House of Representatives
20 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 409

PETITIONS

Broadcasting and Television

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

– I present the following petition:

Tothe Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth:

That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.

The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our national identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, mores and way of life, particularly through the media of radio and television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping theflow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries. 5 The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should -

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian television and radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a Nation.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth:

That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of television programmes available to them and thattelevision as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of ton few hands.

The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed bythe Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effectinga considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our national identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, mores and way of life, particularly through the media of radio and television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should -

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian television and radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a nation.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr DOBIE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Prime Minister · COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following pet ition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth:

  1. That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.
  2. The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed- by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.
  3. The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our national identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, mores and way of life, particularly through the media of radio and television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.
  4. Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.
  5. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should -

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas pro grammes in a way that will encourage an Australian television and radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a nation.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27-J per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47i per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical list.

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

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 271 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47i per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties he removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

To lbc Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in (he Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr CASS:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Member;, of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use of international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effect? 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 thai 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 ot the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

That honourable members urge upon ‘he 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.

Education

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth - Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

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.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

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

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

Petition received and read.

Education

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

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 citizens of the Commonwealth respecfully sheweth: Whereas:

The Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

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.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

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 WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth - Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

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.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allow able for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

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

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

Petition received.

World Development Fund

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I present the fol lowing 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 arms races, in which Australia is involved, have war as their natural conclusion.

That peace movements have never succeeded except by general acceptance of a superior jurisdictionby previously independent sovereign regimes and their followers.

That the size of the supreme unit of government has progressed, along with increasing communications, bringing mutual understanding and the means for unified administration to nations consisting of units formerly alien to each other.

That for the survival of mankind and the lasting security of nations, sovereignty over the means of making war must be passed to the citizens of a unitary world.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will give leadership to other citizens by declaring adherence to the general principle of working for a democratic legislative, judicial and executive authority, with constitutionally limited and adequate powers over armaments and disarmament and over diversion of a proportion of war budgets to a world development fund.

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

Petition received and read.

page 413

NOTICE OF MOTION

The Parliament

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That the Standing Orders be amended by inserting after standing order 49 the following new standing order: 49a. That, at 10 p.m. each sitting day, the Speaker shall put the question: “That the House do now adjourn” which question shall be open to debate; if the House be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the question: “ThatI do leave the Chair and report to the House”; and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith put the question: “That the House do now adjourn” which question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the House or the Committee be in division at the time named, the Speaker or the Chairman shall not put the question referred to until the result of such division has been declared: and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the notice paper for the next sitting day.’.

Mr Speaker, this is a move for 10 o’clock closing.

page 413

QUESTION

ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to yourself, Mr Speaker. It refers to the Prime Minister’s announcement outside the House purporting to appoint Assistant Ministers. I leave aside the propriety of making such an announcement before the House has been given an opportunity to vote on the motion moved by the honourable member for Grayndler on 4th May last, disapproving of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers. Honourable members will notice that this motion is Order of the Day 39 on today’s notice paper. Sir. you yourself will remember Speaker Cameron’s rulings on a similar matter. In particular you will have read his statement:

Several eminent parliamentarians, including Lord Palmerston, were disqualified from holding seats because they had accepted offices under the Crown although no fee or emolument was attached to these offices.

Sir, you will remember the Prime Minister telling the House on 29th April last: … it would be of great assistance to a Minister if his assistant minister could, during the Committee stages of a Bill, sit at the table of the House and represent his Minister in the discussion of clauses and amendment asthey arise. I shall be consulting with the Presiding Officers on this matter to ascertain whether, to achieve this, an amendment of Standing Orders will be necessary.

I ask: What is your ruling on this situation in the light of the ruling by your predecessor, Speaker Cameron, and what has beenthe outcome of the discussions which the Prime Minister said on 29th April he would seek to have with you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I want to say in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that as yet I have not been officially informed of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. The only report of which I know is that which appeared in the newspapers. The Prime Minister and I have corresponded regarding the appointment of Assistant Ministers. Any change in the status of honourable members of this House to that of Assistant Ministers necessitates a great number of changes in the Standing Orders. Of course, the Standing Orders Committee could meet for that purpose and it would rest with the House to accept or reject the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.

page 414

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen newspaper reports of a statement made to the Press by the Leader of the Opposition that the letters between the Australian Government and the Prime Minister of Veitnam in April 1965 show that the South Vietnamese Government merely accepted an Australian offer and that ‘there would in fact have been nothing dishonourable in the Australian Government stating forthrightly in 1965 that it was acting in collaboration with the Government of the United States but the Government chose to sell its commitment to the Australian people on the basis of an urgent request from South Vietnam’. Will the Minister inform the House whether the facts as stated are correct?

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

-I have seen Press reports of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition and I have obtained a copy of the statement which he issued to the Press. May I say at once that the Prime Minister tabled the letters concerned in this House at 2.15 p.m. yesterday? The Leader of the Opposition subsequently addressed this House and did not make any reference to this here where, of course, any inaccuracy would immediately have been detected and could have been corrected. The facts are those which have been stated quite recently by the Prime Minister, in a statement issued as late as 22nd June, and last Wednesday in this House I stated the facts again. 1 will not go over them again, but T remind the House broadly of them.

In late 1964 and early 1965 there was constant consultation between the South Vietnamese Government and the Australian Government, and the United States Government and the Australian Government and our other allies. Over this period there were a number of oral requests from the South Vietnamese Government for military assistance. In fact, it was always known and accepted that in the event of a decision to send trops to Vietnam, because of Article IV of the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Australia would require a written request. Subsequently that request was obtained.

In case the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it was represented in 1965 or at any time subsequently that we had, in his words, reacted hastily, as it were, to an urgent request and that we had not said that we acted in collaboration with the United States, I think I should remind him and the House that quite the contrary is the fact. In the very first statement in this House and subsequently the facts were put to the nation. I remind the House of what Sir Robert Menzies said in announcing the decision on 29th April 1965. After referring to the receipt of the request, he said:

We have decided - this has been after close consultation with the Government of the United States-

The Leader of the Opposition regrets that we did not refer to our collaboration with the United States - to provide an infantry battalion for service in South Vietnam. In case there is any misunderstanding, I think I should say, Sir, that we decided in principle some time ago - weeks and weeks ago - that we would be willing to do this if we received the necessary request from the Government of South Vietnam and the necessary collaboration with the United States. This is not to be regarded as something that has suddenly arisen out of more recent events. [ suggest that, knowing the true facts as he must, the Leader of the Opposition ought not to endeavour to twist or misrepresent them.

page 414

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs a supplementary question: Firstly, can the honourable gentleman say whether there were any written requests or acceptances of offers in respect of the sending of advisers in May 1962, or in respect of the sending of 2 battalions, or later 3 battalions, instead of the one battalion referred to in the correspondence tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday? That is, was there any other written request from the current Government of South Vietnam to the Australian Government concerning Australian troops in Vietnam on any occasion other than April 1965? Secondly, if there was such a request or requests, will he take steps to table copies of them also? Thirdly, will he table minutes of the conversations between the Australian Ambassador in Saigon and the then Prime Minister of South Vietnam which are referred to in the correspondence tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday? Finally, does he agree with the statement by an earlier Foreign Minister, the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr Hasluck, in these terms:

The Government of the Republic of Vietnam has not made any particular request lo SEATO collectively to take action on its behalf, lt has addressed various appeals from time to time to both SEATO and non-SEATO members. In the absence of a specific approach from the Government of the Republic of Vietnam invoking the Treaty, the question of a report to the Security Council has not arisen.

Does the honourable gentleman agree with his distinguished predecessor that there has never been a specific request under SEATO by South Vietnam to Australia?

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

– In reply to the speech of the honourable member, and dealing first with 1962, there was a request but I am not saying it was a request in writing because that would be irrelevant, and ( do not propose to say. There was a request in 1962 for advisers. This did not fall within Article IV of the treaty and it is, therefore, not my intention to deal further with that. It is an irrelevant matter. So far as subsequent troops are concerned, again what was done was in accordance, in the Government’s view, with Article IV of the treaty so far as it applied to the protocol state of South Vietnam. I do not accept that there is any criticism of the Government in respect of the subsequent despatch of troops. As to the conversations which took place between our Ambassador in Saigon and the Prime Minister of South Vietnam there is, of course, a record of those conversation. As the Leader of the Opposition very well knows, it is not the practice to table these confidential reports which we receive from our posts around the world and I certainly do not intend to change the practice. Therefore, I will not table that document. So far as the reference to the statement made by Sir Paul Hasluck is concerned, I have not recently referred to this but I take the Leader of the Opposition to be referring to the fact that in the United Nations one has an obligation to lodge certain arrangements, such as treaty arrangements.

Mr Whitlam:

– SEATO requires it in this case.

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

– No, there is no obligation under the SEATO treaty to table the exchange of documents which we had with the South Vietnamese Government. I will look further at this reference to what was said by Sir Paul Hasluck in case there is any further light f can throw upon the matter for the Leader of the Opposition.

page 415

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and refers to the recent Press notices stating that a report on the Great Barrier Reef has just been completed. ! ask the Minister: Will each honourable member receive a copy of this important report and, if so, when?

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I know of the great interest that the honourable member for Herbert and, 1 believe, the honourable member for Gellibrand, have shown in the Great Barrier Reef. Copies of the report referred to are at the moment in short supply due to a dock strike in the United States of America but I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Parliamentary Library at an early date for honourable members to examine. Further copies will be available at the office of the Australian Tourist Commission and also the Queensland Tourist Bureau at a cost of $25 each - they are fairly bulky documents. 1 hope that all honourable members will take this opportunity of studing this report which shows what tremendous tourist potential is available if the Great Barrier Reef is developed in an imaginative and orderly manner while still preserving the ecological environment which is so important. The report also shows for those private developers who could be interested cost benefit analyses of possible avenues’ of development which will be of value to all people interested in one of Australia’s great potential tourist attractions.

page 416

QUESTION

FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer: What are the latest statistics of the amount of Australian foreign exchange reserves held in the United Kingdom and the United States? What safeguards exist, whether by agreement or otherwise, to shield the value of these reserves in any alteration of the present exchange relativities between the Australian dollar, the pound sterling and the United States dollar? Do the arrangements still operate for the retention of certain Australian foreign exchange reserves by the United Kingdom negotiated by a former United Kingdom Prime Minister as a buttress for a loan to the United Kingdom by major financial institutions?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not want to say too much about the current exchange situation. Really it is to be described as an international exchange crisis.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that honourable members observe the Standing Orders. Every honourable member should know, and if honourable members do not know I will tell them, that all interjections are out of order. I suggest that honourable members obey the Standing Orders while Ministers are on their feet.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The exchanges are closed in Europe. I expect there will be meetings in the United States at the weekend between the 10 countries which have undertaken to provide reserve currencies when called upon. I think the situation can be described at this stage only as an impasse. With the United States having taken certain action it now remains to be seen how the European countries will respond. The United States wishes to achieve a revaluation; the European governments do not wish to do so. Exchanges are closed. Regarding our own exchange, the Reserve Bank has authorised the trading banks to provide exchange for the discharge of commercial liabilities and to avoid inconvenience to travellers. I understand that, essentially, the Bank of England has adopted a similar decision. I hope that some solution to the problem will emerge over the weekend but it would be pointless for me to anticipate it in any way or to forecast the result.

Australia’s reserves are now at the highest pitch they have ever been. They exceed $2.3 billion. A large holding of those reserves is in United States dollars, which is one of the reserve currencies. The other reserve currency is sterling, and as the honourable member indicated in his question, we gave undertakings some 3 or 4 years ago - I have forgotten exactly when - that we would hold 40 per cent of our reserves in sterling. We are in excess of that and consequently the British Government has undertaken to give us guarantees that if there is any devaluation of sterling we will get the equivalent in undepreciated dollars. We will continue to maintain this position. The only point I should add is that because of Australia’s economic situation - its stability, its attraction as a place of investment and, importantly, its trading balance, especially in secondary industry areas - our dollar is in high regard throughout the world.

page 416

QUESTION

THE CABINET

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister and refer to the critical and well-publicised pre-Cabinet meeting between himself and the Deputy Prime Minister on the level of the wool subsidy. Within hours of this meeting this important secret was announced throughout Australia. It was announced that both Ministers had agreed to a wool subsidy to 36c per lb. As only the 2 Ministers were involved in the incident, is it a fact that the Prime Minister arranged for the decision to be leaked? If not, who did? Within hours after Cabinet had ratified the agreed price, thus confirming the accuracy of the leak, the Press reported this Cabinet decision and the Prime Minister’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ proudly, but blatantly, named him as the man in Cabinet who, in the words of the editor ‘had sensibly limited the subsidy to one year’. I ask the Prime Minister: Is this not an example of a blatant leak from Cabinet? If the leak was not made by the Prime Minister, he must surely admit that it was a blatant leak from Cabinet.

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

– It is true that statements appeared in the Press shortly after I had discussions in my room with the Minister for Trade and Industry. But I point out to the House that it was to the marked advantage of the Government and particularly of myself that no statement whatever should be made about the amount of the payments that we were to make in respect of deficiency payment for wool. 1 have no information whatsoever as to where the information came from. I am not one who, by innuendo or by an attempt to create false impressions, wants to imply that any particular individual was responsible for giving the information.

I believe that there were very solid grounds for thinking that many other people could have come to the conclusion that the amount would be somewhere between 35c and 40c per lb. It was known that the organisations were putting their maximum request at 40c per lb. It must have been recognised that it would be highly doubtful whether this amount would be agreed. I can say no more about the statement than that it would not have been in the interests of the Minister for Trade and Industry or of myself for these figures to be prematurely released. As 1 said in regard to another question that 1 was asked in the House, of course the information could have come from other sources; but, as I have no facts on which I can make a statement, I certainly am not prepared to broadcast suspicion throughout this House.

page 417

QUESTION

MUTTON PRICES

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware that mutton prices at Western Australian stock markets are around 3c to 4c per lb, and on occasions lower? Can the Minister say what overseas markets are available and what prices per lb are being received by mutton exporters from those markets, which would represent around 50 per cent of the Australian production? Is the Minister aware that there is a grave shortage of abattoir facilities in Western Australia, which has resulted in restricted buyer competition? As the shortage of funds seems to be one of the factors delaying the establishment of a new abattoir, will the Minister indicate whether Commonwealth Development Bank funds could be used to assist in establishing abattoir facilities? If these funds cannot be used, will the Minister indicate from what source the required capital might be made available?

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

– I will try to answer at least some of the questions asked by the honourable member. First of all, depressed prices certainly are being paid for mutton, especially in Western Australia. The price in Western Australia seems to be lc or 2c per lb below what is being paid in the eastern States. This is no doubt due to an over-supply situation and an inadequacy of abattoirs in that State to handle the kill. I know that Midland Junction is to double ils killing capacity very shortly. As the honourable member would know probably better than I, there are plans to establish a killing works at Katanning. As far as obtaining funds for this purpose is concerned, if a proprietary company were to seek funds through the Commonwealth Development Bank its circumstances would be examined in the same light as would the circumstances of any other industrial activity. So there is a possibility that funds could be obtained from that direction.

The honourable member mentioned the prospects for mutton exports. We have had a very good year. In fact, exports were only a few tons short of the record set in the previous year. Taking into consideration that most of our works were deregistered throughout last year so far as exports to the United States of America are concerned, it was quite an outstanding performance. Most of these works have now been re-registered and are exporting large quantities to the United States of America. I think our total exports were about 132,000 tons. The principal market opportunities for the forthcoming year would seem to be the United Kingdom, Greece, Canada, the United States of America and Japan. I believe that we will make substantially greater sales this coming year than we have in the past. The price received for mutton carcasses is about 19c per lb and that for mutton cuts is about 27c per lb.

page 417

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. The right honourable gentleman will have noticed that according to the Estimates, spending on the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 1971-72 will rise by $783,000, or 22 per cent. Is this an example of the ruthless pruning of Government spending to which the Treasurer referred in his Budget Speech? Why should spending on ASIO expand at such a rate when the Government is setting an example by eliminating conspicuous spending? What sort of increase in subversive activity is the Government anticipating to justify increased spending of this magnitude?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think that it was a remarkable achievement by the Treasury and the Government to be able to cut down the original bids to the amount that is in fact provided for in the appropriations. lt was an action that was designed to establish a psychology in which we could hope there could have been a brake on inflationary forces and trends within the economy. I believe that over time it will have an impact and will carry out the Government’s intention to put a restraint, particularly a psychological restraint, on both the causes and the effects of inflation itself. It does not mean that because we have reduced substantially the original bids - and I took a prominent part with the Treasurer in ensuring that these cuts took place - we necessarily had to make cuts throughout every single section of the public and the civil service and administration. As to the part of the honourable gentleman’s question relating to ASIO, it has been a constant practice, ever since the Australian Labor Party was in government in the long distant past, that we do not answer questions relating to ASIO in this House, and I have no intention whatsoever of giving the honourable gentleman any information at all relating to the operations of this organisation.

page 418

QUESTION

GALLUP POLLS

Mr IRWIN:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is gratified at the fact that 52.2 per cent of people are satisfied with him as Prime Minister. Has he noted the poor showing of 35.8 per cent achieved by the Leader of the Opposition in his handling of his position?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I hate to speak about myself. But I can say that I am delighted to see the figure of 35.8 per cent for the Leader of the Opposition.

page 418

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask a question of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I hope I have the correct name of the portfolio because I notice that I cannot check it from the daily Hansard since the names of the McMahon Ministry are omitted. There is a heading and nothing underneath - presumably to cope with the day to day changes. I ask the honourable gentleman: Will he release the report which the then Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs commissioned Dr Frank Lancaster Jones, senior fellow in sociology at the Australian National University, to make on the present distribution and probable future growth of our Aboriginal population, or does he concur with that Minister’s action in suppressing the report on the ground that it would have caused a furore. I am quoting from today’s Canberra. Times’. I also ask him why he has instructed Mr Barry Dexter, the Director of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, to cease making public statements and delivering speeches on Aboriginal Affairs which at least the former Minister permitted him to do.

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– Just to get my title correct, I am also Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. The Leader of the Opposition referred to 2 matters. The first report by Dr Lancaster Jones was prepared at the. request of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs in order to advise it on the possible rate of growth of the Aboriginal population. The report has been received by the Council. It has not been suppressed. The only thing that my predecessor said was that in his opinion it was not worth publishing. The figures would not have caused a furore. In fact the Minister thought that the estimates were on the low side, not on the high side. Therefore he felt that the basis for some of the figures suggested needed revision. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to look at the report I will make it available to him. Because of those facts I do not think it is worth wide publication.

As for the second matter, there was a report in one of the Perth newspapers of a speech given by Mr Dexter. The report, as written, indicated that what Mr Dexter said conflicted with Government policy. I asked him whether this was the case and he told me that he had been misreported. I told him that in future I wished him to let me have an indication of what he proposed to say at any meeting before he said it so that I could see that it conformed with Government policy. That is the right of every Minister. If the Leader of the Opposition looks at the report from which he quoted and which appeared on page 2 of the ‘Canberra Times’, he will see that the person who wrote the article regards it as the perfect right and duty of a Minister to tell members of the Public Service that they are “to clear with the Minister concerned what they propose to say before they say it in public. That is a right which I shall continue to assert.

page 419

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Cotton growers throughout Australia, particularly in the Kennedy electorate where cotton has developed into a major industry, will have noted that the Treasurer’s Budget Speech made no reference to a continuation of bounty payments on raw cotton production. Could the Minister advise me of the results of my representations on behalf of growers in my area for a continuation of bounty at the rate of $3m a year for the next 5 years?

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

– The honourable member and a number of others in this House, together with those representing the cotton industry, have made submissions to me suggesting that the cotton bounty be continued for another 3 years and that it be increased to a figure of the order of $3m. Some of the submissions suggested that it should be continued for another 5 years. The original cotton bounty legislation was introduced in this House back in 1963. In the crop years from 1964 to 1971 a total of some §24. 8m will have been allocated by the Commonwealth Government to the support of this industry. When my predecessor last introduced a cotton bounty Bill in this House he announced that the bounty for that year, 1969, would be S4m; for the 1970 crop year it would be $3m; for the 1971 crop year it would be $2m; and that from the end of February 1972 the bounty would cease.

The Government has considered carefully the circumstances of the industry, including the fact that since the introduction of this last terminating bounty the industry has pursued expansion. The Government has noted that the very considerable contribution made by it has enabled the industry to gain self sufficiency. In the circumstances the Government does not believe it is justified in continuing the bounty beyond the period which my predecessor announced in the Bill introduced in this House back in 1969.

page 419

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes, on 2 counts. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has been running around the country publicly blaming me - he did so on an Australian Broadcasting Commission programme

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have said on many occasions in the House that honourable members can say where they have been misrepresented but they cannot debate it.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister publicly blamed me on the ABC and in newspapers for the loss of our wheat market in China. This allegation is false and I shall have great pleasure in proving this during the first debate we have on wheat. I have been misrepresented on a second count; I believe this is malicious. The Deputy Prime Minister has been publicly telling everyone that a paper which I wrote in February this year entitled ‘Labour’s Federal Rural Policies’ was thrown out by the Australian Labour Party’s Federal Conference. I wish to quote from the document Annual Conference of the Country Party in Western Australia’ by the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, Leader of the Australian Country Party. He said:

A paper entitled ‘Labor’s Federal Rural Policies’ by Rex Patterson, was put before the ALP Federal Conference in Launceston last month.

Sir, this is false in every sense of the word. The paper was not written for nor was it placed before the Federal Conference in any shape or form. It represents the only public exposition of any political party’s rural policy, including the non-existent policy of the Country Party. What was placed before the Federal Conference was a series of resolutions from Australian Labour Party branches throughout Australia, and certainly not my document in any shape or form. I think it is quite wrong for the Deputy Prime Minister of this nation to state publicly such a thing in a written document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member may not make comment; he may only make his personal explanation.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes, I have. The honourable member for Dawson says that I have made inaccurate statements. If he also reads that speech he will see the actual words he used in the ABC programme ‘This Day Tonight’ in which he criticised his own Party in almost a hysterical manner which was of little service to his Party.

page 420

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I move:

I do so because the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced in today’s Press the appointment of 6 assistant Ministers without reference to you Mr Speaker, or the Parliament. They are: The honourable members for Corangamite (Mr Street), Cook (Mr Dobie), Cowper (Mr Robinson), Wimmera (Mr King), Boothby (Mr McLeay) and Senator Marriott. At the very time when this announcement has been made there appears on the notice paper Order of the Day No. 39 which relates to a motion that we take note of an announcement by the Prime Minister to appoint assistant Ministers to which motion I moved an amendment for the addition of these words: …… and expresses its disapproval of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers.

That motion has been adjourned. The Government sought to avoid a decision on it at that time. Now, although this motion is still under consideration by this Parliament, the Prime Minister has shown utter contempt for parliamentary procedure by going outside this Parliament without reference to you, Mr Speaker, announcing the names of 6 assistant Ministers. Mr Speaker, in your wisdom you said this morning that the House and the Standing Orders do not provide for these appointments. Everyone knows that they have no constitutional basis. As you said, Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders would have to be changed to enable the assistant Ministers to be appointed. Yet this announcement has been made. Before this is done let us debate the motion that I have put before the Parliament. Let us see the constitutional position and let us see how honourable members with their sense of responsibility are prepared to vote on the motion I have put forward. Is the Parliament to be run constitutionally by you, Mr Speaker or just at the whim of the. Prime Minister

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honourable member is going a little outside the motion. At this stage we are debating the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr DALY:

– I agree and we recognise the situation. I thought that I might point out that, as there is a motion before Parliament at this stage, there should be no reason why Parliament should not debate it. 1 do not go into the pros and cons of the situation, but the announcement has been made. It has been announced that 6 members will be added to the 27 already in the Ministry. At this stage we are told of the fait accompli. I suggest that there are other reasons why we should debate this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member cannot debate the matter at present. He should debate the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr DALY:

– Mr Speaker, I am endeavouring to point out to you, in your wisdom, that I believe that it is contempt of Parliament to announce the appointment of 6 additional members to the Ministry at a time when this matter is on the notice paper. Therefore I have moved the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders in the hope that the Government will see the wisdom of letting the House express its views on the matter before the appointments are made. If I might say so, without going into the pros and cons of the matter, I thought that at least the House should be entitled to decide whether it is constitutional that these appointments should be made. Surely Parliament was entitled to be told of the appointments before they were announced in the Press. Surely, Mr Speaker, you at least were entitled to be told officially of the appointments, other than through the correspondence that passed between you and the Prime Minister. Above all, should not the members have been given the opportunity to debate this matter at some length?

When the matter was under discussion in May, there was a good debate on it. There were sensible arguments advanced - no doubt from both sides. All factors were pointed out at that time. In the middle of the debate, when the matter could have been decided, what happened? It was adjourned on a motion by the Government. Why was it adjourned at that time? lt was adjourned because the Prime Minister feared that the House would reject the proposition that Assistant Ministers be appointed. When the debate was adjourned in May, it appeared that there were members on the Government side who, for once, would have voted against what they thought was an unconstitutional procedure. Now the Prime Minister is seeking to avoid a vote on it. Unless my present motion is carried, when the adjourned debate does ultimately come on, we could have a situation in which Parliament has disapproved the appointment of Assistant Ministers yet the Prime Minister has already appointed 6. That would be a Laurel and Hardy show. These members would not be entitled, in the opinion of the House, to be Assistant Ministers and yet they would have been appointed.

There are other reasons why the appointments should not be made. At present the Ministry has 27 members. There are 9 reserves on the back bench. They must feel humiliated. A former Prime Minister now is not good enough to be an Assistant Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Chair has been fairly lenient to the honourable member. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr DALY:

– I agree. I do not wish to transgress your ruling. I have formally moved that the Standing Orders be suspended. I believe that, in the interests of this Parliament, it should decide whether it is constitutional and right to have the appointment of Assistant Ministers announced before a vote on the matter is taken. I moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to avoid the situ ation, which I mentioned a moment ago, of the House disapproving of the appointment of Assistant Ministers who may well have been appointed. I have formally moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders. I hope that the House will carry that motion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I second the motion. I hope that my contribution to the debate will be on the same high level as the contribution of my friend the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). This is a fairly serious matter that we are looking at now. Mr Speaker, you have been put in a most invidious position because you have no been told very much about this move. You have received letters, you told us. 1 have no doubt that the letters have indicated merely the intention of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) rather than your disapproval of the contemplated move. I know, Mr Speaker, that you will disapprove of the move that is contemplated because as the chief custodian of the Parliament’s rights and its obligations under the Constitution of the Commonwealth you will see to it that the Constitution is not abrogated in any way.

The first thing you will recognise is that the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives cannot override the Constitution no matter how much a Prime Minister would like to see it done. I will read the relevant part of the Constitution. Section 64 states:

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than 3 months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

That is the Constitution. That is the law that binds us all. That is the law that binds the Parliament. That is the law that the High Court is charged with upholding. That is the law that keeps this Commonwealth together and makes it what it is - a Commonwealth. You, Mr Speaker, are reaching your moment of great truth. You are sitting in a very responsible position. You are now about to make a decision that will go into the history books of this country. Will the future students of history read of Sir William Aston as another Sir Thomas More, or will they read of him-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What did you think I was about to say?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion before the House relates to the suspension of Standing Orders. It is not a question of debating the whole ambit.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, it is not a question of debating the whole ambit. I agree with you, with great respect, and I have no right to talk about sharpened daggers that the Assistant Ministers will be plunging into the backs of their Ministers, but I can-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member keeps on in this strain when I am endeavouring to assist him I will deal with him.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I realise all that, but in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders I am entitled to give the reasons why I think that the motion I wish to have debated and voted upon ought to be so debated and voted upon.

Mr SPEAKER:

-In this I agree with the honourable member.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– When I point out to you that the motion that was moved by the Prime Minister in the earlier part of this year is a motion that, in my opinion, should be first disposed of before the Parliament goes ahead with the appointment of Assistant Ministers, you must see the logic of my argument. We ought to suspend the Standing Orders because before we do anything about finalising the appointment of these Assistant Ministers, we must clear the decks and ascertain whether the Prime Minister has the right constitutionally to do this, and I think that for that reason we should now suspend the Standing Orders and we should take a vote on whether what is proposed is valid. In order to emphasise the seriousness of the proposals let me state what it is proposed to do. The Assistant Ministers will be sworn in as ‘ members of the Executive Council. I do not know whether that is understood, but the Assistant Ministers will be sworn in as members of the Executive

Council, if you please, and yet this major departure from the constitutional position which this Parliament has previously upheld is to be taken without the Parliament itself determining whether it should be taken or whether it is constitutional. In his statement the Prime Minister said:

  1. intend that the Assistant Ministers will be sworn as Executive Councillors. They will thus form part of the Federal Executive Council whose function, under section 62 of the Constitution, is to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth.

Let us incorporate into Hansard the text of section 62 of the Constitution. It states:

There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

These are not under secretaries, Sir, about whom there was debate when you and I first came into this Parliament; these are people of an entirely different standing. These are people, to use the Prime Minister’s further description of them, who

As members of the Federal Executive Council, the Assistant Ministers will in general be able to excercise statutory functions of the Ministers they are assisting - including the making of appointments and the performance of other functions expressly conferred on the Minister - provided he has authorised them to this effect . . The Assistant Ministers will be assigned to assist certain Ministers of Cabinet rank, who have the responsibility, not only of administering their own departments, but of taking part in the continuing process of consultation which is an essential feature of effective Cabinet government.

He goes on to say that it is important that Ministers should be directly answerable to Parliament for the administration of their departments. Unfortunately, this is not a time for levity and I do not propose to engage in it but, Sir, you must take a firm stand here. You should, and I know that you will, think long and very carefully over this proposal that is now being imposed upon the Parliament. I believe that the Parliament itself cannot take this thing lightly. If we are not careful and if we take this vital step now, we will be creating a precedent. We are governed by precedents as much as we are by statutory law and by judge made law. Precedents set by laymen become the accepted law of the country. This precedent is making a law and if you make a law now that will permit the appointment of Assistant Ministers who will be members of the Executive Council, there ls nothing to stop the present Prime Minister appointing another 6 next month, another 6 the month after and another 6 the month after that. Indeed, what is there to stop him? This is the question we all should ponder. What is there to stop the Prime Minister appointing every person sitting on the Government benches as an Assistant Minister? There will be nothing to stop him because the Constitution does not say: ‘You may appoint 6 Assistant Ministers’. The Constitution states that no person shall hold an office of profit under the Crown unless he is a Minister. But these are Ministers except that they will not hold an office of profit under the Crown. This is the odd thing. They will not hold an office of profit under the Crown, but they will be members of the Executive Council and will be permitted, subject to the Minister’s delegated authority, to make appointments and to give effect to the decisions that would normally be carried out by the Minister. This, I believe, is such a serious matter that the people of Australia will expect the Parliament to first clear the decks before it goes on with this proposal. I would hope that honourable members will think as though they arc Australians - not Labor Party supporters, Liberal Party supporters or anything else - and remember that this is just one step closer to the demise of parliamentary democracy in Australia. We might as well close up the place if we are to ride rough shod over the Constitution and the Standing Orders, and allow one man to become virtual dictator of Australia. I say no more. I hope that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders will be carried, at least so that the Parliament can speak and decide what will have to be the order of the day. If the Parliament in its foolishness decides to allow this man this further rope with which to hang democracy in Australia, I hope that as a last bastion of democracy you, Mr Speaker, the senior member and officer of the Parliament, will stand up and say, as your predecessor Archie Cameron stood up and said: ‘You will go no further in this matter.’ If the Parliament has not the courage to act, it is ultimately your duty to ignore and to refuse to accept these men as Assistant Ministers, acting in the same way as Archie Cameron did. The one thing for which Archie Cameron will be remembered, more than for anything else, when historians get down to the job of appraising his work as Speaker, will be the way he stood up to Sir Robert Menzies. If Archie Cameron could stand up to Sir Robert Menzies I know that you, Sir, will find no difficulty in standing up to this little fellow.

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

– The matter which we are debating is one which has not yet officially been brought before the House, that is, the question of the appointment of Assistant Ministers and an additional Minister. I understand, as has already been indicated today, that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) will take an opportunity in the normal way to announce any appointments that are made. This is the normal practice and it has always been the practice. The motion at the moment is not whether there should be appointments of Assistant Ministers or additional Ministers; the motion relates to the suspension of Standing Orders. Honourable members are aware that this is a device which can be used at any time. It is a device which has been used extensively by the Opposition in the past, and I have no doubt that the Opposition will endeavour to use it in the future. In other words, the motion we are discussing relates to the running of the business of the House and not the appointment of Ministers. This latter issue will arise only when a statement is made in relation to it.

I appreciated the humour of the last speaker who introduced a light touch in his concluding remarks when referring to the duties of Assistant Ministers, but he does not know and he has no authority to state what those duties will be. The position is that if and when Assistant Ministers are appointed their duties will have to be decided in accordance with the Standing Orders. This matter would not be determined until the Standing Orders Committee had had an opportunity to consider the matter and to bring its recommendations to this House. So what the honourable member has said is not accurate because at this point of time he does not know what will happen, and at this point of time I do not think any of us knows what will happen - nor will we know until the matter has been brought to the Standing Orders Committee, debated by the Committee and a recommendation brought to the House. 1 should like also to draw attention to the point put by the honourable member that an unlimited number of Assistant Ministers could be appointed. He knows that this is the situation so far as Ministers are concerned not only in this Parliament but also in practically every Parliament in the world which has a democratic system. In most parliaments in the world there is no limitation on the number of Ministers or, as in this case, Assistant Ministers that can be appointed. This is a question of judgment, lt is quite foolish, although perhaps humorous, to say that we could appoint everyone as a Minister or Assistant Minister. This situation has always applied here and there has always been throughout the history of our Federal system the opportunity to appoint Assistant Ministers, I can speak with some feeling on this matter because for about 9 years I was what was first termed a parliamenary under-secretary and later a parliamentary secretary. I am sure that many honourable members now in the House will recall that. At that time we were not sworn of the Executive Council. I know that the Prime Minister at that time had been giving consideration to the matter and that there was very careful discussion of whether parliamentary secretaries should be sworn at the Executive Council. It just happened that at that time in 1961, as the last parliamentary secretary, I was appointed to the Ministry and so the matter was dropped.

The procedure we are discussing is not an unusual procedure; it is a procedure which applies in many countries. But this is not the time to debate this point; the issue before the House is the suspension of the Standing Orders, the suspension of Standing Orders being in this instance designed to take out of the hands of the Government the business of the House. We have a blue paper setting down the business proposed for the day. We have a time at which we would expect, in the order of procedure, the Prime Minister to make a statement.

Mr Cope:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister suggesting that we are not entitled to move for the suspension of Standing Orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know what the Minister is suggesting. That is a question that the honourable member might ask him.

Mr Cope:

– I am asking the Minister whether he is suggesting that we cannot suspend Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is out of order in asking the question of anybody at the moment and he should not interrupt the Minister while the Minister is on his feet.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I mentioned earlier what the Standing Orders allow and the fact that the suspension of Standing Orders has been moved is an illustration that it can be done. The mover and seconder of the motion have spoken already and now I have had the opportunity to say a few words. Seeing that we have heard 2 speakers from the Opposition I hope that there will be an opportunity for another speaker to be called from the Government side of the House. T reiterate that it is the suspension of Standing Orders only with which we are dealing, and not the substantive matter.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– There is a matter still to be resolved. Item 39 on the notice paper is Assistant Ministers - Appointment - Ministerial Statement - Motion to Take Note of Paper’. That debate has not yet occurred. On the other hand, I understand that there have been statements in the Press, which of course has taken over the role of Parliament these days, that Assistant Ministers are to be sworn in this afternoon. I do not believe that these Assistant Ministers should be sworn in until Parliament has had an opportunity, in terms of this motion on the notice paper, to discuss the whole matter. Surely it is essential that Parliament should know precisely what the constitutional position is, what kinds of alterations should be made to the Standing Orders and, above all, what are to be the functions of the Assistant Ministers. I have no wish that we should proceed with a debate on this matter immediately, suspending the Standing Orders for the purpose, if I can have an assurance from the Leader of the Government (Mr Swartz) that these people will not be sworn in until Parliament has had an opportunity to debate this motion.

This is my simple point: I do not want to be forced into the position of voting for the suspension of Standing Orders simply because no assurance is given that these people will not be sworn in until the Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the matter. I speak from an entirely objective point of view. Assistant Ministers, if we are to have them, obviously should be young men with a prospect at some stage of going into the Ministry, this being a kind of apprenticeship. At my age, clearly I have no interest in this matter personally. I speak only because I believe that Parliament should fully discuss this whole question in the light of what the Government can say about the need for these people, their functions, how they can be integrated into the system having regard to constitutional difficulties and so on. When these matters have been cleared by debate I would be happy for appointments to be made, if the House is in favour of this being done, but not that they should be sworn in this afternoon and the debate come on perhaps by Christmas time. I do not think that this is the way that things ought to be done in a Parliament that takes itself seriously.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I rise in this debate merely to say that if the Leader of the House gives the undertaking sought by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), namely that the honourable members named by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in a statement outside the House will not be sworn of the Executive Council until the House has been given an opportunity to vote on order of the day No. 39, the motion that the Standing Orders be suspended will be withdrawn.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I agree wholeheartedly with what the honourable member for Bradfield said.

Mr Duthie:

– You missed out.

Mr JESS:

– It is not a matter of missing out. Let it be understood that I let it be known that I did not want to be one of them. Honourable members opposite have raised a question of parliamentary principle but when someone from this side rises to support them all they are prepared to do is mock him. What 1 am trying to do is make known that I have the utmost respect for those who are to be appointed but I think that the Parliament, as a matter of principle, must be given the right to make an assessment of the proposal with a full knowledge of what is proposed and what powers are to be given to these people. I do not think it would be right for this proposal to become a fait accompli. I agree with the principle which I thought the Opposition was propounding but for honourable members opposite to mock everybody from this side who gets up to speak, claiming that we are suffering from sour grapes, does nothing for the standing of Parliament in the community. I say to those who arc so quick to mock someone else that if they ever have the gumption or the courage to stand and speak in this debate I will not mock them. I ask the Leader of the House for the assurance sought by the Opposition that nothing will be done until this matter is put in a proper form and agreed on by this Parliament. I think this is the essential issue and that it is not one of personalities or whether I or someone else should have been appointed. It is a question of the power of the Parliament and how this Parliament is to be treated.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I want to make my position clear in a few short words. At my age I do not think anyone is likely to toss at me the accusation that I suffer from sour grapes. I think the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) is quite right when he says that this is a matter that ought to be decided before the people concerned are sworn in. I have an overwhelming admiration for most of the people involved. 1 think it is most unfair to put them in a position where their duties and their position in the House are not known to them. It is wrong for them to have to assume responsibilities and duties about which they know nothing. Because this House has not expressed its po’nt of view on this matter I also ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that this matter will not be proceeded with at this stage.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs- Minister for National Development) - by leave - Some questions have been put to me in this debate and 1 think I should try to make the position clear. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and also by some honourable members on my side of the House to give an assurance in relation to deferring appointments to the Executive Council until this matter has been debated in this House. Unfortunately as the Leader of the

House my job is to look after the business of the House. As I said earlier ki this debate the question of ministerial appointments in our system has been the prerogative of the Prime Minister and the same principle applies with respect to the matter under debate.

It is true that an additional Minister is to be appointed, as honourable members know. The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to appoint some Assistant Ministers. This will not break the tradition of this Parliament because Assistant Ministers have been appointed previously and as 1 mentioned not only have Assistant Ministers been appointed in the past but also parliamentary secretaries who have carried out similar duties. This is a matter which is within the competence of the Prime Minister. The reaction of the Opposition and also of some of our own members has been referred to the Prime Minister. I believe, as everyone does, in the prerogative of Parliament and the Constitution. In thu case this is something which refers to the constitution of the Executive and the appointment of personnel to the Executive. It is beyond my capacity to make any decision as to whether an assurance should be given. In the circumstances it is not a question that I can answer.

The only assurance I can give is that the Prime Minister has been advised of the feelings of the Opposition and especially the feelings of some of our own members - that this matter is one which should be the subject of debate in this House before appointments are made. The objections of the Opposition appear to relate to Assistant Ministers but there is in the statement made by the Prime Minister an indication that an additional Minister is to be appointed. Can I take it from the Leader of the Opposition that his Party is not objecting in any way to the announcement regarding the appointment of an additional Minister to replace one of the previous Ministers?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Mr SWARTZ:

– And that the Opposition’s objection is basically related to the appointment of Assistant Ministers?

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Solely to the Assistant Ministers.

Mr SWARTZ:

– Under the circumstances and having obtained an answer to those questions I think that the debate should continue.

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– I feel I should participate in this debate on one aspect of the issues that have been raised. Some suggestion has been made that the proposal to have the Assistant Ministers sworn of the Executive Council so that they make undertake the duties to be placed upon them is unconstitutional. That is the suggestion, as I understand it. that has been made. When I was the AttorneyGeneral I had occasion to consider very fully the question of the constitutionality of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I considered the matter myself and I had the benefit of the advice of senior officers in the Attorney-General’s Department. I think I should tell the House that I am quite satisfied that the proposal announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) during the last session is perfectly constitutional having regard to the duties which it is proposed should repose in these honourable gentlemen. I think that ought to be said because one does not want any doubts being lightly bandied about on such a serious question. In view of my legal opinion on this subject I must support the right of a Prime Minister to obtain the assistance of honourable gentlemen and to have them sworn as members of the Executive Council. I do not question the Prime Minister’s right to do that. If he thinks that that is an effective way of adding to the resources available to government, I for one would not wish to part company from him on the topic. I think that all honourable members would be at one in expressing the view that the gentlemen selected for the offences proposed for them-

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I submit to you that the only matter for determination is that of suspending Standing Orders so that there can be a debate and a vote on order of the day No. 39. I am interested in what the honourable member has said and I respect what he has said, but I believe that it is irrelevant to the motion to suspend Standing Orders. What he has said would be highly relevant to the debate on order of the day No. 39; it is not relevant to the debate on the suspension of Standing Orders to permit a debate on order of the day No. 39.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order in this regard. The motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr HUGHES:

– The only reason I raised the matter was that a suggestion was made very clearly from the other side of the House - I was here and I heard it - that the proposed appointments are unconstitutional. Mr Speaker, I shall not canvass your ruling. I support the Prime Minister’s right to do what he proposes to do, but 1 must say - 4 think I ought to express my view so that it will be known by those who have to make a decision on the matter - that I incline very strongly to the view that it would be a gracious way of dealing with the problem if the House were allowed to debate the substantive matter. I am sure that the Prime Minister would be the last person who would wish to give any ground for thinking that he was being discourteous to this House, or to our collective will. I offer that view tentatively and with some hesitation, but I thought I ought to say what I have said.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) for his comments. I draw attention to the fact that in this House on 29th April 1971 I put down a statement relating to the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I then set out what their functions and role would be. I also stated the constitutional position as it has been developed by the honourable member for Berowra. I assure the House that the basis on which I prepared that paper was the letter which the honourable member wrote to me informing me of the constitutional position and that the way in which these Assistant Ministers would be appointed and would operate would not be a violation of the consitutional position in any way whatsoever. In other words, the advice which the honourable member gave was accepted by me and is the basis on which the statement was made.

Nonetheless, in deference to the wishes of honourable members, if they wish to debate the matter in full I shall make arrangements for the debate to take place this afternoon, if that is desired. If that is the wish of the House the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) will take the appropriate measures, and then immediately after lunch this matter can be fully debated. I hope that that assurance will satisfy honourable members. I hope that in the meantime they will read the statement I made on the date I have mentioned. I particularly hope that they will remember what 1 said in the party room when no objection whatsoever was taken to the proposition.

Mr Swartz:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether the Opposition will now withdraw its motion.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Mr Daly:

– In view of the decision which has been made, I shall withdraw the motion.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 427

COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received messages from the Senate relating to changes in the membership of honourable senators on the following joint statutory committees:

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, resignation ot Senator Prowse and appointment of Senators Cant, Jessop and Webster.

Joint Committee on Public Accounts, discharge of Senator Webster and appointment of Senators Guilfoyle and Lawrie.

page 427

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present a report from the Standing Orders Committee.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr Scholes:

– Can I move an amendment to that motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

-It depends on what your amendment is.

Mr Scholes:

– I wish to move as an amendment to the motion, that the following words be added:

That the matter of the time of closing of the House raised by the honourable member for Wills be considered at the same time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I do not think that amendment can be accepted. That is a separate matter. On this report, while we are considering the days of sitting we are not considering the hours.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 428

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 105 of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1971 I present the fourth annual report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices with respect to his operations during the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 428

REPORTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr DOBIE:
Cook · LP

– As Chairman, 1 present the one hundred and twenty-nineth and one hundred and thirtieth reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

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

Mr DOBIE:

– The one hundred and twenty-ninth report relates to the Treasury minute on your Committee’s one hundred and nineteenth report which referred to the supplementary report of the AuditorGeneral for 1968-69. The one hundred and thirtieth report relates to the Treasury minute on your Committee’s eighty-fourth report which referred to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund 1965-66. Honourable members will recall that when I tabled the one hundred and sixteenth report of the Public Accounts Committee in May last year I outlined the history, purposes and arrangements relating to the Treasury minute procedure. I said at that time, and I repeat now, that your Committee believes the Treasury minute arrangements have proved their value over the years as an important element in ensuring that, through your Committee, the Parliament maintains an important and significant role in the financial administration of the Commonwealth. The reports that I am tabling today afford further proof of that view.

One particular feature of the Treasury minute procedure to which I would draw the attention of honourable members relates to the fact that in reporting a Treasury minute to the Parliament your Committee, acting on behalf of the Parliament, reserves the right to make comment on the Treasury minute, as it thinks necessary. Such comments, taking the form of Committee observations, are included as the final chapter of the Treasury minute report. In this regard your Committee has not seen a need to make comment on the Treasury minute relating to the one hundred and nineteenth report, lt has seen a need, however, to make 2 comments on the Treasury minute relating to the eightyfourth report. The first comment to be made relates to an inadequacy of evidence tendered under oath to the Committee regarding a feasibility study proposed for the High Commissioner’s Office in London in 1966 and thought to have been abandoned. Without the benefit of the Treasury minute arrangement the full facts of this matter would not have been made available to your Committee.

The second matter concerns an interpretation of a matter of principle. This principle relates to the important question of whether, and in what circumstances, departments should seek out their creditors.

In its eighty-fourth report, your Committee drew particular attention to the failure of some Departments to seek out their creditors, the reasons being set out at some length in the one hundred and thirtieth report now being presented. Although the minute prepared by the Department of the Treasury on this matter may suggest some disagreement with your Committee’s conclusions, your Committee is satisfied that its views and those of the Treasury coincide. In fact your Committee agrees that if supplies have been satisfactorily provided and there is an abnormal delay in the receipt of a claim for payment, it would not be a distortion on the natural course of events for a supplier to be informed that his claim had not been received. Indeed it was such a situation that led your Committee in its eighty-fourth report to refer to the need for Departments to seek out their creditors. I commend the reports to honourable members.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 428

ASSISTANCE TO THE WOOL INDUSTRY

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) announced in the Budget Speech provision for deficiency payments, if required, to give wool growers an assured return during the 1971-72 season. Legislation to establish detailed conditions for the payments will be introduced into the House in the near future. In the meantime to remove uncertainty it is appropriate that I furnish the House with further particulars of what is intended. The course of wool prices in 1970-71 gave the Government cause for grave concern. In the previous year returns from sales of greasy wool had fallen drastically. This was compounded by severe drought in extensive areas of Australia. Seasonal conditions improved somewhat in 1970-71 but wool prices continued to fall, attaining an average price of only 29.34c per lb, the lowest point in 24 years. Taking into account the considerable increases in costs over the period it was in real terms a far lower price than that which growers were receiving 24 years earlier.

In these circumstances it was necessary to consider what action was needed to assist farmers because of low wool prices. I say ‘farmers’ advisedly because most wool growers - other than some in the pastoral zone - derive part of their income from other enterprises such as beef cattle, mutton, Iamb, wheat and coarse grains. For a large segment of the farming community wool price is an important determinant of income. Indeed out of Australia’s 200,000 odd farm enterprises about 90,000 run more than 200 sheep. Last year at this time returns from wool declinded to the point where it was decided to provide up to S30m by way of special emergency assistance. This was made available to wool growers earning more than one-third of their income from wool and suffering not less than an 8 per cent fall in their gross returns from wool below the previous year. In the event wool growers received some $21. 3m, an average of over SI, 000 for each person meeting the conditions. The 1970-71 wool selling season opened before this scheme was put into effect and shortly after the opening prices fell to 28c per lb greasy.

It was in this context that the Australian Wool Commission was set up to even out fluctuations in the market. It commenced to operate on 16th November 1970. The Commission, after a short period when prices firmed a little, was confronted with a further weakening in demand from January to June 1971 it therefore held its reserve prices firm at around the December closing levels. Early in 1971. following an urgent examination of the need for reconstruction in primary industries, the rural reconstruction scheme involving the provision of Si 00m over 4 years was introduced. In this year’s Budget S40m of this allocation has been made available for the respective State administrative authorities for debt reconstruction and farm buildup purposes. For some farmers this provision will offer a way out of present difficulties.

The extent of the problem in the industry is best demonstrated by the marked decline in farmers’ wool income. Gross returns from wool fell from $839m in 1968-69 to $547m in 1970-71. Four out of the last 6 years have been ones of low income and for many associated with the industry accumulated debts are now imposing an impossible burden. During 1970-71 about 50,000 of the 90,000 wool growers were estimated to have had less than $2,000 net farm income from which to live after servicing their debts. The critical income situation affects not only these wool growers but also the approximately 1 million people who are wholly or partly dependent on the wool industry in various ways. The best advice available to the Government suggests that some improvement can be expected in wool prices. Accurate prediction is virtually impossible because of the many factors having a bearing on price. The recent action by President Nixon to protect the United States’ economy has introduced a new and complicating factor in consideration of prices and demand for wool in the 1971-72 season. Nevertheless, there has been evidence that the general recession in the whole of the textile industry is passing and trade assessments continue to suggest an improvement in wool purchases in the coming year.

In these circumstances, the Government has decided to supplement market returns on wool, to the extent that may be necessary, by deficiency payments. In this way growers will receive on all shorn wool, other than specified types of inferior wool, a return corresonding to an average prices for the whole clip of 36c per lb greasy for 1971-72. In metric terms, which are now to be used in the wool trade, this is 79.37c per kilo. This price is significantly above the closing level of the market at the end of the 1970-71 season but on the other hand is capable of being reached if the market recovers. The position of the wool industry will again be reviewed in the light of demand and prices ruling towards the end of this financial year.

Honourable members will be aware that at this level of prices, extensive industry adjustments will still be needed. The assistance to be provided is considered to be the minimum required to provide some counter to the present very serious situation. A return of 79.37c per kilo average will offer a reasonably firm base for immediate planning by producers and others associated with the industry. More generally this assistance will provide the much needed breathing space to enable adjustments to take place without the economic and social disruption which would otherwise occur. It will give time to see what does happen to the market for wool. In addition, it will allow some settlement of unsecured debts in rural communities very dependent on servicing the wool industry.

It is quite unrealistic to suggest that the deficiency payments scheme will impede or hinder the rural reconstruction scheme by encouraging people to stay on their properties who have no long term prospects of viability. The number of people who unfortunately will have to leave the industry even at the assured price levels is such as to present a reconstruction task as large as is manageable in one year. Certainly decisions affecting the permanent future of those who can carry on with only a modest price increase should not be made on the basis of price levels which we all hope are temporarily depressed below the long term trend.

It is with these factors in mind that I would like to outline some details of the operation of the deficiency payments scheme. It is intended that use will be made of the existing facilities of the Australian Wool Commission which, as agent of the Commonwealth, will assist in distributing payments to wool growers through the agency of brokers and private wool merchants. Wool of certain inferior types amounting to about 10 per cent of the clip will not be eligible for deficiency payments. These inferior types frequently are not in strong demand and if they bore the full costs of handling and marketing would sometimes be sold at a loss. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate a list of the inferior types which will be excluded.

page 430

DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR WOOL

List of Inferior Types Excluded from the Scheme

Deficiency payments will be based on a price schedule prepared by the Australian Wool Commission for the various types of wool sold which would give an average of 79.37c per kilo over the whole season for the full clip. The total return for the 90 per cent of the clip which attracts deficiency payments will therefore average somewhat in excess of 79.37c per kilo. Several honourable members have asked me just what the return is. If we take it in non-metric terms, on 90 per cent of the wool the average return will be 38.91c per lb. Following each week’s auction the Commission will calculate the average price for all eligible wools sold at auction during that week. For the same group of wools it will calculate the price which these would have brought if the prices in the schedule had applied, that is, if the full clip were to average 79.37c per kilo over the year. The Commission will convert the difference between these prices into the percentage by which the actual weekly average price received would need to be increased to bring it to a level equivalent to the average of 79.37c per kilo over the year for the full clip. The deficiency payment will be this percentage applied to the gross proceeds from eligible wool sold at auction during the week. In appraising the wool offered at auction the Commission will have indicated the lots of inferior wool which will not be eligible for deficiency payments. The broker on being notified by the Commission of the percentage deficiency payment will calculate for each client the deficiency payment on the eligible wool, and make the payments.

Similar arrangements will apply to wool sold privately. Deficiency payments will be made to growers through private wool selling merchants. The payments will be based on the percentage determined by the Commission from wool sold at auction for the week in which the private sale took place. Where there is a recess in the auction programme the percentage calculated for the last auction week before the recess will apply until auctions recommence. The percentage will be applied to the ex-farm price. For privately sold wool there is the problem that appraisement by the Commission of excluded wools would not be possible without undue interference with the trade. Accordingly, the private treaty merchants will have the percentage deficiency payment reduced to take account of excluded wools, by an amount calculated on each sale, which will depend on the average price of the wool sold. The proportion of the sale value of the wool which will attract a deficiency payment will be calculated so that in broad terms the same result will be obtained as if the wool had been appraised by the Commission and the inferior types excluded.

There will be a necessary amount of documentation to ensure that only wool growers receive benefit of deficiency payments, that double payments are not made on any wool and that the sale proceeds on which deficiency payments are based are the true proceeds. Each wool grower will need to sign a form attesting the price paid for his wool at a sale outside auction. For some direct sales to manufacturers and for exports the Commission will need to appraise each lot of wool and the deficiency payment will be based on the average market price for the eligible wool and the relevant deficiency payment percentage. The intention is that all wool traders who are to pass on deficiency payments will be registered. Such persons will need to agree with the Commonwealth to comply with the arrangements of the scheme and to pass on to the wool grower or his agent his entitlement to the deficiency payment.

Wool exported on sheep skins constitutes an important part of our overseas trade in wool. The Government considered the possibility of extending deficiency payments to this wool but has decided that as sheep skins are a separate product from wool they should be excluded from the scheme. In this situation deficiency payments may provide some inducement for growers to shear before sale of sheep. The incentive to do so will depend upon the course of the wool market. Should there be a substantial change in the supply of sheep skins with full wool, the Government may need to consider some action to take this into account. Wool derived from the fell mongering process, buyers samples, dealers wool, buyers resales and commission resales will also be excluded from deficiency payments.

The wool industry has in recent years become increasingly geared to electronic data processing in the calculation of accounts. There will be some delay while these facilities are reprogrammed to allow for the deficiency payments scheme. I am confident that for those in desperate circumstances, the broking houses and other suppliers of credit to the wool industry will take into account the additional payment which will be forthcoming. It is expected that the payments will commence in October. These will include all deficiency payments due up till that time whether sale is by auction or by a private dealer. From then on they will be made on a current basis. After a thorough investigation of the position regarding disposal of wool by producers in the current fiscal year, it has been decided that equitable treatment between growers would be best served by having the scheme run from 2nd July 1971 to 30th June 1972. Any wool sold and delivered by a producer in this period will be eligible for a deficiency payment. The percentage which will be used to calculate deficiency payments on wool sold privately prior to the opening sale of the 1971-72 season will be that applying to wool sold at auction in the first week of the new season.

Earlier in this statement I referred to the fact that wool exported direct by growers would need to be appraised by the Commission. Where wool has already left the country, if it is to be eligible for a deficiency payment it will be necessary that arrangements be made with the Commission where possible for appraisement as to type and value overseas. Unless suitable arrangements can be made it will not be possible to make a deficiency payment on such wools. Wool growers would have little to gain by attempting to take advantage of the scheme by shearing and delivering wool before the normal time. Prematurely shorn wool in normal trade practice is discounted in price and this would offset the apparent benefit. This aspect moreover will be kept under review, and should it appear necessary to avoid advantage being taken of the arrangements in this way appropiate adjustments will be made to the scheme.

The assured return to producers will be a combination of two elements, the price paid in the market and deficiency payments. As I have already announced,, the Australian Wool Commission will continue to be supported by the Government in its market operations on the same basis as in the past season. As in 1970-71, the Government will advance funds for the purchase of wool by the Commission, and against possible losses. Provisions totalling $14m have been made in the Budget for these purposes to be kept under review in the light of experience and regular reports by the Commission. The Government has agreed that the inferior wools excluded from deficiency payments will also be excluded by the Commission from its reserve price arrangements. In 1970-71 the administrative costs of the Commission were met in part by a contribution from the Australian Wool Board towards the cost of the price averaging plan and partly by a repayable Commonwealth Government loan. For this year, as provided for in the Wool Commission Act, a charge which is expected to be of the order of 0.4 per cent of the gross proceeds from the sale of wool will be made on growers to cover the Commission’s administrative costs. The Commission’s costs of administering the deficiency payments scheme on behalf of the Commonwealth will, however, be met separately by the Government.

As I said earlier, the measures outlined above are only part of the Government’s comprehensive approach to the social and economic problems of rural industry. In addition to present measures the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) will be shortly announcing a scheme for the retraining of persons displaced from rural industry. lt is confidently believed that the deficiency payments scheme will encourage confidence and help to re-establish the flow of money which has been interrupted by uncertainty in country areas. It will tend to avoid precipitate action by lenders to realise on their securities. Indeed the whole question of credit is of increasing importance to the rural industries and there are clear indications of a need to re-examine the demand for, and supply of, credit in the rural sector. In these circumstances 1 have asked for the advice of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on the adequacy of existing credit facilities.

The Government is not happy al the necessity to introduce a deficiency payments scheme for wool. This is an industry with a long tradition of standing on its own feet meeting the fluctuations of the market place. The export income earned by this industry over the years has enabled the development of secondary and tertiary industries and has been of immeasurable benefit to our economy. In the past Australia has indeed ‘ridden on the sheep’s back’. Now the industry faces a crisis. While there is reason to hope for improvements in prices above the present disastrously low levels, the development of the synthetic fibre industries around the world means that today wool as a textile fibre faces different and more intensive competition than ever before. Substantial restructuring and re-adjustments in the industry are inevitable. The purpose of the one year deficiency payment scheme is to provide some cushioning of the effects of the price decline so that the re-structuring can take place in a more orderly manner than if the full effects of what can reasonably be considered to be over depressed price levels are allowed free play. In the same way as the full effects of overseas price trends are moderated for our secondary industries in appropriate circumstances by a measure of tariff protection, so it is necessary and justifiable this year, in the judgment of the Government, to provide the wool industry with the assistance represented by the scheme of deficiency payments which I have outlined.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– by leaveThe House has listened in silence and with attention to what the Minister for Primary

Industry (Mr Sinclair) has said. This is another example of hastily ill-conceived and patchwork decisions. It is heavily weighted in favour of the rich wool producer at the expense of those wool producers who need help and who have a legitimate claim to help and financial assistance because of the disastrous rural policies of this Government. The Opposition fully acknowledges the urgency of providing financial assistance to the wool industry, but it will support only a proposition which distributes government or public moneys to those producers who genuinely need help. The present proposal of the Government is a living example of the injustice and inequity of Liberal-Country Party philosophy, blatantly giving money to the rich and deliberately discriminating against the small farmer or the big farmer who genuinely needs help. I will not and I believe that my Party, the Australian Labor Party, will not be a party to giving public finance to men whose gross incomes are in the vicinity of S50.000, $100,000 or more per annum.

Even in this House we have men who arc reputed to be millionaires, who have assets worth millions and who will receive financial assistance under this proposal. It is estimated that Sir Philip McBride, a great friend of the Liberal Party, would receive something like $30,000 from this proposed measure. A person who runs 50,000 head of sheep, for example, would get $27,000 in cash under this agreement. This is a tragic travesty of Liberal-Country Party deceit: Fifteen per cent of the 90,000 wool growers produce 60 per cent of Australia’s 2,000 million lb wool clip. It follows that 15 per cent of the growers will receive 60 per cent of the subsidy. The subsidy will not amount to $60tn as the Government is trying to hoodwink the people into believing. It could easily be at least $ 12Om this year.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Do you object to that?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I will make my point clear in a moment. I object very strongly to your getting the subsidy and so does every person in Australia. If you could prove that you genuinely need the subsidy, as a small producer is required to do, then I would not object. The aim of the Government is to give the small producer almost nothing. The assistance that will be given to a man who has 1,000 or 2,000 head of sheep, will be virtually nil. This will force him off the land and force his family out of wool production forever. I can only draw the conclusion that the Country Party members in this Parliament are very prosperous or they are out of touch with the rank and file traditional small producer who is being discriminated against under this proposal. I feel very strongly for them.

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– You are out of touch with every organisation of wool growers.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I do not wish to go into personalities at all. We have seen - I think on an ABC television programme - the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) driving to his office in a MercedesBenz.

Mr Sinclair:

– It has about 100,000 miles up and it is 10 years old.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I do not care about that. If he is entitled to a subsidy the Opposition will agree to it, but if he is not entitled to a subsidy we certainly will not agree to it. The Opposition will nol support any subsidy which deliberately discriminates against those who need assistance amongst whom could easily be some large wool growers. In western Queensland, for example, there are scores of large wool growers who need help and they are entitled to it. But I will not be a party to giving the taxpayers’ money to large pastoral companies who own large wool properties throughout Australia. T am told by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) that Dalgetys has just made a $5m profit, and yet under this proposal a large proportion of the public’s money (hat will go to wool growers will have to go into Dalgetys’ pockets. In actual fact a large proportion of this money will be transferred straight into the pockets of the private banking sector, the pastoral houses and the hire purchase companies. That will be the effect of the present proposal. It will not give to the traditional wool producer who genuinely needs financial help the assistance that he deserves.

I repeat the figures I gave previously. Fifteen per cent of wool growers produce 60 per cent of the clip, and 15 per cent of wool producers will be getting 60 per cent of this money. The small producer who is the backbone of the country towns and who is supposed to be supported by the Country Party in this Parliament obviously is receiving no support at all, otherwise the Party that represents him would have objected to this proposal in the party room. The Minister for Primary Industry is attempting to interject. We heard him in silence. Obviously there must be a member of the Country Party in the Chair, otherwise the Minister would have been called to order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– I suggest that the honourable member for Dawson gives consideration to certain of the statements that he has been making.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I repeat that this financial assistance will be far greater than the $60m mentioned in the Budget, and every honourable member knows it, because this figure is based on an average price of 33c to 34c per lb, which is far more than the price being obtained today. I do not object to that at all providing that money is put in the pockets of those people who genuinely deserve it. I submit that those producers who are entitled to this assistance, whether they be big or small producers, should receive it. But they have to prove that they are entitled to it. Just to give an across the board subsidy of 36c per lb is a travesty of justice. There are plenty of ways of obtaining this proof. One way of doing this would be simply to compare incomes. Plenty of suggestions have been put forward as the Minister well knows. The great bulk of producers and their families who are desperately in need of help are the backbone of the industry. If the Government adopts my suggestion the small traditional producer, the man who needs this assistance because of recent events, will receive a subsidy equivalent to not less than 40c per lb.

Mr Irwin:

– He will still be in the same position this time next year.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Just a minute. The second urgent matter which has not been spelt out in this proposal is the Government’s policy on reconstruction. We cannot depart from this principle. We must have the truth and the facts in this Parliament regarding the future of the wool industry. This is of vital importance. Perhaps the argument of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) will prove to be correct, but we must have progressive recon struction first. The principal objective of giving this money is not to degenerate the wool producers into the position in which the dairy industry finds itself at the present time. It is to help them get out of the industry, if that is the only answer, and to help them get out in a financal position. In all sincerity we cannot support any motion which does not give justice to those who deserve it most. I just cannot understand why the Government is to introduce legislation into this Parliament which will give the great percentage of the subsidy to people who still do not deserve it. I say again that if wool growers can prove financial hardship, they certainly should be entitled to the subsidy. But should the people who have amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, reserves, shares, etc. be entitled to receive this subsidy? Are the lawyers and the professional men - the Collins Street and the Pitt Street farmers who are growing wool for the purpose of legitimately avoiding income tax entitled to receive the subsidy?

There should be a moratorium on debts for at least 2 years so that when a wool grower and his family get their hands on this money, it is not immediately taken up by a court order instructing them to pay it over to Dalgety’s or some other company or the private banks. It is not supposed to be for transfer from a grower to the private banks or any other sector of the community. It should remain in his hands so that he can help his family and help himself to reconstruct his property. That should be the purpose of this Bill.

The Minister for Primary Industry did not say one word about acquisition. It is quite obvious that if this subsidy is to succeed there must be acquisition of the wool clip. This is the policy of the Australian Labor Party. It amuses me to remember that, when the Opposition suggested in the House early last year that the wool clip should be acquired, it was ridiculed by the Country Party and the Government. Now, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is going around the country preaching acquisition. The policy of the Labor Party is just that, with a controlled floor price. Our policy also takes into account the need to control production in relation to realistic market demands. This must be done as it has been done in the sugar industry.

Also fundamental to the policy of the Labor Party is the effective distribution of money to those who need it most and to those who have the claim for it. The subsidy should go to those who have a justifiable claim for it, whether they are big producers or small producers of wool. The Government also could legitimately help the big producers of wool if it wanted to, by the correct procedure. For example, there could be a tariff compensation scheme to assist them against the penalties of the tariff. This is a legitimate economic argument; it is accepted by agricultural economists throughout the country. The Government can help them but this Bill is not the way to do it.

What is concerning me greatly are these forecasts which are being constantly put forward - one might say almost deliberately. We heard 12 months ago that, within the space of a couple of years, the wool price would rise by 10c a lb. This was one of the arguments put forward by the Australian Wool Board, and, I regret to say, by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as well. There is no evidence to support this. The international analyses of prices for acrylics, polyesters and nylons reflect the increasing efficiency of these industries. This is one of the factors which we must face up to, with rising costs.

What Australia needs is a proper assessment of the future of wool, not the half baked schemes which are being put up by the Australian Wool Board or by other socalled authorities. There are too many people involved in this. The wool producers, people in country towns, the workers, in fact all of us, are involved in this irrespective of whatever politics we might have. We want to know what is the real future of wool. We want to be told the truth. I do not belive that a reduction in wool production will increase wool prices significantly. 1 do not believe that, but I do not know. In other words, speaking in economic terms, I do not believe the elasticities are there. We must solve the problems - the physical and economic problems that we can solve - in other ways and it might even be to our advantage to increase wool production. This is the approach we must take.

Mr Pettitt:

– If China did not finish you, this speech will.

Dr PATTERSON:

– China will take our wool if this Government behaves in a sensible fashion.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 435

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 4 May (vide page 2477), on the following paper presented by Mr McMahon:

Appointment of Assistant Ministers - Ministerial Statement, 29th April 1971- and on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the House take note of the paper.

Upon which Mr Daly had moved by way of amendment:

That the following words be added to the motion:

And expresses its disapproval of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers’.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I oppose the motion. I am a little disturbed by a lot of the things 1 read in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I note that on 29th April the Prime Minister promised that he would be consulting the Presiding Officers to see whether an amendment of the Standing Orders was necessary to make the appointments in order that the Assistant Ministers could carry out to the full the jobs they are supposed to do. You, Sir, were perhaps a little tentative about it but the impression I gained from your reply to a question this morning is shared by the honourable members to whom I have spoken about the matter, including some honourable members opposite. The impression you gave me is that you believe that the Standing Orders Committee would have to meet and the Standing Orders would have to be altered before the Assistant Ministers could fully discharge their duties. But did the Prime Minister worry about the Standing Orders Committee? Did he worry about your opinion. Mr Speaker, on whether alterations to the Standing Orders were necessary? No. He charges in like a wildeyed mallee bull and decides to appoint these people to the positions. He does not care 2 hoots about the Standing Orders Committee of this Parliament and he does not care about you, Mr Speaker. He does not care about your opposite number, Sir

Magnus Cormack, in the other place. Incidentally, Sir Magnus has had a few well chosen remarks to make about Assistant Ministers. He thinks it is a lot of nonsense, and says that so far as he is concerned he will refuse to recognise them. So how on earth Senator Marriott is to be recognised without a change in the Standing Orders of the Senate is beyond me.

We all recall that Sir Magnus Cormack is now President of the Senate, very much against the Prime Minister’s wishes. The Prime Minister tried his best to stop Sir Magnus getting there, but he did not succeed. This is another example of the Party’s refusal to accept his dictates whenever there can be a private vote on anything. Now in the other place there is a Presiding Officer who does not believe that Assistant Ministers are necessary. He believes that they are unconstitutional. I would like to relate to the House some of the remarks made by the honourable gentleman who is now President of the Senate. He said: 1 can see Senator Cotton and Senator Wright wincing at this.

Sir Magnus had just said that he did not think much of the idea of Ministers in the Senate. Probably there are people who would agree with that after having a look at some of the senators who now occupy ministerial positions. He went on: 1 am ready to put up with Senator Cotton and Senator Wright -

It appears that they are the only 2 Ministers there whom he is prepared to put up with - but I am not prepared to put up with a bevy of Assistant Ministers in this place.

Senator Withers, who was the Prime Minister’s nominee for President, thought that he would get into it. He interjected:

A bevy or a covey?

That was apparently something special. Sir Magnus Cormack said:

A covey, I think.

He accepted the amendment. Senator Withers, the Prime Minister’s ‘pea’, interjected again:

Or a gaggle?

That is nice, coming from a prospective President of the Senate. Sir Magnus Cormack replied to the interjection:

A gaggle is another word, perhaps a whist of snipe. I reject ‘a pride of lions’.

Senator Davidson, who was the Acting Deputy President, intervened and said: Order! 1 wish you would behave like senators and observe the decorum of the Senate. Please come back to the Bill.’ So the senator who was later to become President then said:

Do not worry, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have control of myself.

In effect he said: ‘Anybody who thinks I am under the influence of some other person must have another think coming.’ In this dialogue - ‘which is a favourite word now - in the Senate on the question of bevies or coveys of Assistant Ministers the present President and the runner-up for the position of President were virtually agreeing that it is absolute nonsense to have these people as Assistant Ministers. How do you justify it? The Prime Minister said: T am justifying it because I want to prepare them for full ministerial status.’ Good grief, Sir. Have a look at the people we are to get as Ministers in the near future. It will be the near future because the knives are out already. I was told by a prominent person - I will not say whether on this side or the other side of the chamber - that 3 more changes in the Ministry will be made this weekend.

I invite honourable senators to have a look at who might take the vacancies. First there is the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). Goodness gracious. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks that this is a circus or a vaudeville show and wants to keep us all laughing or in a state of rapt surprise. Fancy appointing the honourable member for Boothby, whose only claim to fame is that he has made 2 or 3 trips to South Africa at the expense of the South African Government, and to Rhodesia, and has come back breathing fire and brimstone in favour of apartheid. Next is the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). I will not dispute that appointment. I have often said that he has great potential, but perhaps the reason he was appointed is not so much that he has great potential as it is that he happens to be a person who believes in lowering the tariffs. We all remember how the Prime Minister, at the time he was caught up with Maxwell Newton on behalf of the Basic Industries Group, was plugging for something a little different from this. So perhaps this is the payoff to make it appear that they are not quite as bad as it was thought they were.

The next appointment is the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson). The honourable member for Cowper himself really thinks it is a joke because he has not stopped laughing ever since the appointment was made, and I do not blame him. 1 do not blame the Prime Minister either who need not look so glum. We appreciate that it was his Deputy who made that appointment, but his are no better. The look on the Prime Minister’s face seems to indicate: ‘I don’t blame you for getting satisfaction out of the fact that he is no good, but do not blame me.’ That is what the Prime Minister’s expression seems to imply, but his appointees are not a little bit better.

Now I come to the prize of all appointments, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). For 2 days after the Prime Minister attained the Prime Ministership the honourable member for Cook was seen up and down the corridors of the House, listening for the paging system to call him to the Prime Minister’s office. I did give him a call and said that he was wanted and he charged around to the Prime Minister’s office. I got the girl to put through a call that he was wanted in the Prime Minister’s office because I felt I could safely anticipate such a call. I do not know whether he went. I understood that he heard the call. If he heard it, I imagine that he would go around.

But whom has the Prime Minister passed over? He has passed over the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown). I dislike saying anything very laudatory about our friend, but whatever else he is, he is one of the brightest sparks on the other side. I tell the Prime Minister that, in case he has not noticed.

Mr McMahon:

– ] agree with you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But he comes from Victoria and the Sydney Stock Exchange will not allow the Prime Minister to appoint anybody from Victoria, so I am told. That is the reason, Now we come to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). Compared with the honourable member for Boothby, the honourable member for Angas would be a genius. It is like comparing a giant with a political pygmy to compare the 2 of them. But why is he put aside? The reason that the Prime Minister would not have him prepared as a Minister is because he knows that the honourable member is a supporter of the former Prime Minister and he would not put himself in the position where possible supporters of the former Prime Minister would obtain authority or power. The Prime Minister has passed over the honourable member for isaacs (Mr Hamer), a very estimable person who, of course, unfortunately comes from Victoria. Packer will not allow the Prime Minister to appoint any Victorian without first getting the all clear signal. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) is a very estimable person. One of the finest brains on the Government side is the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley). I said to the honourable member for Chisholm last night that his maiden speech was excellent. He kept it on a very high level, and he ought to try very hard to maintain that level. He will find it difficult, but he should at least try.

We all know why this has been done. The Prime Minister wants to walk into his Party meetings, whenever there is a meeting, knowing that there are enough of his appointees al the meeting who will always put up their hands for everything he puts forward. He could not quite get that result with the Ministers because there are only 27. The Prime Minister thought he should make a few more appointments. He is like Jack Lang trying to get rid of the Upper House. Lang kept appointing more and more to the Upper House, but each time the members changed their minds just as the crunch came. That will be the Prime Minister’s trouble. He may think that 6 Assistant Ministers will be sufficient to do the job now, but he will need another 6 in 6 months time. In the meantime, think of the havoc they will cause within the Ministry. I remember the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr Swartz) proudly reminding us of his exploits as Parliamentary Secretary. I remember those days. Had 1 been in his position I would have hoped that everyone would have forgotten about them. If I recall correctly, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade, who was Sir John McEwen. He spent all of his time preparing questions to be directed to Sir

John McEwen in order to make him look as if he understood the subject. The honourable member would direct 2 or 3 questions a day to his own Minister. Why did he not question the Minister when he was in his office instead of wasting our time in the Parliament? Mr John Howse, a former member for Calare, was appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary. He was utterly fed up with the job of being a stamp licker. This reminds me of what Mrs Newton, Maxwell Newton’s mother, said. She said that was all the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) was fit for when he was working in the office of a legal firm in Western Australia. However, all Mr John Howse was asked to do was to lick the stamps for the girls who worked in the office of the Minister for External Affairs. He got out. He said: ‘I will not have a bar of this. I will not demean myself by carrying on any longer.’ Mr Bill Falkinder, a former member for Franklin, was another who held the position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He also got out. The only honourable member who stuck to the job, of course, was the present Leader of the House.

The daggers are already drawn. The Ministers are now looking over their shoulders to see what the Assistant Ministers are doing. Of course, it is very nice for the Prime Minister to say: ‘We need them because we want to relieve the Ministers of the need to come into the Parliament when the House debates some Bill which affects a particular Minister’. But what about the position of the shadow Ministers. Honourable members of the Opposition have no help at all. I do more work than any Minister.

Mr McMahon:

– Do you want some help?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I do want some help. The only help I have received was on the occasion that Mr Speaker gave me some help which I needed and could not have done without. But that help was taken away and I am still without it. No-one can claim that I do not do as much work as any Minister, but I have to do that work with one typist. I have no research officers; no assistance whatever. The Government should give Her Majesty’s Opposition’s shadow cabinet some assistance before it creates these new positions of Assistant Ministers. I am reminded by one of my colleagues that when the present Leader of the House was a Parliamentary Secretary the newspapers at the time carried a cartoon that very admirably portrayed him. He was described as the ‘abominable no man’, because he had been trained by his Minister to say ‘No’. The appointment of Assistant Ministers will make an absolute farce of the Parliament. But what does the Prime Minister care? He is only a tiny little ineffectual man who knows that he can maintain control only while he is able to appoint enough lackeys and yes men to prop up his numbers inside the Party room. But the people of this country and the Parliament ought not to be concerned about propping up some ineffectual, tiny, funny little man who poses as Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw those remarks.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I withdraw them, but that is how he looks to me. The proposal to appoint Assistant Ministers should be rejected. I hope that honourable members opposite, such as the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who looks so wise and who has been treated so shabbily, will realise that if they are to go down in history as men worthy of this Parliament they must stand now and be counted on the side of those who can see the shabby folly of it all. They must tell this Prime Minister that if he cannot govern by his own right, he ought not to use up the Parliament to do it for him.

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– 1 had anticipated that the Opposition, having expressed great anxiety to have this matter debated, might have come into the House and put up a speaker who was prepared to deal with the subject as a serious subject. We have heard the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) describe the Prime Minister as rushing around like a Mallee bull. All I can say to the honourable member for Hindmarsh in that his contribution to the debate did not have any sort of Clydesdale quality about it. He was content to clown, and it is perhaps a pity that a subject which we thought was to be treated as a serious subject has been discussed by the honourable member in this vein.

I regard the matter that has been raised in this motion - that the House disapprove the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Assistant Ministers - as one that raises serious questions of principle. There are two main questions. The first is the constitutional question. That has been raised by honourable members on the other side of the House. It was raised in the debate this morning. I sought an opportunity to talk on the constitutional position, but your ruling, Mr Speaker, prevented me from exploiting it. I want to say something very briefly about that in this debate because this is the appropriate time to say it. The second question, also a question of principle, is whether the Assistant Minister! ought to be appointed, ls their appointment likely to promote the dispatch of Government business? ls it likely to improve the quality of administration? I say quite unequivocally that if the Prime Minister wants to appoint these gentlemen to these new offices, it is his right to do so. It is he who has to make the judgment and take the responsibility. He has exercised his judgment. The responsibility for the succeess or failure of this renewed experiment will be his. He is confident that the step he proposes taking will improve the quality of the administration. I think that if the subject is to be treated seriously, the Prime Minister’s decision, carrying with it the responsibility that I have described, ought to be respected by the House. To put it in plain language, the experiment should be allowed to start and the new system should be given a go. J do not think it is for this House to express by a vote any disapproval of the decision that the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, has made. That is my position quite clearly.

Dr Gun:

– What are we here for then?

Mr HUGHES:

– One might well ask. I am glad that the honourable member for Kingston has questioned what we are doing here debating this subject this afternoon. I would have thought that if the Opposition had any real dedication to getting the business of Government done and making its own contribution to the business of Government it would have seen to it that this afternoon was better spent than in debating his motion on the level at which the honourable member for Hindmarsh was prepared to debate it.

I want to leave that part of the subject and go now to the constitutional position. One of my last tasks as Attorney-General was to tender some advice on the constitutionality or otherwise of the proposal to appoint Assistant Ministers or, as they might otherwise be called but are not being called, parliamentary under-secretaries. In examining this question of the constitutionality of the proposal, we should first of all bear in mind that this is no novel experiment. This course of appointing Assistant Ministers or honorary Ministers has been taken before. In the 1950s there were people called parliamentary undersecretaries. So, we are not dealing with something that has arisen now for the first time. We should take note of the fact that the only person who raised any question against the constitutionality of appointing gentlemen to assist Ministers of the Crown was Mr Speaker Cameron, who did so in 1952. Before he raised this doubt - perhaps it should not be called a doubt - nobody else had raised the question. It was taken for granted that this was a perfectly constitutional proposal. I do not suppose Mr Speaker Cameron ever spoke so mildly as to express doubts; he was rather more definite in his views at all times. But when he raised questions in 1952 they were dealt with, and dealt with very fully and effectively, by the Prime Minister of the day, the then Mr Menzies.

When I came to advise on this question in March, shortly before I left office, I considered the matter myself, I consulted with senior people in what was then my Department and I looked at the previous opinions and expressions of view. I came quite clearly to the conclusion, which I still hold without any doubt, that the appointment of Assistant Ministers - they receiving no emolument for performing the duties they will perform - offends against nothing in the Constitution and offends against no constitutional convention or principle. The plain fact is that these gentlemen, when they are sworn in as Executive Councillors, will have allotted to them duties which involve in no way the actual administration of a department. They will at most be deputies in relation to certain relatively minor matters. I say this not in any sense denigrating the positions they will occupy. They will be the express deputies of the Ministers whom they are appointed to help.

Section 19 of the Acts Interpretation ct provides for this sort of thing to hap- pen and gives it legal sanction. It is important to observe that, so long as these gentlemen receive no salary for the duties they perform and receive no more than a recompense of their reasonable travelling expenses, no question of their disqualification from the Parliament will arise.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If they are members of the Executive Council, as is proposed, why cannot they be paid?

Mr HUGHES:

– Because if they were paid it could be said that they were occupying an office of profit under the Crown and that would entail disqualification from the Parliament. So, to avoid the risk of disqualification it is clearly provided for in the arrangements proposed by the Prime Minister that these gentlemen will receive no pecuniary reward for the services they will undertake. It is because of this, as well as the other reasons I have endeavoured to express, that there arises no doubt in my mind as to the perfect constitutional propriety of this proposal. I would like to sum up the legal and constitutional position, as I see it and as I saw it when I advised as Attorney-General, in this way: a Member of Parliament not appointed to administer a Department of State -

  1. may be appointed to be a member of the Federal Executive Council under section 62 of the Constitution;

A person does not have to be a member of Parliament or a Minister of State to qualify for appointment as an Executive Councillor; the decision or choice is that of the Governor-General of the day -

  1. may be designated by the Prime Minister to be an Assistant Minister or a Minister without portfolio or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary -

It is merely a matter of terminology - but this does not make him a Minister of State in the constitutional sense;

  1. cannot be paid any emoluments in respect of his duties as a member of the Federal Executive Council or as Assistant Minister, Minister without portfolio or Parliamentary Under-Secretary, other than travelling expenses incurred in performing his duties;
  2. may, as a member of the Federal Executive Council, exercise, on behalf of a Minister of Stale, if authorised to act on behalf of that Minister, any statutory function of the Minister, by virtue of section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act. This would include approving of appointments and performing other functions expressly conferred on the Minister by legislation;
  3. may be a member of Cabinet and may make inquiries, conduct correspondence as authorised by the Minister of State whom he is appointed to assist and may receive deputations on behalf of that Minister.

Those are the conclusions I reached. I stand by those conclusions. I hope that I have made a contribution to the debate that may be regarded as useful. I have tried to do that. 1 hope that the House, on this Friday afternoon, will try to discuss this subject on a serious level - that being the level of treatment it obviously deserves.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– There is no question on this side of the House about the seriousness of this discussion. As far as we are concerned, it is most unusual for the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to make a decision and then, because of the rebellion in the back bench of his Party, have to stand up the Governor-General. We know that many honourable members on the Government back benches, including the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), refused to support the proposal now before the House unless there was a general debate on it. Now we are having that debate. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) has moved an amendment which I support. 1 am not a legal man, but 1 listened carefully to the honourable member for Berowra. It is most unusual for the Prime Minister to use the legal opinion of a man whose opinion he does not respect and whom he sacked and kicked out of the Ministry. Why does he not seek the opinion of the former Attorney-General, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), or obtain a statement from the present Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood)? With all due respect to the honourable member for Berowra, nothing that he said when giving his legal opinion is different from what was said by Mr Speaker Cameron. Mr Speaker Cameron said that the proposed positions represented offices of profit under the Crown and, of course, the honourable member for Berowra has expressed the same opinion.

I want to see some balance brought into this Parliament if there is to be a democratic approach. Already we have 27

Ministers and a great deal of staff to support that Ministry. Now the Prime Minister wants to appoint a further 6. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) raised the question of the shadow cabinet on this side of the House. What about our responsibilities and our lack of services and staff to combat ministries which can draw on their complete staffs and the resources of their departments? Is this a fair go? Under this socalled democratic procedure, how can we examine minutely the legislation before the House? It is not enough for the Government that we do not have available to us the staff to enable us to enter into debates and compete with the resources on which the Government can draw? The Government now wants 6 Assistant Ministers.

I have the responsibility on this side of the House for housing, urban affairs and the environment. Housing and the environment are dealt with by 2 Ministers, whilst in regard to urban affairs we know that this Government has no responsibility at all for the cities of Australia. It is not concerned about the cities of Australia. They can fall into squalor. However, because of this aspect alone, I suggest that these 6 Assistant Ministers should not be appointed. Parliament as a whole should be responsible for determining whether these appointments are necessary.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They should not be appointed until we get some help.

Mr UREN:

– The Opposition needs some assistance.

Mr McMahon:

– Can I put this to you? ls what you are putting to me that if I will give you some additional technical assistance to help you in the performance of your functions, you will withdraw the amendment?

Mr UREN:

– I am putting the point of view that you have denied members of the Opposition any right to a fair go. Our shadow Ministers, and even our back bench members, are not provided with sufficient staff to enable them to examine legislation which the House is considering. Our needs command a higher priority than the need to extend the Ministry. However, the Labor caucus will examine the Prime Minister’s suggestion. I cannot make a decision on it. The Labor Party has decided to support the amendment which was moved by the honourable member for Grayndler. 1 am arguing that the Prime Minister has not shown the Opposition consideration.

One question that arises is whether there is some sinister purpose in appointing Assistant Ministers. Are they intended to buy off members on the back benches on the Government side? Is the appointment of the Assistant Ministers a move to defeat the possibility of the Liberal Pary caucus voting itself power to select the Ministry? Is this a move to quieten some members opposite or to extend the number of members of the establishment so that in meetings of the Liberal Party caucus there will be sufficient members of the establishment to quieten other members? These are matters which we must examine. I am trying to debate this proposal in a balanced a:id thoughtful way. Mr Speaker, I have just had handed to me from the Opposition front bench a note suggesting that I should accept the Prime Minister’s offer of assistance. I do not know.

Mr Chipp:

– Have a caucus meeting.

Mr UREN:

– No. This is now my responsibility. 1 have received a note from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and, as far as I am concerned, he has made a decision, which is that we now accept the Prime Minister’s offer.

Mr McMahon:

– That is untrue. I made no offer. I asked whether you were putting an offer to me.

Mr UREN:

– Do not be a twister or a-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr McMahon:

– Be an honest witness.

Mr UREN:

– The great trouble with the Prime Minister is that he wants everything his own way. When he was not the Prime Minister he was the greatest leak in Cabinet. This is known by every Press man in the Press Gallery. Outside of this chamber the Prime Minister is known by members of the Press as ‘Billy the leak’. The Prime Minister knows that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid will withdraw those comments because they are definitely out of order.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Speaker, all 1 did was to repeat that the Prime Minister is known by Press men as ‘Billy the leak’. I made no accusations about what he is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member may continue.

Mr UREN:

– I was only repeating what the Prime Minister was known as. He was known by this title because of the fact that when he was not the Prime Minister it suited him to telephone members of the Press and consequently it is now those Press men who are making the accusations, not me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the honourable gentleman that the question before the Chair relates to a matter which is completely dissociated from what the honourable member is referring to now. I ask him to discuss the subject matter before the House.

Mr UREN:

– Mr Speaker, 1 wandered

Slightly from the matter under discussion because of interjections. After all, Mr Speaker, you are responsible for the conduct of this chamber and you allowed the Prime Minister to interject, contrary to Standing Orders, and I listened to him. In duc course, the Leader of the Opposition gave me the responsibility of making a decision and, consequently, I accepted the proposition or the offer put forward by the Prime Minister. Now it seems that that was an irresponsible statement. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Assistant Ministers is apparently to broaden the base of the establishment in the parliamentary Liberal Party to stifle his critics so that when the Liberal Party caucus comes to determine whether rank and file members of the Liberal Party should, in a democratic way, elect the Ministry and Cabinet any criticism of the Prime Minister will be stifled. I ask those critics on the back benches of the Government side to join with the Opposition in voting in favour of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We are debating a serious subject but the Opposition has attempted to turn it into an exercise in political mischief. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) increasingly is exhibiting not only an infinite capacity for mischief but almost a monumental malice. May I, in the most friendly spirit - to use his own technique - warn the honourable member that he is now carrying this style of his so far that he is getting close to becoming a caricature and the House is ceasing to take note of what he says. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) is not a small man in any sense, certainly not in my opinion, and I rather regret that to some degree he has joined the honourable member for Hindmarsh in this level of debate. I do not propose to debate this matter on that low level.

Three simple issues are involved in this debate. The first is whether it is constitutionally correct to appoint Assistant Ministers in the manner proposed in the statement of - the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to the House. The second is whether the announcement of the Assistant Ministers to be appointed should have been made in this House instead of outside this House. The third is whether what is proposed in the statement is desirable or undesirable in the view of the House. As to the first issue, I agree with the legal advice which was given to the Prime Minister by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) on 18th March 1971 when he was Attorney-General. I should inform the House that when I became Attorney-General I considered that advice and T confirmed it in writing over my own signature.

I do not think the House needs any great elaboration of the legal issues. The relevant part of paragraph 4 of section 44 of the Constitution reads:

Any person who holds any office of profit under the Crown . . . shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Put simply, the question is this: Would these Assistant Ministers forfeit their positions as members of this House or of the Senate, in the case of senators, because they hold an office of profit? Would they be holding an office of profit? Provided they do not receive any emolument it is my opinion that they would not. Perhaps that is simplifying it unduly but that, broadly, is basically and fundamentally the proposition. I do not think that they would be prevented from receiving a reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. Provided they are not receiving a profit from their office there is no difficulty. Indeed, the practice of this Parliament since federation has been consistently to appoint men to such an office. It has not always had the same name, but if honourable members were to take the trouble of referring to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook they would find that in Labor administrations and in administrations of this side of the House Assistant Ministers, Honorary Ministers and Ministers without Portfolio have been appointed. The name has changed from time to time but the concept has not. It has been the customary practice in this House. I do not stay to debate that quirk - that accidental happening - at the time when a particular Speaker ruled in this place in a manner which will be well within the memory of some honourable members

The second issue is whether the announcement should have been made to this House. May I point out to honourable members that the appointment in question is not like the appointment of you, Mr Speaker - a parliamentary appointment - it is not an appointment within the gift of this House; it is an appointment by Her Majesty the Queen or her representative in Australia, the Governor-General. What really is suggested by this proposition is that in some way the Crown’s representative is at fault in not coming into the House in order to make the announcement. That basically is the proposition. Of course, the Crown acts on the advice of the Prime Minister in relation to ministerial appointments. Residual to the whole question may be the thought: ‘Well, it would have been a courtesy to the House for the Prime Minister, who is advising the Crown, to come in’. That argument may be put. But at least one can say that in the past, because of the fundamental and basic position of these appointments, which are Crown appointments, it has been the practice to make an announcement outside the House. That is the current practice in Australia. It probably accounts for the fact that the names of those people who are appointed Ministers, Assistant Ministers or Honorary Ministers and sworn as members of the Executive Council are customarily announced outside the House.

It is true that there is on the notice paper an item setting forth that the House take note of the paper setting forth the Prime Minister’s statement to the House. An amendment has been moved by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) to the effect that the following words be added to the motion that the House take note of the paper: and expresses its disapproval of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers’.

It is true that that debate was stood over. Incidentally, there had already been two speakers from the Opposition on the amendment, lt has been argued that the House should have been given an opportunity to debate this motion and the proposed amendment to it before the appointments were made. In view of the fact that they are appointments by the Crown and not by the Parliament it would be an idle debate, although it is a question on which one might have a debate. I do not propose to continue a discussion of this particular issue because the Assistant Ministers have not in fact been appointed. The House is in fact now debating a matter that the Prime Minister has -said it should debate this afternoon. He said: ‘If the House wants a debate we will have one’, and the House is now debating this matter. There is nothing left to argue about on the second issue; it has become simply a hypothetical question.

That leaves the third issue, which is whether what is proposed is desirable. On this issue the House has the benefit of the views which have been set forth in the Prime Minister’s statement that is the subject of the noting motion and the speeches of honourable members on the amendment to that motion and on the occasion of this debate.

Mr Cope:

– We would not have had a debate but for the rebellion and the Minister knows it.

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

– If the honourable member for Sydney can restrain himself, I will address myself to the Chair and say that two matters weigh heavily in my mind. Firstly, I think that the business of government in the federal sphere has expanded enormously in the last 20 years. I do not think it is generally appreciated how great is the pressure of work upon members or Ministers. I do not think it is generally appreciated, for example, that they work a 7-day week. This proposal to give Ministers assistance and some relief is certainly a sensible proposal, as far as the business of government is concerned. The second matter is that the proposal, if implemented, obviously will give valuable experience to the younger members on the Government side, and if the House is looking at this matter honestly and dispassionately, it will concede that it is ultimately for the benefit of the nation that they should get this experience.

There are other matters, but I do not propose to debate this question at length. 1 think one has to remember that ultimately the appointment of Ministers and Assistant Ministers lies with the Crown, advised by the executive government, and I think that one would have to have very substantial reasons to challenge the actions of the Prime Minister in a matter such as this. I am against the amendment and in favour of the motion which is before the House.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

- Mr Speaker, there is no need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) to lecture honourable members on dignity and decorum in this matter. 1 do not believe that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or the Ministry have any reason to be proud of the way in which they have treated you, Sir, or the Governor-General today. It was clear to us all, from your own demeanour this morning, that you thought there had been some contempt for the Chair. Also, Sir, the fact that appointments were made for the Governor-General to swear in Assistant Ministers, and an assumption was made that the House would approve of a procedure concerning which there was already a notice on the Notice Paper, was an impertinence. Neither you nor the GovernorGeneral have been treated with decorum or dignity by the Prime Minister and those whom he has appointed to his Ministry today.

Sir, the question is not about the announcement of the appointment of Ministers being announced outside the House. Of course, it is perfectly proper and usual to announce appointments outside the House. The first Commonwealth Ministers, were appointed and their appointment was announced before the Parliament was ever convened, or elected. The Constitution makes provision for Ministers to hold their positions for, up to 3 months before they are elected to the Parliament. There is a new situation, one which your predecessor, Speaker Cameron, brought to notice, concerning Assistant Ministers, Under-Secretaries and so on. It is true that in the first half century of federation governments always included such Ministers. For the last 19 years the whole question has been in abeyance. It is relevant to consider whether the announcement of such appointment should have been made before the House had determined the matter; whether, in fact, arrangements should have been made for the Governor-General to swear the Assistant Ministers in before the House had disposed of the matter.

I said this morning that I respected the view of the former Attorney-General, and I also respect the same view expressed by the first Attorney-General whom the present Prime Minister appointed. It is years since I looked at this matter on the Constitutional Review Committee but I would not be disposed to dispute their view.

There are 2 matters upon which I rise to speak. The first is that when the Prime Minister announced that he proposed to appoint Assistant Ministers, he did in fact say, as T quoted during my question to you, Sir, this morning:

  1. . there are occasions when it would be of great assistance to a Minister if his Assistant Minister could, during the Committee stages of a Bill, sit at the table of the House and represent his Minister in the discussion of clauses and amendments as they arise. I shall be consulting with the Presiding Officers on this matter to ascertain whether, to achieve this, an amendment of Standing Orders will be necessary.

You, Sir, said in your answer to me that there would have to be a very considerable number of amendments to the Standing Orders. Honourable members are only entitled to ask questions of you without notice. They cannot put them on the notice paper. A very usual procedure is for the Speaker to take the question without notice under notice and give a prepared reply later. It was quite clear this morning, from the fact that you were prepared to give such an informative reply off the cuff, that you had seriously considered this matter. Accordingly, when you said that there would have to be many amendments to the Standing Orders to permit the practice which the Prime Minister forecast on 29th April, it was clear that you were of that sure opinion. Since that time there has been a change of Presiding Officer in the Senate. My colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) quoted what the new President said about this very matter. I thought that the most amusing part of my colleague’s speech was the quotation from the President, Sir Magnus Cormack.

At least the House should take into consideration the circumstances in which any Assistant Ministers could function in the House. The Prime Minister clearly anticipated that this would be determined for both Houses. We know that the new President of the Senate is averse to the idea of Assistant Ministers. He accepts, because of its long standing, the practice of Ministers being members of the Senate.

The second matter that I wish to raise arises from the interjection of the Prime Minister while my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was speaking. The Prime Minister asked, if I recollect correctly, whether we would drop the amendment if assistance were-

Mr McMahon:

– I said: ‘Are you putting the proposition to me?’

Mr WHITLAM:

– ‘Are you putting the proposition to me that if assistance were made available to the Opposition executive you would drop the amendment?’ I authorised the honourable member for Reid to accept what I took to be an offer.

Mr McMahon:

– Can I straighten this out? What you are saying is that you were putting to me that if I were prepared to let you have assistance you would let this go through without objection?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes.

Mr McMahon:

– So you have no objection whatever, in terms of principle or on any other basis, to this paper and to the action now being taken by me. AH you want is to do a deal?

Mr WHITLAM:

– If assistance is made available to the Opposition executive this amendment will be withdrawn. The honourable member for Reid stated that on my authority. I reiterate it. I have not looked through what I said in the debate on the Ministers of State Bill, with which the proposal for the appointment of Assistant Ministers was associated last April, but I believe that I said on that occasion that there was something inherently unequal and unjust in that Ministers and now Assistant Ministers were being appointed, with all the assistance that goes with those positions, whereas no more assistance was now available to the Opposition than there had been years ago. In fact I have discussed this with the previous 2 Prime Ministers and with the present Prime Minister. The situation simply is that a member who serves on the Opposition executive has to be, in the nature of things, away from his electorate much longer than other private members. Like any private member on either side of the House he has one secretary-typist available to him. There are members of the Opposition executive from north Queensland and Western Australia. The airline timetables make it quite plain that even when we sit on 3 days - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - such members can be in their electorates on the Monday morning only. If they are to use the services of their secretary-typists they have to do so by telegram or trunk line call. Furthermore, members of the Opposition executive have to resume the debate on any Bills and on any ministerial statements. Any Minister who makes a second reading speech or gives a ministerial statement does so from a typed text. Obviously it is easier for him to prepare his speech, to dictate it, to read it and to circulate it to the Press if he has secretarial assistance available to him. Members of the Opposition executive do not have such secretarial assistance available to them.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have such secretarial assistance, as have the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Whips on both sides of the House have such assistance. A secretary-typist is available to the Opposition Whip. I think this is the case for both the Government Whip and the smaller Government Party Whip. But I know that my own staff has to do very many things for my colleagues which it is unreasonable for them to do. But there is no alternative to their doing it. I would certainly think it is about time that we revived the system which is now about 25 years old under which private members have one secretary-typist. In the United States of America, in Canada - it is true that this is not the case in Europe - members of Parliament have much more assistance available to them than that. We should have it in Australia. 1 am concerned at the moment, in the light of the Prime Minister’s interjection, that members of the Opposition executive are unable to use their secretary-typists directly or economically to the extent even that private members do. If this Parliament is to work properly and if democracy, is to be effective in Australia, there must be more parity of facilities between the ins and the outs. I appreciate that there would be anticipation on both sides of the House that the ins and the outs would reverse their positions at the next House of Representatives election. But I am putting this proposition in this way and at this time because 1 believe it is fair for whoever are the outs, for an Opposition whether it is the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal Party of Australia, to be entitled to more secretarial assistance in Canberra while this Parliament is sitting for members of its executive than is at present available.

The Assistant Ministers who are being appointed will all clearly have more secretarial assistance, presumably male and female.

Mr Duthie:

– Where will they put them?

Mr WHITLAM:

– That is a matter for the Speaker to determine. It is clear that they will have more secretarial assistance. They may have Press secretaries and so on. That is the inevitable accretion of Parkinson’s law, the one law in this country which does not have to go through Parliament. If the Prime Minister seriously puts this proposition then the Opposition accepts it.

Mr McMahon:

– I did not say I put it. I wanted to find out from you whether you were prepared to make a tawdry deal.

Mr WHITLAM:

– A few minutes ago it was a deal; it is now a tawdry deal. Sir, I believe this is a perfectly proper suggestion. This Parliament does not work as effectively as it should because those people who serve on the Opposition executive, and those who will serve on the Opposition executive after the next election, cannot and will not effectively work with the assistance available to them when the Parliament is sitting.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– There is very little more to be said because already the Opposition has conceded the constitutional right of the Prime Minister to appoint Assistant Ministers to help Ministers of State in the administration of their functions. I do not think there is very much doubt in the minds of a great number of members of this House that, as political and parliamentary life becomes increasingly complicated, there is a need, particularly in the case of many senior members of Cabinet, to have a Minister assisting them to carry out their functions. 1 know from practical experience of many portfolios - probably as many as 14 - that life today is much more complicated than it was when I entered Parliament, that Ministers are working consistently and that they do need to have some of the burden taken off their shoulders particularly so they may attend to constituency work. 1 also believe that it is highly desirable to give young and talented people the opportunity to learn the responsibilities of government and of administration, to know the tasks to be performed by Ministers, to get a greater acquaintance of the departments of State and the officials involved and, I believe, therefore to prepare themselves for promotion firstly to ministerial and later to Cabinet rank. I do not for one moment want to debate those subjects because I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has accepted the point of view put by my colleague the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who was previously the Attorney-General.

I turn to the potential or probable amendments to Standing Orders. When I read to the House the proposed amendments I think everyone will concede that they are so inconsequential that I could not believe that there could be any argument about them. Let me mention firstly the history of the matter. We did seek advice from the officers of the House as to what amendments might be made to Standing Orders if the Assistant Ministers were to carry out their functions mentioned in the statement that I made to the House on 29th April and that I subsequently published in the form of a White Paper. We received certain advice from the Clerk. For some considerable time negotiations continued with the Clerk until we did refine the Standing Orders that needed amendment. We are also deciding on those which we feel should be submitted to you, Mr Speaker, and which finally would be presented to the House for ratification.

Let me mention them. The first related to standing order 32. That relates to the seating of Assistant Ministers in the House. Here the recommendation is a clear one. It is not desired that Assistant Ministers be allocated seats on the ministerial bench. However, it is felt that they should be permitted to be seated at the table when they are in charge of debates on legislation or other matters. Is that a matter of great substance? Is that a matter which should detain the House for 5 minutes? I doubt it, unless the people who are raising objections are people of a much inferior frame of mind than I think should be in the House.

The second relates to the seconding of motions under standing orders 133, 160, 172, and 211. Normally a motion proposed by a member has to be seconded, but it has not to be seconded when it is proposed by a Minister. What is proposed on this occasion is that if a motion is proposed by an Assistant Minister it will not need to be seconded. Is there anything of substance here, anything we should argue about, or is it not something that should be agreed to automatically by all sensible and realistic people?

The third relates to standing orders 235, 236, 238 and 239. The Standing Orders as at present drafted would not prevent Assistant Ministers from taking Bills through the House. It should be pointed out that, as there will be a change in practice, it should be made known to honourable members. But with regard to the foregoing there will be no change whatsoever in the Standing Orders - merely a desire that when changes in practice under the Standing Orders are brought here, we would point out that Assistant Ministers would have the right that I have just mentioned. Again I ask the question: Could any sane man object to this procedure?

The next one relates to an amendment of standing order 91. This applies to the time limits for debates and speeches. The proposal is that in four separate matters - discussions of definite matters of public importance, second readings of Bills, second readings of Bills under certain different circumstances and the Committee stage of Bills - the Assistant Minister should have exactly the same time limitation as the Minister he is representing. Again, is this anything of great substance that should give us cause for thought? There is another amendment relating to standing order 143, which states that questions may be put to a member, not being a Minister, relating to any Bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House, of which the member has charge. What we are proposing here is that questions may be put to a member, not being a Minister or Assistant Minister, relating to the same subject matters. Again, is there anyone who could honestly object to this change being made? I doubt it. For that reason I am rather sorry that a debate on this matter should have been raised and should have delayed the House for so long.

Standing order 319 relates to the presentation of papers. We want to confer that right on the Assistant Ministers as well as on the Ministers themselves. The proposal in regard to standing order 321 would give an Assistant Minister the right to quote from documents, whilst the one relating to standing order 322 would allow Assistant Ministers to move that papers be printed or that they be noted.

Here is one of the reasons why the Opposition has raised objections. I believe that every single argument has been superficial. The arguments have no basis in substance. I believe that when it is known to the general public that we in this House have been held up this afternoon for these reasons resentment will be expressed at what is being done by the Opposition.

The next point that I want to bring home to the House relates to the procedures that I adopted in publishing the names of those people who would be the Assistant Ministers. Naturally enough, I sought advice from my officials whenever I felt that advice was desirable as to the proper procedure to be followed. Historically, it has always been the practice, when a Minister of State or a Minister of the kind mentioned by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), such as a Minister without portfolio, an Assistant Minister or some other person who might be assisting a Minister for the time being, has been appointed, for those announcements to be communicated first of all to the Governor-General because it is his constitutional right to appoint the individuals. It is not for the House to do it and it is not for me to do it. lt can be done only by the GovernorGeneral on my advice. So, constitutionally it is my responsibility to advise him first of all. I did that yesterday afternoon. I asked for his consent to my issuing a public statement on the matter yesterday afternoon. He agreed, and consequently it was done in accordance with constitutional practice and in accordance with the express approval of the Governor-General himself. I emphasise that this has been a practice adhered to since Federation and I see no reason whatsoever why it should be changed.

There is one other question that arises. I deliberately asked the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) whether he was trying to do a deal; in other words, whether he wanted to put it to me that if we would agree to some increase in the secretarial assistance for members of the Parliamentary Labor Party they would withdraw their opposition to the proposal. The simple fact is that the Opposition has no objection whatsoever in principle, lt is obvious that the Opposition wants to do a deal to see whether it can get something out of it. Just listening to it, I can assure honourable members opposite that I will not agree while standing on the floor of the House as I do at this moment. That is our position. I believe it is in the best interests of the government of this country and of members of this Parliament that they should have the opportunity to train themselves for appointment to the Ministry and, for that matter, for appointment to the Cabinet. I know that it will depend to a considerable degree on the capacity ot the Minister and the Assistant Minister who is assisting him, but at least I have this one great advantage. I have discussed the problem with them and I am absolutely confident that they will be able to work together and that they will be able to make a contribution to the government of this country. Having said that, I hope that the Opposition will let us get on with the work of government and of building up this country rather than debating irrelevant matters and trying to have a sordid deal of the kind I have just mentioned.

Mr Swartz:

– On a point of order. 1 point out that there is an urgent matter to he brought up today by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory who wishes to have it cleared this afternoon, and 1 am sure the Opposition does, too. We would like to give the honourable member this opportunity. In view of this I move:

Dr Gun:

– On a point of order. The Prime Minister has spoken about 8 times in this debate and I think it is absolute and unmitigated arrogance on his part.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingston will resume his seat.

Mr Beazley:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, Sir: ls it in order for a Minister to raise a point of order in concealment of the fact that he is moving the gag? The Minister was given the call on the ground that he was raising a point of order but he then moved the gag.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is not usually done in this manner, I admit, but I do not know of anything in the Standing Orders which says that it cannot be done in that way.

Mr Whitlam:

– On the point of order which the Leader of the House took, as I understand it, he is referring to a motion to disallow a regulation of which notice was given by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory. It is not the fault of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory that this matter has been brought on only today, the last day on which it can be dealt with. It could have been brought on on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday this week. It is the Government’s own fault that it is to be brought on today. If the Government has, through its own ineptitude in this matter of the Assistant Ministers, left too little time to debate it on this last day, then the Government’s remedy is to bring in the regulation afresh because it will lapse unless it is dealt with today. But it cannot be taken as a point of order that this matter is urgent today when the Government could have had it on any one of the last 3 days of this week.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In both cases the Chair has been fairly lenient in the particular circumstances of this matter. But I would like to point out that closure may be moved at any time by a Minister.

Mr Enderby:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding from inquiries directed to the Clerks that this is not the last day on which this motion can come up. I understand that there are two or three days left next week.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not aware of this. I do not know the situation in relation to it.

Mr Reynolds:

– Why not find out about it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not my duty to do so.

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

– by leave - The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that this matter has just been brought on today and that it has been brought on by the Government at this late hour. This is incorrect as the honourable gentleman knows. On 2 occasions this week we have had this matter listed for debate. However, due principally to the delaying tactics of the Opposition it has had to be deferred.

Mr Stewart:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last 3 Ministers who spoke in this debate have accused the Opposition of using delaying tactics and not doing the right thing by the Parliament. I ask you, Mr Speaker, kindly to control their remarks and to ensure that they do not infringe the Standing Orders. I feel that on this occasion the Opposition is not using delaying tactics. I think you appreciate this fact and I think you should bring them to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition gave the Leader of the House leave to make a statement. In circumstances of this sort it is not the duty of the Chair to agree or disagree with any honourable member’s opinions.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) has raised a matter as to the time limit for the debating of an ordinance. He knows about this matter because he checked with the Clerk and we know that it has to be cleared before Thursday. I indicated to my opposite number, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), that we wanted this matter cleared through the House this week because on Tuesday night the Opposition will deliver its reply to the Budget. We did not want this matter to be mixed up with the Budget debate. In other words we did not want to delay the Budget debate at that time. This matter was part of the programme for this week which was accepted by the Opposition. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory agreed that the debate was to take place this week. I cannot see any reason why at this stage it is indicated that it was not known that the debate was coming on and that the matter has been delayed. I suggest that the only thing that can be done is for this matter to be debated straight away.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa- Leader of the Opposition) - by leave - Since the proceedings are being broadcast and the impression may be gained that the House is being unnecessarily delayed I must point out, as the notice paper shows, that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) gave notice of the disallowance of this ordinance on 23rd April this year. Not only would it have been possible for this matter to have been brought up on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of this week as well as today but also it would have been possible for it to have been brought up at any time between 23rd April and 6th May when the House went into recess. Also it is possible for this matter to come up for debate on Monday when we sit in the afternoon or Tuesday when we sit in the afternoon before I resume the debate on the Budget on Tuesday night. I submit that there is no reason for this matter to be brought on today in such a way as to cut off debate on the other matter relating to the appointment of Assistant Ministers. The only other thing I wish to say is that the rather patronising reference to no sane or honest man saying that there was any difficulty about the Standing Orders which would have to be amended following the appointment of Assistant Ministers could be a reflection on you, Mr Speaker, because you gave us some inkling of the complexity of these changes. Last night they were never indicated to the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee which we both attended but which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) did not.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 38

Majority10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Mr Daly’s amendment) be so added.

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

AYES: 38

NOES: 48

Majority ..10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 451

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

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

page 451

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY PAROLE OF PRISONERS ORDINANCE 1971

Motion to Disallow Ordinance

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

That sub-section 2 of section 3, and section 5 of the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971 (No. 3 of 1971), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1970, be disallowed.

May I say at the outset that this law affects 150,000 people in the Australian Capital Territory. It is made not by way of a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament to which amendments can be moved; it is made by means of delegated legislation - an Ordinance in relation to which there is no opportunity to move amendments. I make those remarks at the outset to express my feeling that this procedure is a disgrace. As I understand it, I have something like 10 minutes before the House is due to rise. This Ordinance gives power to the courts of the Australian Capital Territory to impose minimum non-parole periods in the sentences imposed on persons who have been convicted in those courts. The Australian Capital Territory courts did not have this power until the enactment of this Ordinance. The idea that judges or magistrates should be given power to sentence a person to a term of imprisonment, and then order that he be not eligible for release on parole until a minimum period of time has expired, is relatively recent. It became part of Victorian law in 1957 and part of New South Wales law in 1966. Queensland and Western Australia enacted similar legislation and the Commonwealth did so in its Commonwealth Prisoners Act of 1967. I must confess that I have doubt whether a minimum nonparole period imposed by a judge or by a magistrate is a good idea. It seems inconsistent with the idea that a person should not be kept in prison any longer than is necessary to effect his reform and also to protect the community. This has a quality of deterrence about it. But I cannot help feel that in large measure it is a power given to judges to bolster their need for believing that the sentences they impose will not be undone by subsequent decisions by psychologists, social and welfare workers, and others who are charged with the duty of observing prisoners and assessing their chances of successful reintegration into society.

Be that as it may, the motion before this House does not seem to disallow those provisions of this Ordinance which bring the ACT into line with the situation that exists in Victoria and New South Wales. I hope that honourable members will not be misled or sidetracked by my having expressed my doubt about the provisions because, for the purpose of what I am saying here, I accept that they should be part of the law of the ACT. It is only a matter of my putting my doubt on record. The objectionable feature of this Ordinance is the machinery provision that is set up to determine whether a prisoner is released on parole. Put more plainly, it is the lack of that machinery provision that makes the Ordinance objectionable. The relevant provisions are sub-section (2.) of section 3 and section 5.

I should not need to persuade honourable members that the preservation of the liberty of the subject is a vital brick on which our whole system of justice is built. It is so embedded in our law and culture that it would be unthinkable to detain a person in custody unnecessarily without providing proper safeguards and proper machinery to regulate his conditions of release. The giving of an unfettered discretion to the executive arm of government to determine whether he should be at liberty or not is completely opposed to all our history and to all our principles. This history is betrayed and those principles are broken by this Ordinance which does give an unfettered discretion to the executive arm of government to decide whether a person should be free or whether he should not be free. In New South Wales and Victoria, the work of making a decision of that sort as to whether or not a person should be released from custody is given to independent parole boards. They are not part of the executive; they are not part of the Public Service. The New South Wales Parole Board is under the chairmanship of a Supreme Court judge, and there must be at least one woman on the Board. The present New South Wales Board is made up of Mr Justice Allen, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Judge Levine of the District Court; Miss Margaret Telfer, Registrar of the University of Sydney; Mr Ramsay, a retired former Under-Secretary of Justice; Mr J. A. Maroney, Comptroller-General of Prisons, and Mr K. Marsen, Personnel Manager of Leyland Motors, who is also on the Executive of the Prisoners’ Aid Society. Honourable members can appreciate the quality of that Board. In Victoria there are 2 adult parole boards - one for males and one for females. The male parole board consists of a chairman who must also be a Supreme Court judge. Its members consist of the Director-General of Social Welfare and 3 other members who at present are the Chairman of the Prisoners’ Aid Society, an ex-Chief Parole Officer, and a medical practitioner. The female parole board has as its chairman the permanent member of the male board and three other women who at present are the Convener of the Female Prisoners’ Council, an ex-governor of a female prison and a children’s court magistrate. There is also a special Youth Parole Board.

In all those cases the parole boards receive evidence from all interested parties. The prisoner is encouraged to make a statement. The parole boards receive opinions from psychiatrists, psychologists, prison officials and welfare people, and with the growing experience and expertise that they, acquire, they make a decision as to, whether a prisoner should be released by being parolled. After a decision has been made, a prisoner can have no valid reason in those circumstances to suppose that he has not had a fair go or that he has not had fair treatment because justice has manifestly been seen to be done. If release on parole is denied or deferred, the prisoner can ask for the decision to be reconsidered, and he knows it will be reconsidered. Honourable members can see the lengths to which the New South Wales and Victorian legislatures have gone to establish independent, top quality parole boards. I am not suggesting that they have gone too far by any means because I believe that there should be a right for the prisoner to be present and to argue his right to release if necessary. They have not gone that far. I can think of other improvements also.

I ask honourable members to compare the Victorian and New South Wales systems with the system proposed for the Australian Capital Territory, or the lack of system. If section 3 sub-sections (2) and (5) remain part of the Ordinance, the decision on whether a person is to be released or not released will be given to the GovernorGeneral; that is, to the Executive arm of our Government. I was taught that it was always undesirable to confer on the Executive powers that are by their nature judicial, because when that is done safeguards associated with the exercise of judicial power are invariably left out or written down. Section 3 Sub-section (2) of the Ordinance states that the reference to the Governor-General shall be read as a reference to the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Attorney-General. On the face of it, that would suggest that the decision to release or not to release a prisoner could be a political decision, which would, of course, be completely wrong. But we all know that in reality it will mean that the decision to release or not to release will be the decision of an anonymous and unknown public servant, sitting in a back room in the Attorney-General’s Department. He may or may not be qualified; he may or may not be wise; he may or may not be prejudiced; and he may or may not be competent.

Such a system is completely wrong, and the ideals behind our much vaunted concept of the rule of law will be severely dented if a decision making power that so vitally affects the liberty of the subject is created in this way. It does not detract from this criticism one whit to say that the Attorney-General’s Department may have each case processed first by, say, the New South Wales Parole Board because our prisoners go to New South Wales. The decision to adopt, reject or vary any recommendation that might be made by the New South Wales Parole Board would still be an administrative decision made ‘by an anonymous public servant here in Canberra. I hasten to add that I believe that the officers of the Attorney-General’s Department are all hard working and dedicated men. But, having said that, I must also say that that is not the question. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.

Although these officers are unknown, they are associated in the minds of prisoners with the prosecution that put them in gaol. No prisoner who is refused parole will believe that justice has been done to him or that he has had a fair go when he knows that the decision on whether he would be released was in the hands of people whom he does not know, who probably are unknowable to him and whose decisions he cannot influence, but who in his mind are associated with Crown prosecutors and police prosecutors who helped to put him in gaol.

I ask the House to consider the powers given by section 5 of the Ordinance. It gives an absolute and unfettered discretion to the Governor-General. As I have said, it means that in reality the departmental officer in the Attorney-General’s Department who is charged with doing this work will make the decision. I should add at this point that in reply to a question I put not long ago to the Attorney-General I was given to understand that there is one full time departmental officer doing the job at present, assisted part time by 2 senior officers. Those officers will have the power, in an unfettered way, to order the release or otherwise of a prisoner. There is nothing in the Ordinance to direct a departmental officer or officers to take account of medical reports, psychological reports or reports of social or welfare officers, or to take account of the opportunities or lack of opportunities for gainful employment outside gaol.

The discretion will be the officers’ discretion and it is not controlled in any way. There can be no judicial control over it. To cite some extreme examples, the discretion could be exercised one way or another because a particular officer believed that one type of crime was more serious than another type of crime, irrespective of the views of this Parliament. For example, an officer might take the view that people guilty of culpable driving of a motor vehicle are much more guilty in a moral sense than people who break into stores, or something of that sort, irrespective of what Parliament said. He might be influenced by cynicism about the rehabilitation of prisoners or because he places excessive and unreasonable importance on the need to protect society.

The exercise of an officer’s discretion could even be influenced one way or another because he was anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant or anti-Semetic. If it happened, there would be no way of knowing. As I have said, it could not be found out who the officer was, except informally. If some injustice occurred, there would be no way for anyone outside the Public Service to find out who had made the decision. No member of Parliament could rise to his feet in this House and describe, as I have described, the people who have this power and who constitute the parole boards of New South Wales and Victoria and have the direct responsibility for the decisions they made.

If honourable members look at the complete Ordinance, there is worse to come. Sub-section (5) and (6) of section 5 enable this officer to include conditions in any order that he makes that a person be released. He could, for example, order that the prisoner not associate with any other person, even a member of that person’s family. He could order him to live in one area and not in another area. He could order that he take some form of employment, and not some other form of employment. He could order that he be in employment and stay in employment irrespective of shortages of employment opportunities or the attitude of, say, an employer. The officer could order that the released prisoner drink or not drink alcohol, enter a hotel or not enter a hotel. He could order if he wanted to that the prisoner, now released, wear ‘his hair short or that he wear it long. The section goes as far as that. It would all depend on what the particular officer thought was important or unimportant, relevant or irrelevant and, as I have said, there would be no way of challenging the decision or appealing against it in any way.

The same officer could order that a person be released and then could change his mind at any time, and need not give any reason for having so changed his mind. Such an incident could occur if the officer exercised the power to revoke the order. The New South Wales Parole Board could not come into consideration at all in that regard because it would be a departmental decision. The officer could vary the order or revoke it and cause the person concerned to be put back into prison for what would then become, in effect, an indefinite period.

There is nothing in the Ordinance to say that the officer, the Governor-General or the Attorney-General has to have a reason. It could be at the exercise of a whim. One would hope that it would not be, of course. An interesting feature of the Ordinance is this: The comparison between the role given to the departmental officer and the Attorney-General and to the role of the courts of petty sessions. Whereas the officer who performs this work will have no checks or procedures imposed upon him at all, except perhaps checks of a superior officer and ultimately the AttorneyGeneral, there are checks of a proper kind contained in sections such as section 10 which applies, in other circumstances, where a court of petty sessions has cancelled a parole order. In such circumstances, an appeal to the Supreme Court is provided for. At least a magistrate’s decision to cancel parole takes place in open court and the magistrate has to give reasons. Those reasons have to be supported by sworn evidence. The officer in the Attorney-General’s Department is not required to work in this way or formulate his reasons in this way at all. Yet, there is provision for an appeal from the decision of the magistrate and no provision for appeal from the decision of the departmental officer. The opportunities for abuse and, more importantly, a feeling of injustice on the part of the prisoner, are obvious. The fact that there is ministerial responsibility involved does not alter a thing. A biased, spiteful prison warder could submit an unfair report on a prisoner to the departmental officer. The prisoner would not know what was in the report and would have no way of knowing. He would have no way of challenging it, and yet the departmental officer might not think it was biased and spiteful - he might not even know it was - and might act upon it. There would be no way of testing the report. It may be said that I am making too much of the need to impose judicial- like standards into this subject of release on parole. I do not believe that I am, because even if it were proper to describe - I emphasise the word ‘describe’ - a decision to release a person on parole as an executive decision, the proper standards should still have to be applied. There is some room for confusion when one comes to consider this question of terminology because some of the earlier literature on parole boards described them as exercising an executive function rather than a judicial function. But this was before parole boards of the present kind were created and before the present system of giving power to a judge to impose minimum non-parole periods was created. For example, under the old system in New South Wales, a parole board could consider only cases referred to it by the Minister of Justice. The board made recommendations to the Minister. In those days, there were no minimum non-parole periods imposed by judges. The point I wish to make, that the judicial standards should be aimed at, has been made abundantly clear in the speech of the New South Wales Minister of Justice, Mr Maddison, during the second reading of the New South Wales legislation introduced in 1966. Mr Maddison described the changes between the old system and the new system which he was then introducing. He said:

This Bill, therefore, changes in respect of determinate sentences, the whole concept of parole in New South Wales. It also alters the powers and constitution of the Board. Because the Board is considering only those cases specified by the Court and at times designated by the Court, it seemed proper to consider these to be parts of the judicial process, and therefore the Board is empowered to authorise release and impose conditions of release.

It was decided to put this responsibility on the Board rather than leave it to the Attorney-General as had previously been the case and as this Ordinance seeks to do. Mr Maddison continued:

It is also vested with the converse power of revoking an order of parole in the event of a breach of the conditions imposed.

The draftsmen of our Australian Capital Territory Ordinance have adopted part of the New South Wales reform but grafted on to it the very worst features of the old system which was superseded by that New South Wales reform. Mr Maddison went on to say:

Because the powers of the Board have been increased, it has been thought proper to provide that the Chairman of the Board be a judge of the Supreme Court.

The powers for granting increased parole in the A.C.T. have been more than increased; they have been created from nothing, but they have not been given to a board under the chairmanship of a judge. The Government has chosen instead to give the job to an unknown departmental officer. It is a cheap form of administrative expediency and there should be no room for such administrative expediency where the question of a person’s liberty is involved. There are 37 A.C.T. prisoners at present in New South Wales gaols. Only 2 are eligible for parole at this time but that is because the Ordinance was introduced only about 5 months ago and our Supreme Court is understaffed and has been on vacation for some of that time. The numbers will increase. Let me quote the second United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders which met in London in 1960. One of its resolutions, section 6, recommendation 4, is in these terms:

It is desirable to apply the principle of release before the expiration of the sentence subject to conditions, to the widest possible extent, as a practical solution of both the social and the administrative problems created by imprisonment. The authority releasing the prisoner should be specialised and decisions about the prisoner should be taken, preferably after a personal interview with him, but in any case, on the basis of exhaustive information about him.

If this part of the Ordinance remains law, that standard will certainly not be met and, more importantly, it will certainly not be seen to be met.

I have heard it said by a departmental legal officer in Canberra that it is not necessary to impose judicial standards on the question of whether or not a prisoner should be released because even after he is released, he is still under a sentence, imposed by a judge. This view of things would go on to say that the judge’s task is finished at the sentence stage and that all that happens afterwards are matters for administrative or executive decision. This is a dangerous and deceptive answer because it hides the reality of the situation. The fact is that a decision of whether to parole or not to parole is a decision whether to give freedom or not to give freedom. It is that decision that affects a person’s liberty. The fact that he remains under sentence only affects his departmental status and is a matter for administrative or departmental record. There is another answer to this very sterile and unrealistic point of view. Judges should play a part in any decision whether to release on parole or not to release on parole. Their work should not finish at the time of recording sentence. They should partake in the additional experience of being allowed to follow through on the cases that have come before their courts. I am talking now of ACT judges and magistrates. Only in this way will judges lose some of the narrow legalism of approach with which they are sometimes associated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I want to emphasise-

Mr Hurford:

– Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sorry, but I have called already the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Dr CASS:

– I do not believe that anybody on either side of the House does not accept the arguments in favour of the parole system. Its purpose as an integral part of the whole judicial system is to ensure that people who have for some reason or other broken the law and need to be incarcerated are properly rehabilitated into the community. After all, just to approach it from the point of view of punishment, we know from experience, mostly fails. The essence of the exercise these days is surely to realise that we must readjust the approach of the criminal so that he accepts the norms of society and fits in readily once his time in prison is over. That is where the parole system is important. The judgment of whether or not a person is fit for parole is a complex one. It involves judgment of many factors, such as the attitude of the individual, his aptitude to find another occuption or better cope with the occupation he had. After all, these may be factors that contributed to his breaking the law in the first place. Other matters to be considered would be his ability to fit in, his socialising tendencies within the community itself and the environment to which he is likely to return. To form judgments on these mat- ters we recognise clearly that it is important to have something like parole boards. I do not think any honourable member disagrees with that.

What I find distressing is that with this ordinance we are tending to go hack from an advance that was made, at least in New South Wales, where, as the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) mentioned, the Minister who introduced legislation in 1966 indicated that he was taking away from the Minister the right to make the final decision. I think this was a clear advance. He was leaving the sole responsibility for deciding whether a prisoner would be placed on parole in the hands of a parole board, and that is where the responsibility should lie. Risks will have to be taken and sometimes, even with the best of intentions, some of the paroled persons may well break their parole. In the situation proposed for the Australian Capital Territory we will not necessarily know the recommendation of the parole board. It will all rest in the hands of the officer to whom the authority is delegated or the AttorneyGeneral. Why should he be lumbered with the responsibility of having let out of gaol someone who subsequently breaks parole? This, in essence, is what the present situation amounts to. Surely it would be far better to adopt the New South Wales practice which is to leave it in the hands of a competent, specialist parole board. I am sure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) does not disagree with me. The Government has accepted that prisoners in the Australian Capital Territory should be dealt with by the New South Wales board. However, by this ordinance the Government is reverting to the practice of insisting that the final decision will rest in essence in the hands of the Attorney-General. With all respect, I think that is a foolish move. I think the Government should take the plunge, accept the practice in New South Wales and leave it to the parole board.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Government opposes the motion for the disallowance of this ordinance. The first point made by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) was that this ordinance applied to 150,000 people in the Australian Capital Territory.

In one sense that is true enough, but when we are speaking about the parole of prisoners let us get this matter in perspective. The latest figures that I have - figures for July - indicate that there were 37 Australian Capital Territory prisoners, 2 of who were eligible for parole. There would not be 150,000 people being dealt with by the parole board. Good heavens, I would not wish to make that reflection on the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I am not underrating the importance of the problem of the prisoner or of the liberty of the subject; what I am saying is that if 150,000 prisoners were involved what would be needed would be not only a parole board but also a substantial department to handle the matter. What size parole board sitting the entire year would be needed to deal with 2 prisoners in an entire year? Practical considerations come into this, lt may be, as I said earlier, that there will be a parole board in Canberra but at present it is hardly justified by the amount of work that is involved.

Coming down more to the base of the criticism that has been offered, it has been put that there are objectionable features in the machinery for the release of prisoners on parole under the ordinance because it gives an unfettered discretion to the Executive. In the same breadth it was said that these decisions will, in fact be made and the conditions will be set by some officer in a back room. I shall deal with those 2 things in reverse order. I think that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory has given less than credit to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth in suggesting that these matters are actually decided by some officer in a back room. This is not a power which the Attorneys-General - at any rate, since I have been exercising the office - have delegated. It is a matter about which they have considerable personal anxiety and to which they have given considerable personal attention. Therefore, I do not think it is proper to lay undue stress on the argument that the power is given to some officer in a back room. It is true that the relevant material is put up to the Attorney-General by officers and that included in it may be advice from parole officers, but the decision to give advice to the GovernorGeneral is exercised by the AttorneyGeneral.

I turn now to a more important principle. It has been stated that we are involved here with the liberty of the subject and that this liberty is threatened by having ‘the matter in the hands of the Executive. I have heard this view expressed quite often lately. I am surprised at the extent to which there is a lack of understanding of the safety of the subject in putting matters of this kind into the hands of a Minister who is answerable publicly in the House instead crf putting them into the hands of a parole board whose members may or may not be known and are answerable to no-one. Where is the liberty of the subject protected in the second circumstance? The liberty of the subject is much more protected when a Minister is answerable to the representatives of the people in this House than it would be if it were in the hands of some obscure, anonymous board which is answerable to no-one.

Secondly, if a dreadful crime is committed by a parolee, should the responsible Minister shelter behind the parole hoard? Why should he not be answerable to the representatives of the people in the Parliament? That is the view which has been taken in Great Britain, which still retains the system that we have here. Great Britain is, after all, the place of origin of most of our love of liberty and our way of handling and protecting our civil liberties. It is true that New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia have delegated this responsibility to a parole board. I suspect - perhaps one should not say too positively that this is so - that the enormous numbers with which they deal is the reason for adopting this approach. It is because it would bulk so large in the work of the Attorney-General to deal with them personally that machinery provisions have led to the establishment of the practice of a parole board handling these cases, rather than as a means of safeguarding the liberty of the subject. I challenge the principle that was put forward by the honourable member for ‘the Australian Capital Territory. We will keep this matter under review, particularly having regard to the liberty of the prisoners involved, but for the present, what is contained in this ordinance is, I believe, the proper thing to have contained in such an ordinance. It has been working well since early this year and I believe that it should be allowed to continue to work in that way.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– in reply - Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr N. H. Bowen) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the negative.

House adjourned at 4.19 p.m.

page 458

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions uponnotice were circulated:

Civil Aviation; Commuter Aircraft (Question No. 2681)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

  1. How many licensed commuter aircraft are operating in Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea which are licensed to carry (a) 1 to 5, (b) 5 to 10, and (c) 10 to 20 passengers?
  2. From which country were these aircraft imported?
  3. What was the cost of each aircraft?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions: (1), (2) and (3) Commuter services are performed by holders of charter licences who have been authorised to provide regular services over specified routes without holding the airline licences otherwise required to engage in such services. The authorisations, in the form of exemp tions pursuant to Air Navigation Regulation 203 specify the types of aircraft which may be used, but not the number of each type, and individual aircraft are not, in fact, licensed. Commuter operators, who are also charter operators, may thus draw on any or all of the aircraft of the types authorised in their fleets, or may, supplement their fleets, from time to time as traffic demands warrant. For this reason, it is not possible to answer your first question in the form in which you have expressed It.

However, the accompanying table may be helpful in affording you an indication of the number of aircraft of various passenger seating capacities engaged in commuter operations. The information contained in the table will also answer your second and third questions regarding the countries from which the aircraft were imported and their cost. So far as cost is concerned, this will, of course, vary quite considerably, depending, for example, on the radio and navigation equipment and optional equipment installed. The prices shown in the table are, however, average prices quoted by the Australian distributors for new aircraft fully equipped to commuter service standards. I have no information on the prices actually paid for the aircraft in question.

Radio and Television Advertising (Question No. 3049)

Dr Everingham:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice.

Will the Government take steps to prevent, curtail or restrict radio and television advertising of liquor or to require equal facilities to be made available by licensed broadcasters for education concerning the effects of liquor.

Sir Alan HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board already contain special provisions relating to advertisements for alcoholic liquor which must be observed by commercial broadcasting and television stations. In accordance with these standards such advertisements may not be televised between 6.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. or between 4.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., Monday to Saturday inclusive, nor at any time on Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday. No advertisements for alcoholic liquor may be televised or broadcast in proximity to programmes for children or at times when the audience may be expected to include large numbers of young people. Young people, whether children or adolescents, must not be allowed to participate in the presentation of these advertisements. The foregoing provisions do not prevent the sponsorship of sporting events broadcast or televised live on Saturday or sponsorship identification in the form of billboards, or other forms of institutional identification which do not include a sales message for alcoholic liquor.

The Board maintains close surveillance of the programmes of commercial broadcasting and television stations to ensure that the above requirements are observed.

Trade Unions: Fines (Question No. 3002)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What was the total amount of fines (a) imposed on trade unions by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and (b) collected from trade unions during each of the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?

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

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

It is assumed that the tribunal referred to was the Commonwealth Industrial Court and not the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and further that the fines referred to were those imposed under the former section 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

The information required is set out in the following table. It should be noted that although the fines imposed and collected were in pounds, they have been converted to dollars.

Trans-Australia Airlines: Cancelled Flight (Question No. 3196)

Dr Cass:

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

  1. What arrangements were made by TransAustralia Airlines to transport passengers booked on the cancelled Electra flight TN425 from Canberra to Melbourne on Sunday 17th January 1971. (Hansard, 7th April 1971, pages 1638-9).

    1. At what time was the Electra aircraft subsequently declared airworthy.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. I have been advised by Trans-Australia Airlines that the arrangements it made were as follows:

It was planned to transfer the passengers from flight 425 to flight 433. In effect this was what was done finally. To relieve the Electra aircraft which had been assigned to operate flight 425 but was unserviceable at Canberra, it was necessary to position another aircraft into Canberra.

The only available aircraft was in Melbourne and it was assigned to operate flight 496, Melbourne/Canberra, and flight 433, Canberra/Melbourne, thus covering flights originally programmed for the unserviceable Electra.

  1. The Electra aircraft was declared serviceable at 8.58 p.m.

Defence: Public Relations Expenditure (Question No. 3210)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What amount was spent on public relations by his Department and each of the Service departments during (a) 1960-61, (b) 1965-66, (c) 1968-69 and (d) 1969-70?

Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

It is not possible to provide costs for the very wide range of activities that may be classified as having some public relations content or purpose. The amounts spent on salaries and allowances of full-time public relations staffs, both Service and civilian, and on activities directly attributable to the functions of these staffs are as follows:

Civil Aviation: Movements at Sydney Airport (Question No. 3240)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. How many movements of jet aircraft took place at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between the hours of 11 pin. and 6 a.m. in each of the following periods in 1971: 7th-8th April, 8th-9th April, 9th-10th April, 10th-11th April, 11th-12th April, 12th-13th April and 13th- 14th April?
  2. What was the runway usage for (a) landings and (b) take-offs for each of these periods?
  3. Was Ministerial approval (a) sought and (b) obtained for all movements of jet aircraft within the curfew hours for these periods?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The accompanying table presents the information in respect of total jet aircraft movements within the curfew periods specified, and runway usage in connection with these movements.
  2. Of the 55 movements which occurred in the period, the approval of the Minister for Civil Aviation -was sought and obtained for 43 movements. These approvals were for flights which were obliged to operate within the curfew period in order to cater to the unusually high traffic demand at Easter. Approval for the remaining 12 movements, of aircraft delayed by unserviceability or other operational factors, was sought and obtained from the Airport Director.

International Labour Convention: Labour Standards (N on-metropolitan Territories) (Question No. 3267)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Will International Labour Organisation Convention No. 83 - Labour Standards (NonMetropolitan Territories), 1947 come into force when one more country ratifies it? (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1964 footnote).

  2. If Australia ratifies the Convention will she be able to apply the following Conventions to New Guinea and Papua although she has not ratified them:

    1. No. 3 - Maternity Protection, 1919, which entered into force on 13th June 1921.
    2. No. 5- Minimum Age (Industry), 1919, which entered into force on 13th June 1921.
    3. No. 6- Night Work of Young Persons (Industry), 1919, which entered into force on 13th June 1921.
    4. No. 14- Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921, which entered into force on 19th June 1923.
    5. No. 17 - Workmen’s Compensation (Accident), 1925, which entered into force on 1st April 1927.
    6. No. 41- Night Work (Women) (Revised), 1934, which entered into force on 22nd November 1936, and
    7. No. 77 - Medical Examination of YoungPersons (Industry), 1946, which entered” into force on 29th December 1950.
  3. Why has Australia not yet ratified Convention No. 83?
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. TLO Convention No. 83- Labour Standards (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947 requires each ratifying country to communicate to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office with its ratification a declaration stating, in respect oi’ each of its non-metropolitan territories, the extent’ to which it undertakes that the provisions of the Conventions set forth in the Schedule to the Convention (i.e. those listed by the honourable member) shall be applied in the particular territory.

The declaration is to state in respect of each of : the Conventions:

  1. the territories in respect of which the provisions of the Convention shall be applied’, without modification;
  2. the territories in respect of which the provisions of the Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with-, details of the said modifications;
  3. the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;

  4. the territories in respect of which a decision is reserved.

    1. The questions of ratification of Convention No. 83 and the declarations to be made in respect of Australia’s non-metropolitan territories are under consideration.

Civil Aviation: Eagle Farm Curfew (Question No. 3291)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Does a curfew apply to Eagle Farm airport restricting commercial flights from operating between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.?

  2. If so,

    1. on whose authority may the curfew be relaxed?
    2. on what dates and how many times on each date have commercial flights operated during the curfew period since 1st January 1970? And
    3. which airline company operated each of these flights?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. A curfew period is enforced at Brisbane Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

This curfew applies only to jet aircraft, such as the Boeing 727 and DC9 used by the domestic airlines and the Boeing 707 and DC8 used by the international carriers, and not to turbo-prop aircraft such as the Friendship and Electra, or to piston-engined types.

  1. Operations within the curfew period fall into two categories: those which must infringe into curfew hours in order to cater to unusually high traffic demands at peak travel times such as Christmas or Easter; and those which, for operational reasons, including delays due to aircraft unserviceability or weather conditions, cannot avoid infringing the curfew. The former, for which authorisation is sought by the airlines in advance, are approved by the Minister for Civil Aviation, and the latter are approved by the Airport Director.

The accompanying tables provide the information on operations within the curfew period. The first table lists the occasions on which flights by jet aircraft have actually taken place at Brisbane Airport during curfew hours since 1st January 1971. This table also shows the operators of the flights concerned. Unfortunately, a similar record for 1970 is not available, but the second table, listing approvals granted for movements by jet aircraft within the curfew period, will afford you an indication to the extent of such operations. I might add that, generally speaking, approvals given for operations within curfew hours exceed the actual number of such movements.

Defence Establishments: Housing (Question No. 3298)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. At which defence establishments throughout Australia are premises provided for servicemen under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement?
  2. How many servicemen are (a) at present accommodated and (b) awaiting allocation of accommodation in these premises?
  3. At each defence establishment (a) what is the maximum waiting period for this accommodation (b) how many servicemen are accommodated in private premises and (c) what sum was spent in rent subsidies for private premises in 1969-70?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Provision of Houses under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement (CSHA). State Housing authorities may not build houses on Service establishments where the land is owned by the Commonwealth. In such cases, houses are built and owned by the Defence Services. Other houses for servicemen are provided under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement in areas which are described in the Housing Agreement Act 1966 as ‘usual residential localities’. In some cases these CSHA houses are adjacent to the Service complex at which the personnel are employed, and in other cases they may be some miles distant. The places where houses are provided for Service personnel are listed in column 1 of Annex A.

  2. Accommodation of Servicemen in CSHA Houses -

    1. The number of servicemen, by localities, who occupied houses provided under the CSHA on 30th April 1971, are listed in column 2 of Annex A. The total numbers, by Services, are:
  1. Servicemen awaiting allocation of accommodation in houses go on to a waiting list and as at 30th April 1971 the numbers were:

Details are given in column 3 of Annex A and relate to areas of Australia where the CSHA operates, i.e. they exclude the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. A total of about 2,400 houses is already programmed or under construction towards the requirement of 4,458.

  1. Alternative Accommodation for Servicemen -

    1. In those localities where houses are provided under the CSHA to meet the needs of Service establishments, the maximum waiting periods are listed in column 4 of Annex A.
    2. The number of servicemen who are accommodated in private premises are not recorded by the Services for each locality. However, estimates for each Service as at 30th April 1971 are as follows:
  1. The sums spent in rental subsidies for servicemen living in private premises for the financial year 1969-70 are not recorded by the Services for each locality. However, the total rent subsidies for each Service were as follows:

The period stated as the maximum waiting time for Service accommodation represents the longest time that an individual serviceman who is currently on a waiting list, has been awaiting a married quarter in a particular locality.

The Navy determines priorities on the basis of the time that has elapsed since the serviceman became entitled to a married quarter and thus the waiting time depends directly upon the availability of married quarters. However, the Army and RAAF operate systems whereby points are allotted to determine relative priorities for the allocation of married quarters. Points are allotted for length of service, number of children, recent separation from family due to an unaccompanied posting and for various other reasons. A married serviceman who has had 15 years of service and who has 5 children must always receive a married quarter in preference to a married serviceman in the first 2 years of his initial engagement who has no children. Thus the maximum time a serviceman in the Army or the RAAF may wait for a married quarter depends to a greater extent on the priority rating accorded to him under the points system, than on the availability of a vacant married quarter.

High Speed Hazards (Question No. 3368)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a film, recently screened throughout Australia and produced by the Central Office of Information in the United Kingdom, which deals specifically with the problem of high speed heavy vehicles and the dangerous overshoot by jet aircraft?
  2. If so, is the adoption of a gravel arrester recommended as one method of minimising both these hazards?
  3. Is the Minister able to say whether, since 1966, the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough has conducted experiments by extending the runway used by conventional jet aircraft so that in emergencies, normally involving overshooting procedure, an aircraft, rather than dangerously abort the landing, can continue the landing procedure and move into a bed of gravel continuous with the runway?
  4. If so, can the Minister say whether these experiments have shown that an aircraft moving into the gravel arrester is rapidly brought to a stop without damage to the aircraft, or injury to either crew or passengers?
  5. Have the findings of the Royal Aircraft Establishment been examined by his Department; if so, with what result?
  6. If not, will the Minister initiate an inquiry Into the potentialities of the gravel arrester?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The film has been seen by officers of the Department of Civil Aviation and the subject matter together with similar data has been studied during recent years.
  2. Yes. A bed of coarse gravel or shingle adjacent to the runway end was recommended as a method.
  3. Yes. The Royal Aircraft Establishment has carried out tests dating from 1966 using a variety of materials - water, sand, soil, gravel and aerated concrete - placed in a shallow pit to determine the effectiveness of such a facility in stopping an aircraft which has overrun the end of the runway. These tests were initially conducted with a vehicle, then with obsolete aircraft and by simulation of aircraft in the Laboratory. Late last year, tests were carried out using a new light weight synthetic aggregate.
  4. These tests indicated that whilst there were some problems associated with it, a bed of shingle was effective at the range of entry speeds tested, in rapidly and safely bringing the vehicle and the aircraft to a halt without injury to occupants and without major structural damage to the aircraft. The possibility existed, however, of aircraft skin damage due to flying stones and ingestion of stones into jet engines, which could cause substantial damage.
  5. The results of these investigations, together with data on other types of arresting systems, such as cables and nets used on military aerodromes, have been studied by the Department of Civil Aviation in respect of application to civil aerodromes in Australia. This subject was also discussed at a major meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal during late 1967. Member nations, including Australia, concluded that there was no operational requirement for such devices at this time, but agreed that investigations should continue. Australia supported these views, which still prevail. Information and data concerned with research and devel opment on aircraft arresting devices is being constantly studied by Departmental officers and the situation is being kept under review.
  6. Not applicable in view of answer to part (S) of question.

Civil Aviation: Charter Flights (Question No. 3381)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the operation of free competition been restricted in air travel to and from Australia by Government agreement to enforce price-fixing on charter flights at levels recommended by airline operators.
  2. Are those airline operators free to arrange charter services on the same terms and with the same savings as other charter operators; if not, in what way are they prevented from openly competing in the charter market if they should want to do so, either under their own banner or as an associated company.
  3. Are adequate safety and employment standards enforced in charter flights; if so, what is the justification for enforcing minimum fares and minimum periods of club membership for charter passengers.
  4. ls it in the interests of passengers that uneconomic routes should be sustained with more economic airline operators who have already negotiated give and take agreements with Qantas Airways Limited and Australia in such matters as fares, facilities, safety standards, time tables and routes.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Government has fixed a minimum per capita rate, which is subject to periodical review, for travel on international charter flights to and from Australia. All air carriers eligible to perform charter flights in accordance with the Government’s charter flight policy are bound to charge the minimum per capita rate and to observe the normal rules of the International Air Transport Association governing charter flights but in all other respects are free to compete with each other for charter business offering.
  2. Answered in the reply to question one.

  3. (a) In addition to meeting the standards set by the country of their registration air carriers operating charter flights to and from Australia are required to comply with the relevant Air Navigation Regulations.

    1. The Government has established minimum per capita rates to provide a stable economic basis for the development of charter services to and from Australia.
    2. A minimum period of club membership for charter passengers is one of the rules of the International Air Transport Association governing charter flights.
  4. The assumptions on which the question is based are incorrect. Scheduled airlines, including the Australian international flag carrier, charge uniform fares for travel on the world’s air routes. Such fares are set by the International Air Transport Association, subject to approval of Governments, and are assessed on a route by route basis having regard to such economic factors common to all airlines as operating Costs and traffic density. Fares charged by Qantas Airways Limited throughout -its route network are those recommended by . IATA to all Governments and approved’ by them and the company (and the Australian Government)’ does not negotiate agreements with other airlines in relation to fares and such matters as facilities, safety standards, timetables and routes.

Sydney Airport: Runways (Question No. 3403)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. Is it proposed to construct a parallel runway beside both, the north/south and east/west runways at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport; if so, when.
  2. Have any public authorities registered an official protest against these plans; if so, which.
  3. Has the Commonwealth any proposal for the acquisition of additional land adjacent to the airport to facilitate extensions.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Parallel runways have been a feature of the master plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport since the mid- 1940s. However, in accordance with normal practice, that master plan is being contin uously updated and this includes re-examining the precise location of the parallels and the timing with which these additional facilities may be required. 1 am not yet in a position to advise on the precise timing and extent of these proposed additional aerodrome works.
  2. Yes. The Municipalities of South Sydney and Rockdale.
  3. The need for additional land and the location of that land including further reclamations within Botany Bay will only be determined on completion of the review of the master plan earlier mentioned.

Civil Aviation: Operating Costs (Question No. 3410)

Mr Charles Jones:

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

  1. What is the (A) cost per passenger and (B) cost of freight per lb on (i) Boeing 727 aircraft, (ii) DC9 aircraft and (iii) Electra aircraft when operating between (A) Sydney and Perth (B) Sydney and Melbourne and (C) Sydney and Adelaide?
  2. What will be the relative costs for the wide-bellied jets at present under consideration by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Tt is not possible to determine precisely the costs which the Honourable Member seeks. Various assumptions have to be made in making calculations of this nature, and they will differ according to circumstances. On the basis of certain arbitrary assumptions, however, the following are the approximate unit costs requested. They should be - treated as illustrative only and used with caution: -
  1. It is also not possible to give precise information in relation to the wide-bodied jets because the airlines have no actual operating experience with them and manufacturers’ estimates are not always reliable. As a general observation, however, it might be said that, provided appropriate load factors are achieved, these aircraft are expected to be. more . economic on the medium and longer stage length routes.

Road Maintenance Tax Defaulters (Question No. 2264)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many Commonwealth warrants have been issued, in each of the last 5 years, to assist State governments in apprehending road maintenance tax defaulters?
  2. How many persons have been imprisoned as a result of these warrants?
  3. How many warrants are current?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The honourable member’s question appears to seek information on the use of the Service and Execution of Process Act of the Commonwealth to enforce penalties under the road maintenance tax legislation of the States. Information was sought from the States on that basis and the following is a summary of the replies received:

(1)-

page 467

NEW SOUTH WALES

It is possible to supply information only as from 6lh May 1969. In the period from that date to 11th December 1970, 11,050 warrants were issued under the Service and Execution of Process Act to enforce penalties under New South Wales road maintenance tax legislation.

page 467

VICTORIA

1st July 1965 to 30th June 1966-2,600 warrants issued 1st July 1966 to 30lh June 1967-3,356 warrants issued 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1968-3.088 warrants issued 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1969-2,814 warrants issued 1st July 1969 to 30lh June 1970-2,477 warrants issued.

page 467

QUEENSLAND

It is not practicable to supply the information sought, as only a daily total of warrants of apprehension is recorded and not the particular offences to which the warrants relate. The only way the desired information could be obtained would be by checking individually each fine card made out in the past 5 years, lt is estimated that in the Magistrates Court, Brisbane, a minimum of 161,250 fine cards would have been typed over the past 5 years.

page 467

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

No statistics are kept that would enable this information to be given.

page 467

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

1967 - 290 warrants issued 1968 - 815 warrants issued 1969- 1,059 warrants issued 1970 - 1,140 warrants issued.

page 467

TASMANIA

No warrants have been issued in the last 5 years.

page 467

NEW SOUTH WALES

No records which would readily divulge this information are maintained.

page 467

VICTORIA

25-30.

page 467

QUEENSLAND

See answer to (1).

page 467

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

See answer to (1).

page 467

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

page 467

TASMANIA

No persons have been imprisoned in respect of the contravention of Tasmanian legislation. However, one warrant was received from Queensland as a result of which the defendant was imprisoned but later released following an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

page 467

NEW SOUTH WALES

See answer to (2).

page 467

VICTORIA

237 warrants are current of those issued between 1st July 1965 and 30th June 1970.

page 467

QUEENSLAND

See answer to (1).

page 467

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

See answer to (1).

page 467

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court (Question No. 2299)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is lt a fact that in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court there were insufficient judges to hear cases which had been fixed for hearing between the end of October and the end of December last year?
  2. Did the scarcity of judges cause the resident judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian

Capital Territory to publish a notice in the Canberra press advising that a number of cases which had been fixed for hearing would be taken out of the list with no indication as to when the cases would be heard?

  1. Did the resident judge indicate separately to legal practitioners that other cases could not be given a hearing date until the position improves?
  2. Are any steps being taken to secure the services of additional judges for the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory?
  3. Are any steps being taken to appoint a second residential judge for the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Until the latter part of 1970 the existing arrangements under which a number of Judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court hold appointments as additional Judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory enabled matters in the Supreme Court to be dealt with expeditiously. In the latter part of 1970 a succession of matters arose in the Industrial Court that precluded the Judges of that Court from giving assistance in Canberra to the same extent as previously and resulted in some delay in the hearing of cases. The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act has recently been amended to increase to two the number of Judges of the Court who will be resident in Canberra. The new Judge will occupy the position of Chairman of the Law Reform Commission. It is intended that the new Judge will assist from time to time with the judicial work of the Court. His primary duties however will be in relation to the work of the Law Reform Commission. I am keeping under review the question of the appointment of a further Judge of the Supreme Court.

Federal Legal Aid (Question No. 2468)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. In how many instances were applications for legal aid (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused (i) in the Northern Territory (Hansard, 17 March 1970, page 523), (ii) in the Australian Capital Territory, (iii) in the Federal Courts and (iv) under Federal law (Hansard, 26 September 1969, page 2139) in 1970?
  2. What was the cost of the aid granted?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2)-

Northern Territory

  1. 179 received;
  2. 167 granted;
  3. 9 refused and 3 withdrawn.

Cost of aid: $2,510,49.

Australian Capital Territory -

  1. 323 received;
  2. 243 granted;
  3. 76 refused and 4 not proceeded with.

Cost of aid: $7,939.01.

Federal Courts - (a)3 received;

  1. 3 granted;
  2. 0 refused.

Cost of aid: $882.60.

Federal Laws (Judiciary Act, Section 69(3.))-

  1. 18 received;
  2. 18 granted;
  3. 0 . refused.

Cost of aid: $1,255.66.

Public Lending Rights (Question No. 2474)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Has be given consideration to appointing a committee to advise on legislation with respect to public lending rights as a former AttorneyGeneral did with respect to copyrights?

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

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Because of the more limited nature of the sub-. ject.I do not propose to appoint a committee as .. in the case of the general review of the copyright law. The matter is being given attention by my Department and other interested Departments.

Compensation: Victims of Criminal Acts (Question No.2523)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether New Zealand has recently passed legislation to provide compensation for injuries sustained by victims of certain specified criminal acts.
  2. Does the Commonwealth intend to consider similar legislation.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The position in the mainland Territories is receiving consideration.

Telephone Calls: Taping by Police (Question No. 2976)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General upon notice:

  1. Has bis attention been drawn to a statement by a police prosecutor in the Central Court of Petty Sessions, Sydney, on 16th March 1971 that police had taped many telephone calls by a defendant before the court?
  2. If so, was the taping of these calls authorised under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 19607
  3. What progress has been made with the review of the Act (Hansard, 28th August 1970, page 701)?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The matter is still under consideration’.

Parole of Prisoners (Question No. 3025)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there is only one officer in his Department engaged on work relating to parole of prisoners?
  2. If not, how many officers are engaged on this work?
  3. How long has the present situation existed?
  4. Is it intended to increase the numbers of these officers?
  5. How many prisoners are incarcerated in New South Wales as a result of a sentence of imprisonment by Australian Capital Territory courts?
  6. How many of these prisoners are incarcerated for terms of imprisonment that would entitle them to be considered for release on parole?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. The work occupies the greater part of the time of one officer and a portion of the time of two senior officers.
  3. Since the commencement of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 and, in relation to release on licence, for a very, substantial period prior to that date.
  4. Not in the present circumstances.
  5. Excluding persons imprisoned for nonpayment of fines or non-compliance with maintenance orders, the number at 1st August 1971 was thirty-seven.
  6. Two.

Patents (Question No. 3042)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the decision of President Nixon in February 1969 to alter patent procedures in the United States to give priority to the examination of patents which are designed to improve or protect the environment?
  2. Has any consideration been given to adopting a similar priority in Australia?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) There are no provisions in Australian patent law specifically providing for priority of examination in the particular cases referred to in the honourable member’s suggestion. The Australian legislation does however provide general authority for an applicant to request early examination of his application.

Federal Biological Assay Laboratory (Question No. 1879)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. When was the Federal Biological Asas Laboratory established?
  2. How many professional staff are employed in this laboratory?
  3. How many new drugs and new formulations were imported into Australia in the financial year 1969-70?
  4. How many of these are under test?
  5. When will they.be released?
  6. Have these drugs already been tested overseas?
  7. Is it a fact that drugs which have been the subject of testing for up to 9 years overseas are tested here for several more years before release?
  8. Has a working liaison been established by the Australian laboratory with United States. United Kingdom and European drug testing authorities to ensure fully tested drugs are not denied to Australian sick for long periods; if not, will he take steps to ensure that this is done?
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The National Biological Standards Laboratory, to which it is assumed the Honourable member refers, was established in 1958.
  3. It is not possible to say. However, the Department of Health approved 163 applications for the import of new drugs and new formulations during the .financial year 1969-70. These figures do not represent the full number of new imports, as up until 1st August 1970, not all categories of drugs and formulations were covered by import licensing legislation.
  4. It is assumed from the subsequent parts of the question that ‘under test’ relates to drugs on clinical trial. Of the applications processed by the Department, 52 were imported for the purpose of clinical trial.
  5. It is not possible to say when drugs under clinical trial will be released. The decision to make application to my Department for the general marketing of a drug or new formulation rests with the importing company. The application is then referred to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee for consideration and recommendation. If the Committee’s recommendation is favourable, the importing company then makes the decision as to the timing of the release of the drug.
  6. and (7) Many of the drugs which undergo clinical trials in Australia have previously undergone clinical trials and have been in use in an overseas country or countries for a number of years. However, it is not necessary for a drug to undergo clinical trials in Australia if adequate information is available on it from reliable overseas sources. Further, it is a fact that the efficacy of a number of drugs, which have been marketed in the United States of America for many years but which have never been approved for the Australian market, has recently been called into serious question and indeed some of these drugs have been taken off the United States market.
  7. A close and effective liaison is maintained with overseas drug control authorities.

Drug Addiction and Treatment (Question No. 2282)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What grants from the Commonwealth have been provided for research into the causes and effects of drug taking and the remedial treatment for addicts during each of the past 5 years?
  2. Through what bodies were these funds channelled?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Commonwealth grants for medical research are provided on the recommendation of theNational Health and Medical Research Council from the Medical Research Endowment Fund.

During the past 5 years a total of $25,758 has been granted towards projects specifically concerned with research into the causes and effects of drug taking and remedial treatment for addicts.Annualfigures are given hereunder:

In addition to the above grants, the Commonwealth in line with overseas authorities, recognised that education plays a vital role in the prevention of drug taking and as a consequence, made available $500,000 for this purpose during 1970-71.

The funds are -allocated to the State and Commonwealth Health authorities for projects approved by the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. A co-ordinated Common wealth/State Education Programme aimed at all groups in the community has been instituted. The Programme emphasises the inadequacy of drugs in solving the individual’s problems. Educational aids provided from the Commonwealth funds include training seminars, informative literature, films and television shorts.

Doctors: Number and. Payment (Question No. 2439)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice: - Will he bring up to date the answer which he gave me on 12th June 1970 (Hansard, page 3577) on the number and payment of doctors?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) The number of doctors participating in the Pensioner Medical Service in 1969-70 was 6,451.

    1. The average payment to each doctor (per annum) in 1969-70 was $2,969.
  2. (a) and (b) This information is not available to my Department.
  3. Doctors employed other than in hospitals:
  1. (i) Number of medical practitioners entered in the Medical Registers in Australia in 1970 - 25,586.

A doctor’s name may be entered on more than one register.

  1. As at 31st December 1970.
  2. As at 29th January 1971.

  3. As at 31st January 1971.

    1. Number of graduates M.B.B.S. in 1969-842.

Merino Rams (Question No. 2687)

Dr Patterson:

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

  1. What steps were taken to ensure thai Australian merino rams sold to foreign countries left Australia in good health?
  2. How many rams have been examined prior to departure overseas?
  3. At what places did Commonwealth authorities inspect merino rams intended for export to foreign countries?
  4. From what places have merino rams finally left Australia?
  5. To what countries have Australian merino rams been sent?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. All Australian merino rams exported have been covered by appropriate health certification following examination.
  3. At or adjacent to the point of departure.
  4. Mascot, Casino, Lismore and Richmond.
  5. Argentine, Brazil, Rumania, Italy and U.S.S.R.

Health Funds (Question No. 2795)

Mr Whitlam:

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

In how many instances have contribution rates submitted for approval to the Registration Committee by registered benefits organisations been (a) increased and (b) decreased, and what was (i) the variation and (ii) the reason in each case?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The Registration Committee has been in existence since the inception of the National Health Scheme and has been making frequent reports to the Minister on changes to the rules of medical and hospital benefits organisations.

For the 12 months ended 30th June 1971 the Committee considered 331 changes to the rules of registered organisations. Of the changes which related to contribution rates, the Registration Committee recommended to the Minister that the contribution rate submitted by, the organisation be varied in 3 instances.

Meat Imports (Question No. 2919)

Mr Grassby:

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

  1. Which countries export meat products to Australia?
  2. What quantities were imported during (a) the last financial year and (b) this financial year to date?
  3. What is the total value of these imports?
  4. Is the Minister able to say whether exotic diseases of cattle’ are in evidence in countries now exporting beef products to Australia? .
  5. If so, will the Minister review these imports as the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom was thought to have originated in beef products particularly from. South America?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Note: The information contained in the answers to parts (1) to (3) of the honourable member’s question was supplied by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry.

The following countries export meat products to . Australia: New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States of America, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, People’s Republic of China, France, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Argentina, Ethiopia, Hungary, Israel, Norway, Paraguay, Switzerland and Uruguay.

(a) 4,783,214 lbs.

2,469,956 lbs. (for period July-January 1970-1971).

$3,255,100.

Yes.

Australia has a complete prohibition on the importation of meat from all countries in the world excepting New Zealand (which has a similar disease status to Australia), unless the product is contained in hermetically sealed cans and accompanied by a health certificate which must state that the product has been heat treated to a temperature of at least 100° C throughout the contents of the can. This treatment is sufficient to destroy the agents of exotic diseases. These import requirements are adequate to protect Australia, which, unlike Britain, does not import raw beef products except from New Zealand.

Medical Fees (Question No. 2955)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Did officers of his Department, at joint meetings with the advisers of the Australian Medical Association, request that recommended medical fees to take effect in July 1971 should be notified to them by mid-December 1970?
  2. If so, was this deadline twice extended on request until mid-February 1971?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes. In discussions with the economic advisers of the Australian Medical Association, Commonwealth officers stressed that, if Commonwealth and fund benefits adjustments were to be synchronised with increases in doctors’ fees as from 1st July 1971, it was essential that the Commonwealth should be advised of the proposed increases at the earliest possible date. Adequate notice was necessary because of the various steps involved in the implementation of benefit changes. These steps included Government consideration of the proposed fee increases and such related questions as: - the benefit adjustment necessary for each service affected in each State; - the costs of such benefit adjustments; - the extent to which these costs would be met by adjustments of Commonwealth and/or fund benefits; - the consequential adjustments in insurance contributions for each medical benefit organisation.

After consideration of these -matters, legislation would be necessary to vary the amounts of Commonwealth and fund benefits and the Department would need to arrange for the printing and distribution of medical benefit booklets for doctors and medical benefit funds. The funds would need to implement any adjustment of their contribution rates and to print new brochures.

Because of the physical printing and other problems, 6 months’ notice was desirable, but a minimum of 4 months’ notice was considered essential.

  1. No.

Health: Sterilising Operations (Question No. 3050)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to advice to doctors in the Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics Article 7.8 that sterilising operations should be done only for therapeutic reasons and that legal advice from the Association to its members was that such procedures for other reasons could lead to a criminal charge under obscure laws in some States?
  2. Have consultations been held with the States in respect of these laws?
  3. If not, will the Minister arrange for consultations to be held in view of the number of large underprivileged problem families wilh most of the children unplanned and inadequately provided for?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that the Australian Medical Association has removed Article 7.8 from its Code of Ethics.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Commonwealth Medical Inspectors (Question No. 3246)

Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Is it a fact that Commonwealth medical inspectors decide whether the medical condition of a patient warrants the paying of the $2 per day bed subsidy to a nursing home proprietor?
  2. If so, what specific training and qualifications do these inspectors have in geriatrics?
  3. How many of these inspectors are there in each State?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Commonwealth medical officers are authorised to approve payments of the Commonwealth nursing home benefit of $2 per day.

Section 57(1) of the National Health Act provides, in effect, that (unless the Director-General of Health otherwise directs) this benefit is payable only where a medical practitioner (usually the patient’s own doctor) certifies that ‘the nature of the illness or injury from which the patient is suffering necessitates nursing home care’. In dealing with applications for payment of this benefit, Commonwealth medical officers usually rely on these certificates.

  1. None of the Commonwealth medical officers at present engaged in the granting of such approvals has special training in geriatrics specifically, but all are experienced in these duties. Not all nursing home patients are geriatric patients.
  2. The following numbers of Commonwealth medical officers in State offices of my Department are authorised to grant such approvals:

However, the numbers of Commonwealth medical officers who, in practice, exercise this authority (as part of their duties) are as follows:

Urban Development (Question No. 3295)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies entitled Housing Authorities in Urban Renewal (Hansard, 1st April 1971, page 1290) reveals certain positive action being carried out by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development in the United States of America?

  2. Has the Commonwealth Government any immediate or future plans to give a lead in urban development in Australia by -

    1. making grants to public agencies and local communities to cover interest charges on loans raised to purchase land for development in accordance with a comprehensive plan,
    2. making grants, advances and loans to assist cities in slum elimination,
    3. making grants for projects aimed at developing, testing or reporting on new methods for the prevention of slum formation,
    4. making grants to official State, metropolitan, regional and local planning authorities to assist with the preparation of comprehensive development plans,
    5. granting aid for research into planning problems including obsolete legislation and urban administration,
    6. assisting State and local government bodies in acquiring urban land for park, recreation, scenic or historic purposes,
    7. assisting approved public and private agencies concerned with developing better ways of providing low-income housing, and housing for the elderly and handicapped, and
    8. assisting individuals, families, business or non-profit associations concerned with, or about to be displaced by, projects carried out by improvement programmes?
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Extensions of the offers of Commonwealth assistance beyond those currently being provided for some of the purposes mentioned by the honourable member are matters of policy that are continually being considered.

Cigarette Smoking (Question No. 3311)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the Victorian Health Minister, Mr Rossiter, in December 1970, that the implementation of the 12 months old Health (Amendment) Act, which requires printed warnings on cigarette packets, would break down the ‘Federal principle?
  2. Will the Minister arrange to make a joint statement with the Victorian Minister as to what they conceive as their respective responsibilities in this matter?
  3. Will the Minister consider parallel legislation for Commonwealth Territories?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. 1 am aware that in December 1970 Mr Rossiter. said that the Victorian Government would not require warning labels on cigarette packets unless all other, States did the same.
  2. No. The position regarding legislation for the labelling of cigarette packets with health warnings is that the individual States are responsible for such legislation within their boundaries and the Commonwealth is responsible for similar legislation in the Territories.
  3. The Commonwealth’s view is that when leg islation requiring warning labels on cigarette packets has been enacted in all States, the Commonwealth will enact similar legislation for the Territories.

West Irian (Question No. 3318)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice: “ (1) How many West Irianese citizens have been returned, or have been ordered to return, to West Irian by Australian Government authorities?

  1. How many of these people were (a) men and (b) men accompanied by their families?
  2. How many of those concerned (a) sought and (b) were granted political asylum?
  3. What efforts are made by Government authorities to determine what happens to persons returned to West Irian?
  4. What penalties are known to have been imposed upon citizens returned to West Irian?
  5. Have there been any Indonesian troop incursions into the Australian Territories; if so, when, where- and with what results?
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. to (5) The numbers of West Irianese who have been returned -or have been ordered to return to West Irian are not available.- Because of the nature of the border between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea it is not possible to state the number of people who move across it in either direction. Those who cross the border fall into the following categories:

    1. local border inhabitants who cross the horder for social, trading or hunting ‘purposes. These traditional border dwellers with no wish to reside permanently outside their own traditional area are considered to be by far the largest category of border crossers;
    2. those inhabitants of the border region who cross the border into Papua New Guinea and seek to remain there for economic reasons. These people are told by officers at border stations that economic reasons are insufficient to justify the crossing of the border or the right of entry into Papua New Guinea and they are asked to return to West Irian;
    3. since 1962 a number of people have entered Papua New Guinea from West Irian and sought permission to remain there on humanitarian grounds. Over 500 people have been granted permission to reside in Papua New Guinea as a result. Those whose, applications for permissive residence are not successful are returned to West Irian in consultation with the Indonesian authorities. Where examination of an -application indicates that it might not be successful the matter is considered by the Administrator’s Executive Council before arrangements are made for the person’s return. The arrangement by which the Administrator’s Executive Council is consulted was instituted in early January 1970 and between then and the end of that year, 21 people (including dependants) had been returned. Arrangements for the return of such people are made public in Papua New Guinea. Once a person has been returned to West Irian it is not the practice of the Government to enquire further into his whereabouts or circumstances. However, the Government is not aware of any penalties having been imposed on such people.

The Australian Government does nol send back to Indonesian territory persons who, in the view of the Australian Government, have reasonable grounds for fearing persecution for their political activities or beliefs.

  1. Shortly after Indonesia took over the administration of West Irian, Indonesian soldiers or police crossed the border on at least a dozen occasions because it is not marked and they were at that time unfamiliar with its location.

There have since been three incidents. The first occurred on 6th April 1969 (Hansard 30th April 1969, page 1490).

The second occurred in the Kwan area on 19th May 1969 at a village called Kau-Ulai. The ‘ incident involved the shooting by an Indonesian patrol of two West Irianese in Papua.

Following these two incidents liaison procedures were established between the authorities on both sides of the border with a view to avoiding such incidents. -In general, these have proved satisfactory.

However, an Indonesian patrol entered the Territory of New Guinea on 4th October 1970 in the vicinity of Sekotchiau in the West Sepik District and burned some bush huts. Liaison procedures were put into effect and an aerial inspection was made by both Australian and Indonesian officials. Indonesian officials ordered the patrol to return to West Irian and made it clear that they regarded the incursion of the patrol as serious. They assured the Australian authorities that Indonesian patrols have standing instructions not to cross the border..

Handicapped Persons (Question No. 3346)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Did the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs recommend Commonwealth and State co-operation in the conduct of a thorough inquiry into problems associated with the special care and treatment of the physically and mentally handicapped of all ages.
  2. Has any action been taken on this proposal: if so, what are the details.
  3. What reasons did the Committee advance in support of this type of inquiry.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes. This was a part of the Committee’s recommendation No. 55.
  2. The Government has taken no specific action on this recommendation; however it was aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare had received a referral related to this subject. The Standing Committee reported to the Senate on this referral on 5th May 1971.
  3. To establish the most satisfactory practical forms of assistance.

Health Economics and Research (Question No. 3347)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Have steps been taken by the Commonwealth, alone or in conjunction with the States, to develop a national scheme for the collection and dissemination of uniform statistics relating to health economics and for general health research; if so, what are the details?
  2. If not, will appropriate steps be taken?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The development of uniform statistics is a continuing process and is being actively pursued by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and by my Department. The Bureau of Census and Statistics is developing the collection of uniform statistics in a number of health areas.

Details of the steps already taken by my Department are:

  1. A Central Statistical Unit, . headed by officers seconded from the Bureau of Census and Statistics, has been established in my Department. A principal role of this unit is to work in close co-operation with the Bureau of Census and Statistics to develop and maintain national systems of collection and dissemination of uniform statistics specifically related to the functions of the Department of Health.
  2. Three sub-committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council namely the Hospital Statistics (Standing) Sub-Committee and the Disease Classification Sub-Committee, which report to the Medical Statistics (Standing) Committee, and the Mental Health Records SubCommittee, which reports to the Mental Health (Standing) Committee, are engaged in the investigation of the collection and interpretation of . uniform statistics in the fields of hospital morbidity, the presentation of hospital records, the classification of diseases and the recording of mental illness.
  3. At the 1970 Conference of Australian Health Ministers, a Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council was established comprising two representatives from each Stale and the Commonwealth. The primary function of the Council is to co-ordinate he approach in the field of research into health services. In three of the subcommitees set up by this Council, namely the ADP National Computer Committee, the Uniform Costing Committee and the Research Committee, projects will be undertaken which will be of assistance to this Department’s Central Statistical Unit in its work.

Hospitals: Finance (Question No. 3351) - Mr Hayden asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is the Minister able to furnish details of the (a) amounts written off as bad debts by public hospitals and (b) indebtedness of public hospitals in each State in each of the last 5 years for which details are available.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The relevant State authorities have advised that bad debts written off by public hospitals in each State except Victoria for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 were as follows: -

The honourable member however shouldnote the following factors in connection with these statistics:

  1. Accounting procedures related to the raising of charges and subsequent rebate or writeoff when fees are uncollectable are not necessarily uniform either between States or as between individual hospitals within a particular State. Hence inter-State comparison is unrealistic.
  2. In some States, the statistics embrace certain nursing homes as well as public hospitals where the details appropriate to the former institutions cannot be separated from aggregate figures.
  3. Reliable statistics for New South Wales earlier than 1967-68 are unavailable.
  4. Bad debts written-off in South Australia do not include those from country subsidised hospitals as these details are unavailable.

  5. The amount of bad debts written-off in Victoria in each year is not available to my Department.

    1. The State authorities in Victoria and Tasmania have advised that the indebtedness of public hospitals in their respective States as at 30 June in each of the years 1966 to 1970 was as follows:

The indebtedness of public hospitals in Queensland, South Australia and Western- Australia in each of the years 1966 to 1970 was nil.

Details of indebtedness for public hospitals in New South Wales are not available in aggregated form.

It should be noted that due to differences in the States’ approaches to public hospital indebtedness meaningful comparisons as between States are not possible.

Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 3352)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. As a result of over insurance for hospital benefits what amounts were paid out by health insurance funds over the actual charged cost of treatment in each State and the Commonwealth in each of the last5 years?
  2. What was the total amount of benefits paid out in each case and what was the overpayment referred to in part (1) expressed as a percentage of (a) total payouts and (b) the level of payouts necessary to meet actual costs charged?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information is not available. Registered hospital benefits organisations advise that they have not maintained details of amounts of hospital fund benefits paid out in excess of the actual hospital charges. However, the . Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs reported that the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia had estimated that the amount of hospital fund benefit paid out in excess of the hospital charges approximated $1.8m per annum, representing over 17 per cent of the total hospital fund benefit paid by that organisation. The Commonwealth Committee of Enquiry into Health Insurance (Nimmo Committee) stated in its report that the total amount involved for Australia in respect of hospital fund over-insurance could be as high as $9m per annum. These estimates were based on special surveys of payments recorded during the 2 months of December 1967/January 1968 and the financial year 1965-66, respectively.

Hospital and Medical Insurance (Question No. 3353)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What percentage of the population in each of the States and the Commonwealth was covered by (a) hospital and (b) medical insurance (i) in total and (ii) at maximum benefit rates at the commencement of 1970or at the nearest date prior to the 1970 amendment of the National Health Act for which this information is available, and in each case what proportion of those insured under each category was insured at single rates.
  2. What are the percentages in the respective categories at the latest date for which this information is available.
  3. When did the percentage in respect of hospital insurance stand at its highest level since the introduction of voluntary health insurance.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The percentage of the population in each of the States and the Commonwealth covered by (a) hospital and (b) medical insurance (i) in total and (ii) at maximum benefit rates and the proportion of those insured at single rates under each category, are set out in the following tables:

  1. As at 30th June 1970
  2. As at 30th June 1970
  1. During 1970 when a proportion of the population covered by hospital insurance reached 79 per cent.

Cyclamates (Question No. 3396)

Mr Grassby:

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

  1. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the report by Dr David Stone, Director of Biological Research at Worcester State Hospital, Massachusetts, that rats given the human equivalent of two bottles of cyclamate sweetened soft drinks for a period of 8 weeks before or during pregnancy had given birth to offspring with brain damage and that similar damage was evident when male rats were fed the chemical before breeding?
  2. Does this report follow reports linking cyclamates to cancer?
  3. Will the Minister have the report examined with a view to reviewing the decision not to ban the use of cyclamates in soft drinks in Australia which ‘he conveyed to me in 1970?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. .1 have noted newspaper reports of Dr Stone’s work.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. The use of cyclamates in foods is under constant review by expert Committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council. At its 72nd Session (May 1971) Council reaffirmed its previous recommendation made 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 beverages 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’. All reports concerning the toxicity of cyclamates are considered as they become available.

General Practitioners: Common Fee (Question No. 3354)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Can the Minister supply and index for each year since voluntary health insurance has been fully operative the movements in the most common fee charged in each State by general prac titioners for (a) a surgery consultation and (b) a home visit?
  2. Can he also provide the consumer price index for the same years using the year of introduction of voluntary health insurance as 100?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. There are no details available concerning the fees charged by general practitioners for surgery consultations and home visits at the commencement of the National Health Scheme.

The following’ tables have been prepared on the basis of the earliest reliable information for each State.

  1. Payment of medical benefits under the National Health Scheme, in respect of services rendered by registered medical practitioners commenced on 1 July 1953. The following consumer price index is based on information published by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, but has been converted from a base year of 1966-67= 100 to a base year of 1954-55 = 100.

Hospital and Medical Benefit Funds (Question No. 3374)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that hospital and medical benefit funds are inconvenienced to some extent because some doctors fail to present fund cheques to their banks for clearance in order to reduce their taxation.
  2. If so, is this practice significant when considering the need for an increase in doctors’ fees?
  3. Will the Minister have the practice examined before the Government approves the proposed increases?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) Inquiries made with the major health insurance organisations operating in each State indicate that these organisations have not encountered any problems in regard to delays in the presentation of benefit cheques to banks. A regional organisation in Western Australia has reported however, that a particular doctor holds its cheques of over$10.00 for a full 11 months before presenting them to the bank’. This is a matter over which neither the Commonwealth nor the organisation has any control.

Hospital and Nursing Home Beds (Question No. 3440)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. What is the ratio between (a) the number of people aged 60 years or more and (b) the number of public and private approved nursing home beds throughout Australia?
  2. What would be the cost to the (a) Federal Government and (b) pensioners if the fees charged for those at present accommodated in approved nursing homes were covered by provisions comparable to those which apply to hospital costs under the National Health Act.
  3. What is the optimum number of nursing home ‘beds required for the present Australian population aged 65 years or more?
  4. Will the Minister, in view of the financial crisis facing non-profit approved nursing homes, make an immediate subsidy of $2 per day (in addition to the ordinary nursing home care of $2 per day or the intensive care of$5 per day Commonwealth benefit) to all full-rate pensioners who are accommodated in these nursing homes.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. At 31st December 1970, there was one nursing home bed for every 34 persons aged 60 or more years, on an Australia-wide basis.
  2. The fees charged by nursing homes’ vary widely from State to State and as between different types of homes. The costs to the 3 parties to any insurance scheme, viz., the Commonwealth, the contributor and the patient, would depend on the level at which benefits were set and the extent to which fees charged are met by each party.
  3. The number of approved nursing home beds available in Australia is greater than the number of geriatric beds established in comparable developed countries. The optimum number depends on the needs and environmental background of the aged, on which precise information is not available on a national basis.
  4. Any such proposal would be a matter for consideration by the Government. The nursing home benefits scheme is at present under review by the Government.

Medical and Hospital Insurance (Question No. 3460)

Mr Hayden:

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

In respect of voluntary (a) medical and (b) hospital insurance, can the Minister state (i) the amount contributed by members, (ii) the reserves allocated as a percentage of contributions, (iii) the benefits as a percentage of contributions, (iv) the percentage increase in benefits paid to members and (v) the percentage increasein the amount allocated to reserves,in (A) the first year in which the schemes became fully operative and (B) the latest full year for which figures are available.

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

  1. Medical Funds.
  1. Hospital Funds

Pre-school Education (Question No. 2278)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many (a) qualified and (b) unqualified teachers were employed in pre-school training at an officially recognised level in each of the States and Commonwealth Territories during each of the past 5 years?
  2. Is he able to give the expenditure on this form of ‘education by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Stales, (c) local authorities and (d) other bodies, during the same years?
  3. What was the expenditure on this form of education (a) as a percentage of education expenditure and. (b) per capita for each State or ; Territory during the same years? - (4) Can he provide an estimate of the additional (a) capital and (b) recurrent costs which would be involved if all other parts of Australia were to be provided with pre-school facilities at the same qualitative level and on the same financial conditions as those available in Canberra?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. (a) (b) Available statistics of teachers employed in pre-school training relate to the staffing of government centres, and centres run by organisations affiliated to the Australian Pre-School Association. Staff employed as teachers at these centres are normally employed under the conditions of various State awards for kindergarten and preschool teachers which, require the possession of certain teaching qualifications. These include Kindergarten Teaching - College diplomas as well as infants or primary teaching qualifications and equivalent overseas teaching qualifications. Unqualified staff are employed as pre-school assistants who are not engaged in teaching duties.

On this basis all staff who are employed specifically as teachers have some form of teaching qualification, although these qualifications may not necessarily be specifically in relation to the teaching of pre-school aged children. The following table shows, for 1968 and 1969, the numbers and types of qualifications of teachers at government and affiliated pre-school centres (information is not presently available for the other years sought).

  1. (a) Commonwealth expenditure on pre-school education (both current (including scholarships) and capital) in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory during each of the last 5 years, for which information is currently available, is shown in the following table:

In addition to pre-school education in the Territories the Commonwealth is providing $2.5m most of which will be spent over the 3 years to 30th June 1972 in unmatched capital-‘ grants to provide facilities to double the output of teachers from the pre-school teacher training colleges. The Commonwealth also makes an annual grant of $150,000 to the Lady Gowrie Child Centres and an annual grant ($18,800 in 1970-71) to the Australian Preschool Association.

  1. (b) Details of approximate expenditure by State governments on pre-school education for 1964-65 to 1968-69 have been given previously by the Treasurer (Hansard, 12th June 1970, page 3683). This information will be updated by the Treasurer in reply to Question 2326.
  2. (c) and (d) No comprehensive information is available on expenditure by local authorities and other bodies on pre-school education.
  3. (a) and (b) Information for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is shown in the following table. Because of the approximate nature of the pre-school expenditures referred to in 2 (b) above and the several reservations made by the Treasurer on the comparability and coverage of these figures I do not think that it would be appropriate to calculate the percentage and per capita figures that have been requested.
  1. (a) and (b) The honourable member is referred to an answer to a similar question by my predecessor - Hansard, 25th September 1970, page 1756.

Home Nursing (Question No. 3455)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What has been the ratio per 10,000 of population of home nurses providing service subsidised by the Commonwealth’s Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme for (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth for each year since the scheme commenced operation?
  2. Can the Minister indicate (a) the rate of growth in the ratio for each year and (b) the years in which improvements were made to the scheme?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) Since home nursing services operating in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are conducted by the Commonwealth they are not eligiblefor a Commonwealth subsidy under the Home Nursing Subsidy Act, 1956. The number of nurses employed by organisations eligible for a subsidy in each State, per 10,000 of population as at 30th September 1956 and as at 30th June in the years from 1957 to 1970 are as follows:
  1. (a) The rate of growth in these ratios over the same period is illustrated in the following table of indexes with the index for the base ratio of nurses per 10,000 of population as at 30th September 1956 equal to 100:
  1. Commonwealth subsidies paid to eligible Home Nursing Organisations since January 1957 at the commencement of the scheme have been based on the number of nurses employed in excess of the number employed during September 1956 in the case of organisations in existence at that date and. on the total number of registered nurses employed by eligible organisations formed thereafter. Initially, subsidies were $1,600 per annum for each additional nurse employed by organisations in the former category and $800 per annum for each nurse employed by organisations which commenced operations after September 1956. These rates of subsidies were subsequently increased in 1960, 1962, 1966, 1968 and 1970 as follows:

The Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956 provides that the Commonwealth subsidy for any year shall not exceed the amount of State and/or local government assistance received by a home nursing organisation for that year.

National Health Scheme: Prescriptions (Question No. 3437)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

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

  1. What was the total number of prescriptions dispensed by approved pharmacists under the National Health Act during the year 1969-70?
  2. What number of approved pharmacies dispensed below (a) 3,000 and (b) 6,000 items per year, and what was the respective total number of prescriptions dispensed by each of these groups?
  3. What was the prescription volume level of remaining approved pharmacies at levels of 1,000 items per year and what total number of items was dispensed at each level?
  4. What was the number of approved friendly societies at 30th June 1970, and what number of prescriptions were dispensed by them in the preceding year?
  5. What was the prescription volume level of approved friendly societies at intervals of 1,000 items per year, and what total number of items was dispensed at each level?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The total number of prescriptions dispensed by approved pharmacists under the National Health Act during the year 1969-70 was 65,227,800.

  2. (a) 283 approved pharmacies (including friendly societies) dispensed below 3,000 items in the year 1969-70 and collectively dispensed an approximate total of 576,000 benefit items during the year.

    1. 1,260 approved pharmacies (including friendly societies) dispensed below 6,000 items in the year 1969-70 and collectively dispensed an approximate total of 5,144,000 benefit items during the year.
  3. and (5) Statistics to enable approved pharmacies to be classified by yearly volume of benefits dispensed, rising in levels of 1,000, have not been maintained. However, figures are available which provide for the classification at levels rising at intervals of 1,200 up to 60,000 and after that level, grouping pharmacies with an average annual dispensing rate in excess of 60,000 prescriptions. The following table based on these levels, has been prepared in answer to sections (3) and (5) of the question:
  1. On 30th June 1970, there were 142 friendly societies approved to supply benefits. The total number of benefit prescriptions dispensed by friendly societies during 1969-70 was 3,066,400.

Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 3355)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What degree of contributor participation is there in the supervision and control of (a) open and (b) closed health insurance funds, in what manner is this participation available, and how do contributors obtain the opportunity to participate?
  2. How many contributors are there in each of these funds in each State and what sum was contributed in each State in each of the last 5 years?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. There are no particular differences between restricted membership organisations (closed funds) and other organisations (open funds) in regard to the degree of contributor participation in their supervision and control. Currently, 73 of the 93 organisations operating hospital funds and 67 of the 81 organisations operating medical funds, make provision for the election of contributor representatives to their governing bodies. In the case of friendly societies, contributors are elected at society meetings and to be eligible for election to the management body the contributor must be a member of the society. In the remaining cases, election is usually made at general meetings of the organisation.
  2. The number of contributors and the amount they contributed to restricted membership organisations and other organisations, is shown below, by State, for each of the last 5 years:

Prior to the 1970 amendment of the National Health Act, organisations were not required to obtain separate registration under the National Health Act in order to operate in more than one State. Accordingly, the National Health Act did not require organisations to maintain separate memberships and financial returns for each State. However, in the case of all major organisations that operated Interstate the information is available separately and has been included in the respective States. In the case of some smaller organisations, however, separate State figures have not been maintained and therefore figures for these organisations have been included in the States in which the organisations’ head offices are situated.

Aborigines: Tertiary Education (Question No. 3454)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many Aborigines (a) commenced tertiary education and (b) graduated from tertiary institutions in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth in each of the last ten years?
  2. What proportion of the Aboriginal population did these figures represent?
  3. At what type of tertiary institutions was the education undertaken in each case and what types of courses were undertaken, e.g., B.A., B.Sc., LL.B., etc.?
  4. Can he say what proportion of the nonAboriginal population were the non-Aboriginal entrants and graduates of tertiary education institutions corresponding to the figures sought in part (1)?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) With the exception of some material collected in my Department as a result of the introduction of the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme, information needed to provide an answer to the honourable member’s question is not available to me.

In 1969 the Government introduced the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme in order to provide assistance to persons of Aboriginal descent to undertake courses of study after leaving school. A number of persons taking up these grants have applied them to tertiary courses. The numbers of persons who took up Study Grants for the first time in 1969 and 1970 in courses which are wholly or principally at tertiary level are set out below. Complete information for 1971 is not yet available. Because the Grants are available to students who have already enrolled in courses as well as to those about to commence studies, a small number of the students noted here may have started courses prior to their receiving a grant.

It should be stressed that the above figures relate only to students holding Aboriginal Study Grants and therefore they do not necessarily relate to all Aboriginal students entering tertiary courses.

Commonwealth, State and Local Government Debts (Question No. 2318)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the answer he gave me on 15th May 1970 (Hansard, page 2331) on Commonwealth, Territory, State, semi-government and local government debts.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The information previously supplied (Hansard, 15th May 1970, page 2331) on securities on issue, annual interest liability and capital repayments has been brought up to date in the tables which follow. Details of the bases and sources of the information were given in the previous answer.

Statistics are not yet available to allow the information on local and semi-government auth orities previously supplied to be brought up to date: That information was taken from a publication entitled ‘Local and Semi-government Authorities Debt’ (covering the period 1957-58 to 1967- 68) which is published from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician. The next issue of this publication with later figures will probably not be made before November next. ‘

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the accompanying tables in answer to the honourable member’s question. The figures differ from those supplied in answer to previous questions asked by the honourable member on the same subject on account of revisions to estimates and a reclassification of the transactions of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which is no longer treated as a public trading enterprise.

Commonwealth, State and Local Government Revenues . (Question No. 2321)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will be bring up to date the answer his predecessor gave me on 5th May 1970 (Hansard, page 1641) on Commonwealth, Territory, State, semigovernment and local government revenues.

Semi-and Local Government Pay-roll Tax (Question No. 2323)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will be bring up to date the answer his predecessor gave on 30th October 1970 (Hansard, page 3192) on revenue, payroll tax and percentage of payroll lax to revenue in respect of semigovernment and local government authorities in each State?

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Ihe Commissioner of Taxation has supplied the following estimates of payroll tax paid by State semi-government and local authorities in 1969-70.

I am advised by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician that State by State figures of the revenue of semi-government and local authorities in 1969-70 are not yet available for publication. However, he has supplied estimates of the totals for the six States combined, and these are included in the following table.

In interpreting these figures, reference should be made to the points made in the previous answer to the honourable member (Hansard, 30th October 1970, page 3192).

Pre-School Education (Question No. 2326)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can the Statistician give figures of expenditure by State governments on pre-school’ education in 1969-70 (Hansard, 12th June 1970. page 3683)7

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The figures requested by the honourable member, which have been provided by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician, are set out in the table below. The figures for 1968-69 are also given because of revisions to the figures supplied previously (Hansard, 12th June 1970, page 3683) for expenditure by Tasmania, and consequently by the six States combined, in that year. The’ honourable member’s attention is drawn to the comments on these figures which accompanied my previous reply to him on this matter referred to above.

Road Deaths and Injuries (Question No. 2505)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many persons were (a) killed and (b) injured per 10,000 vehicles on the roads during each of me last 5 years for which figures are available?
  2. What was the total number of casualties per 10,000’ vehicles on the road during each of those years?
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:

Explanatory Notes

Details of road traffic accidents involving casualties relate to accidents which were reported to the police and which satisfy the following conditions:

  1. that the accident occurred on any road, street, thoroughfare, etc., open to the public, including railway level crossings;
  2. that it involved any road vehicle, i.e. motor car, tram, handbarrow, etc. (or other road user, such as an animal), which at the time of the accident was in motion;

  3. that the accident resulted in -

    1. the death of any person within a period of 30 days of the accident; or
    2. bodily injury to any person to an extent requiring surgical or medical treatment.

(2)

Naturalisation (Question No. 3081)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

What are the percentages of settlers in the forty-nine national categories, listed in the return for the year 1969-70 under the Citizenship Act, who have applied for and been granted Australian citizenship by naturalization and registration during the years of the post-war migration programme.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The following table shows the estimated percentages of eligible persons who have been granted Australian citizenship by naturalization in the period 1 January 1945 to 30 June 1970 in the alien national categories listed in the 1969/70 Citizenship Return.

No statistics are available to showthe percentage of eligible persons of each citizenship who have acquired Australian citizenship by registration.

However, between 26 January 1949, when the provision for citizenship by registration was introduced by the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and the 30 June 1970, 590 persons became Australian citizens by registration. This represents approximately 4.4 per cent of those eligible as at 30 June 1970 to seek citizenship by this means.

Of interest in this connectionis the following statement made by my colleague the Honourable B. M. Snedden when introducing the Citizenship Bill 1969 which provided a very simple means by which British migrants could acquire Australian citizenship through the process of notification after five years residence:

British migrants, after living in Australia for long periods come to think of themselves as Australian citizens. Few of them give any serious thought to making application for the formal grant of citizenship by registration, for of course they have nothing material to gain from becoming Australian citizens, already havingthe right to vote, to be appointed or elected to public office, and the like. It is therefore natural that after being in. Australia for long periods they think of themselves as Australian citizens; and so, when they wish to travel abroad, for instance, they are surprised and hurt to find they cannot have Australian passports. It is a very common occurrence that they do not have time before travelling to obtain Certificates of Registration and as a result are obliged to obtain British passports from the British High Commissioner. The Government believes that these members ofour community should have an extremely quick and simple way of becoming Australian citizens, and Clause 8 of the Bill will make this possible.

This provision came into force on 1 May 1970 and since then slightly more than 4,500 persons have acquired Australian citizenship by notification.

Australian Minerals Council (Question No. 3125)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Minerals Council commissioned a committee to study the environment as the Australian Forestry Council and the Australian Water Resources Council have done.
  2. If so, who are the members of the committee, what are their terms of reference and when are they expected to report.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and’ (2) As was announced in a press statement issued on behalf of the Australian Minerals Council, following , its meeting on 7th May 1971, the matter of ‘mining and the environment’ was discussed. The matter will come before the Council again at subsequent meetings. At- this stage the Council has not commissioned a special committee on the environment.

Vietnam (Question No. 3197)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What has been the cost of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam.
  2. What amount has been spent by the (a) Navy (b) Army and (c) Air Force in each of their respective areas of responsibility.
  3. What amount has been spent on civil aid.
  4. What has been the cost of the National Service training scheme conducted to support the Australian involvement in Vietnam.
  5. How many Australian servicemen have been (a) killed and (b) wounded in the Vietnam theatre of war.
  6. How many ex-servicemen are receiving repatriation pensions and services as the result of service in the Vietnam theatre of war.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. From the time Australian personnel were first posted to” Vietnam up to 30th June 1970 an amount of $163.1 19m on action by all arms of the Services has been incurred by the Australian Forces. This - amount represents the excess over normal costs in Australia of the Services.
  2. The dissection between the Services of the amount of $163. 119m is as follows:
  1. During the period of our commitment an amount of $15. 187m has been spent by the Australian Government on civil aid in Vietnam.
  2. Information is not available about the cost of that element of the National Service scheme applied specifically in support of the Australian effort in Vietnam.

The cost of the overall National Service scheme since its inception in 1964-65 to 30th June 1970 has been estimated at $348. 5m.

  1. Casualties in Vietnam to 7th May 1971 have been as follows:
  1. As at 28th February 1971, 3,505 personnel who served in Vietnam were receiving pensions in respect of incapacity accepted as due to service in Vietnam.

Taxation: Broiler Growers (Question No. 3377)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did. he inform the member for Lyne and also state in answer to my question No. 3173 (Hansard, 27th April 1971, pages 2119-20) that the taxation procedures in relation to broiler growers were being further reviewed?
  2. If so, will he (a) ensure broiler growers continued recognition as primary producers as in the past pending any necessary amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act, (b) examine the situation which would be created for these primary producers and the extent of additional hardships which will result from the change in the present practice and recognition and (c) further examine urgently the wide and serious complications for primary producers generally of any such changes?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Following a general review of the position, the Commissioner of Taxation has decided that contract broiler growers should be accepted as carrying on a business of primary production for income tax purposes. Contract broiler growers will also be entitled to the special depreciation deductions which apply to structural improvements situated on land used for agricultural or pastoral pursuits. In view of the Commissioner’s ruling, the question of amending the relevant provision of the income tax law does not arise.

Taxation: Broiler Growers (Question No. 3379)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Commissioner of Taxation taken the view that contract broiler growers are not carrying on a business of primary production as defined in section 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Act nor are they entitled to the special depreciation deductions which apply to improvements situated on land used for agricultural or pastoral pursuits?
  2. Did his predecessor tell the then Minister for Primary Industry, about August 1970, that his understanding of the situation was that an amendment of the law, as suggested by the representatives of the poultry industry, would involve the introduction of a new concept which could have far reaching implications and that he would not be in favour of such an amendment?
  3. Is he of the same view?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Following a general review of the position, the Commissioner of Taxation has decided that contract broiler growers should be accepted as carrying on a business of primary production for income tax purposes. Contract broiler growers will also be entitled to the special depreciation deductions which apply to structural improvements situated on land used for agricultural or pastoral pursuits.
  2. and (3) In view of the Commissioner’s ruling, the question of amending the relevant provisions of the income tax law does not arise.

Financial Agreements 1927 and- 1944 (Question No. 3387)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can be give information on internal and overseas securities on issue, annual interest liability and capital repayments in respect of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State, (c) semigovernment authorities, if possible in each State, and (d) local governments, if possible, in each State, at the time of the Financial Agreements of 1927 and 1944?

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The details requested in respect of the Commonwealth and each of the States, where they are available, are set out in the following table.

The information in the foregoing tables has been taken from the Budget Speech and Papers and the Annual Reports of the National Debt Commission.

The figures for ‘Capital Repayments’ show actual expenditure of the Commonwealth and the States on debt redemption from the National Debt Sinking Fund and Consolidated Revenue Fund. They exclude redemptions from Loan Fund, when new securities are issued and the proceeds used to redeem other securities. Figures for State debt repayments in 1927 are not available.

Statistical data for local and semi-government debt outstanding have been collected only since 1935 and this collection was discontinued during the war years 1942-45. Statistics relating to parts (c) and (d) of . the question are, therefore, Unavailable.

Universities: Quotas (Question No. 3394)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) boys and (b) girls passed the matriculation examination and were refused admission to universities because of the operation Of a quota system in (i) 1970 and (ii) 19717
  2. How many of these students were refused admission to each faculty where quotas had been established in these years?
  3. How many Asian and African students were admitted to Australian universities in these years.
  4. How many of these overseas students are enrolled in each faculty in universities from which qualified Australian students have been excluded because of the quota system?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

My Department .has sought the co-operation of the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in order to supply to the honourable member as much information as possible. My understanding of the present position is that some material has been obtained from universities and other sources but it has not yet been possible to complete the processing and tabulation of the data which is necessary to present it in a useful form.

When the necessary tabulated information is to hand I will write to the honourable member and supply to him whatever information it has been possible to compile.

In the meantime the honourable member may wish to refer to the information on quotas in 1970 given by my predecessor to the Leader of the Opposition in the answers to Question No. 1344 (Hansard 24th September 1970, p1693) and Question No. 1346 (Hansard 25th September 1970, p1742)

Education: Overseas Students (Question No. 3402)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) Colombo Plan, (b) private and (c) other students from overseas are currently engaged in (i) undergraduate and (ii) postgraduate studies at Australian universities?
  2. What is the (a) race and (b) nationality of the students in each category?
  3. How many of the students in each category are attending courses for which quotas are imposed?
  4. What percentage of the total intake in these courses is represented by the number in each category?
  5. What concessions are made in regard to university entrance requirements for students in each category?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

This question poses problems similar to those dealt with in my reply to Question No. 3394 and I draw the Honourable Member’s attention to that reply.

I will write to the honourable member when I am in a position to supply him with whatever information it has been possible to compile.

Australian Capital Territory: Taxation Assessments (Question No. 3429)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How - many Canberra residents had not received their taxation assessments for the 1969-70 taxation year by 1st May 1971.
  2. Why has there been a delay in processing income tax assessments for these residents of the Australian Capital Territory?
  3. When is it expected that all A.C.T. assessments for the 1969-70 taxation year will have been processed and all refund payments made?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Because A.C.T. residents lodge their returns in various States depending on the source of their incomes, and these cases are not always segregated, the particular information requested is not available. However, the returns of most A.C.T. taxpayers are lodged in Canberra and processed in the Sydney office of the Commonwealth Taxation Office. Approximately 50,000 A.C.T. refund cheques had been issued by 1st May 1971. On that date, the Sydney office was holding about 700 returns of A.C.T. taxpayers not subject to provisional tax for which assessments had not been issued. Assessments have since been issued in all but 48 of these cases. The balance will be issued shortly.
  2. The assessments in these cases did not issue before 1st May for a variety of reasons. Many of the returns were received only a short time before 1st May.In other cases, additional information was required before assessments could issue or enquiries had to be made regarding lost tax stamp sheets and group certificates.
  3. See answer to (1).

Canberra: Police Duty During Springboks’ Visit (Question No. 3499)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many policemen were on duty on or near Manuka Oval on 21st July 1971 during the visit of the football team representing the Republic of South Africa?
  2. How many of these were (a) Australian Capital Territory policemen and (b) New South Wales policemen?
  3. How many people were arrested by (a) Australian Capital Territory policemen and (b) New South Wales policemen? .
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. A total of 648 police were on duty on or near Manuka Oval on 21st July 1971 during the visit of the South African Rugby Union team.
  2. Of these, 168 were from the Australian Capital Territory Police Force and 480 were from the New South Wales Police Force.
  3. Australian Capital Territory policemen arrested 8 persons and New South Wales policemen arrested 34. Eight persons were arrested by members of the two Forces conjointly.

Fines and Court Costs: Penalty for Non-Payment (Question No. 3236)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Can the Attorney-General say what scales of imprisonment are laid down to cover cases where default is made in paying a fine or court costs in (a) a criminal and (b) a civil case in each State and Territory of the Commonwealth?

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

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Criminal cases*

The following scales of imprisonment have been prescribed to cover such cases:

Australian Capital Territory- 1 day for each $2 or part thereof - 12 months maximum

Northern Territory - 1 day for each $2

New South Wales- 1 day for $2 2 days for $2-$4 1 day for each $4 in excess of $4

Queensland -

Maximum of 7 days for $10 or less

Maximum of 14 days for $10-$50

Maximum of 1 month for $50-$200

Maximum of 3 months for $200-$500

Maximum of 6 months for $500 or more.

Tasmania -

Maximum of7 days for $8 or less

Maximum of 14 days for $8 to $16

Maximum of 1 month for $16 to $40

Maximum of 3 months for $40 to $80

Maximum of 6 months for $80 or more

South Australia -

Maximum of 7 days for $2 or less 3 to 14 days for $2 to $20 7 days to 3 months for $20 to $100 1 month to 6 months for $100 or more

Western Australia - 1 day for $4 or less .

All other cases - 1 day for every $2 with a maximum 6 months except where costs alone are ordered in which case maximum of 1 month.

  1. Civil Cases

No scales of imprisonment are prescribed to cover cases in which default is made in complying with an order for costs in a civil action in any State or Territory court. Such an order has the effect of a judgment of the particular court and may be enforced in the manner in which judgments of the court are enforced. Fines are not imposed in civil cases. .

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710820_reps_27_hor73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant