received for assisted passages from Britain for persons of non-European descent. > >During the year 1970 it was estimated that 300 applications were lodged and they were determined as follows: {:#subdebate-56-39} #### Acquisition of State Railways (Question No. 3333) {: #subdebate-56-39-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Premier of New South Wales tell his predecessor at the Loan Council Meeting on 26 June 1970 that New South Wales was willing to hand over to the Commonwealth the whole of the New South Wales Railways system and to cede to the Commonwealth any State powers which might be necessary to make such a transfer effective. 1. Did his predecessor write further and has he himself written in answer to the letter from the Premier of Victoria on 2 September 1970 concerning the acquisition of the Victorian Railways by the Commonwealth (Hansard, 16 February 1971, page 86). 2. Has a decision been made on either proposal. 3. If so, what was the decision. 4. If not, has consideration been given to referring the proposals to the Bureau of Transport Economics, as was done with the proposed Canberra-Yass railway (Hansard, 20 April 1971, page 1745). {: #subdebate-56-39-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The proceedings of the Loan Council are confidential and Iam not in a position to disclose any statements made by the Premier of New South Wales at the June 1970 meeting. 1. I replied to the Victorian Premier's letter on 30 April. 2. and (4) 1 have conveyed a decision to the Victorian Premier on his request but at this stage the question of any announcement is a matter for the Premier. 3. Not applicable. {:#subdebate-56-40} #### Decentralisation (Question No. 3384) {: #subdebate-56-40-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names and positions of the Commonwealth members of the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation. 1. Has the committee met since 7th February 1969; if so, on what dates. {: #subdebate-56-40-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As the honourable member will know, itis not the policy of this Government to disclose the type of information for which the honourable member asks. 1. As stated by my predecessor in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 1179 on 17th April 1969 (Hansard, Page 1274) the CommonwealthState Officials Committee on Decentralisation established a Technical Sub-Committee to supervise the detailed work being undertaken by the Committee. As also indicated in that reply the Technical Sub-Committee in turn agreed that its work should be carried on by means of direct contacts between the Commonwealth and State officers concerned; these contacts have included meetings of working groups composed of these officials. No meeting of the parent Committee has been held since 7 February 1969. However, direct contact between Commonwealth and State officials has continued and there have been two working group meetings, on 18th May 1970 and 6th April 1971. I would direct the honourable gentleman's attention to my answer being given today to Question No. 3117 by the Honourable Member for Riverina in which is outlined progress made since February 1969. {:#subdebate-56-41} #### Finance Insurance Corporation (Question No. 3386) {: #subdebate-56-41-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which departments are represented on the interdepartmental committee established to report on the proposal to set up a Finance Insurance Corporation to insure long-term loans to rural producers. 1. What are the terms of reference of the Committee. 2. What was the date of the establishment of the committee. {: #subdebate-56-41-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >There is no interdepartmental committee on this matter, but there is consultation between Departments. Northern Territory: Teachers (Question No. 2485) {: #subdebate-56-41-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Will he bring to date the information on teachers in the Northern Territory given on 4th September 1970 (Hansard, page 1078). {: #subdebate-56-41-s3 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As explained in the answer to the previous question asked by the Honourable Member, the admin istration of education by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory is shared by the Department of Education and Science and the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration. As before the answers to this question are shown separately In accordance with the responsibilities of each authority. > >Community Schools under the Control of the Department of Education and Science > >At the end of 1970 all teachers at Community Schools were employed by the South Australian Education Department and the statistics in the sections which follow have been compiled with the co-operation of that Department. > >(a) (b) (i) (ii) The following numbers of teachers (i) resigned (ii) took leave during 1970: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Percentages are based on the numbers of full-time teachers at December 1970 as shown in the table immediately below. 1. The numbers taking leave relate to purposes other than sick leave. Multiple applications have been excluded from the figures - i.e. there is no duplication. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) and (b) The number of teachers employed in Northern Territory Community Schools at December 1970 was as follows: Note: At the beginning of 1971, and consequent upon the decision of the South Australian Government to withdraw its teachers over the next five years, a number of teachers employed by the Commonwealth began teaching in Northern Territory Community Schools. There were 11 male and 46 female primary teachers and 9 male and 10 female secondary teachers. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. In. 1970 all teachers in Northern Territory Community Schools were employed by the South Australian Education Department. Trainee teachers destined to teach in the Northern Territory are in training under bond to that Department. No teachers are trained specifically for teaching in the Northern Territory. {: type="A" start="B"} 0. Schools under the control of the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration All teachers are employed by the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration of the Department of the Interior which has made available all the statistics in this section. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Number and percentage of teachers who (1) resigned, (ii) took leave, (a) during 1970. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The total number of teachers at Welfare Division schools at December 1970 was (a) 101 male and (b) 108 female- total 209 teachers. 1. The number of students being trained as teachers for Welfare Division schools during 1970 was (a) 24 male and (b) 32 female- total 56 teacher trainees. 2. The Welfare Division does not employ secondary teachers. The teachers employed by the Division are engaged in pre-school, primary or specially designed post-primary classes for Aboriginal children. {:#subdebate-56-42} #### Metric System: Conversion (Question No. 3385) {: #subdebate-56-42-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which departments are represented on the inter-departmental co-ordinating committee on metric conversion. 1. What are the terms or reference of the committee. 2. What was the date of the establishment of the committee. {: #subdebate-56-42-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### 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. VIP Aircraft (Question No. 2568) {: #subdebate-56-42-s2 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which Ministers used VIP aircraft between 1st November and 31st December 1970. 1. What were the names of the passengers who accompanied the respective Ministers. 2. What were the areas visited and what was the object of each flight. {: #subdebate-56-42-s3 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following -answer -to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) See attached list. 1. The areas visited are shown on the attached list. The object of each flight was to meet commitments associated with parliamentary and ministerial responsibilities. VIP Aircraft (Question No. 2997) **Mr McLeay** to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: >Which Members of the Opposition used VIP aircraft between 1 January 1969 and 31 December 1970. > >What were the names of the passengers who accompanied the respective Members. > >What areas were visited, and what was the object of each flight. {: #subdebate-56-42-s4 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="a" start="l"} 0. and (2) See attached list. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The areas visited are shown on the attached list. The object of each flight was to meet commitments associated with parliamentary responsibilities. {:#subdebate-56-43} #### Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 3153) {: #subdebate-56-43-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Citizen Military Forces officer training courses have been conducted in the past 12 months. 1. In what locations are courses currently being conducted. 2. Have any scheduled courses been delayed because of lack of available funds. 3. Is an officer school in progress with the 10th Medium Regiment based in Geelong; if not, when is it anticipated that a course will be commenced. {: #subdebate-56-43-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 23 CMF Officer production courses have been conducted over the last 12 months. 1. Courses are currently being conducted at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Townsville. A course was completed in Hobart on 1 April 1971. 2. No. 3. No. The bulk of CMF officer production is centralised at Officer Cadet Training Units (OCTUs) and at University Regiments. The units are located in capital cities except where the distance between capital cities and major CMF centres is considerable as in the case of Townsville. In units outside the metropolitan area of a hospital city, potential officers are trained under unit coaching arrangements and are carried on the strength of OCTU which controls their studies, assignments, and practical training through unit supervising officers. In Victoria, this system is employed for country units and sub-units except that, where these units are reasonably close to the metropolitan area, as in the case of Geelong, candidates attended specified weekend and/or camp activities with the OCTU. It is anticipated that candidates for OCTU from the Geelong area will commence training as country students in approximately six weeks. Tertiary Education: Salary Increases (Question No. 3009) {: #subdebate-56-43-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which States have taken up Commonwealth matching grants for (a) university and (b) college of advanced education salary increases arising from the 6 per cent national wage judgement, and from what date are the increases being paid in each case. 1. What are the dates from which each previous increase was paid in each State. {: #subdebate-56-43-s3 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr David Fairbairn:
Minister for Education and Science · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is assumed that the question refers to academic salaries only. > >(a) All States have advised that sufficient funds will be available to attract Commonwealth supplementary grants for academic salary increases in universities arising from the judgement in the 1970 National Wage Case. In compliance with that judgement, the increases are being paid from the commencement of the first pay period on or after 1st January 1971. The relevant commencement dates for payments are as follows: New South Wales Macquarie University - 7th January 1971 University of Sydney and New England - 8th January 1971 Other New South Wales universities - 1st January 1971 All other States- 1st January 1971 {: type="a" start="b"} 0. So far 5 States have advised tht they will be applying the National Wage Decision to academic staff in colleges of advanced education. The relevant commencement dates are as follows: New South Wales- 1st January 1971 Queensland - 4th January 1971 South Australia- 4th January 1971 Western Australia - 1st January 1971 Tasmania - 1st January 1971 {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Universities - It is not clear whether this part of the honourable member's question refers to the dates of previous increases arising from National Wage judgmentsor to the dates of all previous increases. If it is considered to be the former, the answer is that there have been no previous increases arising from National Wage judgements. In the latter, the answer is as follows: Prior to the 1970 National Wage case, academic staff at Australian universities received salary increases on four occasions since 1963. The increases were paid in all States as from the dates shown below: 1st July 1963 1st January 1964 1st July 1967 1st January 1970 Colleges of Advanced Education - The Sweeney and Eggleston Reports provided the opportunity for States to bring salaries for lecturers and senior lecturers in colleges of advanced education into line with the scales applicable in universities and allowed for adjustments to academic salaries following national wage decisions. The flow-on of the 1970 National Wage Decision to academic staff in the colleges is the first adjustment since these new arrangements were made. Army Recruiting (Question No. 3293) {: #subdebate-56-43-s4 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. During each of the last 10 financial years (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising for Army recruiting campaign purposes in Australia, (b) how many Army personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries and (d) how many recruits joined the Army. 1. Was a recruiting campaign conducted in other countries during the same period. 2. If so, (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising, (b) how many Army personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries and (d) how many recruits joined the Armyin respect of each country. {: #subdebate-56-43-s5 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. A recruiting programme is conductedin the United Kingdom and within the Far East Land Forces Command in Malaysia-Singapore for exBritish Army officers and other ranks. The campaign commenced for officers in October 1967, for other ranks in January 1970 in the United Kingdom, and in July 1970 in FARELF. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Since August 1969 one officer has devoted the bulk of his time to recruiting overseas. He is the recruiter/psychologist on Australian Army Staff in London. Prior to this date recruiting formed a small part of the duties of one staff officer. In FARELF recruiting forms a small part of the duties of one staff officer. 1. The only costs of recruiting have been the advertising costs. However, the salary including all allowances of the officer referred to in 3 (b) above has been $9,307 p.a. at current rates. {:#subdebate-56-44} #### Army Survey Corps (Question No. 3201) {: #subdebate-56-44-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the establishment of each squadron and each sub-section of each squadron of the Army Survey Corps. 1. How many officers and men are actually engaged in each case. 2. What is the shortage of officers and men. 3. How many vacancies for officers have arisen in each : of the past 5 years which (a) have not been filled and (b) which cannot be filled. 4. How many vacancies for (a) officers and (b) other ranks are now being filled by national servicemen. {: #subdebate-56-44-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The officer vacancies which could not be filled from our resources were: 1966- 9 1967- 6 1968- 8 1969- 12 1970- 22 {: type="1" start="5"} 0. (a) Officers- 6 {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Other ranks- 28 (Question No. 3226) {: #subdebate-56-44-s2 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: >How many Army personnel are at present in civilian gaols. {: #subdebate-56-44-s3 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are currently twenty seven members in civilian gaols either serving a sentence of imprisonment or remanded in custody for civil court hearing. 1. This figure fluctuates as it is normal for any member sentenced to a term of imprisonment to be discharged from the Army while the sentence is being served. {:#subdebate-56-45} #### School Cadets (Question No. 3221) {: #subdebate-56-45-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many schools had cadet units and what was the total strength of the cadet units in each State and Territory in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965 and 1970. 1. To what extent has his Department collected and acted on information on (a) the number of pupils undertaking higher secondary schooling and (b) the location of new secondary schools. 2. Does his Department collect information on the number of former cadets who enlist in (a) the Regular Army and (b) the Citizen Military Forces; if so, will it publish this information. {: #subdebate-56-45-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >(1) {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The last investigation into the number of schoolboys of cadet age in all suitable secondary schools in Australia was carried out in 1968. A schoolboy cannot be enrolled in the Australian Cadet Corps prior to the first day of January of the year in which he reaches the age of 14 years. However, for the purposes of providing an estimate of numbers of school boys who would be eligible to join the corps, figures relating to school boys aged 14 or older were used. No allowance was made for those 13 year olds who would be eligible to join under present conditions, nor those aged 14 or over who would be ineligible on medical grounds. Secondary Schools with less than 50 boys aged 14 or over were omitted from the calculations as, under present conditions, a cadet unit cannot be raised at a school unless a minimum of 50 boys are prepared to enrol in the Cadet Unit. The figures used were provided by the Bureau of Census and Statistics and the Department of Education and Science, and were the latest available. On the basis of the above criteria the appropriate number of school boys in secondary schools aged 14 or over, was 258,339 in 1,289 suitable secondary schools. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Accurate information on general enlistments in the Regular Army is not available; however, the Royal Military College, Duntroon and the Officer Cadet School, Scheyville do record this information in respect to entrants and recent figures were as follows: {:#subdebate-56-46} #### Hospital Benefits (Question No. 3364) {: #subdebate-56-46-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Australian Medical Association submit to the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs that catastrophic expenses in relation to health are very largely due to inadequate hospital benefits, particularly for long term hospital admissions. 1. If so, does this view accord with that of the Government. 2. When did the A.M.A. make this submission. 3. What alterations have been made to (a) Commonwealth hospital benefits and (b) insurance fund hospital benefits since that date. 4. Are alterations under consideration at present; if so, when will they become effective. {: #subdebate-56-46-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Government recognises that long-term illness and under-insurance have given rise to financial difficulties for some hospital patients. 2. It is understood that representaitves of the Australian Medical Association appeared before the Committee on 3rd September 1968. 3. and (5) In relation to long-term illness, the hospital benefits Special Account Plan was amended with effect from 1st January 1969, to provide contributors with the full insured rate of hospital benefits (but not exceeding the amount of the hospital account) irrespective of the period of hospitalisation. The Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs (June 1970) stated that, as a result of improvement in this Scheme, the widespread hardships that existed in the application of exclusion rules in hospital insurance for chronic illness have largely been overcome . . .' (paragraph 179 of Report). The Subsidised Medical Services Scheme was introduced on 1st January 1970. and was extended to provide tapered health insurance contribution subsidies from 1st July 1970. One of the purposes of this Scheme has been to reduce under-insurance in the lower-income sections of the community. In a statement to the House on 4th March 1970, my predecessor announced that the Govern.ernment had decided to adopt the recommendation of the Nimmo Committee to the effect that only three hospital benefit tables - directly related to standard (public), intermediate and private ward charges - be operated in each State. He also indicated recently that a fourth benefit table, related to private hospital charges, may be introduced in some States. One of the main objectives of this proposal for rationalisation of hospital benefit tables is the elimination of under-insurance against hospital charges (refer paragraphs 4.4-4.6 of Nimmo Committee's Report). When public hospital charges in South Australia were increased on 1st March 1971, hospital benefits organisations introduced a four-table structure related to the four levels of charges in public and private hospitals in that State. My Department is planning for similar action in the other States, probably in conjunction with the next increases in public hospital charges in each of those States. {:#subdebate-56-47} #### Doctors' Incomes (Question No. 2980) {: #subdebate-56-47-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: Can the Minister give the information which his predecessor promised to seek on 16th February 1971 (Hansard, page 16), on the average income of doctors and the percentage of their income which is derived from Commonwealth and medical fund benefits. {: #subdebate-56-47-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. The objective of the surveys carried out by my Department was to compare the costs of medical services processed by the medical benefits funds during the quarter ended 31st December 1969 and 31st December 1970. While the statistics obtained are clearly indicative of a substantial growth in doctors' incomes in the later period, they do not indicate the average income of doctors or the percentage of their income which is derived from Commonwealth and fund benefits. {:#subdebate-56-48} #### Health Services (Question No. 3359) {: #subdebate-56-48-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the report Future Health Care Services in the A.C.T. state that, unless immediate action on the recommendations of the report is undertaken, Canberra's health services will lag far behind its physical plan and by the end of the decade could be in disarray. 1. If so, what action is in hand to implement the recommendations of the report, and when will a definitive statement on a proposed programme for the development of health care services in the Australian Capital Territory be made by the Government. {: #subdebate-56-48-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The report contained 19 recommendations. Action had already been taken on six of these (No's 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18) prior to the receipt of the report. Action has been taken on a further ten (No's 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 19) since receipt of the report. Two of the remaining recommendations (No's 1, 3) are now under active consideration by the Government leaving only one recommendation still to receive detailed consideration (No. 15). {:#subdebate-56-49} #### Medical Services: Costs (Question No. 3392) {: #subdebate-56-49-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Department of Health provide to honourable members the tables it provided to the Australian Medical Association, showing the number and the cost of medical services, extracted from claims processed by medical benefit funds in each State during the quarter ended 31st December 1969 and the quarter ended 31 December 1970. 1. Has the Department prepared such tables for later quarters. {: #subdebate-56-49-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The tables are as follows- Figures extracted from claims processed by medical benefits organisations. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-56-50} #### Nursing Home Benefit (Question No. 3247) {: #subdebate-56-50-s0 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What specific criteria are laid down by the Commonwealth to determine whether the medical condition of a person warrants the paying to a nursing home proprietor of (a) $2 per day nursing home benefit, (b) additional supplementary benefit for intensive care of $3 per day and (c) additional supplementary benefit for rehabilitation of$3 per day. {: #subdebate-56-50-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The National Health Act (section 56) provides that the $2 per day nursing home benefit is payable in respect of each qualified nursing home patient accommodated in an approved nursing home. To the extent that they are relevant to this question, the effect of certain definitions contained in section 4 of the Act is that a 'qualified nursing home patient' is a person who requires accommodation and nursing care for the purpose of: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. medical or surgical treatment by or under the supervision of a medical pracitioner; 1. obstetric treatment by or under the supervision of a medical practitioner or registered obstetric nurse; or 2. dental treatment by or under the supervision of a legally qualified dental practitioner. In accordance with section 57 of the Act, the benefit of $2 per day is payable on the basis of a certificate by a private medical practitioner, to the effect that the patient's condition necessitates nursing home care. Beyond these requirements, there are no specific administrative criteria concerning the medical condition of patients for the purposes of payment of the benefit of $2 per day. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In accordance with section 57A of the Act, the supplementary nursing home benefit of$3 per day is payable only if the Director-General of Health (or his delegate) is satisfied that: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. the patient requires intensive nursing home care; and 1. the nursing home is adequately fitted, furnished and staffed for the purpose of providing such care. The effect of the definition of 'intensive nursing home care' is that the supplementary benefit is payable only where, by reason of illness, disability, etc., the patient is bedridden or virtually bedridden and is wholly or substantially dependent upon nursing care (section 57 A (6)). Each application for supplementary benefit is considered on its merits by a Departmental medical officer, having regard to information provided by the patient's medical practitioner and the matron of the nursing home concerned. This information relates to such matters as whether the patient is bedridden or ambulant and the degree of nursing care required. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. There is no Commonwealth benefit applicable to patients in nursing homes undergoing rehabilitation treatment specifically. {:#subdebate-56-51} #### Nursing Home Benefit (Question No. 3325) {: #subdebate-56-51-s0 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What amount has been paid by the Commonwealth in subsidies to nursing home proprietorsin respect of the (a) $2 per day nursing home benefit and (b) $3 per day additional supplementary benefit in each of the last 5 years. {: #subdebate-56-51-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The total amount of Commonwealth nursing home benefits paid to proprietors of nursing homes (on condition that equivalent amount were deducted from patients' accounts) during each of the last five years were: {:#subdebate-56-52} #### Specialist Medical Consultations (Question No. 2783) {: #subdebate-56-52-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: >By what (a) number and (b) percentage did the number of specialist medical consultations for which Commonwealth benefit was paid between 1st July and 31st December 1970 exceed the number between 1st July and 31st December 1969. {: #subdebate-56-52-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Prior to July 1970 medical benefits organisations did not generally maintain records on a continuous basis of the numbers of the medical claims made in relation to all individual items in the benefits schedule. Consequently,the information requested is not available to my Department. Australian Wool Commission (Question No. 3435) {: #subdebate-56-52-s2 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr Gun: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount has the Government already lent to the Australian Wool Commission to cover its operations, apart from the recent loan of $33.5m. (2)What is the full loan estimate for 1970-71. 1. What are the terms of the loan. 2. What sum has been advanced to the Commission by the private trading banks, and on what terms was this money advanced. 3. Will the Commission have difficulty in servicing the loan due to the fact that it has sold little wool from its stockpile and is not therefore accumulating any revenue. {: #subdebate-56-52-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government has already lent $12m to the Australian Wool Commission this financial year. 1. The estimate of the full loan by the Commonwealth to the Commission for 1970-71 is $17.3m. 2. The money lent by the Commonwealth is at an interest rate of 6) per cent per annum. 3. The trading banks have agreed to lend the Commission up to $34m, at an interest of 6½ per cent per annum for the purchasing of wool under its reserve price operations. 4. Because of the present state of the wool market the Wool Commission has adopted a cautious approach in the re-selling of wool from its stocks. This is not to say that the present market situation will continue indefinitely. The Commission will sell its stockpile wool as and when the market conditions are propitious. Nursing Home Beds (Question No. 3244) {: #subdebate-56-52-s4 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon noitce: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total number of nursing home beds in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 1. How many of these beds are (a) privately owned, (b) voluntarily (charitable and religious) owned and (c) State owned. 2. What are these figures expressed as a percentage of the total number of beds in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 3. What is the annual growth rate by which the total number of beds is increasing in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. {: #subdebate-56-52-s5 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) 45,756 (b) Australian Capital Territory: {:#subdebate-56-53} #### Health Services (Question No. 3358) {: #subdebate-56-53-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Will the Minister consider divorcing Australian Capital Territory health services from the administrative control of the Department of Health and placing them under the administration of a localised health authority charged with their maintenance and with their balanced, planned and integrated development {: #subdebate-56-53-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The future management and control of hospitals and other health services in the Australian Capital Territory is being considered by the Minister for Health and it is expected a submission will be placed before the Government shortly. {:#subdebate-56-54} #### Australian Capital Territory Health Care Services (Question No. 3360) {: #subdebate-56-54-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total cost of the inquiry, report and publication of the report by LlewelynDavies Weeks Forestier-Walker & Bor of London on the future health care services in the Australian Capital Territory. 1. What particular qualifications did this group have which gained its selection to conduct this inquiry over many eminent Australian authorities who have shown themselves well-equipped by their research and writings to conduct this inquiry successfully. 2. If qualifications were seen in this group above and beyond those available from Australian authorities, can the Minister say why it has failed to produce one original proposition on the development of future health care services in the Australian Capital Territory. 3. Is there,in fact, sufficient expertise in the Department of Health to have furnished findings of at least the same standard as were submitted by this group. {: #subdebate-56-54-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $38,280 1. The group bad an international reputatiion for its work in town planning and the design of hospital and ancillary medical services. In addition the group had recently carried out other similar extensive health care studies for regions in Canada and the United Kingdom. 2. There is no shortage of new ideas for the development of health care services, and many are being tried out all over the world. The problem for the Australian Capital Territory is to select the most appropriate of these ideas, to modify them to suit local conditions and to quantify the needs in terms of staff and facilities. 3. Yes. However it was considered desirable to have an investigation undertaken by an independent group so that the resulting recommendations would be more readily acceptable. {:#subdebate-56-55} #### Royal Australian Air Force: Aboriginal Members (Question No. 3144) {: #subdebate-56-55-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Aborigines are in the Air Force. 1. How many are (a) officers and (b) noncommissioned officers. {: #subdebate-56-55-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In the Royal Australian Air Force Aborigines are treated as members of the community, race is not recorded on enlistment and there are no special statistics kept of their number, rank, category or progress in the Service. {:#subdebate-56-56} #### Royal Australian Air Force: Court Martial of Officers (Question No. 2937) {: #subdebate-56-56-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP ns asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that three former Australian Air Force officers, Flying Officers Bond, Prins and Swinnerton (RAAF Reserve), were arrested by RAAF service police on 29th June 1970. 1. Were these men detained in RAAF custody until a court martial was convened to try them on 21st July 1970. 2. Did the court martial, after a lengthy trial, rule on 7th August 1970 that Flying Officer Swinnerton, the only one of the accused to be tried, was not subject to the court's jurisdiction as he was a member of the RAAF Reserve. 3. Was the matter then referred to the convening authority and the threat of a further court martial held over the men for another 11 days until 18th August 1970 when the Department informed the press that no further proceedings were contemplated. 4. Is it a fact that these men were not officially notified of the intention of the Department not to proceed against them until they received a letter dated 10th December 1970 signed by the Secretary, Department of Air. 5. Did counsel for the Commonwealth appear during the course of the court martial, and present arguments that the court had no power to subpoena members of the Commonwealth Public Service. 6. Did the presentation of this argument apparently indicate that there is no equality before the law in military courts and that members of the Public Service and, in particular, members of the Department of Air have a special immunity. 7. Did the Secretary, Department of Air, refuse to answer a subpoena and to appear before the court, and only attend when defence counsel requested that he be committed for contempt of court. 8. Has the Department of Air subsequently refused to compensate these men for loss of wages incurred from the time of their arrest until the conclusion of the proceedings. 9. Does the Department still insist that Flying Officer Bond is still a member of the Permanent Air Force. 10. Will the Government ensure that in future former members of the Services are not subject to arbitrary arrest and detention at any time. 11. Will the Minister state further action he intends to take in this matter. {: #subdebate-56-56-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The three Royal Australian Air Force officers referred to were arrested on 29th June 1970 by officers of the RAAF Provost Service. 1. Following their arrest on the morning of 29th June 1970 the three officers were escorted to RAAF Base Laverton where two charges against them of failing to obey a lawful command and being absent without leave were heard by the Commanding Officer Base Squadron Laverton. Later that morning they were placed in open arrest. From and inclusive of 7th July 1970 the three officers were held in open arrest during normal working hours only and were permitted to leave the Base and return home at stand-down each evening. On 9th July 1970 the Air Officer Commanding Headquarters Support Command the Convening Authority, directed trial by General Court Martial on 21st July 1970. 2. Yes. 3. The findings of the court martial were referred to the Convening Authority on 7th August 1970 and on 11th August 1970 the Judge Advocate General submitted his opinion in writing to the Convening Authority for consideration. On 11th August 1970 the Convening Authority took the decision that the court martial be dissolved and the charges dismissed. That decision was communicated to the Defending Officer of Swinnerton on 11th August 1970. On 18th August 1970, following consultation with my Department, the Convening Authority issued a press statement confirming his decision of 11th August 1970 and making it a matter of Public record that no further action would be taken in relation to the charges against the. three officers. 4. Letters to the three officers dated 10th December 1970 signed by the Secretary, Air Board, confirmed the decision previously conveyed to the Defending Officer and published in the press, that it was not intended to take any further action in relation to the charges against the three officers. Those letters also advised the officers of the decision of the Air Board with regard to their future status in the RAAF. 5. No. 6. See answer to question (6). 7. During the first 3 days of the court martial proceedings (i.e. 21st to 23rd July 1970 inclusive), the Secretary of my Department was represented by an officer of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor's Office. In addition a senior officer of my department attended and gave evidence with regard to certain documents listed in the subpoena served on the Secretary of my Department. On 23rd July 1970 the court martial was adjourned to enable the Secretary of my Department to obtain legal advice as to his liability to appear before the court in person and to produce certain other documents listed in the subpoena. The court was reconvened on 3rd August 1970 when the Secretary of my Department did attend in person. 8. Flying Officers Prins and Bond wrote to my Department requesting that consideration be given to payment of compensation of unspecified amounts in respect of alleged loss of wages and other matters. They were advised that my Department does not consider that there is any valid reason for the payment of such compensation. It is relevant to state that, following their arrival at RAAF Base Laverton on 29th June 1970 the three officers refused to furnish information necessary for completion of the documents that would have enabled them to receive Air Force Pay. 9. No. 10. So far as I am aware, no member or exmember of any part of the Defence Force, and indeed no person in Australia, is subject to arbitrary arrest and detention at any lime. 11. There is no action required. {:#subdebate-56-57} #### Royal Australian Air Force: University Squadrons (Question No. 2995) {: #subdebate-56-57-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP ns asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many University Squadrons are there in the Royal Australian Air Force. 1. How many members are there in these squadrons. 2. What qualifications are necessary to become a member of a squadron. 3. How many (a) law, (b) engineering, (c) medical, (d) science and (e) arts students are there in these squadrons compared with the number of students in each of these faculties in the universities where the squadrons are established. 4. How many members of these squadrons (a) were students of (i) public schools, (ii) high schools and (iii) other schools and (b) are students in university colleges. 5. How many days training, including camps, bivouacs, canoe trips, etc., are required for the squadrons each year. 6. How many night parades are required, and what training occurs during a night parade. 7. Is a member of a squadron not required to perform national service. 8. What is the position or rank of a squadron member at the end of his training. 9. What is the average length of service of a member at the point of his transfer to the Air Force Reserve. {: #subdebate-56-57-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are six University Squadrons in the Royal Australian Air Force, one located in each State Capital City. 1. The Squadron strengths are: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Candidates foi enlistment as University Squadron cadets must be British subjects permanently resident in Australia, medically fit by RAAF standards, not less than 17 years of age and potential commissioned officers. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. This question was omitted. 1. and (8) University Squadron members are required to undertake 56 days training in two years. The squadrons plan to conduct 28 days training per year as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Camps, bivouacs, etc. - 20 or 21 days. 1. Night parades - 21 or 24 as required. Each night parade constitutes i of a day training and comprises a squadron parade and two periods of instruction on selected subjects from the University Squadron Cadet Training Course Syllabus: Officer Training Organisation and Administration History and Development ot the RAAF Drill Military Specialties. {: type="1" start="9"} 0. University Squadron service is only an alternative to National Service when the person concerned has elected that such service be alternative service. This election and acceptance for University Squadron Service must be made before the due date for National Service Registration. The Cadet must serve continuously and efficiently for a period ot two years with the squadron, satisfactorily complete 5 years on the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve and graduate in his faculty within these periods of service. 1. Members of University Squadrons are enlisted as Cadets for the duration of their term with the squadron. On successful completion of this term Cadets are granted a provisional commission in the Reserve with the rank of pilot officer. On completion of their university studies and graduation the provisional commission is confirmed and in the case of medical and dental students the rank of flight lieutenant is granted. 2. Two years is the average length of service for a cadet. {:#subdebate-56-58} #### Royal Australian Air Force: Pay of Musicians (Question No. 2608) {: #subdebate-56-58-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the weekly rate of pay for first grade musicians in the Royal Australian Air Force. 1. Have musicians been reclassified from group 7 to group 9. 2. What is the difference in pay between these groups. 3. Can he say what is the current pay rate for musicians employed by the ABC Symphony Orchestra. 4. How many members of the RAAF Central Band have resigned in the past year. 5. Have pay adjustments for RAAF musicians been approved. 6. If so, when are the increased payments to commence. {: #subdebate-56-58-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at 18th February 1971 the mustering of Leading Musician was allocated to pay group 9. An Aircraftman in this group receives an active pay rate of $52.57 per week. This rate converts to $57.26 per week, for purposes of comparison with civilian rates. (In arriving at this comparative rate adjustments are made to recognise the provision of rations and quarters at public expense, and the value of saving in civilian clothing upkeep, while the element in active pay for service disabilities and other special service emoluments are disregarded). 1. Following a review in 1967-68 the rates of pay for RAAF musicians were adjusted to equate the margin for skill paid to a theatre musician under the Musicians Award, giving group 9 rates of pay. In 1969 it was decided to form 2 Regional Bands in addition to the RAAF Central Band: The majority of the musicians to be employed in the Regional Bands would not be required to attain the same skill level as those in the Central Band. A new mustering known as Musician was introduced with pay group 7 effective from 22nd August 1969. The existing Musician mustering was re-named Leading Musician and remained on group 9, i.e. the higher skilled Central Band musicians became Leading Musician Croup 9 and new recruits with lesser skills became Musician Group 7 Both musterings are now in group 15, see answer to question 6. 2. The difference in pay between Group 7 and Group 9 is $3.85 per week. 3. The ABC Musicians Determination No. 45 of 1950 governs pay rates for the ABC Symphony Orchestras. This Determination covers many different conditions; however, paragraph 5 states: The minimum rates of pay of members of the applicant organisation employed by the commission in its orchestras shall be as follows: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Employees engaged by the week in orchestras, the working hours of which are 30 hours per week: 1. Base Grade musician - $119-10 per week 2. Principal - $135.40 per week 3. Leader - $169.30 per week {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Employees engaged by the week in orchestras, the working hours of which are 24 hours per week: 1. Base Grade Musician - $95.20 per week 2. Principal - $108.40 per week. 3. Leader- $135.40 per week 4. The Commission may, at its discretion, pay allowances in addition to the minimum rates prescribed in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of this clause. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Losses of members of the RAAF Central Band from 1st January 1970 to 8th May 1971 are: 4. Termination of period of enlistment - 8 personnel 5. Medically unfit for further service - 1 member 6. On request with 90 days notice - 2 personnel {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Pay adjustments for RAAF musicians have recently been approved. Under this approval, which has been given without prejudice to further consideration of pay alignments and final groupings, both Leading Musicians and Musicians in the RAAF became group 15 musterings with an active pay rate of $64.05 per week, which converts to a rate of $68.74 per week, for comparison with civilian rates. 1. The pay adjustments are retrospective, payable from 8th April 1970. * Defence Equipment (Question No. 1486) {: #subdebate-56-58-s2 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: asked the Minister for Defence upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total value of military equipment purchased overseas in each of the financial years 1954-55 to 1969-70 inclusive. 1. What are these figures expressed as a percentage of the total amount spent by the Defence group of departments on equipment procurement during each of those years. {: #subdebate-56-58-s3 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: * Replaces answer published on page 200 17 February 1971.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710506_reps_27_hor72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant