House of Representatives
12 October 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2141

DEATH OF MR J. \V. HADLEY

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to inform the House of the death on 16th July 1971 of Mr James William Hadley who was a member of this House for the Division of Lilley from 1943 to 1949. As a mark of respect to the deceased I invite all honourable members to rise in their places. (Honourable members stood in their places.)

Mr SPEAKER:

-I thank the House.

page 2141

PETITIONS

Aid to India and East Pakistan Mr BARNARD - 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of Mass Starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern times.

That only Quick settlement of the Bangla DeshPakistan conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.

We therefore urge the Honourable Members to:

Raise to $10m Australian aid to refugees now in India from East Pakistan.

Support all efforts to guarantee the fully autonomous development of the people of Bangla Desh.

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

Petition received and read.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of Mass Starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern times.

That only quick settlement of the Bangla DeshPakistan conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.

We therefore urge the Honourable Members to:

Raise to SI Om Australian aid to refugees now in India from East Pakistan.

Support all efforts to guarantee the fully autonomous development of the people of Bangla Desh.

Petition received.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizen., of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern times.

That only quick settlement of the Bangla DeshPakistan conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions. We therefore urge the honourable members to:

Raise to $10m Australian aid to refugees now in India from East Pakistan.

Support all efforts to guarantee the fully autonomous development of the people of Bangla Desh.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Donations for Overseas Relief Mr REID - 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, ‘he Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Government grant income tax deduction for donations over $2 made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.

That this be effected with haste to ensure the maximum possible aid to those at present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Pakistan: Trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Government go beyond the plea of the Prime Minister for magnanimity and compassion in the trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on charges of treason, and insist on the liberty of this openly and democratically elected leader. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Employment of Refugees from Bangla Desh

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government take steps to offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the refugees from Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Employment of Refugees from Bangla Desh Mr McIVOR - 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 respectfullyrespectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease ls occurring among Pakistan’s refugees en a scale unprecendented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government tak* steps te offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the refugees fs am Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners as In duty bound will ever pray. Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees Mr GORTON- I present the to Stewing petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and 1/hwAan of the House of Representatives in Parlament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respect fully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees en a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives - in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least five million dollars immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least five million dollars immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Represenatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least five million dollars immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

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

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, ‘he Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least five million dollars immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees Mr GARRICK- 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least five million dollars immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, 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 10 electors of die Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2063 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solidemployed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, 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 8 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2063 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:

– I present the following petition:

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

The Red Kangaroo and many other- marsupials, through the shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.

None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State and in such a vast country, only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.

lt is an indisputable fact that no natural resources can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that:

The management of Australia’s wildlife be controlled by the Commonwealth Government and sufficient wardens appointed to enforce the laws.

The shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes be stopped immediately.

The export of all kangaroo products from Australia be banned.

The Commonwealth Government establish large National Parks of good quality land as major tourist attractions.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I present the following petition:

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

Ban the shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes. (No animal can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale as exists under present legislation.)

Ban the export of all kangaroo products from Australia.

Prevent the extinction of the red kangaroo. (The red kangaroo has been reduced to a numerical level where its survival is in jeopardy.)

Institute a scientific survey of the kangaroo population.

Establish large national parks of good quality land as major tourist attractions.

Take control of and be completely responsible for the management of Australia’s wildlife.

Petition received.

Pensions

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social. Service Pensions are finding it extremely, difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with ACTU policy and by so doing give a reasonably moderate -pension.

The Average Weekly earnings for adult male unit wage and salary earner means the figures issued from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition; so that our Citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity. And you Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 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 274 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 Petitoners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– 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.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Eduction

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 present the following petition:

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

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

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

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs.

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Television Programmes: Australian Content

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 edu1educational 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 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.

page 2146

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That in the opinion of this House the level of Australian aid to Pakistani refugees should be raised to at least the equivalent of SI for each person in Australia.

page 2146

QUESTION

SINKING OF KETCH ‘ONE AN© ALL

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– Can the Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport say what was the destination of the ketch ‘One and All’ and the purpose of the voyage? What was the condition of the ketch prior to sailing and when was it last surveyed? Was it registered and, if so, under what classification - pleasure boat, fishing boat, trading vessel or what? Was the registration, if any, subject to any conditions? What was the cost of the search and will the owner be required to meet any of this cost in view of reports that he will receive a substantial amount from a newspaper for the exclusive right to publish his story and his experience of the foundering? Finally, in view of the many conflicting reports as to the seaworthiness of this ketch and the purpose of the voyage, will the Minister appoint a court of marine inquiry to inquire into the circumstances of the foundering of the ketch ‘One and All’ off Middleton Reef on 2nd October?

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

– The destination of the ketch ‘One and All’ was, of course, the Middleton Reef. We have not yet been able to ascertain the purpose of the voyage but discussions are taking place today between the search and rescue personnel and members of the crew. With respect to the condition of the ketch, I am advised that a recent request to the Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine for registration as a commercial fishing vessel was followed by a preliminary inspection of the vessel by a Marine Board surveyor and the owner of the vessel was advised that it did not meet the necessary standards for issue of a certificate of seaworthiness because of the condition of the hull. Therefore, as I know, the vessel was not registered. Preliminary investigations have indicated that the cost of the search was $200,000, which included the costs of commercial shipping and of the HMAS Otway’ and Royal Australian Air Force aircraft. The Commonwealth Government has accepted responsibility in providing a search and rescue organisation under the Safety of Life at Sea international convention of some years ago and the Commonwealth has no statutory entitlement to recover the costs of a search and rescue operation except under laws relating to salvage, where the recoverable limit is the value of the property saved. I cannot give any indication at this stage of whether there will be a marine inquiry. Detailed discussions are taking place at present, as I said previously, but I want to make this point clear: At a meeting of the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Transport on 24th September the Ministers agreed that there are several areas in which cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States could lead to more efficient marine administration. Such an area is the safety of private yachts and pleasure craft It is under current consideration.

page 2147

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL POLICY

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday declaring the industrial policy of his Party? Is it a fact that his policy does not offer any alternative to the conciliation and arbitration system and in fact would effectively destroy the functioning of that system? Does the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition represent a confused picture of industrial relations in this country?

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

– I did read some newspaper articles relating to an alleged meeting between the Press and the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the Leader of the Opposition. I must confess immediately, as one who has had several years of experience in industrial relations, probably longer than any other person in this House, that the ideas were badly conceived and I believe are completely unworkable. Worse, I believe they will play into the hands of the left wing of the trade union movement and will effectively destroy the system of industrial arbitration in this country, I might be asked why I come to this conclusion. I do so far various reasons. The first one, of course, it that it is alleged that the agreements will come into force only if they are approved by the union executive and by the trade union itself.. If they do not, then we have no agreement whatsoever and no basis on which action could be taken. There is an enormous gap-

Mr Whitlam - I rise on a point of order. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to establish a point of order- I believe he has every right to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, might I suggest that you follow your recent practice and ask the Prime Minister to make a statement after question time to cover the remaining points which his sign writer has prepared for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not in a position to see from here what notes or any other information the Prime Minister may have. So far the Prime Minister has not been overlong in answering the involved question.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Come on, skinhead.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will withdraw that remark.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir, you know I was not referring to you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will withdraw the remark.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If it gives offence to any member I will withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will withdraw the remark unreservedly.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr McMAHON:

- Mr Speaker, I can understand their sensitivity because this does indicate another area of difference on policy which I believe is of critical importance to the Australian people and shows the vast difference there is between the Labor or Socialist Party and ourselves. I had got to the second point of why I had made the statements I have made. The third point is that according to the honourable member for Hindmarsh there is nothing whatsoever wrong with penalties in industrial law. It is only whether the penalty is imposed on the union or against the individual members of the trade union movement. We believe it should be on the union and we intend to keep fines within the industrial law of this country. But according to the members of the Opposition there can be a $20 fine per day on individual trade unionists. Can anyone tell me that that would be practicible in the case of, say, the Amalgamated Engineering Union with 86,000 workers who could be punished? A fine of $20 a day would probably mean that a total fine of the order of $1,750,000 a day would be imposed upon the members of that union.

The next point is that in most of these cases - particularly in the case of the left wing unions - there is no doubt whatsoever that it is the union leaders who are responsible for the strikes, not the rank and file. If we like to think of the justice of this case, those who are not responsible - the trade union members themselves - will pay the penalty, not the powerful associates of the members of the Labor Party. Gross injustice would be involved here.

Finally, what is obviously intended is that in the case of arbitration they would want all the benefits of the organisation but have none of the responsibilities or obligations that are associated with organisation itself. I emphasise now, Sir, that we intend to strengthen the arbitration system. We will, amongst other things, retain fines as an essential feature of that system. I repeat that this is a critically important policy distinction between ourselves and members of the Labor Party.

page 2148

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, may I ask a short question without notice of the Minister for Trade and Industry? Since the emissaries have now returned from the area, I ask the right honourable gentleman when he expects to be able to announce the full membership and itinerary of the projected trade mission to the People’s Republic of China.

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

– I am not sure which emissaries you are referring to. I am afraid that I have no-

Mr McMahon:

– The Ministerial emissaries

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! We will sort this out in a moment if we do not have any interruptions. Could the Leader of the Opposition explain the situation so that the Minister can answer his question?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I repeat my question. Since the emissaries have now returned from the area, I ask the right honourable gentlemen when he expects to be able to announce the full membership and itinerary of the projected trade mission to the People’s Republic of China.

Mr ANTHONY:

– As the Prime Minister has said on previous occasions, there is a keenness on the part of the Government to have dialogue with the People’s Republic of China. Naturally, one of the areas that the Government would like to explore is that of trade. We have a good trading relationshiprelationship with the People’s Republic. We send a number of people to the Canton Fair. The Canton Fair is coming up shortly and we expect that a similar number of business men will go there as went last time. On that occasion, I think, 100 business men attended. I hope that more people from Australia will attend the next Canton Fair.

page 2148

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is my impression correct that the Australian Labor Party’s revised industrial relations policy has been enunciated against a background of continuing efforts in the trade union movement to increase the incidence of compulsory unionism? How does the Minister view this situation against the existence of righttowork laws in the United States of America and a recent legal decision in Great Britain which implies that the right to work is as worthy of judicial protection as the light to personal reputation or safety?

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

– The Government certainly is concerned at the increasing trend in recent years by trade unions to take coercive action, against both employees and employers, in relation to compulsory unionism. It is certainly true in respect of a number of recent disputes in which employers have been threatened with intimidatory action simply because they have been supplying goods and services to another employer in dispute with a union over this question of compulsory unionism.

I think that 2 fundamental principles are involved here. The first one is the right of any individual, any employee, to determine of his own volition, free from any sense of coercion, whether or not to join a trade union. Secondly, there is the question of the intimidatory action which has been taken against some companies simply because they supply goods and services to a firm in dispute with employees with respect to these questions. The attitude of this Government certainly is very clear. We are totally opposed to this concept because it cuts across basic human rights, although it is alleged to be in the interests of the workers concerned.

The Government has always encouraged the formation of trade unions and employer bodies. In fact, one of the chief objects of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is to encourage the formation of representative employer and employee bodies and their registration under that Act. But this certainly does not extend to the question of compulsory unionism and, as I have mentioned in response to what the honourable gentleman has questioned, the Government is opposed to compulsory unionism because it does cut across individual freedom. It does so at the expense of the community whose convenience is oftentimes put at risk and it jeopardises the normal working of business enterprise. So far as the official policy of the Opposition on this question is concerned, certainly no word or no hint of it was to be found in the announcements made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I understand that the question of compulsory unionism does not feature in either the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the official policy of the Opposition. But the fact is that, although it may not be the Opposition’s official policy, it has condoned it in recent years. If this is not the case, it should certainly say so.

page 2149

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister noticed that the yen yesterday closed at 330.20 yen to the USA dollar, or 9.02 per cent above the old parity of 360 yen to the USA dollar? Does the Government intend to allow the Australian dollar to continue to float?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am not aware of the actual figures given by the honourable gentleman, but I do know that qua the US dollar the yen has appreciated by a little over 9 per cent. As to the second part of the question asked by the honourable gentleman, I have nothing to add to the 2 statements that I have made in the House. For the moment the Australian dollar is tied to sterling and there has been a movement of a little more than 3 per cent. When there is something definitive which can be said, it will be said in this House.

page 2149

QUESTION

PROJECT N AIRCRAFT

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for . Supply. Has the American procurement programme known as ‘Pave Coin’ been drawn to the attention of the Minister? Is the programme designed to procure for the use of America’s allies under the military assistance programme planes in utility, close support, strike and forward air controller categories? If so, would the Project N Aircraft be suitable for any of these categories? Has the Government brought Project N to the notice of American procurement authorities selecting aircraft under the ‘Pave Coin’ programme?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– This matter has not been under my notice. I think that the questions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has linked with it ought really to be placed on the notice paper.

page 2149

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. My question is: Why, since the late Harold Holt’s holding of that position, have successive Ministers administering that Department seen fit to criticise the organisations for which, of course, the Department must accept some responsibility? I further ask the Minister: Will he show the same respect to industrial organisations with which his ministry is concerned, and treat them in the same way, as, say, the Minister for Customs and Excise treats members of the organisations to which, of course, his Department is responsible? We do not see the Minister for Customs and Excise criticising every customs agent in the country. Therefore, I again direct the question to the Minister: Why does he adopt the attitude which he does towards those organisations that come within his Department?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– It is not entirely clear what the honourable gentleman is referring to. I think in the final part of the question he asked why I was critical of organisations which come within the control of myself or my Department. If he is thinking of trade unions he should clearly not see those organisations as coming within the control of myself or my Department. I believe that the honourable gentleman presents a very distorted picture to this House. In fact, immediately after question time I will take the opportunity to send to him a series of my recent speeches and, I might add, those of the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman will see very clearly that in practically every major address that I have made recently, of course, there has been some criticism of the trade union movement, and I believe that criticism to be totally justifiable in the context in which it was made. But I also say to the honourable gentleman that in almost every speech I have made recently I have been critical equally of employer organisations for omissions which I believe can correctly be mentioned in relation to those organisations.

I say to the honourable gentleman that so far as industrial relations in this country are concerned, it is the proper function of a Minister for Labour and National Service to be critical of trade unions where he and his Government believe that criticism is justifiable. Equally, he should be critical of the employers where he believes that that criticism is justifiable. So far as the third area of industrial relations is concerned, that is, the function of government, let me make it clear to the House - the honourable gentleman did not raise it- that we as a Government recognise the need to establish a satisfactory legislative environment in which industrial relations can be effectively ordered, and we will do so, but we will not do it at the expense of destroying the system which is inherent in what the Opposition put forward yesterday.

page 2150

QUESTION

APPLES

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: In view of the failure of the Australian Apple and Pear Board to negotiate acceptable shipping freight rates to the United Kingdom and Europe with the interested consortium of ship-owning companies, and the ability of West Australian growers to make such acceptable arrangements due to the geographical advantages of Western Australia in relation to these markets, why is the Minister refusing permission to West Australian interests to proceed with arrangements for shipping the West Australian crop? As West Australian shippers are most anxious to proceed with the organisation necessary to prepare for export, and because time is now desperately short, will the Minister give this matter his immediate attention with a view to putting an end to . yet another instance of discrimination against Western Australia?

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

– There are distinct advantages and disadvantages in our federal system. One of the advantages is that we can operate collectively in selling our exports on markets overseas. Western Australia’s apple crop, I understand, represents about 19 per cent of apples exported from Australia. By contrast, Tasmania’s apple crop represents approximately 70 per cent. I know that there are very real difficulties not just for the producers in Western Australia but similarly for those in Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia, all of whom to a greater or lesser extent are concerned to try to ensure that their exports will continue to be carried to their traditional export markets. I understand that at the moment the Australian Apple and Pear Board, which is charged with the responsibility of negotiating freight and shipping arrangements on behalf of the industry, has apparently reopened negotiations, as I explained to the House last week, knowing that there are possibly some alternative arrangements available to it.

In the light of that position the Apple and Pear Board - not the Government - is determining the best basis on which arrangements can be made for the movement of exports from each of the States. The position in terms of the export of -fruit will be discussed in further detail at a meeting which I have convened for 20th October next at which there will be representatives not only of the Apple and Pear Board, producers and processors but also of several departments of this Government, all of which have a measure of. expertise. 1 am hoping that the meeting will enable exporters to introduce some economies in the export handling of fruit which might well lead to some further economies in the freight rates which I hope can be negotiated.

page 2150

QUESTION

AID TO INDIA

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Prime Minister will recall that last week the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs announced on behalf of the Government what was said to be additional aid to India to assist the Bengal refugees. I now ask: Is it a fact that the $500,000 worth of rice allocated to India is not an additional expenditure but simply a substitution of rice for wheat already allocated under the International Wheat Agreement and listed in the Budget statement on external aid 7 weeks ago? Will be now heed the call of Australian public opinion for a genuine sacrifice to help India cope with this catastrophe? I might add that I- have never received so many letters in so short a time on any subject. ; Mr McMahon - The Minister for Primary Industry will answer the question!

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– Each year certain unallocated portions of food aid under the International Wheat Agreement are capable of being allocated in certain ways. The rice that is being allocated in this instance Ls in lieu of wheat aid that would have been provided under the International Wheat Agreement. But it is additional rice to any that would have been given. It is additional food. In fact it is a substitution of rice for wheat. It is additional to any allocation that had previously been made. Let me make, the position clear to the House. Each year a very substantial amount of food aid is provided by the Australian Government. Certainly we are party to an international agreement involving a number of producer countries and a number of consumer countries. Each year there is an allocation of food aid to a number of countries within the terns of that agreement. In this instance it was specifically intended that there should be an amount provided for countries in that region supplemental to any that would have been provided in the normal course. To that extent it is not true that it is not an additional amount. It is specifically an allocation provided in recognition of the quite disastrous circumstances that prevail with respect to the East Pakistani refugees both in Pakistan and in India.

page 2151

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Education and Science a member of tha Australian Education Council or does it still comprise only State Ministers for Education?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– “She Commonwealth Minister has not .hitherto been a member of the Australian Education Council. He attends by invitation - not as of right - during some part of the Coun cil’s deliberations. I understand that this matter was raised several months ago and, from memory, that the State Ministers wanted to have their Directors-General examine the matter. The Directors-General are currently meeting. Whether or not this is one of the matters that will be discussed, I am not too sure. The Commonwealth has interests in education, equivalent to the interests of the States, in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory, in addition to its Commonwealth role. I would have thought that in a meeting such as this the Commonwealth should participate as of right and not by invitation, as has been the situation in the past. This matter was raised with the Council several months ago but no firm answer was received.

page 2151

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LITERARY FUND

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, among other things. When did the Commonwealth Literary Fund Advisory Board last meet? What scheduled meetings of the Board have been cancelled? How many people have been approached to. become chairman of the Board? How many people have been approached to become members of the Board? Has any proposal been made for reconstructing the Commonwealth Literary Fund or the Advisory Board?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the Minister, as there seems to be some confusion in the minds of honourable members as to the correct way in which the Minister should be addressed, I suggest to all honourable members that the Minister be addressed as the Minister for the Environment.

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

– I announced at the end of last week that Professor Blainey had accepted appointment as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Commonwealth Literary Fund. At the same time I announced that in a very short time I shall be announcing the names of other people to fill some of the vacancies which exist at the present time on the Board. I think that answers all the immediate questions.

page 2151

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES

Mr JARMAN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the Minister seen a reported statement by the Leader of. the Opposition that the Opposition is opposed to strikes on political issues? Is he aware of any previous statement by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter? Are honourable members correct in assuming-

Mr Bryant:

– 1 rise to order. Mr Speaker, you have on a number of occasions ruled that a question must be related to a Minister’s department and this question obviously has nothing to do with the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister for Labour and National Service. Therefore it should be ruled out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member will find that standing order 142 permits questions to be addressed to a Minister in relation to matters of public interest and for which the Minister is responsible, Surely the matter cif industrial disturbances comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Labour and National Service. I think this is the practice that has been followed in relation to questions addressed to Ministers by members of the Opposition.

Mr Whitlam:

– Speaking to the point of order, question time has deteriorated into an opportunity for Ministers to make statements on subjects of their choice, having first provided questions to- be asked by members sitting behind them. This question is not even dexterously phrased. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, whatever the Standing Orders may say - and I would have thought with respect that they were so clear as to prevent questions like this being bowled up - that the sheer question of equity in these matters must be considered. Question time is being abused. There is no similar opportunity-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not allow the honourable member to debate the issue. I can understand the point of order he is making.

Mr Whitlam:

– Might I put it this way? Questions like this, and the answers which are given ad nauseam to those questions, are a temptation to disorder during question time, as you know. The alternative procedure is for members who are mentioned gratuitously by a Minister in his reply to seek leave to make a statement or to make an explanation at the end of question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not continue to debate the matter.

Mr Bryant:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already dealt with the honourable member’s point of order. I am now dealing with the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition knows, as I have said in the House several times, that the Chair has no way of knowing how a question originates - whether it originates in the manner the honourable gentleman has described to the House or in any other manner. The Chair must assume that an honourable member who asks a . question does so in accordance with the Standing Orders, unless he is challenged to vouch for the accuracy of material contained in the question. In this case I have no way, and I do not think any other honourable member, except the honourable member asking the question, has any way of knowing how that question originated. Therefore, as I have ruled on many occasions, I have no jurisdiction whatsoever. It is even more difficult for the Chair to take action when the subject on which a question is based relates to a matter which comes within the responsibility of a particular Minister and is in the public interest.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise fo order. Does your ruling in respect of matters of public interest which do not necessarily fall within the responsibility of a Minister also cover the Leader of the Opposition who, under the Standing Orders, may be asked questions on matters for which he is responsible in the House? If your ruling is to apply to Ministers it should also apply equally to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a situation which is not before the House at the present time and, therefore, it is irrelevant.

Mr Bryant:

– Standing order 142 provides that questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected or to proceedings pending in the House. It is true that the Minister is officially connected with trade unions but he has no official connection with the Australian Labor Party or any of its operations, and those parts of the question which relate to statements by members of the Opposition do not deal with public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. I believe the question should be ruled out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Standing order 142 says that questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs. Surely a public statement by a Leader of the Opposition is a matter of public concern. The honourable member has conceded that the Minister has a great interest in and is responsible for trade unions. Therefore, I deal no further with that point.

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. In the ruling that you have just given you said that it is permissible to ask a Minister a question relating to a matter of public interest.

Mr SPEAKER:

– With which he is officially connected.

Mr Whitlam:

– I would concede that. But in this case, as I remember it, the question asked of the Minister was whether he could recollect any other statements the Leader of the Opposition had made on this subject, which the honourable member puts under the slogan of ‘political strikes’. The question does not purport to relate to anything that the Leader of the Opposition has said recently, particularly yesterday, on this subject. It is completely at large, asking the Minister whether he can recall any other statements made by the Leader of the Opposition under this slogan. There must be some limit.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In view of what the Leader of the Opposition has said in relation to the wording of the question and as I am not conversant now with the wording, I ask the honourable member for Deakin to repeat his question.

Mr JARMAN:

– My question to the Minister for Labour and National Service, relating to his portfolio, is: Has the Minister seen a reported statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition is opposed to strikes on political issues? Is he aware of any previous statements by the honourable gentleman on this matter? Are honourable members correct in assuming that both the Government and the Opposition now have a bi-partisan approach to political strikes?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The latter part of the question inviting an assumption on the part of honourable members is out of order. The first part of the question is in order.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– It has been widely reported that in a Press conference in Sydney yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did make some detailed reference, whether in substance or in passing, to the question of political strikes. I can recall no other statement in detail by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this question which I believe is a matter of substance not just for this House but in fact for the Australian people. As has been widely reported, the Leader of the Opposition is understood to have indicated that political strikes were not effective if they dealt with matters which could be determined or resolved only by governments and he pointed to matters such as social services or education as areas in which action could not be productive. So far as the question asked of me by the honourable member is concerned - I am not quite certain which part is in order and which part is not - this would be . the first time that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to this matter in detail during recent years - a period during which there has been a marked increase in strike activity of this type. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that strikes over’ questions such as pensions are not productive it is a great pity that there was no comment by him during the past 2 years when in fact there have been major strikes in this area. So far as Government policy is concerned, it is clear and unequivocal. We are opposed to political strikes of any dimension for, I believe, good reasons. Such strikes usurp the function of government; they tend to be divisive of the trade union movement; and they certainly interfere with the individual political convictions of trade unionists.

page 2153

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:

– Might I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service what type of strike he would approve?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have just been asked to give some rulings in regard to questions. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, his question seeks an opinion from the Minister.

page 2154

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Are we clearing our present Stocks of wheat at a most successful rate? Will the present acreages sown to wheat be down this year? Are other wheat producing countries expecting large crops, and are considerable stocks held by these countries? What is the present outlook for the sale of Australian wheat on world markets?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– Generally the. Australian Wheat Board has this year been able to achieve a remarkable performance in disposing of the Australian crop. It is true that it went into the beginning of this season with a considerable stockpile and there was concern that given the difficulties that we faced in marketing in some areas we would not be able to dispose of this current year’s crop plus that stockpile. I understand that sales have been at a record level in spite of moves at a political level surrounding the market in the People’s Republic of China. However, I think that it would be foolish if we looked ahead to the next selling season and thought that, because sales have been so successful this year, that success will necessarily continue.

At present it would appear that northern hemisphere grain producing countries expect to have a very favourable season. In addition some of those countries which this year negotiated purchases from Australia are expected to increase their production. For this reason it is (a) doubtful that the markets themselves will be as large and (b) likely that there will be a great deal more competition for wheat in the existing markets. So the Australian wheat grower needs to be conscious that there are still difficulties ahead in marketing an unrestricted production of Australian wheat on export markets. It is, of course, of concern that not only are we likely to find it more difficult to «ell wheat but also that more and more wheat is being sold on credit terms. As this happens growers are being forced to wait longer for their second, third and final payments from wheat pools. This, of course, is again to the grower’s cost. There are good market prospects for some other grains - coarse grains, for example - and possibly oil seeds are an export market. For this reason I would hope that in grain producing areas there is a concentration on a diversity of production and not just a belief that growing wheat alone will be the answer to the problems of those agricultural regions. I believe that this year there is, nonetheless, a great deal that could be said by way of compliment to the. Australian Wheat Board for its efforts and the success it has achieved on behalf of Australian wheat growers.

page 2154

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT

page 2154

QUESTION

NOT GRANTED

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Government supporters - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on my left will come to order.

Mr McMahon:

Mr Speaker, if the honourable gentleman claims that he has been misrepresented he can, of course, make a personal explanation. If he seeks leave to make an ordinary statement about his Party’s policy, leave will not be granted.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been misrepresented but I want also to make a statement relative to other things that have been said.

Government supporters - No.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Then I move-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have not given a decision yet. All I want to say is that leave is not granted.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Then I move:

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, I second the motion, because 1 am interested, too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not know whether it is in order for the honourable member to move this motion. This is a question I have never faced before. I understand that such a motion cannot be accepted. It could be accepted during a debate but not in relation to a statement.

page 2155

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

It is absolutely essential that the Standing Orders be suspended because unless they are suspended I cannot move the motion: “That the honourable member for Hindmarsh be heard’. The House should want to hear the honourable member for Hindmarsh. So many questions have been asked already about what the honourable member for Hindmarsh said in an interview yesterday that I am surprised and would find it difficult to believe that honourable members, having shown such an intense interest in the honourable gentleman’s views on industrial relations, would not want to hear them expounded further. The question of industrial relations is so terribly important that the Parliament should give it a very high priority. The mere fact that the Standing Orders technically prevent a discussion on this important question should not prevent us from dealing with it when all that is necessary is for the Standing Orders to be suspended, [his is why I move for their suspension. If honourable members are as interested in industrial relations as one would be entitled to assume, judging by the number of questions that have been asked, one would expect them to match their interest with some degree of support for the motion that I have moved. The question of industrial relations is not to be pushed glibly to one side. It is absolutely vital to the welfare of this country and when a political party states that it has an answer to the industrial problems of the day this Parliament should want to hear that answer. lt should say: ‘We want to hear it because this is a most important thing. This above ail is the thing that is now plaguing the country’s economic position and wa want to hear what the honourable member for Hindmarsh has to say’.

I have already said that I have been misrepresented. If this motion is agreed to I will be able to indicate the extent to which I have been misrepresented and I will be able also to tell the Parliament, if it is interested in the subject, what the Labor Party’s policy is, what was propounded at the launceston conference, what I have said about it since, what other people have said about it and why it is that I believe it is the only policy that can save the country from the chaos it is now experiencing. We know, according to well informed reports coming from Government supporters opposite, that the plan of the Government is to provoke some confrontation with the trade union movement, not caring what damage this will cause management, in order that there may be created the kind of political climate which it believes might help it to win an election. This is far too important a subject to be just wiped to one side.

At no stage did I say that we would impose a penalty of $20 a day on employees. That is the first point. What I said, and what my Party’s policy clearly indicates, is that in cases where employees and management enter into agreements, in the event of a breach of an agreement, subject to that agreement being registered - if it is not registered none of these things would apply, but if it is registered, and it cannot be registered unless it is ratified by the employees who have to work under it, it would be a breach of the agreement to go on strike against some term of the agreement which has already been hammered out and settled upon - the amount of penalty that would be imposed would not be the penalty which is stipulated in the Act, now $1,000. I have always made this abundantly clear and I said this at the Launceston conference.

Mr Swartz:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Whilst I know that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is most anxious to place these matters before the House might I suggest that he should contain himself until he has the opportunity to speak on the Estimates. This is not the time. The point is, Mr Speaker, that this is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and the honourable member is going far beyond debating that motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member for Hindmarsh is getting away from the motion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is impossible in 10 minutes to deal with this sort of subject. Do Government supporters believe that the question of industrial relations is worth only a 10-minute talk? Is this the Government’s belief?

Mr Buchanan:

– You can have 20 minutes on the Estimates.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 1 am sorry, Alec, but you may not be able to hear me for much longer so will you be quiet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the debate on a motion to suspend Standing Orders is fairly narrow.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Fair enough, Mr Speaker. You are right. I concede that. Therefore I cannot expand upon what I wanted to say. However we can now test the sincerity of Government supporters. We will see just how interested they really are in industrial relations and how interested they really are in finding out what are the Labor Party’s proposals. We will find out how interested they really are in trying to ascertain whether their proposed policy compares favourably with our policy because until they hear the Labor Party’s policy stated officially in the Parliament they have only the Press to guide them. I sincerely hope that honourable members opposite will allow me to state to the Parliament and to the people of Australia what it is that we stand for in industrial relations, because if this motion is defeated and the suspension of Standing Orders is refused they will be refusing me the right to state to the people of Australia what it is the Labor Party, the official alternative government, has to offer to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honourable member formally move the motion? Is the motion seconded?

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the motion.

Mr Swartz:

– I thought the honourable member for Grayndler indicated that he was going to second the motion.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honourable member for Grayndler seconded the motion that the honourable member for Hindmarsh be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I support the motion to suspend Standing Orders so that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) may move a motion that he be heard. This is a matter of intense interest to all honourable members. The difference between the interest they show is that members of the Australian Labor Party are prepared to state it publicly at Press conferences and at public meetings. Ministers are prepared to discuss these matters only before invitation audiences or at question time in answer to questions allegedly without notice. Even so it is impossible to quell the spontaneous interest that members of the Liberal Party hold in this matter.

The. Liberal Party is doing its best to shoot out its brains. Not only the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) but also the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) have lost their preselection. Yet undeterred the honourable member for McMillan, representing a great industrial area, was quick to his feet today to ask a question of no less than the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). The Prime Minister naturally wishes to express his views on the matter. His views expressed before an invited audience yesterday received very little cover in the mass media. He is irked by the fact that the views expressed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I did remind the honourable member for Hindmarsh that this debate is limited to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended. The whole matter proposed to be raised is not open for debate.

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 will limit myself to a few dispassionate reasons for suspending Standing Orders to enable this matter to be debated. There can be no question of the interest that all political parties in this House profess in this issue. At question time there were opportunities sought and taken for Ministers to express their views on what the honourable member for Hindmarsh and I said on these matters. All that is now sought is an opportunity for the honourable member for Hindmarsh to say himself what he thinks and what he says. Accordingly I would imagine that those honourable members, even among the members of the Liberal and Country Parties, who believe that there is no element of human relations in this country more topical, more crucial than industrial relations will support this motion.

It is not effective parliamentary democracy for these matters to be kept under wraps and under control as they are at this time. Ten minutes on the Estimates is not adequate time in which to debate these matters. There is no . ministerial statement on this subject, and when a Bill at last is born the debate on it will be limited to its terms and to the long title of it. Accordingly, if honourable members really want to debate this matter, this prime matter of public concern, in the national Parliament they will support this motion.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I do not support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Although we saw the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) at his plausible best and although we saw his courtly court manners in presenting his arguments to you, Mr Speaker, perhaps with some effect, I would have been more impressed as a member supporting the Government if I felt that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to open for discussion all matters on which he and his Party have propounded policies over the last week. It does appear that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) feel that there is some basis for believing that the Australian nation is waiting solely to hear the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the Leader of the Opposition in respect of industrial matters. I think there are other matters that perhaps should also be clarified, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition if he moves a motion following the suspension of Standing Orders, would be prepared to show his genuine concern by saying that there are other matters. As an instance, on television last night, in respect of immigration policy, another great issue of the Australian Labor Party-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr JESS:

– A motion could be moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable this matter to be discussed too.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is true, but in the instance-

Mr JESS:

– He gets 20 minutes; I get two.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The suspension of Standing Orders has been moved for a specific purpose. The honourable member still has plenty of time. A motion has been moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the honourable member for Hindmarsh to make a statement on industrial matters, the matter which was being discussed at that time. I do not think the subject matter covers the question of immigration to which the honourable member for La Trobe has referred.

Mr JESS:

– No, but the point was made by the Leader of the Opposition that members on this side should support this great matter of importance. Then we got into a discourse on industrial relations. I am only trying to make the point that this is not the only instance and if the appeal from the Leader of the Opposition is genuine we should be able to be given clarity on other matters which also vitally affect me as a supporter of this Government and which affect this House as a whole. Therefore I am against the suspension of Standing Orders because I consider that it is nothing but an endeavour to float this particular policy but not other policies, such as the policy on immigration, which could perhaps be more embarrassing to the Labor Party.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 56

Majority . . ‘ .. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2158

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. Sir, during question time at least one member on the Government side, in a question directed to a Minister, made the statement that yesterday I had stated that it was the policy of (he Australian “Labor Party to impose a penalty of $20 a day on employees who broke awards or agreements. That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As any presesman present at the conference will remember, what I said was that we would revert to the old section 41 of the Act, which I told them provided for maximum penalties of $200 on employers and $20 on employees.

I want to read the old section 41 of the Act. It is most important that I do so since the Press will recall at that interview I specifically referred to the old section 41. At that interview I told of how last year or early this year - I think it was last year - the Government transferred from section 41 the penalties then prescribed into section 119 and at the same time increased the amount. So at the moment the penalties that apply to any person who commits a breach of an award or a breach of an agreement can, if the penalty is imposed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court, amount to a maximum of $1,000. In the case of an organisation-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that up to date the honourable gentleman has explained reasonably well where he has been misrepresented. I suggest* to the honourable member that this is not a time for debating the question. I suggest that he confine himself to where he has been personally misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I respect what you say, Sir. The fine against an organisation would be $500 in cases where an award provided that each day should be treated as a separate offence; and where penalties were imposed by a court or by a magistrate other than the Commonwealth Industrial Court the penalty would be $250 per employee. I said to the Press that we will not have a bar of this kind of penalty; that we will revert to old section 41 of the Act where the penalties are as I indicated - that is, a maximum penalty of $200 on an employer and a maximum of $20 on an employee.

Also 1 want to make clear that similar penalties were provided by the Chifley Labor Government in the Act that operated at that time. This is why we felt justified and 1 felt justified at Launceston, when it was agreed that an agreement shall have the force of an award, in stating that the figure of $200 maximum for an employer and $20 maximum for an employee would be an appropriate penalty.

The other matter that represents a misrepresentation of the fact is that it was suggested and indeed stated quite clearly, by way of questions to the Minister and in the replies given, that the Labor Party proposes that where a strike is against an award the penalty that would apply would be $20 a day. That is not only untrue in relation to the amount but also is untrue in relation to the penalties for committing a strike against an award, because no penalties are provided in the policy of the Australian Labor Party for breach of an award by way of strike.

Mr Hunt:

– That will help you with the wharfies.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, there is no penalty. This is made perfectly clear. I have made it clear enough in the/2 papers that I have given. 1 do not rely upon offthecuff statements. Both papers that I have delivered recently to various bodies have made it clear that the Labor Party will not permit to be written into an award a nostrikes clause or a bans clause, as it is referred to usually in everyday language. So, how could it possibly be said that the Labor Party proposes to impose a penalty of $20 a day on an employee for going on strike when, as 1 have said time and time again - and 1 said it yesterday at the Press conference - under the Labor Party’s proposals there will be no prohibition on strikes against awards at all. The prohibitions have not worked; they never will work. lt is for these obvious reasons that we say that they ought to be eliminated completely from the Act.

It has been suggested that I have not stated correctly the decisions of the Labor Party at Launceston and what I have said does not represent the policy of the Party as agreed at Launceston. This I wish to correct too. In the old platform, we had a section reading: the repeal of the pernicious penal provisions of the Act.

The operative word was ‘pernicious’. We did not intend to remove the penalties against an employer who did not pay the correct wages.

Mr Sinclair:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Interested though we may be in the Labor Party’s policy, 1 would suggest that the honourable member is getting well away from making a personal explanation.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Look, this was one of the things said.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I cannot recall whether this matter was referred to this afternoon. It was, was it?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, of course.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If it was referred to the honourable member is cor rect in pointing out where the misrepresentation was made. But do not ask me to verify an answer that was given this afternoon because I cannot.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The fact is that we have always talked about the pernicious penal provisions and not the penal provisions which are necessary. For instance, it was necessary to have penal provision in the days of the Chifley Government - £250 on an employer and £10 on an employee.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not debate the matter on the needs, merits or alternatives in showing where he has been misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right, Sir. At Launceston this was altered. I must read the altered section because it will show quite clearly that what I said at yesterday afternoon’s conference was completely in accord with Party policy. The provision now reads:

  1. the repeal of all penalties for strikes and lock-outs against arbitral decisions of the Commission or a conciliation committee.

That means quite clearly that this paragraph does not apply to decisions that were agreed upon and registered as an agreement. Hence the reference in the section headed ‘Agreements’ to this provision: An agreement shall, when registered, have the force of an award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provided that* it has been approved by the members affected by it. I will leave out, because I do not wish to disregard your ruling, several sub-paragraphs and refer to the subparagraph which states: . . provided that -

  1. an agreement shall not operate to prevent strike action in respect of a matter not covered by the agreement.

If it is covered by the agreement, strike action is not permitted. If it is not, strike action is permitted. If unions do not want to be liable to penalties for going on strike against an agreement, a simple way out is available: Either do not make agreements or make them and do not register them.

page 2159

QUESTION

HANSARD REPORT

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Foster:

– What is wrong with him? He is very touchy today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member should explain his point of order. He is now debating the question.

Mr Foster:

– I was interrupted, I am sorry, by a member of the Country Party. 1 note that in fact-

Mr Buchanan:

– What is your point of order?

Mr Foster:

– My point of order is that insertions and inclusions which are beyond the spoken word of the Prime Minister have been made. In doing so, there would be more than an inference that they have been done with wilful intent because I will quote-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not under any circumstances reflect upon the character or intentions of another honourable member. I suggest that he does not use that language.

Mr Foster:

– Perhaps my choice of words, ‘wilful intent’, was not the best. But I want to seek your guidance as to how this record of the proceedings of last Thursday at question time can be corrected. I am prepared to listen to the tape as I did the other day in regard to certain proceedings of this House. But I most certainly am on my feet to object and to make the point that the platform and constitution of the Labor Party were not mentioned by the Prime Minister in the con text in which they appear in Hansard. He has included the words ‘crucial importance’ and he’ has made a number of alterations that would take me some 15 minutes to put before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member do not do that at this stage. I suggest, as I suggested last week, that the honourable member might listen to the tape first, if he has not done so, and then he can see me in relation to the alterations that have been made. But I think that, at this stage, it would be well for me to repeat to the House a statement that I made in relation to Hansard earlier this year. I said this: 1 wish to restate the guiding principle followed by. the Hansard Staff in the preparation of the reports of the debates here.

The aim is to produce a rational verbatim report - a report which, in the definition given in May, . . though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument’.

To this report Members may make necessary corrections but alterations of sense or the introduction of new matter are not admissible.

A Member’s green is confidential as between him and the Hansard Staff and is not made available to anyone unless the Member has given his approval.

They are the general guidelines in relation to Hansard. If there has been any breach of them, 1 suggest that the honourable member come and see me.

page 2160

AUSTRALIAN CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969, I present the second annual report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2160

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1968, I present the fifth annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30th June 1971. An interim report of the Committee was presented to the House on 18th August 1971.

page 2161

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Apple and Pear Organisation Act 1938-1966, I present the twenty-fifth annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2161

QUESTION

LAW REFORM FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ministerial Statement

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

Mr Speaker, I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement relating to law reform in the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. ‘

Mr SINCLAIR:

– In May of this year the Law Reform Commission Ordinance 1971 of the Australian Capital Territory was made and it provided for the establishment of a Law Reform Commission for the Territory. I take this opportunity to inform honourable members that the members of the Commission have now been appointed, that it has established itself in suitable premises and that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) has referred to it 6 matters for examination and report. The Ordinance provides for the Commission to consist of a Chairman and two other members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Governor-General. The Governor-General has been pleased to appoint Mr Justice Blackburn to be the Chairman and Professor P. S. Atiyah and Mr N. M. Macphillamy to be the two other members. AH these persons are eminently qualified for the positions to which they have been appointed. Mr Justice Blackburn, who has been appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, had for some 5 years before his appointment been the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. His Honour had a brilliant academic record, having been a Rhodes Scholar followed by a period of 8 years as Bonython Professor of Law at the Adelaide University and a further period of several years in private practice.

Professor Atiyah, who holds a professional appointment in the Faculty of Law in the School of General Studies at the Australian National University, has had a distinguished academic career in the course of which he has written a number of books and articles on legal subjects. He was a member of the United Kingdom Law Commission’s Advisory Panel on the codification of the law of contract. Mr Macphillamy is the senior partner in one of the largest firms of Canberra solicitors. He has had an extensive practice, particularly in the areas of company and commercial law. He was the Secretary of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory from 1956 to 1959 and also from 1964 to 1967. The Commission’s premises, which are open to the public, are situated in the AMP Building in Hobart Place, Canberra City.

Section 12 of the Law Reform Commission Ordinance provides for the Commission to undertake and report on matters referred to it by the Attorney-General, whether at the suggestion of the Commission or otherwise. Pursuant to that provision, on 17th September 1971, the AttorneyGeneral referred to the Commission 6 matters, which I shall now mention. The first matter is:

Whether and in what respect the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1898 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Australian Capita] Territory needs to be amended, having regard, in particular, to the changes that have been effected in New South Wales by the Conveyancing Act 1919-1964.

By way of explanation, I mention that the registration of titles to real property, generally known as the Torrens title system, is provided for in the Australian Capital Territory by the Real Property Ordinance. The general law relating to property, both real and personal, insofar as it depends on statute law, is contained in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1898 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory. That Act was repealed in New South Wales by the Conveyancing Act 1919 which has since been substantially amended. Some only of the provisions of the Act have been adopted as a law of the Territory by the Conveyancing Ordinance 1951, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 1958 and Trustee Ordinance 1957.

The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory has made representations that the whole of the Conveyancing Act 1919 of New South Wales should be adopted as a law of the Territory. It has been claimed that there are serious problems because our law is out of date. It will be the task of the Commission to recommend what should be the law of the Territory in this field. The second matter is:

A review of the Imperial Acts that still apply in the Australian Capital Territory with a view to recommending - which of those Acts, in their application to the Australian Capital Territory, should be repealed, which should continue to apply in the Territory, and which should be replaced by legislation in more modern form.

By virtue of section 6 of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 all laws in force in New South Wales on 1st January 1911, the date on which, the Territory was established, were continued in force, so far as applicable, until other provision was made. A large number of Imperial Acts are still in force in the Australian Capital Territory by reason of the fact that they were in force in New South Wales on 1st January 1911. Many of them have outlived their usefulness. Moreover there is no official publication which indicates what these Acts are.

In both Victoria and New South Wales Acts have been passed declaring which of these Imperial Acts are still to apply without amendment, re-enacting others in modern form and repealing the remainder. The New South Wales Act cannot be followed without considerable adaption in the Australian Capital Territory .because many of the State’s laws are different from those in the Territory. The Commission will examine the position of the Imperial Acts in the Territory and the recommendation it makes will pave the way for similar legislation of the Territory.

The third matter is:

The identification of aH New South Wales Acts still in force in the Australian Capital Territory and a review of those Acts with a view to recommending the repeal, in relations to tha Australian Capital Territory, of all New South Wales Acts except Acts specified as “Being still needed in the Territory.

As well as Imperial Acts, there are a number of New South Wales Acts which were continued in force, as far as they were applicable, by section 6 of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act. In many cases, it is doubtful whether they were then applicable and whether or how they have been affected by subsequent legislation. There is, therefore, some difficulty at present in ascertaining with certainty what New South Wales Acts are in force in the Territory. The Commission will undertake the task of removing this difficulty. When the 2 projects relating to Imperial and New South Wales Acts are completed, it will not be necessary to look beyond Acts of the Parliament or ordinances .of the Territory to determine what statutes apply in the Territory. It may, of course, be necessary to refer to an Imperial or New South Wales statute, but only when so indicated by Territory legislation.

The fourth matter referred to the Commission is:

Whether and in what respects the provisions of the Lunacy Act 1898 of the State of New South Wales, in its application to the Australian Capital Territory, relating to the management of the property and affairs of persons who are mentally ill needs lo be amended.

The law of the Territory relating to mentally ill persons is contained in the Lunacy Act 1898 of New South Wales, the Insane Persons and Inebriates (Committal and Detention) Ordinance 1936-1937, and the Mental Health Ordinance 1962. The law has been criticised on the ground that it is both inaccessible and uncertain, especially with regard to the management of the property and affairs of persons who are mentally ill. The provision to be made for the treatment of mentally ill persons is a matter for my colleague,, the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and any amendment of the law in this field will depend on the development of psychiatricpsychiatric services which is currently progressing. However, a review of the law relating to the management .of the property and affairs of mentally ill persons is desirable at this stage and the Commission will now undertake this review.

The fifth matter that has been referred is:

A review of the civil procedure of the Court of Petty Sessions with a view to recommending amendments that will be desirable if the present monetary limit of $1,000 in the Court’s civil jurisdiction is increased by several thousand dollars.

The rules of civil procedure of the Court of Petty Session have remained largely unchanged since the Court was constituted in 1930. They are relatively unsophisticated, as compared with the procedures in the Supreme Court, but are reasonably well suited to the purpose of achieving justice between the parties where the amount in dispute is small and where more thorough and expensive procedures are unwarranted.

In an effort to decrease the work load of the Supreme Court the jurisdictional limit of the Court of Petty Sessions was, in 1969, increased to $1,000. This change, however, merely kept up with inflationary trends, and it is now proposed that the jurisdiction of the Court of Petty Sessions will be further increased. The precise extent of this increase has not yet been determined, but it is expected that the new jurisdiction will extend to approximately $5,000. Before the jurisdiction can properly be so increased, however, it is necessary to revise the procedures of the Court. It is necessary that those procedures should be appropriate to cater for the more important and more complex questions that will fall within the new jurisdiction of the Court. It is desirable, moreover, that the procedures should be related to those applying in the Supreme Court of the Territory.

The last of the matters referred to the Commission is:

Whether it is desirable that the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance 1949-1957 be amended so as to make provisions for the recovery of premises other than prescribed premises, and if so what the nature of the provisions should be.

The Landlord and Tenant Ordinance 1949- 1957 provides in Part III that the recovery of possession of ‘prescribed premises’ may be obtained only in accordance with that Part. Part ITI provides that a notice to quit must be based on one of a number of prescribed grounds. Proceedings under the Part are taken in the Court of Petty Sessions.

Originally business premises were included in ‘prescribed premises’, but by virtue of an amendment in 1957 they ceased io be so included. Doubts have been expressed whether the 1957 amendment had the effect of restoring the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899 of the State of New South Wales - which was the law on the subject prior to. the making of National Security Regulations and ‘Subsequently the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance - relating to the recovery of possession of business premises. If the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899 of New South Wales have in fact been restored in their application to the Australian Capital Territory, it is still questionable whether they can be regarded as appropriate for present requirements in the Territory.

The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory has made representations to have the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance amended to provide for recovery of possession of business premises, and the Government has now seen fit to refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission for its examination and report. I am sure honourable members will be pleased to know that the Law Reform Commission of the Territory has been established and that these important matters have been referred to it. I am confident that the work of the Commission on these matters which, in accordance with the Ordinance, will be tabled in Parliament in due course, will be a notable contribution to the cause of law reform in the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I ask leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am indebted to the House. One cannot help but welcome and be glad at the decision not only to set up the Law Reform Commission but also to appoint the people who have been appointed to it. There can be no doubt that they are indeed very eminent persons. The problem of law reform in the Australian Capita] Territory goes back a long way. I do not want to talk about water that has flowed under the bridge, but I think it goes back at least to 1966 when my predecessor first campaigned for the setting up of a Law Reform Commission in the Australian Capital Territory. If it was not in 1966 it was certainly in 1969. The campaign and the demand were repeated at the by-election in May 1970 and the Government rather belatedly announced that it was part of its policy to do it, too. Now we have it. To understand the problem of law reform in the Australian Capital Territory one has to understand wherewe get our laws from. This was touched on in passing in the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). But a little more is necessary.

If one wants to find out what the law in the Australian Capital Territory is one has to find out first what it was on 1st January 1911. That in itself is a rather bizarre and time consuming task, because most of the books that relate to that period are now out of print and cannot be obtained. One of the essential elements of any system of law is not only that the law should be clear and able to be understood by any person with reasonable intelligence but also that it should be accessible. With the starting point that the law in the Australian Capital Territory is to be found by directing one’s inquiry to 1911 one is driven to look for books that no longer exist because the New South Wales law of 1911 has now been superseded by subsequent New South Wales laws and those books are no longer needed in New South Wales. They probably belong in legal museums, but people in the Australian Capital Territory have to go looking for. them.

The first point I want to make relates to the confession - it can only be called that - in the Minister’s statement about the shocking state into which the laws in the Australian Capital Territory have been allowed to fall. He said over and over again that a lot of the law here is unknowable. We do not know which of the imperial statutes apply. It is clear that a lot of them apply and make up the law in the Australian Capital Territory. But we do not know which ones apply. Copies of them cannot be obtained and have not been obtainable for a long while. It is not even known - no lawyer could really express an opinion on it with any degree of confidence - which of the old New South Wales statutes apply. They do not apply in New South Wales. The Australian Capital Territory is an island surrounded by New South Wales. The statutes do not apply in Queanbeyan but they apply here. One cannot find out which they are. In 1971 the Government sets up a commission and says: ‘Please look into it. Please tell us something about what the law in this island of Commonwealth Territory called the Australian Capital Territory is.’ That surely is a confession that should be noted in passing. I said that everyone applauds the setting up of this Commission, belated as it is and with the limited resources that it will have, but it should have been done many years ago. 1 turn now to the question of accessibility. The statutes or the ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory were last consolidated in 1957. About 5 volumes have been bound since that time in which one can look for other laws that have been grafted on to them. That is a thing that should be taken care of. The Commonwealth statutes themselves have not been consolidated in any accessible form since about 1951; 1 am not sure of the precise date. An incredible amount of time wasting is taking place here.

I want to talk about some of the other points - 1 suggest for the record and for the Minister’s attention when he confers with the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) - which also cry out for law reform in the Australian Capital Territory. Some of them are what we call lawyers’ law. The average non-lawyer is put off by it because he thinks it is technical and unpleasant. He does not understand it and it seems a bit silly. But lawyers’ law - technical law, law that does not involve policy considerations - is often the most important branch of law, because it is there that the lawyer has to spend his time. It is there that the time he spends is reflected in his fees. It is there that the fees are passed on to the client. One of the reasons why, when that branch of the law is inefficient and out of date, the ordinary client has to pay so very much for the legal services that he obtains from his lawyer is that the lawyer spends a lot of time trying to find out what is the professional or technical way of doing something. So there is a great need to attend to that matter. Surely the Commission should go into that aspect of the matter primarily.

But policy law cannot be a matter for the Commission. It has to be noted also in passing that at least one of these 6 points that have been referred to the Commission involves a matter of policy. It is true that the Commission is not going to make or unmake law. It is going to investigate, examine and report back. But the question of business premises and whether or not business premises should be subjected to the recovery provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance is surely a matter of policy. That was taken out of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance because of policy - a decision of Government. Now the Government is asking a technical, nonrepresentative, non-responsible - in that sense - body to consider whether it should be put back in again. I suggest that there is an area of great danger there. 1 think that one of the worst and most glaring examples of the need for law reform is in the field of workers’ compensation. The relevant ordinance is a 1951 ordinance. It is hopelessly at variance with the Act which applies in New South Wales. It places the injured workman in the Australian Capital Territory at a great disadvantage compared with the workman injured over in Queanbeyan or Goulburn. The ordinance contains a provision that was interpreted in a High Court decision, Smith v. McErlane, as far back as 1962, 9 years ago. That means that a partially incapacitated person in the Australian Capital Territory can often receive $9, $10, $15 or $20 a week less than a partially incapacitated person over in New South Wales. Nothing has ever been done to remedy and overcome by subsequent amendments in the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory that High Court decision in Smith v. McErlane. Ordinances require rules and regulations before they can be made to work. No rules have really been made pursuant to the 1951 Workers’ Compensation Ordinance. It relies upon rules that were made pre-war. It operates under an ordinance that was made in 1946, which was based on an entirely different concept and has long since been repealed.

The 1951 ordinance tells a person to go and draw up his agreement in a certain way. He goes to the rules and he finds references in those rules to sections of an ordinance that no longer exists. That has been the condition of the law in the Australian Capital Territory dealing with workers’ compensation for almost as long as anyone can remember. There is confusion compounded upon confusion. It is surely a matter for further attention. Another matter which requires attention is the law dealing with defamation. In this island of Commonwealth territory anything that is published must also, almost of necessity, be published over in New South

Wales. We operate on a system of defamation that goes back to pre-1911. The New South Wales statute was last consolidated in about 1912. One has the devil’s own job to try to find a copy of it. If a person sues for defamation in the Australian Capital Territory his entitlement is judged by one set of rules here in the Australian Capital Territory but by a different set of rules in respect of a newspaper published or a broadcast made in Goulburn. A person can win in one place but he can lose in the other, although he sues in the same type of court. This is a Gilbertian situation yet this is the situation that exists in the Australian Capital Territory. New South Wales introduced its defamation Act - controversial as it is but at least it is more in keeping with modern thinking - in 1958. The Act in the Australian Capital Territory goes back to the early part of the century.

If there is a place anywhere in the Commonwealth requiring modern administrative laws it is Canberra because it is essentially a government town. The Commonwealth Public Service is the most important influence in the lives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We have more administrative tribunals functioning in this Territory than perhaps in any other part of Australia. These tribunals exercise great power. There is no uniform system of procedure for them to follow. They all have their own separate rules. Some permit lawyers to appear before them and some do not. For example, we know that a committee on administrative law reform has sat and has made a report to the Government. I think that committee was under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Kerr and its members included such eminent people as the Solicitor-General, Mr Justice Mason of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Professor Whitmore of the Australian National University. There is great demand in this city for the contents of that report to be made known. It should not be shelved. A lot of people are interested to know the recommendations contained in it.

Section 11a of the City Areas Leases Ordinance gives a veto-like power - a Godlike power - to the Minister for the Interior to decide whether a person who wants to change the purpose clause in his lease may do so. The person may want to do something that originally he was not allowed to do. Circumstances may have changed; his circumstances may have changed or the whole city area may have changed. But instead of allowing him to go, say, to a court or even to a tribunal to argue his case properly and have a dispassioneddispassioned airing of the merits of his case section 1 1a gives power to the Minister to say I will put a certificate on and if I put that certificate on you cannot go behind it.’ That is the end of it. On that basis a person cannot even get to a court. That is dictatorial exercise of power at its worst. It is a matter that cries out for attention because it has caused a lot of hardship in the Australian Capital Territory.

There are some other points I. would like to mention but I appreciate that 1 have not sufficient time to deal with them all. Some of them range beyond the lawyer’s law into the area of politics. For example, some years ago when I first came to Canberra members of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force - I mean no disrespect when I say this - performed the duty of being officers in the Austraiian Capita] Territory Supreme Court. It was one of the early decisions, I think, of one of the judges who was appointed at about that time to say: ‘They should not be here. We will have civilian uniformed attendants because my courts should not look like police courts.’ I think New South Wales changed the name of its courts from ‘police courts’ to ‘courts of petty sessions’ for that identical reason 60 or 70 years ago. We have never had to do that in the Australian Capita] Territory. In our courts of petty sessions the police not only .play the role of attendants but they also prosecute in uniform. I would invite anyone to go to any of our courts of petty sessions in the Australian Capital Territory. They will find that there is often the appearance of a police court, with all the unfortunate features of it. I do not mean any criticism of individual police officers when I say this. For the sake of appearance and for the sake of justice appearing to be done, the police should, in their own interests, be taken out of these courts because they are criticised for being there in these roles. I do not think there would be any opposition from the Police Force if it was suggested that its members should come out of these courts and be replaced by civilian attendants and civilian prosecutors from the office of the Crown Solicitor, the Attorney-General’s Department or some other prosecuting section that could be created to perform this function. I do not think there would be any real opposition from the Police Force to this suggestion because it knows that it buys into trouble and disputes because of the role its men are required to play in these courts.

One of the matters referred to the commission by the Minister was the procedural changes that may be necessary to the Courts of Petty Sessions Ordinance if these courts are permitted to deal with cases with the limitation raised to $5,000. It is a bad thing that in the past, although it was glibly passed over in the statement by the Minister, the procedural safeguards for civilian cases in courts of petty sessions were very inferior compared to those in a superior court. There is no right to discovery and there is no right to interrogatories. There is a whole area in which it can be said that a person fighting a civilian case in these courts suffers from the quality of justice given to him as of necessity because of the rules or because of the lack of rules compared to what that person might get if he went to the supreme court. I know it is said - the Minister himself has said it: ‘You are not fighting over a very large sum of money; is it not better to have summary justice?’ Summary justice is often not very good. It is to be hoped that when those procedural changes are made they will include proper safeguards and provision for full scale discovery and interrogatories as exist in the supreme court.

This raises other problems. The magistrates who sit in courts of petty sessions have not had the experience of supreme court judges in determining and sitting on civilian cases for personal injuries involving medical and other issues. Neither have they the experience of district court judges, supreme court judges or county court judges in other States. They do essentially landlord and tenant work, police work; criminal work and preliminary hearings. Because we do not have a workers compensation commission in the Australian Capita] Territory these magistrates have extended jurisdiction in workers compensation cases. If they are required to do increased work they will find themselves in difficulty for a while. I do not want to put in a plug unnecessarily but it seems to me that if they are to do this extra work that is traditionally given to supreme court judges they should be paid something at least akin to the salary of a district court or county court judge instead of the paltry sum that they receive at the moment. I could go on. For example, there is no provision in Australian Capital Territory law for compensation to be made to victims of crime. There is no public solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory whereas New South Wales has one. We have one completely archaic law concerning landlords. It is known as ‘distress for rent’. New South Wales has not had it since 1930. Some honourable members may be aware that ‘distress for rent’ is a self-help type of remedy whereby a landlord may go into premises and help himself.

Mr Connor:

– A relic of feudalism.

Mr ENDERBY:

– That is right. A landlord may go onto premises without a court order, without proving his entitlement and help himself to whatever he finds there, whether it belongs to the tenant or not, and to sell it. This law still exists in the Australian Capital Territory for business premises. It causes a lot of uncertainty because no-one knows whether properly left on the premises belongs to someone other than the lessee. If it does belong to someone else how can that person get it back after it has been sold by a landlord exercising his right for distress for Bent? Surely the law should be abolished. New South Wales did it in 1930.

Most of the matters I have touched ob are what I would call essentially lawyer’s law although some of them contain elements of policy and I appreciate taas fact. I would like to touch on a couple et natters which are frankly matters ot policy that cry out for attention. The ‘font one does not need a lot to be said abeu* it. it relates to the proof of liability in oases involving motor vehicle accidents beard in civilian courts such as the supreme court Surely it is time for us to move in the direction of some system of not having to prove who was at fault, such as cants in some parts of the world, rather than eon.continuing with our archaic system el proving liability, which clutters up our courts at the moment and leads to extended .bearings, expensive hearings and long delays.

What is perhaps more important because it affects human liberty is the criminal law. Like so much of the law in the Australian Capital Territory, our main criminal law is the New South Wales Crimes Act of 1900. Many of the amendments made to the New South Wales Act since 1911 do not apply in the Australian Capital Territory. Some do because we have occasionally picked up one or two amendments, as we have with the Conveyancing Act, which the Minister mentioned. We were told in 1969 by the then Attorney-General that a criminal code was to be introduced into Commonwealth Territories. That code in draft form was circulated and it is available. It contains a lot of lawyer’s law. There is no criminal procedure in it but there are a lot of criminal enactments of what I would call lawyer’s law. It also contains a lot of policy matters. If this is introduced into this House it will be a major piece of legislation affecting not only the Australian Capital Territory but also the Northern Territory and other Commonwealth Territories. I ask the Minister very sincerely to use his good offices, his powers of persuasion or whatever he can - I will even say ‘please’ if necessary - to see that that proposed piece of legislation is not just introduced into this House and steamrollered through as other legislation in the past has been, because it does contain a lot of controversial enactments.

Lawyers know that criminal responsibility involves not only the performance of an act but also a certain state of mind. If this proposed code becomes law it will rewrite many of the concepts with which we have grown up and many of the con.concepts that have been the subject of consideration and examination by the courts over the years and have been delineated by Latin expressions such as actus rea, mens rea and so on. 1 am not saying that these matters are not in need of reform, but they are well understood. . It seems to me that this code introduces a new definition of something called a ‘culpable mental state’. I will not read it to the House but it is almost an insult to the English language. A code is intended to achieve clarity and to make the law more acceptable, but if this code is introduced in its present form it will certainly not be a progressive step, it will be a retrograde step.-

The code also involves policy matters and extremely controversial matters such as abortion, homosexual offences, prostitution, incest, obscene publications and offences of this sort, most of which reflect essentially nineteenth century thinking. I am - not suggesting that nineteenth century thinking does not affect us in the twentieth century because obviously it does, but noone can doubt that in this day and age a lot of these values are under attack and are being challenged not by irresponsible people but by very responsible people who are deeply concerned with the harshness and injustice resulting from the operation of some of these laws. These matters should be the subject df a full scale debate.

When the subject of the proposed code was first touched on in 1969 the Leader of the Opposition then’ referred to the desirability of a joint committee, a non-Party committee because a lot of these subjects would not involve a party-type dispute, to investigate thoroughly such matters of reform of the criminal law where the Commonwealth could make criminal law, particularly in policy matters of this sort, to make recommendations, and to hear submissions and take evidence from learned criminologists, penologists, sociologists, doctors, psychiatrists and everyone who has made a study of crime, the criminal, the prisoner and the problems of rehabilitation.

This is what should be done. There should be a joint committee working closely with the Law Reform Commission. These are controversial areas. There are many people who feel very strongly about them and these problems cannot be shelved or swept under the carpet in 1971. I suggest to the Minister that something in the nature of a joint committee should be set up to look properly into these matters, and that this proposed legislation should not be put through in the normal way because this House is not equipped to deal with legislation such as that to be found in the proposed draft code for the Commonwealth Territories.

page 2168

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

Assent reported.

page 2168

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to: That leave of absence of one month be granted to the honourable member for Boothby on the grounds of parliamentary business overseas.

page 2168

STUART AND BARKLY HIGHWAYS

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Three Year Improvement and Maintenance Programme - Stuart and Barkly Highways, Northern Territory

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2168

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1971

(No. 2)

Bill presented by Mr Swartz, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(4.46>- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honourable members were informed on 7th October the Government has withdrawn the National Health Bill 1971 which was presented and read a second time in this House on 16th September 1971. Certain decisions taken by the Government since that date, including the decision to increase the ordinary nursing home patient benefit by $1.50 a day, have required the Bill to be redrafted. The purpose of the present Bill before the House is, firstly, to provide for an increase in the patient benefit for ordinary nursing home care from $2 a day to $3.50 a day; secondly to give effect to the Government’s Budget proposals in relation to the contribution payable by the patient for pharmaceutical benefits; thirdly, to incorporate into the schedules of the National Health Act variations made to certain items of those Schedules during 1971 by Regulations.

As the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced on 5th October, it is proposed to increase the Commonwealth benefit for patients receiving ordinary nursing home care by $1.50 a day to $3.50 a day or $24.50 a week. As a consequence, benefits for patients receiving intensive nursing home care will be increased from $5 a day to $6.50 a day or $45.50 a week. The nursing home benefits made available by the Commonwealth Government apply to patients accommodated in nursing homes approved for such purposes under the provisions of the National Health Act. These nursing homes are conducted by private proprietors, by religious and charitable organisations or by the various State Governments.

The Government has been reviewing the present arrangements for patients requiring nursing home treatment. As stated by the Prime Minister, the Government has not abandoned its aim of introducing new long term arrangements as soon as it is practicable to do so and the increase of $1.50 a day proposed in this Bill is in the nature of an interim measure to alleviate the financial difficulties which are now being experienced by nursing homes and their patients. It is estimated that the proposed increase of $1.50 a day will inject some $24m more a year into the nursing home area. During 1970-71 Government expenditure in this area amounted to $49.5m and is estimated to rise, excluding the proposed increase of $1.50 a day, to $51.9m in 1971-72,

As announced in the Budget, it is proposed to raise the level of patient contribution in respect of general pharmaceutical benefits from 50c to $1. The fee has remained at 50c since 1960. However, the contribution payable by persons receiving assistance under the subsidised health insurance scheme - now to be known as the subsidised health benefits plan - will be maintained at 50c. Pensioners and their dependants covered by the pensioner medical service will continue to receive pharmaceutical benefits free of charge. It is proposed that these provisions will come into effect on a date to be proclaimed. The present system of providing pharmaceutical benefits to the general public, other than pensioners, is based on the principle of Government assistance to the individual in meeting the cost of medical treatment rather than the provision of ‘free medicine’ in the literal sense.

In September 1950 a scheme was introduced by the Government which provided certain life-saving and disease-preventing drugs free of cost to the whole community on a doctor’s prescription. From July 1951 the Government introduced a further scheme which provided a comprehensive range of medicines for pensioners who were enrolled iri the Pensioner Medical Service. No charge was made for these drugs.

Between the years 1951 and 1960 the list of life saving and disease preventing benefits was periodically expanded to include newly developed drugs. In March 1960 a major departure was made from the then existing schemes. The general and pensioner benefits schemes were amalgamated and the entire range of drugs in both schemes, with the exception of a small number of drugs restricted to eligible pensioners, was made available to the general public. The list of benefits was greatly expanded to provide a much wider range of treatment. At the same lime ali items on the list, except those restricted to eligible pensioners, were made available to the general public at a fee of 50c for each item supplied by a chemist. Pensioners, however, continued to receive the benefits free of charge. The drugs and medicinal preparations made available as pharmaceutical benefits are determined by the Minister for Health on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee established under section 101 of the National Health Act.

As honourable members are aware, pharmaceutical benefits are the most expensive component of the Government’s overall health benefits plan. In 1970-71 the cost to the Commonwealth of prescription benefits to the general public amounted to $88.2m. Additional costs to the Commonwealth included payments to public hospitals and miscellaneous sources of $26. 9m and payments in respect of benefits supplied to eligible pensioners and dependants under the Pensioner Medical Service of $45.2m, a total of $160.3m. This figure compares with $136.7m in 1969-70. In 1960-61 the corresponding costs were $34.3m, $6.8m and $14.7m respectively, a total of $55.8m. Commonwealth expenditure on pharmaceutical prescription benefits for the general public has thus increased by 157.2 per cent over a period of 1 1 years. The patient contribution has increased from $ 10.3m to $24.4m for the same period, an increase of 136.9 per cent.

However, the relationship of patient contribution to the total cost has fallen from 23.1 per cent in 1960-61 to 21.7 per cent In 1970-71.

While the cost per prescription has risen from $2.18 in 1960-61 to $2.30 in 1970-71 and is estimated to rise to $2.65 in 1971- 72, the number of prescriptions per head has increased from 2.13 in 1960-61 to 4.26 in 1970-71 and is expected to rise to 4.48 in 1971-72. The effect has been that the cost per person in respect of general benefit prescriptions has risen from $4.62 in 1960-61 to $9.80 in 1970-71. Three main contributing factors are responsible for the increase in cost to the Commonwealth. These are the addition of new expensive drugs and the relaxation of restrictions on prescribing of certain drugs, particularly in relation to the antibiotics, analgesics, anti-hypertensive and antidepressant groups of drugs, together with some increase in prescribing by doctors unaccounted for by the above 2 factors.

It is estimated that the proposed increase in the patient contribution from 50c to $1 will effect a reduction, in the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth, in respect of general prescription benefits, of $24.6m in a full year and $15.8m in the current financial year. These estimates have been made on the basis of the situation that pertained in 1970-71. The expected savings, however, could be affected by variations to the list of benefits and changes in doctors’ prescribing habits. At a time when the Government is concerned with the continuing sharp increase in the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, it believes that it is not unreasonable for the community at large to bear the cost of the increased patient contribution. There have of course been substantial increases in incomes since 1960 when the existing patient contribution was first set.

The proposed increase to $1 will mean that those items listed in the schedules to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Regulations as pharmaceutical benefits which cost $1 or less will not be available as benefits to the general public. It is not proposed that these benefits be deleted from the schedule of benefits, as the Government recognises that such items should be retained and made available for the .use of pensioners and persons receiving assistance under the subsidised health benefits plan. The present provisions of the National Health Act relating to the treatment of chronic diseases or conditions will also continue to apply.

As I have already mentioned, persons eligible for assistance under the subsidies health benefits plan will not have to meet the increase of 50c for national health prescriptions. This decision is in keeping with the Government’s policy under the health benefits plan to assist where possible those special groups in the community to meet the cost of medical care. The subsidised health benefits plan, which has been in existence since January 1970, provides assistance in meeting the cost of medical and hospital treatment to persons receiving unemployment, sickness and special social service benefits, migrants during their first 2 months in Australia and low income families.

The Bill provides that persons eligible for assistance in each of these categories will be able to obtain medicines and drugs prescribed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme for 50c per prescription. The present Bill differs in certain other respects from the previous Bill. The present clauses relating to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits to patients under the subsidised health benefits plan put beyond doubt the availability of the concession for such benefits during the period for which a person is either eligible for unemployment, sickness or special benefits under Part VII of the Social Services Act or is classed as a low income earner under section 82u or 82zc of the National Health Act. The Bill also defines those persons who as dependants of persons eligible for assistance under the subsidised health benefits plan are also eligible for the pharmaceutical benefit concession. While the Government will assist these special groups of people to obtain their pharmaceutical benefits for a charge of only 50c, the onus to establish initial eligibility must rest with the persons concerned. It is essential therefore that persons who believe they are entitled to subsidised pharmaceutical benefits should make application to the Department of Social Services or, in the case of migrants, to the Department of Health as soon as the changes become effective.

The Government has also considered the position of certain members of friendly societies who joined prior to 24th April 1964 and who, under their present lodge rules, are entitled to receive varying levels of rebates on the present 50c patient contribution for benefit items dispensed by friendly societies dispensaries.

Following the introduction of the previous Bill, the Government has again considered all the factors involved in allowing the friendly societies dispensaries to rebate only 50c of the $1 to their members entitled to this concession. The Government has decided to allow society dispensaries to rebate the proposed $1 patient contribution in whole or in part to those members who joined the societies prior to 24th April 1964. The clause in the previous Bill which imposed the restriction has therefore been deleted from the present Bill.

The third purpose of the Bill is to incorporate into the schedules to the National Health Act variations made to those schedules by the National Health (Variation of Benefits) Regulations in accordance with section 13a of that Act. This section provides that a table in a medical benefit schedule to the Act may be varied by regulation. However, the regulations cease to have effect unless they are ratified by an amendment of the Act within 15 sitting days of the House of Representatives following the expiration of 12 months after notification of the regulation in the Commonwealth Gazette. This particular section was inserted by amendment to the Act in 1970, as part of the reconstruction of the medical benefits segment of the new health benefits plan. It was recognised at that time that adjustments to the schedules would be necessary as more comprehensive data became available - regarding fees commonly charged by doctors for medical procedures infrequently carried out. lt was also realised that it would be accessary from time to time to fix apprepriate amounts for new medical procedures as they were introduced and to adjust Commonwealth and fund benefits for medical services when new common fees were determined.

The National Health (Variation of Benefits) (No. 1) Regulations (Statutory Rules No. 43 of 1971) were notified in the

Commonwealth Gazette on 1st April 1971 and came into force on that date. The National Health (Variation of Benefits) (No. 2) Regulations (Statutory Rules No. 75 of 1971) were notified in the Commonwealth Gazette on 24lh June 1971 and came into force on 1st July 1971. The variations made to the medical benefit schedules contained in the Variation of Benefits Regulations No. 1 and No. 2 are therefore covered by the present Bill.

The regulations which became effective from 1st April 1971 involved amendments to 29 items of the schedules. A number of services not previously listed were introduced into the schedules and in addition the common fees and benefits for some items already listed were varied. The variations in the most common fees were made because at the time the original list of most common fees was drawn up, information on some services had been incomplete.

These amendments from April 1971 resulted from recommendations of the Medical Benefits Schedule Advisory Committee which is a body appointed by the Minister for Health to consider and recommend changes in the benefits schedules. The Committee consists of representatives of the Australian Medical Association, the registered medical benefits organisations and the Department of Health. The changes to the medical benefit schedule made by the regulations which became operative from 1st July 1971 were much more significant in their scope than the previous regulations, although not as many in number. The most significant feature of these regulations was the increase in Commonwealth and fund benefits in most States for the important general practitioner surgery consultations and home visits to meet the increases in the most common fees for those services as from 1st July 1971.

When the new common fee system was introduced on 1st July 1970 both the Government and the Australian Medical Association recognised the necessity for periodic reviews of medical fees to take account of economic circumstances. It was decided that there should be a review of the most common fees at two-yearly intervals and that the first review would have effect from 1st July 1971. These regulations incorporate the changes made to the most common fees for surgery consultations and home visits as a result of a review of common fees. Consequential adjustments were also necessary to fees for 11 other medical services which, for fees and benefit purposes, are equated to general practitioner surgery consultations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Deputy Speaker, before moving for the adjournment of the debate, might I ask the Minister why, in respect of the subsidised health insurance scheme, the provisions are to come into effect on a date to be proclaimed? Will they come into effect on the date the Bill is assented to or on a subsequent date?

Mr Swartz:

– With your approval, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might say that this is the norma] procedure. Once the Bill has been passed and becomes an Act, the date of commencement for these particular provisions will have to be proclaimed. This can be done only when the legislation is placed on the statute books.

Mr Hayden:

– Will this be done in conjunction with everything else?

Mr Swartz:

– It will be done when the Bill passes through both Houses and receives the royal assent.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 2172

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, LAVERTON, VICTORIA

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

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

Development of Royal Australian Air Force

Base, Laverton, Victoria

The Royal Australian Air Force base at Laverton is a substantial permanent establishment, some 1,105 acres in area, approximately 14 miles south west of Melbourne, off the Princes Highway to Geelong. The base’s primary role is to provide a number of important facilities for elements of the support command. The works in this proposal are part of a progressive rebuilding programme to replace, unsatisfactory substandard accommodation, much of which is pre-war construction and is now uneconomic to maintain. The main elements in the proposal are: An apprentices sleeping block and recreation centre; an airmen’s mess building; police services building; fuel quality control building; Women’s Royal Australian Air Force senior non-commissioned officers’ sleeping block; school of radio complex; swimming pool; and alteration work to house the telecommunications installation and maintenance squadron and the ground telecommunications equipment workshop. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $6.2m.

This proposal is one of several incorporating living-in, messing and domestic facilities that have been reported on by the Committee this year and on which variations on traditional designs for buildings and the appropriateness of the current Services scales and standards of accommodation have been examined in detail. Honourable members will recall my recent statements in the House concerning the studies that are currently under way in this regard.

As the Committee has concluded that there is a need for the works in the reference* and has recommended construction, subject to recommendations concerning carpeting of sleeping accommodation and provision of extra toilets in the airmen’s mess, it is intended now to seek approval of the House to proceed with the works as proposed to avoid any delays in planning and construction and consider these matters as planning proceeds. In connection with the extra toilets, the Department of Works is finalising detailed designs for consideration. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2172

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 7 October (vide page 2117).

Second Schedule. Department of Education and Science

Proposed expenditure, $154,134,000. Mr BEAZLEY (Fremantle) (5.7)- The Opposition has endeavoured to bring the

Commonwealth more and more into education over the period of years when it has been in Opposition. For a long time it was the standard procedure of the Government, under Sir Robert Menzies, to fob off any criticism of Commonwealth inactivity in the field of education with the plea that education was a State matter. Steadily, step by step, everything that the Opposition has advocated has come in, usually a decade too late. The formation of a Minister of Education and Science came in a decade too late - a decade after it was pressed in this chamber and refused here. There is the need to assume a national objective for education. The formation of a responsible, enlightened and efficient nation should be the aim of education, but education is drifting. The resistance of the Commonwealth Government to action in the field of secondary education has been particularly tragic. It came in belatedly with a system of scholarships and then with a system of per capita grants which have not worked out equitably at all.

One foreign observer of the Australian education scene has, with some justification, accused the Government of elitism. It is a matter for congratulation that in the legislation concerning secondary school libraries the Government has moved to the position of three-quarters of the grant for pupils in the State sector of education and one-quarter of the grant for pupils in the church schools. Although we tend rather to speak about them as the independent schools, in point of fact practically all the independent schools are connected with churches and it would be just as accurate to call them church schools. The case for the children in these church schools to be the recipients of Commonwealth aid is that the children in these schools are citizens of the Australian Commonwealth. Their case does not rest upon the fact that in the independent schools there is any special educational experimentation because the independent schools are not established as places for special education experimentation and in point of fact most of them follow the academic requirements of matriculation to the universities. But there are many people in Australia who suffer from the years that the locust has eaten, who have missed their educational opportunities, and the Opposition is particularly concerned about these.

We believe that the Commonwealth should establish an open university and open institutes of tertiary education which will accept students whatever their academic qualifications and utilise the techniques of radio and television, correspondence courses and a regionally organised counselling system to provide university and other tertiary educational opportunities uninfluenced by geographic, occupational or academic barriers. The aim of such institutions should be to provide educational opportunities for those who for any reason have not had such opportunities. Since the Government initiates nothing and depends upon precedents, I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the precedents for this in the United Kingdom where such institutions are already functioning.

There is also the question of the State libraries, the various national libraries around the Commonwealth, as places for informal education for anybody but particularly for those who had no educational opportunities and who can pursue their interests insofar as their interests can be developed by reading. We believe that the Commonwealth should make grants to the States adequate to bring the State reference libraries to the highest standards, as central libraries for research, as sources of book supply to public libraries, and as centres for recreational reading. In office, the Australian Labor Party would seek the regular advice of the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services to keep such reference libraries at high standards of excellence, and we would finance the work of that Council. We also believe that the Commonwealth should establish a national book resources development committee on a permanent basis to advise on measures necessary to build up general public and regional libraries to optimum levels of reference, information, educational and recreational services for the public and to plan the systematic development of such libraries over 5-year periods.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his new acceptance of the terminology of the Labor Party, especially on his acceptance of the terminology of acceptable standards for schools - acceptable standards as begun with his speech in connection with secondary school libraries. In fact the definition of acceptable standards in secondary school libraries has been pretty painstakingly set out in an excellent publication which the Minister most graciously sent me at my request and Which he offered in the Parliament. But there needs to be acceptable standards on many other things. For instance, if the Commonwealth is to intervene in education - there will be no educational advance without Commonwealth intervention in education, the financial position of the States being what it is - it needs to have some standards which wm determine where its assistance will be attracted.

What is the Government’s view, for instance, on the size of a class in a primary school? We take the view that the size of a class in a primary school should not exceed 30, and if States are floundering around with classes larger than that here is a case for the attraction of Commonwealth assistance. In a secondary school a class should not exceed 20. The maximum sizes should be 20 and IS respectively in areas where there are exceptional numbers of migrant children or children with language difficulties, and specialist teachers should be provided for these children. We believe, for instance, that a school library should never have fewer than 20 books per pupil. When the Government says that it is going to act for these school libraries, it would be interesting to hear the number of volumes it regards as necessary for students. There should be a librarian in a school for every 250 students, and all schools should have secretarial and clerical assistance in the proportion of one for every 200 students. In secondary schools there should be vocational guidance officers for every 300 students, an educational counselling officer for every 200, and a laboratory assistant for every laboratory. There should be qualified physical education teachers for every 200 students.

We believe the Commonwealth should adopt these standards. We believe also that in the size of accommodation it should be possible to accommodate all students in 85 per cent of a school’s area. There should be facilities for indoor assembly. There should be a standard of 25 square feet per student in each learning area. The library should be able to accommodate 15 per cent of the school enrolment. These standards are all quite reasonable. That they would involve the Commonwealth in very heavy expenditure over the next decade is true, but the volume of this expenditure, if the Commonwealth did assist to bring schools up to this standard, may be taken as a sign of the extent to which Australian education in these matters has fallen behind. There are many schools that meet all the standards I have suggested and more, which time will not allow me to mention. The tragedy of Government policy is that its assistance goes to schools that can meet all these standards as much as to schools which cannot meet these standards. This seems to us to be a failure of the Government’s priorities in expenditure. I hesitate to mention the names of the schools now because this always involves one in a misrepresentation, but may I satisfy the Minister’s susceptibilities, by saying that if the John Curtin High School at Fremantle already has a magnificent assembly hall it obviously does not need another one, but some other school does need one. If I mentioned the name of a private school it would of course get me into trouble.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) accuses us of having a tragic Government policy in this field. He speaks of our drifting. He talks of elitism although he did not elaborate on that. He mentions the case for the church schools in relation to the fact that their pupils are Australians as are those in State schools. He suggests that we have an open university at some expense, smaller classes and a number of other things. I think this is not the time to take him up on a number of these matters. But while once again, as I think I did last year, acknowledging the imperfections of our system, I think I should for a moment draw attention to one or two figures which the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) put before us in his recent statement. The Commonwealth now expends something like 35 per cent of all capital educational expenditure, in comparison with 18 per cent 10 years ago. In this financial year the estimate of $345m total is 14 per cent up on the previous year and that in turn was an even greater increase on the year before. Commonwealth expenditure on universities is going up 20 per cent to $90m and expenditure on scholarships overall is going up by 14 per cent to $44m. I do not suggest that these things are perfect achievements but they are increases of a greater order than the increases in the populations in the institutions concerned, so at least we are moving in the right direction, to put it at its worst.

The honourable member for Fremantle has touched on a number of matters which I can not take up in detail, but I want to deal with one of them in particular, and that is an issue which is apparently crucial at the present time. 1 refer to the question of independent schools and what is now generally known as state aid. Mr Deputy Chairman, as you well know, there are 2 very decided opposing views on this issue, although the major political parties have now long since both championed the cause in one way or another of independent school aid. There have been from the other side of the House numerous uses of the word ‘crisis’ in relation to education in the 2 years that I have been here. I believe that on most occasions the use of the term was undeserved. But it does appear that on this occasion we are getting very close to what may be properly regarded as a crisis situation.

In selecting the State aid question, or the independent schools problem, as the prime issue in relation to these estimates, I think I do so on a basis of fact. I merely take one example which has had some publicity. I refer to the Tasmanian Catholic schools. They are, of course, only part of the independent sector, but I am led to believe on good authority that 20 out of 48 Catholic schools in Tasmania are in grave financial straits. This forms the background of the public denunciations by the Archbishop of Hobart in this matter. One could ask the question in relation to this: What about the relatively low fees that are being charged in Catholic schools as distinct from other Independent schools through the history of this independent school system? Well, the answer is that there is no question that there are generally lower parental incomes among the parents of Catholic children than those in the protestant sector. That has been so for some time. But more importantly I think for the moment, these schools to which I refer, or this system, have increased fees by 24 per cent for primary schools and by 12 per cent for secondary schools in 1971. So if one chooses to be critical of how much is put into the system as distinct from how much is asked for, I believe it shows very definite evidence of goodwill in the matter, of self help and of intent to do as much as people can within their own system.

There is also a situation which is common to the government schools as to the independent schools. The factor that lies behind the basic problem here is the increase in teachers’ salaries and, in the case of Catholic schools, the increasing proportion of lay teachers among their total staff. Gone are the days when the great proportion of their staffs were people in orders who were paid at much lower rates, if at all, than those for lay teachers in the State system and elsewhere.

We might ask obviously what is needed in this situation. The simple answer is money. It appears from anything I can deduce, observe or analyse in this matter, and I have not heard any other suggestions - let us hope there are some - that the best solution to this problem is per capita grants for running costs, and that is not a new idea; and secondly the possible usefulness of some system whereby we might build into the cost structure of the education system a particular figure whereby increases could be guaranteed. So, for example, the allocations to independent schools might be a percentage of the cost of educating an average child in the State system.

As I said earlier, I am well aware that there are some people good and true who very much oppose the existence of State aid - they are very much opposed to assistance which is designated in that way. I understand their arguments but it is very hard, either from principle or from the pragmatic point of view, to suggest that we should now close the door on the independent system. I rather suspect, if I do not read it awrong, that the Labor Party is inclined ultimately to do that by introducing a means test principle. The ultimate outcome of that would in fact be the closure of independent schools of whatever denomination in due course. But I believe that we roust think in terms of the fact that matters of conscience are treated in a very indulgent way in the community these days and whatever the history of this matter, which is relevant, the religious schools in Australia were first in the field and the advent of the State system came later. With the advent of the State system we got to the position where everyone, not just some, paid and in some effect now pay twice.

I return to the question of conscience. It is the basis for religious education - whether it is conscience with a religious involvement or whether it is just sheer personal conscience. But we talk in terms of the ability or the freedom of people to follow their own dictates of conscience or inclination in the matter of education. Of course, we must qualify this allowance by saying that no-one should be allowed to do that unless the institutions are of an approved standard. That goes without saying. But I am saying it because there may be the suggestion that we are paying for second-rate education. That should not be so. If it is so, those standards should be applied rigorously enough to make sure the public is not paying for second-rate education in any system. But if we give fairly free rein to conscience in other respects, not least in the c?se of dissenters from national service and others, whether or not we prefer a secular basis for education, the freedom to choose the educational institution to which we might send our children seems to me to be a pretty fundamental one. On the other hand, if we take a pragmatic view, then here we have a system or systems of non-State schools which in fact are educating about a quarter of our children. If we were, by any negative financial means, to close down these schools, this would throw a very considerable burden onto the State. One can well put the positive argument that whatever governments do or do not do for independent schools, their existence does not necessarily imply more or less expenditure on education in the state sector and it certainly does imply more expenditure on education overall by the community at large.

The very existence of a second or third level stratum or alternative means of education certainly ensures that people will be putting more money in than is sometimes suggested. For example, I can take the case of a person who a year ago paid, say, $260 a term for 2 youngish children at a private school. In 1971 the figure had become $360. Let us say the person concerned is earning at a marginal rate of tax of 40c in the $1. If we calculate from that we find that this person would get tax relief of $240. For an outlay of $1,000 that person would still be paying $760 of it into an education system. So I think it goes without further proof that in fact there is a lot of money going into education through the existence of this system. Any thoughts of not keeping this system afloat need to be very, very well backed indeed by arguments other than any I have so far heard.

Finally, I believe that the Government has a lot to do yet in this field, but I think the increases to which I referred earlier indicate that its heart is in the right place and it is moving - not drifting - with a certain amount of concern in the right direction.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The former Prime Minister said on 3rd March 1969:

It is in my view a requirement that the educational facilities available to a child should be of roughly comparable standard whether that child is born in Western Australia or New South Wales or Queensland or wherever it may be.

Referring to the nationwide survey of educational needs, he pledged in his 1969 election policy speech:

When the survey is completed the States and ourselves will discuss the assistance we should each provide to promote the further development of education in all schools.

All these brave words have now been nullified by the new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in his efforts to achieve total de-Gortonisation. Not even the interests of schools are more important to the new Prime Minister than erasing systematically from the record every one of his predecessor’s proposals which has not actually been enacted by the Parliament. His Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who knows better but has learnt to bend, was sent into this House a week ago with a statement on the survey which amounted not to an affirmation of Commonwealth support but to an abdication of

Commonwealth responsibility. Liberals now assert as they have asserted under every leader except Mr Gorton that in schools as in hospitals the role of the Commonwealth which has the greatest resources should be not to assist in the planning and provision of facilities but to reimburse fees and forgo taxes. These benefits go to those who do not need them rather than to those who do, and have no effect on capital and management decisions. Scholarships do have a bearing on education such as it is; they have no bearing on standards of education as it should be.

The Minister failed to mention in his statement that de-Gortonisation has now acquired a new dimension. The Prime Minister now proscribes not only proposals put forward by his predecessor in the nation’s highest office but measures initiated by him as Minister for Education and Science. At the instigation of the Prime Minister Cabinet has agreed that the science laboratories programme upon which the Minister said he placed considerable importance shall be phased out as soon as those facilities have been provided for which it can be demonstrated a need existed in December 1970. lt has maintained in the face of bitter opposition from the Minister and at least one resignation from the Advisory Committee that there shall be no provision for new need either in government or in non-government schools.

The real casualties of the Liberal power struggle are not the Ministers who have lost their jobs but the children who have lost their chance of a better education. The nation-wide survey revealed that State governments would require between 1971 and 1975 an additional $ 1,444m and non-government school authorities an additional $268m over and above their foreseeable resources. These sums were not required to create the equality of opportunity to which the Minister has suddenly discovered a commitment but merely to ensure that the present gross inadequacies of primary and secondary education are not further exacerbated. Recent tinkering with Commonwealth-State finances will not bridge this gap. The proportion of our gross national product spent on education rose between 1956-66 and 1969-70 by only 0.2 per cent.

Thus the inequities of Australian education will persist and fester. Less than 15 per cent of Australian children are eligible by age for pre-school education are able to find places in pre-school centres on which we spend annually per capita in New South Wales 4.7c, Queensland 14.8c, Western Australia 34.3c, South Australia 59c, Tasmania 59.4c and Victoria 92.1c. A recognised pre-school education is denied to all but 2.9 per cent of the eligible children in New South Wales, 7.3 per cent in Queensland, 9.9 per cent in Western Australia, 14.3 per cent in Tasmania, 14.5 per cent in South Australia and 27.1 per cent in Victoria. For every 100 teachers employed in pre-school centres the number professionally qualified for their duties is 33 in Tasmania, 55 in South Australia, 57 in Victoria, 59 in Western Australia, 88 in New South Wales and 89 in Queensland. Only Si. 2m has so far been spent out of the $5m allocated for new pre-school teachers’ colleges in the triennium which ended last June. Compare pre-school education in each and any of the States and in Canberra, where one year of pre-school education is available to all children and all pre-school teachers are fully qualified. Professor Goldman has estimated that preschool education on the scale applying in Canberra could be provided throughout Australia for little more than $40m a year and could be provided in the inner-city areas of the State capitals for little more than $20m.

The inadequacy of pre-school education particularly penalises migrant children whose families speak at home languages other than English and the 400,000 children whose families earn incomes below the poverty line or just above it. Seventy per cent of the children from suburbs where migrant and low-income families congregate score below average in the communication skills which are fostered by a pre-school education whereas in more privileged suburbs the incidence of below average scores is only 30 per cent, less than half as great. The indifference of the States to pre-school education is revealed by their failure to include it in the terms of reference for the nation-wide survey. The indifference of the Commonwealth is exemplified by the exclusion of the Department of Education and Science from the original inter-departmental committee on the childmindingcentrescumkindergartenschildmindingcentrescumkindergartens which the former Prime Minister promised to establish in his 1970 Senate Opening Speech and which the present Prime Minister has now shelved.

A complete secondary education is received by 79 out of every 100 students at non-government schools other than Catholic schools but by only 23 at government schools and 30 at Catholic schools. Many students cannot afford even the free education which in government schools now costs from $50 in grade 6 to at least $200 in the matriculation year. Students at government schools and Catholic schools are not less able or intelligent than those at other non-government schools but they receive a far smaller share of the available accommodation, equipment and staff. Whereas the number of primary pupils per teacher varies in non-government schools other than Catholic schools from 16.3 in the Australian Capital Territory to 22.3 in Queensland, it varies in government schools from 22.7 in Victoria to 32.6 in Western Australia and in Catholic schools from 32.6 in South Australia to 44 in the Northern Territory. Whereas the number of secondary students per teacher varies in non-government schools other than Catholic schools from 13 in the ACT to 18.8 in Queensland, it varies in government schools from 15.9 in Victoria to 19.4 in Western Australia and in Catholic schools from 15.7 in the Northern Territory to 27.1 in Victoria. The Minister asserts that Commonwealth aid for schools should be allocated on a needs basis within but not between our 3 school systems.

Non-government schools other than Catholic schools received per capita in science laboratory grants in the last year for which information is available $24.08 and Catholic schools received $23.16 but government schools received only $10.58. Commonwealth secondary scholarships are awarded to 15.6 per cent of the applicants at non-government schools other than Catholic schools but to only 6.9 per cent in Catholic schools and 4.4 per cent in government schools. Professor Fensham has shown that the wealthiest schools now cost Australia’s governments as much per pupil as government schools cost them and much more than Catholic schools cost them.

The Minister marked his return to the Education and Science portfolio by rubbishing the nation-wide survey which throughout his previous term of office he had promoted as the hope for all Australian schools. He has cast gratuitous aspersions upon the Government of South Australia for applying to the detriment of the wealthy schools he favours those same needs criteria of professional and objective judgement based on publicly stated standards which he embraced last week in his second reading speech on the States Grants (Secondary School Libraries) Bill. In now arguing against the national approach to education he has highlighted the gross discrepancies between States which more than ever justify a national approach. Inconsistencies and incoherencies in Australian school systems can no longer be allowed to perpetuate the shortcomings which would be regarded as intolerable in any comparable country. They can no longer be allowed to delay the establishment of an Australian schools commission through which the Commonwealth can do as much for schools as it has done since 1959 for universities through the Australian Universities Commission.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has given vent to his usual plethora of statistics, most of which, of course, have not had the time to check. But there was one that, with the research facilities that he has at his command, I was surprised he should run on yet again. I refer to this shortfall or alleged shortfall of $l,443.7m. Surely the Leader of the Opposition should have caught up with the fact that this figure was arrived at prior to the Premiers Conference in June 1970 which resulted in a new financial deal being arranged with the States and which rendered the allegation of the shortfall no longer capable of being sustained.

Once again this year, as the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has said, both the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have outlined to the House and to the nation the marked increase that has taken place in the allocation of funds which will be devoted by this Government to education. The Minister for Education and Science has said:

The Government fully recognises the national importance of education and of the development of educational services. Its objective is to do what it appropriately can in co-operation with the State governments to improve the quantity and quality of education.

I fully support this attitude as I regard education and the provision of educational facilities as being of extreme importance to the future of this country. I am sure that most other honourable members in the Parliament go along with this view. But, as we all know, the Commonwealth has progressively become more involved in education since the Second World War. Financial grants were first made to the States in 1951, largely to assist in the provision of university accommodation. Probably the next major step was the formation of the Murray Committee in 1957, which resulted in the Commonwealth Government channelling much more money to the universities. It also resulted in the formation of the Australian Universities Commission. Since that time the Commonwealth progressively not only has increased its contributioncontribution in absolute terms but also has built up the range of educational activities it supports.

As the Minister said in his statement to the House, expenditure on education has doubled over the last 5 years. Even in the last few years, since 1967-68, the Commonwealth has become involved in many new fields. Reference to the Minister’s statement in Hansard indicates that since 1967-68 the Commonwealth has provided money for school libraries. Since that time it has also made a contribution towards pre-school teachers colleges. The Leader of the Opposition made great play on the lack of emphasis placed on pre-school education. Estimates of Commonwealth expenditure on education indicate that this year $1,165,000 is being set aside for the erection of pre-school teachers colleges. The Commonwealth has also made contributions towards Aboriginal advancement and has provided per capita recurrent grants for independent schools. Commonwealth expenditure on the child migrant education programme has increased from $109,000 in 1969-70 to $2,610,000 this year. This year the Commonwealth is to provide $200,000 for teacher training scholarships, $3,300,000 for Aboriginal secondary school grants and $550,000 for Aboriginal study grants. These are just some of the additional educational activities in which the Commonwealth has become involved in the last few years. Surely this is a very clear demonstration of the Government’s real interest and performance with respect to support for education.

I really wonder whether any of us are conscious enough of the very real pitfalls which surround us when we blithely talk about increased Commonwealth assistance being necessary before we can hope to develop adequate educational systems and facilities. We all should realise that whether we like it or not, the Constitution stipulates that the responsibility for the provision of primary and secondary State education shall remain with the States. The Commonwealth progressively has contributed more and more moneys towards the maintenance and expansion of State educational systems and also towards the nongovernment system; but because of constitutional requirements it has been forced to do this mainly through grants under section 96, with the money earmarked for specific purposes. This, to my mind, has created a situation in which the general public has become unclear as to where the primary responsibility for the provision of educational services lies. This confusion has been exploited by the State governments which in many cases have concealed their own inadequacies by blaming the Federal Government for shortcomings in areas which are not and never have been Federal responsibility.

While there can be little argument as to the worth of the increased expenditure on education, a situation may arise where schools have little real choice as to how they will spend any money for which they are eligible. Because of the nature of the programmes, schools may be spending the money in building facilities which are not at the top of their list of priorities for capital expenditure. In a sense, this has sometimes led to an avoidable misuse of scarce resources, and I am speaking here particularly about primary and secondary schooling. It seems to me that the nature of the Federal contribution towards financing education should not be on a piecemeal basis. The expenditure so far has not resulted in the most efficient use of such moneys as are available, nor - and this is particularly important, to my mind - has it adequately encouraged enough direct personal contributions towards educational expenses. It is mischievous, misleading and untrue to suggest that any education can be free, and should any government or political party seek to promote this false concept, not only should the duplicity of the claim be exposed but also the cost in terms of increased personal taxation burdens should be brought home to every taxpayer.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the costs involved in providing adequate primary and secondary education in developed countries will prove to be beyond the resources of governments if they seek to meet them entirely from taxation. It is tremendously important then for this Government to sit down with the States and clearly demarcate the respective areas of responsibility regarding the provision and funding of educational facilities. The Government should also be seeking means to simplify the methods by which it makes its contributions towards education, and it should also be extremely conscious of the very real educational and financial advantage to be gained from a maintenance and expansion of the non-government school system. We all should be working towards encouraging a marked increase in the provision of public and private expenditure on education. It is in the best interests of the country that we should do this, and to do so we must seek a system whereby the increased resources are utilised as efficiently as possible.

This does not mean a centralised system; it means a decentralised system with both State and Federal governments clearly understanding and being accountable for their own areas of responsibility. It is no use suggesting that we can run educational institutions all over Australia from Canberra. It is the people at the point of contact with the pupils who undoubtedly have the best idea about the ways in which money should be spent on their particular school. This is why I believe we should be seeking a simpler method of providing funds for both the public and private sectors of education. I should like again to stress the importance of the nongovernment schools. Here we have a system where people are prepared to pay money in addition to their normal taxation payments for the right to send their children to the schools of their choice. This private investment in education is, I believe, extremely important and should be encouraged as it not only preserves the freedom of choice for the individual but also encourages educational experimentation and the provision of increased total resources for education.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The Committee is considering Commonwealth spending on education, estimated at $345.5m in 1971-72, according to the statement made last week by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This assistance ranges over a wide area, from the provision and maintenance of schools and tertiary education institutions in the Territories through grants to the States for a number of educational functions to Commonwealth scholarship schemes and special assistance to Aboriginals and soldiers’ children. This range of assistance looks daunting on paper, but in no sense of the term can it be labelled a national plan for education. A broad range of educational services and assistance has been created by a process of accretion; odd components have been added over the years either in response to electoral needs or to supplement existing Commonwealth projects. This is reflected in an ironical way in the statement made last week by the Minister. He made great play of the discrepancies in the assessment of educational needs by the various States. Examples were estimates of pupil-teacher ratios and building costs per pupil. The Minister had great pleasure in castigating the States for their ineptness in not coming up with more consistent estimates. He claimed that the needs estimates of the States showed they were based on narrow and parochial criteria. The States were at fault because they did not approach their surveys with a consistent nation-wide view. This is a remarkable statement to come from the Minister for Education and Science in a Government which has always ducked the questions of a national plan for education and a survey of needs conducted by the Commonwealth. Did the Minister seriously think he could get a coherent national plan by amalgamating the results of the State needs surveys? Are the States to be blamed if they look through the wrong end of the telescope in making their projects and stating their needs? Of course the Commonwealth is at fault for not setting the broad guidelines for co-operation of Commonwealth and States and allowing the States to fill in the basic detail. Despite years of evidence of deterioration in Australian schooling at all levels, his Government will not accept that the Commonwealth has any overriding responsibility for education.

This has shown up in every debate on education in this Parliament; in particular it has been revealed in repeated attempts by the Opposition to get the adoption of a national plan for education at all levels with the Commonwealth providing direction and channelling funds into education in a more rational and constructive way. For a time it did seem the Government would use the needs surveys conducted by the States as the basis for better planning at the national level. These hopes have been dashed by the demolition job done on these surveys by the Minister in the Parliament last week. In many ways this exercise was reminiscent of the destruction of the Vernon Committee report by Sir Robert Menzies.

The Minister put considerable emphasis on the enhanced ability of the State to meet its education needs. He referred to improvements in the general financial situation of the States because of increases in Commonwealth general revenue grants and the transfer of payroll tax to the States. According to the Minister this put the States in a much better position to improve education by increased spending. He went on to list increases in spending on education announced in the various State Budgets. This concentration on aggregate figures conveniently obscures important aspects of public finance policy in the States. On a close examination the alleged improvement in the ability of the States to devote more to education because of Commonwealth munificence is revealed as a myth.

Undoubtedly the States are devoting more of their spending to education. But they are doing this by cutting down on other areas of essential spending such as health, law and order and public safety.

This is revealed in the national accounts figures released each year with the Budget documents. According to these figures recurrent spending on education has increased quite significantly while resources devoted to health and law and order have declined. For example recurrent spending on education increased from 37.3 per cent of total State and local government spending in 1959-60 to 43 per cent in 1969-70. In the same 10 years spending on law and order and public safety dropped from 12.4 per cent to 10.6 per cent, and spending on public health from 22.1 per cent to 19.9 per cent. This shows quite clearly that resources have been slowly diverted from other key areas of public spending to education.

The new sources of revenue opened to the States may do something to curb this trend. It is extremely unlikely that it can be reversed. Quite clearly resources which should be applied by the States to a broader range of essential activities are being plundered because of the enormous pressures on education. This has skewed priorities in public spending in a very marked way. The trend is just as marked in capital spending. Education is the only item which increased significantly in the 10 years from 1959-60 to 1969-70. Capital spending on development and transport has fallen. Again resources have been diverted from important areas of spending to education. Both recurrent and capital spending have been caught in a vice by the overwhelming demands of education. It exposes the hypocrisy of repeated efforts by the Commonwealth Government and Liberal-Country Party Premiers to drum up law and order campaigns when spending on maintenance of law and order and public safety is allowed to dwindle.

On the question of needs there are many areas of dissatisfaction on the impact of Government policies and the choice of Government priorities. A striking one is the provision of pre-school training by the States. The variation in quality of services provided and the amount of spending devoted to these facilities is quite staggering. This can be pointed up in many ways. Perhaps the most impressive example of inequalities between the States shows up in figures on children who attend pre-schools in the States and the Australian Capital Territory. 1 refer to figures from the

Department of Education and Science and the Australian Pre-school Association on the number of children eligible for preschool education who attend in each State. These show that in 1969 the highest attendance was in the ACT where the Commonwealth has responsibility. Attendance was 48.9 per cent of eligible children, that is from 3 years upward to school age. The best of the States was Victoria with 28.5 per cent attendance followed by South Australia and Tasmania with 15.5 per cent and 14.4 per cent. New South Wales was at the bottom of the scale with only 3 per cent of eligible children getting a preschool education.

These figures are a couple of years old but the trend is unlikely to have changed to any significant extent. They reveal that in the most populous State with the biggest city in Australia, with a heavy concentration of migrants and lower income earners, facilities for pre-school education are negligible. The pattern of educational inequality emerges between the Commonwealthadministered Territories and the States, between the individual States, between country and urban schools, between independent and State schools. Yet all this Government can do about the needs that have emerged from the surveys conducted by the States is to discount them and point to the extra revenue resources provided. Whatever the defects of the surveys made by the States, they warranted a better treatment than disdainful dismissal by the Minister. Nor is it any defence by the Commonwealth to point to extra sources of revenue open to the States. This will not end the need for State governments to pillage resources which should be earmarked for other public spending.

Education is the dominant item in the Budget of each of the States. In effect it is the dynamic for the whole structure of State fiscal policy and has an immense impact on relations between the States and Commonwealth. For this reason it must get much better planning and much better administration from the Commonwealth Government. The States have been burdened to the limit of their resources by the demands of education. Further pressures are inevitable, particularly with the contraction of the Catholic school structure which is now evident in Victoria and Tasmania. The strains of the Catholic school system, which is the backbone of the independent schools structure, will be felt increasingly in other States in the months ahead. In summary, the future of education at all levels cannot be approached with any optimism. The Government has no conception of the inequalities which are mounting in our education. It is not capable of establishing meaningful co-operation with the State governments and directing a concerted programme to overcome these defects. Because it claims to have made more revenue available to the States it believes that the States can surmount the crisis in education without further assistance.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

page 2182

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

– I would like to take this opportunity to correct a slight error I made last Thursday night when the estimates for the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Customs and Excise were being debated. In a brief reply which I gave I mentioned that there was a dissenting report of the Tariff Board and that I had received the report about a week earlier and immediately sent it to the Government Printer so as to have it ready to table in the Parliament as soon as possible. I would not normally worry about this but one of the newspapers picked up the point that I had received it only a week before. What I had meant to say was that I had received it only a few weeks before. The actual facts are that the Tariff Board’s annual report was received by me on 30th August 1971 and forwarded to the Government Printer on 31st August 1971. I referred it to the Attorney-General’s Department on 1st September 1971 for an opinion. Copies of the bulk annual report were received on 28th September 1971.

Mr Bryant:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I need only about one second in which to finish, if the honourable member does not mind.

Mr Bryant:

– I do not care about that. You have voted for the gag on every occasion. I am wondering what provision of the Standing Orders applies to the Minister’s statement.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! No exception was taken by the honourable member in charge of the Opposition side. The Minister did speak to me about this.

Mr Bryant:

– Is the Minister speaking with leave? I do not mind, but after all he is the last one to give us any courtesy.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It is a personal explanation.

Mr Barnard:

– May I speak to the point of order raised? The Minister would not have been denied the opportunity to make a personal explanation to the House or to correct some figures. But I think it is a matter of courtesy that we should be told. If he had spoken to me about this there would have been no difficulty at all.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- He is making a personal explanation with the permission of the Chair, which is quite in order.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Certainly had I thought it was going to cause any inconvenience or have any political content 1 would have discussed it with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I conferred with the Chair. My final remark is that I tabled the annual report of the Tariff Board the day after receiving them. I just wanted to get on record the actual dates because there seems to have been some confusion.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– One of the most important aspects of national life today is generally considered to be education. This is a field in which governments have increased their activity but this activity must be maintained at nothing less than the present level. While I commend the Commonwealth Government on the attitude it has taken in regard to education I feel that there is no room for complacency. I believe that if we are to provide the essential educational facilities for the young people of Australia the Commonwealth Government will have to become more active in education than it has been in the past.

Recently I received a copy of a letter which had been sent to the Minister for

Education and Science. It is from the Stanthorpe State Primary School Parents and Citizens Association. That letter drew attention to the need for libraries in primary schools. While this might be regarded as a matter coming within the scope of State responsibility in regard to educational facilities it is something which is necessary and which will have to be considered in the overall aspect of education. I would like to quote the views of that Association which I feel cover this matter very well. The letter reads:

The basic requirement for all formal education is reading skill and ability, coupled with a love of reading and willingness to approach books for research purposes. To foster these skills and desires, a child needs to have access to a wide range of literature at varying levels of interest, reading ability and also covering many topics. A few large centres have comprehensive municipal libraries; in country areas libraries are practically non-existent. We must bring the libraries into the area of children - into the schools.

The letter goes on to say that if full advantage is to be taken of what the Commonwealth is doing by way of providing libraries in secondary schools, libraries will have to be provided in primary schools. I believe that either the Commonwealth Government or a State government - perhaps it could be done on a Commonwealth-State basis - should take cognisance of the need to establish libraries in primary schools as quickly as possible.

Another point that has arisen in recent times is the problem of educating children in isolated areas. Recently an organisation known as the Isolated Childrens Parents Association was formed. Branches of this organisation are being established in many distant areas. I know that in my own electorate branches have been set up in Cunnamulla, Dirranbandi, St George and Morven. I understand that further branches will be set up in other distant areas. Also quite recently this organisation formed a federation in Bourke. The problem of educating children in isolated areas is a very real one for the parents of these children. The cost of sending their children away to school - the cost of fares and the cost of maintaining them - is getting beyond the capacity of these people under the present conditions in rural areas. It is against that background that I urge the Government to look very carefully at the requests of the

Isolated Childrens Parents Association because this is a very difficult problem for these people. It is something which would not cost the Government a very great deal of money because the number of children so affected is not very great but they are very much in need of assistance. I hope that the Government will give full consideration to the claims made by this Association.

I now turn to the matter of independent schools. This Government has established very strongly its belief in a dual system of education. I believe it is only fair to say that the Opposition for a long time was not prepared to accept this system but eventually it came into some sort of line with the Government’s view, although very reluctantly. If this dual system of education is to succeed it will be maintained in a much better way by this Government than it would be by the alternative government. The amount of money provided in this Budget has not increased on last year’s figure. I think this is a great pity for a number of reasons. If the dual system of education is to continue at its present level the independent schools will have to have greater government assistance. This need is clearly demonstrated by the closure of some independent schools for want of finance. What a great pity this is in so many ways.

If we do not encourage these independent schools in the way that we have in the past, this country will be in a great deal of difficulty in terms of educating the young. The financial saving is not the only consideration, although it is a very real one. for these schools involve a large number of teachers who have dedicated their lives under this dual system of education to the teaching of children. These people probably will not be available to teach if the dual system of education falls apart. Prior to the commencement of the 1970 school year the per capita grants per annum were $35 per primary pupil and $50 per secondary pupil. I think that is little enough. It was a very great business proposition for the community at large but costs have increased, as we all know only too well, since that time but no increase has been made to the per capita grants. The figures I have available to me come from a reliable source but they relate only to 1968-69. The annual cost per pupil in government primary schools in all States in that year was $225. So what a bargain it is for the community at large to have independent schools operating at the primary level at a cost of only $35 per pupil. In the secondary schools the cost per pupil in 1967-68 was $332 compared with the amount of $50 made available through per capita grants.

I appeal to the Government to give further consideration to assistance for independent schools. These schools are essential in our education system and without this further assistance I fail to see how they will be able to meet rising costs. I have said this before and I repeat it. The signs are there and unless this Government is prepared to give greater financial assistance to independent schools they will disappear. In fact they are already disappearing. This Government must step in and prevent their disappearance from the Australian educational scene.

What would be the position if independent schools were to discontinue their operations? What would happen to the students? Where would we find accommodation for them? Where would we find the teaching staff? In that situation we would be forced to provide the money that we have not been prepared to provide in this Budget. I know that the Government is under pretty severe strains with regard to inflationary trends and that it is anxious to do all that it can to limit government expenditure and in some fields I believe this is a necessary and wise step to take. But in the field of education I see no advantage in restricting finance, because this expenditure would not increase inflation in any way. I believe that further assistance would be of tremendous advantage in the overall aspect of education. The dual system of education provides friendly and healthy rivalry amongst schools in general. It provides some sort of competition. I am not saying anything against our State school system. In fact at this stage I should say that I believe it to be desirable for the State school system to be assisted to an even greater extent than they are being assisted. But the point is, what sort of strain will arise in our State school system if we let the independent school system disintegrate through a lack of finance? Surely this Government should increase its aid very considerably in the interests of education to enable the continuation of a dual system of education which has served this country so well and which I believe is very necessary for the future if we are to keep our standard of education at its present level. On an international comparison our standard of education is certainly no higher than it has to be in these days of great competition in every field in which we are engaged. Further financial assistance is necessary for educational facilities so that Australia may keep her place among the top nations of the world.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

I had a few notes on what I intended to say in this debate on the Estimates for the Department of Education and Science but I am prompted firstly to reply to some of the points raised by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) who, it seemed to me, spoke about somehow or other acquiring an educational system on the cheap. He used expressions like ‘What a bargain we have got’, and went on to ask: ‘Where else would we get the money’? I can offer him one suggestion. If the Government had not wasted all the money it has wasted on the Vietnam war it could have afforded a lot more money for education.

Mr Cohen:

– And on the FI 1 1 .

Mr ENDERBY:

– And on the Fill and in all the other fields where money is thrown away in this country today. That point leads me to one comment I intended to make tonight. I represent the Australian Capital Territory and I have heard it said by honourable members on both sides of the House that in some way which is difficult to understand the Australian Capital Territory is favoured in education. The thinking behind that sort of remark is that this is so because all the school buildings are nice, just as all the houses here are nice - they are new, the trees are pretty and so on. But there cannot be any other part of Australia in which we hear and read more responsible protests, more complaints, more letters to the newspapers - here it is the ‘Canberra Times’ - and more petitions demanding that something be done about education. This is linked with the problem or the crisis in education throughout the country. I do not think it is because in any dramatic way the

Australian Capital Territory is worse off than New South Wales, although in certain ways it is. This springs from the bureaucratic dependency on the New South Wales Department of Education. I could go further into this matter if I had the time.

The real reason is that the Australian Capital Territory has something like 5 times the Australian average number of people with tertiary qualifications, or something like 5 times the average number with the leaving or equivalent certificate. These people did not get these qualifications by coming up through the Australian Capital Territory educational system. So it cannot be said: ‘Well, that disposes of the criticism’, because the Australian Capital Territory has been in existence for too short a period of time. Those are the figures, approximately 5 times the average number. The people have these qualifications because of the nature of this city, with its Public Service employment, the type of employment offered at the Australian National University, in the armed forces and in other institutions that require special skill, training and learning. When that kind of a population comes into an area like the Australian Capital Territory it has a very high expectancy, and quite properly so. In other words, these people do not set their standards low in an area such as that of education which is so important. That in part gives rise to the situation which prevails here.

I will give honourable members some examples with which I am personally familiar of the attitude here. At 2 public meetings called in the last 12 months in this city on very short notice and proceeded by only one advertisement in the newspaper, the ‘Canberra Times’, the attendance reached overflow level at the Albert Hall. The estimated number of parents who attended on each occasion to protest about education in the Australian Capital Territory was something like 1,000. I hesitate to think how many Parents’ and Citizens’ Associations meet regularly in Canberra not just to discuss whether they can meet the tuckshop expenses but to protest vigorously about the teacher turnover, the low state of morale that exists in the schools here and matters of that sort. I was proud in a way, but also quite ashamed, when I received a letter a few months ago from Sth or 6th grade pupils in a primary school in Canberra. They wrote because the message had seeped down to them from their parents and from what was said in newspapers and in other was by which ideas are communicated that there will be no teachers for them in secondary school. These children are entitled to grow up in a world where they should not at the age of only 10 or 11 be worrying about their future. Of course what they were led to believe is wrong; of course there will be school teachers for them. But Deakin High School, for example had 23 forms for which there were 4 or more teachers for each subject during the last 7 or 8 months.

What sort of a deal are we offering these children now in secondary school, who are moving on to the higher school certificate, with all the pressures that are imposed on young people these days to keep up with the Joneses and so on? These doubts are permeating the whole environment of the secondary school system and it is creeping into the primary school system. From a report released in Canberra the other day it is seen that the teacher turnover in primary schools is now similar to that which the secondary schools have had for some time. No-one is sure of the teacher turnover rate. I have seen figures which conservatively put it at about 13 per cent. I have also seen figures which put it as high as 20 per cent in Queanbeyan. Evidence was given before a Senate Select Committee by a Mr Hughes that the number of teachers leaving the service throughout Australia more than cancels out the gain from new teachers. What is bringing about this result? We cannot deny that this is happening. There is a complete misallocation of resources not only from the point of view of the lack of money, and there is a real failure to grasp the problem facing education and determine how it must be geared to the modern world.

I come back now to priorities. One of the Australian Capital Territory Parents and Citizens Associations held a public meeting on 28th July and produced what are now the usual sort of recommendations or demands that something be done. Of course, honourable members on the other side of the House may say: ‘The more we hear it the more they will become tired of saying it and like all things it will go away.’ Even a snigger can run around this House from time to time because when one cries wolf often enough - or so it is hoped - less weight is attached to one’s words. But the real situation in Canberra is that there is a widely felt crisis. This meeting saw fit to draw attention to the conflict in priorities in the calling up of young meu for national service and the necessity to recruit people into the teaching service. This meeting asked that I draw the attention of this House to the fact that it demanded that teachers and trainee teachers be exempted from national service. And why not? If we were to draw up a list of our priorities in view of the socalled danger to this country from invasion by foreign forces and bearing in mind the undoubted crisis in education, then if we must have a national service scheme, why not give exemption to teachers and trainee teachers?

I finish with these thoughts: Education is not simply a matter of acquiring a skill or trade in order to earn money. Most people fulfil this objective because in order to get into their occupation they have to have an education. So the two things are related. But it is wider than that. Society produces its education system and the educational system in turn in some way tends to produce the society. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is just as much a product of the Australian society and Australian education system as we are, and we all remember the answer he gave to a question asked by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) relating to population and the environment. The Prime Minister quite frankly admitted to this House that he knew nothing of the problems now being discussed and which are widely regarded as of crucial importance to the future of mankind, the writings of people like Ehrlich and others, and simply said, by reference to some undergraduate experence that he had one day 30 years ago at the Sydney University: ‘These things have been said before’. I finish on this note: The real crisis in education is that it can produce this kind of insular remark.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– I was greatly heartened by the objectives which the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), expressed when he outlined to the House recently the Commonwealth Government’s education programme for 1971-72. He seemed to me to have an excellent philosophy of education and not through just talking in terms of facts and figures. A fresh approach, a sense of objectives and a strong philosophy of education have never been more necessary. I believe all Australians are crying out for answers to questions which the uncertainties, the complexities, the fears and the pace of the modern world have posed. As in so many areas it is simply not enough to call for more for education and more and more money for more and more education. Our generation has been getting more and more education and it has been exploding in our hands. Our generation has been encouraging educational expectations with only the haziest idea about the end of those expectations. Our generation has been pushing out doctors of philosophy, some of whom are virtually unemployable.

What shall it profit a man, one might ask, that he gain a long education through a prolonged adolescence and lose his adaptability, his usefulness, his idealism and his happiness? Our generation has been confused about its own values and priorities and, not knowing what values should be passed on to the coming generation, has tended to strip education of moral and personal values. Clearly we need to know the facts about the education system and the Minister’s record of research is splendid. We need that bit extra which can make sense of all our findings. We need wisdom and we need the wisdom of parents and students as much as we need the wisdom of administrators, teachers and politicians. So often our teachers seem to be people in search of a lost profession. So often they seem to be as troubled by their own professional identity as by the identity of those they are teaching. This in turn troubles the parents for its potential impact on their children. But it is not enough for government simply to tell the teachers to get on with the job and put the students first. Governments - and 1 say it in the plural - at every level must make every effort to understand the individual teacher and the dilemmas of the teaching profession. Our governments must have as a goal the greater involvement of practising teachers in solving the problems of the profession.

I believe we should ultimately aim at a multi-system of education in which schools are created and controlled as far as possible by the local community rather than created and remote controlled in capital cities. We should stop talking about a dual education system and stress the advantages of the multi-education system which is with us and which should be developed. We should be aiming at an end to prejudice and an encouragement to the community to create the diversity in education which it requires. I would like to develop these ideas further, but there are particular estimates to which I wish to refer. They are the estimates of $25,800,000 for Commonwealth university scholarships and $7m for Commonwealth secondary scholarships. Ten thousand secondary scholarships are awarded annually without means test for the final 2 years of secondary education and comprise $200 for maintenance, $50 for books and up to $150 for school and examination fees. When Sir Robert Menzies introduced this scheme in 1964 he said:

I believe that many, children of ability will be encouraged by this scheme to stay on at school for a longer period than they might otherwise have done to their own benefit and that of the nation.

The purposes of the scheme were splendid, but today the Commonwealth secondary scholarships scheme does not basically serve the purpose of keeping able students at school, whatever other good purpose it does serve. Hardly a student seems to stay on at school today because he has won a scholarship. This is clear from research which the Australian Council for Educational Research has carried out. Its research among scholarship holders and their parents has established that the overwhelming majority of students would have remained at school had they not won an award. For example, in their study of the Melbourne area only 1 per cent would, according to the parents, have definitely left school if a scholarship had not been won. Now that we know some of the facts we must decide what we want from these scholarships and whether we want them to help those who really need help. I believe that the Government should seek a flexible, generous and humane test of the circumstances of parents so as to encourage those students whose parents have a real struggle to educate them. Another area where the

Government could get better value for its limited resources is, I believe, in the area of university scholarships and living allowances. A sensitive and sensible study of student failures by the sub-dean of the faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne, Mr Dennis 0’Hearne, shows that many students who fail do so because of financial difficulties.

A student who gets into financial difficulties is in an awful fix - a vicious circle - where initial minor failure leads to a degree of poverty because the award might well be, and usually is, taken away, which in its turn leads to greater failure and to greater need of all types. Even assuming limited resources and even assuming that we could not expand the amounts of allowances I am sure that meaningful changes could be made. The butter could be spread a little less thinly over the bread. Allowances could be maximised where they are most needed. There could be more emphasis on particular students and less on the general rules. Students should not have to live independently of their parents for nearly as long as 3 years to qualify as independent of those parents for the purpose of receiving allowances. The Government should consider establishing a working series of relatively high level liaison committees between the Department of Education and Science and the universities to consider the circumstances of particular students. Apart from the human costs involved there are, of course, heavy economic costs in student failure. A little more flexibility and a precise location of the real needs could, 1 believe, prove very rewarding.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– This evening we heard the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) demonstrate his almost total commitment to the policy of the Government in regard to the Department for Education and Science, whose estimates we are considering. But before his 10 minutes were concluded he had very adequately shown that even for one who was totally committed he was dissatisfied with many aspects of the administration of the Education and Science portfolio by the current Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This is, of course, understandable because this ministry, which was created in 1966 out of political expediency, has, since its establishment, been somewhat the neglected child of successive coalition governments. The Minister who now holds the portfolio has held it for longer than any of his predecessors. He has held it now since August this year for the second time. As he has been Minister for longer than any of his colleagues, one would expect that he would be fully conversant with the problems confronting the education system of this country.

With such a history of instability in ministerial administration it is understandable that only last Tuesday the present Minister should speak of the Government’s education programme for 1971-72 with indifference and Irresponsibility. He told honourable members that the Government fully recognised the national importance of education and of the development of educational services. He then proceeded to downgrade the importance of the education requirements of the States as disclosed in the nationwide survey of educational needs for the years 1971 to 1975. It was obvious from the Minister’s statement that under this Government the vital responsibility for financing education in Australia will continue to be regarded in terms of how many votes it may be worth rather than how many children may be handicapped educationally by the current inequalities of the various systems throughout this nation.

Tonight I wish to refer to one glaring example of Commonwealth neglect. I do so because without assistance from the Commonwealth Government that neglect will continue. The plain fact is that the Queensland State Government’s financial position will not make it possible for the problem to which I wish to refer to be overcome without a stronger realisation by the Commonwealth Government of the needs in this particular field. At present one university is serving the needs of Brisbane and its immediate environs - the Queensland University at St Lucia. This university has Australia’s largest student enrolment, currently reported to be 18,024. For some time it has been obvious that it is becoming impossible to accommodate young Queenslanders who seek tertiary education at that university. For years the Queensland University has resisted the imposition of the obnoxious quota systems that have developed in other States. Even this year quotas apply only in respect of second year students in the faculties of architecture, medicine and social work.

The open door policy of the Queensland University has been maintained through the untiring efforts of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Zelman Cowan, and the Senate of that university. It was maintained despite the Commonwealth Government’s policy of restricting financial assistance to that amount which the States could match. But the open door is now to be closed slightly. In August the University Senate was forced by the Queensland Government to impose higher minimum entrance qualifications for next year. Intending students must now qualify by attaining a minimum of 24 matriculation points. This represents an increase of 2 points on the previous level for entry. The University Professorial Board, in making the recommendations for this increase, estimated that the number of students who would be prevented from entering the University next year would be about 700. This decision has been forced on the Queensland University by the decision of the Queensland Cabinet and, indirectly, by the Commonwealth Government failing to take adequate responsibility for education problems at this particular level. The President of the Queensland Teachers Union, Mr Gavin Semple, summed up the effects of the Senate’s decision very clearly when he said that the recommendation to raise the matriculation level was deplorable and educationally unacceptable. He said that if it were adopted - and it has been adopted - it will mean that in the next 3 years at least many hundreds of students who previously would have qualified for the University will be denied entrance. Mr Semple said that the folly of postponing the completion of the Griffith University until 1975 could be linked unquestionably to the introduction of quotas at the one university serving the area, the St Lucia university. I believe there is no doubt about this.

It is the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility that the development of the university at Mount Gravatt has not been proceeded with, and because it has not been proceeded with next year 700 students will be refused admittance to the Queensland University. Originally it was planned to enrol students in 1969 for the Mount Gravatt university. This proposal was post poned until 1972 but it now seems that even 1975 will be an impossible target for this vital project to commence enrolment. In 1969, in referring to the financial needs of tertiary education in the 1970-72 triennium, the Queensland Treasurer said:

It is clear that the rate of increase in expenditure envisaged is well in excess of the rate of increase expected in the State’s resources in that period.

At the same time in a Press report in answer to my criticism of the delay in starting work on the Mount Gravatt university my predecessor in this House - a representative of the Liberal Party - said that the delay in starting work on this university was caused by the State Government requesting the Commonwealth Government to hold off the availability of funds for Mount Gravatt because State matching funds were not available to proceed with its development. I am sure that the Minister for Education and Science knows of this situation because he held tha education portfolio at that time. My predecessor said the Minister stated that if State funds were made available for the Mount Gravatt university serious handicaps would be inflicted on the future development of the university at St Lucia and, in fact, the completion of that university could not proceed.

An urgent review of the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States for the financing of universities is long overdue. When crisis threatens an industry associated with the rural sector of this country the Commonwealth Government acts quickly to make finance available by way of subsidy or grant. Often tens of millions of dollars are made available without delay. I do not question this. In many instances it is right and proper that such finance should be made available, but surely this critical development in the universities must be overcome, not only in Queensland, as I have outlined, but in universities throughout the nation. Secondary student graduates are being denied tertiary education in increasing numbers each year at our universities.

I urge the Commonwealth Government to examine the report for the 1973-75 triennium in a responsible way when it is made available by the Australian Universities Commission. The Government must decide to end its policy of matching grants and release some of the $630m Budget surplus to the States for urgent university development. This is especially warranted for the development of Griffith University at Mount Gravatt. The next government - a Labor Government - will not be content until it ensures that the next generation of this nation has tertiary education available to every individual.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir JOHN CRAMER (Bennelong) (8.38) - ‘Education is a State function but it is a national responsibility. It is interesting to look at the record of what has happened with respect to direct assistance from the Commonwealth Government. This assistance was started by the Menzies Government at the beginning of this coalition government’s history. Finance was made available for universities. Since then, year by year there has been a constant increase in Commonwealth expenditure on education. Left to the States the inspiration for a higher education could never have reached the present standard. The Commonwealth Government has given a national impetus to education, not only in the national capital itself and in the Commonwealth Territories but also in State universities, colleges of advanced education and affiliated colleges. The Commonwealth has assisted in the provision of science laboratories, technical training schools, libraries, teacher training and research. One of the best things it has done has been to help independent schools.

No matter what may be said, the Commonwealth Government is now deeply involved in education. The Commonwealth Government’s direct expenditure - this is apart from the money that the States receive and which they are entitled to receive from the Commonwealth - has grown in the 3 years from 1967-68 from $176m-odd to S345m in this current year. It has never been given the credit for what it has done. But it is too late to turn back; we must go on. We must now aim, as I see it, for closer co-operation with the States on a national basis. There are, as we know, great differences in the approach of the various States to education. This is something in relation to which I applaud the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) because he understands the position and has the right approach to education.

Apart from the stimulation of higher and advanced education, one of the greatest things done by the Commonwealth Government has been the encouragement of the national acceptance of the dual system of education in the State schools and in the independent schools. Indeed, had it not been for this Government and its action in education over the years, many, many hundreds of independent schools in Australia would have folded up. Unfortunately there is still a minority, but a very vocal minority at times, who resent the government aid to independent schools. Mostly this is promoted, I believe, by the teachers federations of the States - the DOGS as they call themselves - and this is mostly based on a desire for a socialist state on the one hand. A certain amount of bigotry comes into it and a stirring up of the emotions of the people on a question like this to try to divide the people in the hope that they might gain some benefit from it.

On the basis of pure economics there can be no argument against independent schools. These schools have been part of our accepted system of education for over a century. They have saved taxpayers in this country not small sums of money but thousands of millions of dollars over the years. Government schools would never have been up to their present standard if the taxpayer had to pay for the teaching of all the children in this country. If it were not for independent schools we could never have afforded the standard we have today. At the present time denominational schools have insufficient teachers. We never stop to think that the nuns and brothers in the Catholic school education system have given their services free of charge over the long years. No-one ever thinks of this.

The denominational schools have insufficient teachers at the present time and of course they have to depend upon lay teachers who have to be paid. This has created a difficult economic position. If we did not support the independent schools it would certainly place a great burden on our government schools with less money to go around. So on the pure issue of justice in a country where education is compulsory no-one can deny the right of a parent to send his child to the school of his choice provided that the standard of education is met. One of the great things in this country, I believe, is freedom of religion and a parent therefore has the right to give his child a basic moral and religious education if he so chooses. All parents pay taxes and thus support government schools. They have the right therefore to assistance in meeting the cost of at least the secular part of the education in independent schools.

The Government has failed in this Budget to increase the aid to independent schools. I know the difficulties. Apart from help with science laboratories and libraries, etc, there has been no increase in the per capita payments. 1 know that the States were given more money and are increasing their per capita payments, and I know that the increased amount that may be deducted for taxation purposes in regard to education expenses will be a help. Of course the independent schools will benefit by this; but many independent schools are doomed without further assistance. I believe that this Government must give more assistance and I think something should be done urgently in this direction. The present assistance does not meet the situation.

In Australia there are 2,160,177 enrolments in government schools and 608,056 enrolments in independent schools. The Commonwealth grants are $35 for each primary school child and $50 for each secondary school child, which averages out at something under $40 for each child per annum. Direct expenditure on education by the Commonwealth today amounts to an average of $125 for each child in Australia. Less than $40 for each child is going to the independent schools, so it can be seen that the independent schools are at a very great disadvantage at the present time. The churches, and the friends and the parents of children going to independent schools pay at least an additional $300 a child to educate children in independent schools so this amount is a saving to the States and to the country.

We all know of the recent survey that has been mentioned here. It shows that non-government schools, notwithstanding government and parents’ payments, will be short of money for the years 1971-75 of a total of $267.6m. This means that this Government, in my opinion, must take this matter very seriously. It is not only a question of justice; it is a question of pure economics and the advancement of education in this country. I believe that a system could be worked out whereby a contribution for education could be made to every child in Australia as a right, with the States making up the balance in the State education systems and the parents and friends making up the difference for the independent schools’ requirements. But in my opinion all children are entitled equally to a share of assistance in education. Children have a right to be given the kind of education that their parents desire for them.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Last week the Parliament was alerted about the impending upward spiral in the cost of university fees. The Senate of the University of Sydney indicated that fees will increase by 16.6 per cent for the 1972 academic year. In addition there were other early predictions, namely, that the University of Western Australia will increase its fees by 26 per cent and that the University of Queensland will increase its fees by 25 per cent. I raised this matter in the Parliament last Wednesday by way of a question to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) believing that the University of Sydney incident would act as a catalyst for an Australiawide increase in university fees and, indeed, an increase in fees in the whole area of colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology. Of course, in respect of these various types of establishment some people are having difficulty already in meeting the fees involved.

Surprisingly, the Minister declined to concede that there was any rising economic barrier to higher education. In fact he denied that altogether, and his reply demonstrated that he was suffering from the illusion that the incidence of scholarships was such as to obviate any hardship arising from increased fees. I believe he has failed to take into account that fees are rising at a much more rapid rate than are average earnings. There are many examples to demonstrate this point. For instance, the University of Adelaide arts course fee was 2.5 per cent of average earnings back in 1952 and had risen to 9.7 per cent of average earnings by 1970. Currently, average earnings are rising at a rate of 5 per cent per annum while fees are to increase, as I have already said, by 16.6 per cent in New South Wales, 26 per cent in Western Australia and 25 per cent in Queensland, and other States will be affected to a similar measure. This will be additional to the 50 per cent rise which has taken place over the last 5 years.

The Australian Union of Students has completed an analysis of costs which revealed this startling fact: A family earning the average Australian income of $4,200 per annum will have to spend in 1972 30 per cent of its income to maintain one student at a university. I confidently and despairingly predict that this will have the effect of exluding thousands of students from universities next year. The economic crisis is now to hit the student campus and the casualties will be from the lower income families. They will be called the ‘dollar drop outs’ of the 1970s. But the Minister’s indifferent attitude contrasts to the attitude of the Opposition which includes in its official policy the following declaration:

The Commonwealth to ensure the provision of tertiary education without fees and regularly to review and extend the payment of living allowances.

This is unequivocal and unabiguous. Let me say it is comparable with world trends and I would like to see Australians keep up with those trends.

The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth has in its relationship with the States and the universities built in an incentive scheme to raise university fees. That is to say, for every $1.85 raised by universities from student fees the Commonwealth provides a matching $1 - a subsidy, if you like, of $1. In other words it pays the States and the universities to increase student fees. Sydney University was faced with this dilemma; if fees were not raised it would have collected from the State a and the Commonwealth $426,000. By raising the fees by 161 per cent it will be collecting $1.52m, an extra $l.lm. Much of this amount is made up by the Commonwealth subsidy for the amount of the fee increase. If the Commonwealth was properly concerned about economic barriers to higher education, the plight of many students and families and the crisis in universities finance, it would do precisely the opposite - it would subsidise universities that kept fees down. On an average, university fees have risen by 50 per cent, as I have said, over the last 5 years. Let me give the Committee just a couple of examples of this trend.

In 1952 a student paid $94 to the Faculty of Science at the University of Melbourne. By 1962 the fee had gone to $228. In 1971 it had risen to $528. I can assure the Committee that this is not any outstanding example. It is typical of the dozens which have been listed in answers to questions which I have placed on the notice paper. Let me give honourable members another example. This time I refer to the Faculty of Science at the University of Queensland. The fee in 1952 was $84; in 1962 it was $240; and in 1971 it was $456.

The Minister has given us the unmistakable impression that university fees were not a great burden because of what he feels is a proliferation of scholarships - that is, people are getting scholarships and do not have to worry about fees. I want to disabuse him of the conviction he apparently has in this regard. Let me refer to Commonwealth scholarships. In 1971 there were 59,326 applicants for Commonwealth scholarships, but there are only 12,752 acceptances. That is to say, 46,574 people who sought them did not get them, or only one in 5 of all the applicants were successful. In 1971 48,873 applied for Commonwealth advanced education scholarships and 2,831 were accepted. That is to say, over 46,000 applicants were unsuccessful. In 1970 only 10 per cent of all the students undertaking advanced education courses had scholarships. A summary of the situation is that the percentage of all students enrolled in all universities and holding Commonwealth university scholarships as they can be the 70 per cent without scholarships are called was 30 per cent. Of course, among many people who cannot afford to be there. There is no need for the Minister to raise his eyebrows, because the figures I have quoted are the official ones which he recently supplied in answer to questions. He ought to get the situation into perspective.

Let me have a look at the secondary education situation. Why, if ever there was a rat race it is the one in which unfortunate kids who have been swotting competitively for Commonwealth scholarships in the secondary education Reid find themselves. In 1971 there were 91,639 applications and there were 9,997 awards. That is, 81,642 were unsuccessful. Only one in 9 received a Commonwealth secondary scholarship. This is the process by which a student actually gets into university.

Mr Reynolds:

– There is no means test either.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no means test. The National Union of Australian University Students says that 10 per cent of all university students struggled to pay fees. The South Australian Government, like some other State governments, has introduced arrangements to meet the cost of the more critical cases. But that State is only scratching the surface and ad hoc arrangements such as this are operating. Yet this Minister and this Government seem to be indifferent.

There are many other fees apart from university fees, which I do not have time to mention. My time is almost exhausted and all I can say is this: It is time to eliminate the barriers to higher education. It is true that if the Commonwealth makes money available for universities it will help people in the higher income group. But there are ways that can be contrived, as a previous speaker from the Government side has said, to ensure that people from low income families receive the opportunity to go on to higher education. I believe that the Government should set out to eliminate fees altogether or alternatively to introduce a scheme subject to a means test so that people who need assistance can receive it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who just concluded his speech has come up with all the popular answers. He says: Let all things be free, from pills to university. It does not occur to the honourable member that there are many things that have to be done that require money. It does not occur to him that for the first time in our history we have no great and powerful friends in this part of the world to protect us. It does not occur to him that we are faced with a rural crisis with which we have to deal. No, he says that we should let all things be free.

I want to deal with the crisis in education, which is approaching a catastrophy. I am referring not to the crisis that we hear so much about but to the much more serious one. A decade ago in New South Wales - and I will speak entirely of New South Wales now believing that State to be typical of the other States - it was estimated that 17 per cent of those entering their first year in secondary schools would stay till their fifth or sixth year; that is, from the age of about 13 to about 18 years. The percentages so proceeding from first to fifth or sixth year were as follows: In 1960 - this was before the Wyndham scheme was introduced - 17.2 per cent of students went from first year to fifth year. In 1962 the figure was 19.7 per cent. In 1964 it was 24.1 per cent. In 1967 it stood at 24.6 per cent. In 1968 it was 28.3 per cent. The figure for 1969 was 31.5 per cent. In 1970 it was 32.2 per cent. It is estimated that it will be 40 per cent over the next decade. That is, to say the least of it, a considerable growth.

What happens to those who proceeded to their 5th year prior to the Wyndham scheme or who proceed to their 6th year now? Let us consider what will happen to the people who passed their higher school certificate in 1970. Last year, 28,000 students sat for the higher school certificate. Of that number, 11,500 failed to matriculate. That is 41 per cent of the 28,000. The number who matriculated but who did not go on to university was 3,500. That is 13 per cent of the 28,000. The number who proceeded to university was 13,000. That is 46 per cent of the original 28,000 who sat for the higher school certificate, ft is estimated that 5,200 of those will drop out before graduating. This means that, of the 28,000 who passed the higher school certificate in 1970, 7,800 will be left to graduate. This is just over 18 per cent of the original 28,000. So, 20,200 out of 28,000 will pass the higher school certificate, but will fail to stay the course and will never graduate at a university. The wastage here is quite appalling.

What about jobs for those who graduate? I refer to those 18 per cent who passed the higher school certificate in 1970 and who will graduate? What of jobs for them? The Minister for Labour and Industry in New South Wales said this the other day:

In a survey carried out last year-

That was in 1970: on the demand and supply position for 1st year graduates entering certain selected fields of work, it was indicated that employers in 70 per cent of the work fields surveyed indicated that the supply of graduates exceeded the demand.

But still we must drive them through, with all the failures that result. This means tremendous expense to taxpayers in respect of mere numbers of students who never stay the course. We have much more elaborate schools than we have ever had before, with much more elaborate equipment than could have been dreamed of 10 years ago, and with expensive libraries, expensive laboratories and all the rest of it - for people who fail to stay the course. Secondly, there is tremendous expense to parents who also - the honourable gentleman overlooked this - are taxpayers. Thirdly, there is the unhappiness of the children and young people themselves. They suffer strain - the honourable- member referred to this - and defeat and disappointment follows upon their failure to stay the course. Fourthly, there is the loss of useful effort for the community through the tragic misallocation of human resources. Yet honourable members opposite say: ‘More of it. More of this’.

What are the answers? There are, as the honourable gentleman remarked, those who should go on and who do not, those who are gifted children of poor parents who require scholarships to pay their tuition fees and require also living allowances. But, as the figures that I mentioned earlier indicate, not all of these students would graduate if they did go on to uni versity. The home environment is another factor that would result in many of them not being stimulated to go on even if this could be afforded and even if scholarships were available.

What is to be done about these things? This is a crisis approaching a catastrophe for thousands of young people in this country every year - this rat race that leads nowhere. First of all, the facts should be disseminated. Only cruelty and bitterness can result from concealment of the plain facts that so few will graduate and that, of this number, so many will not get jobs. Again, there should be a stepping up of provisions for colleges of advanced education so that young people can concentrate on courses leading to gainful employment, eschewing university status - not as something inferior but as something different. Better, it might be said, a happy carpenter than a carping philosopher.

We should aim to give young people the training that will enable them to get gainful jobs. They will be much happier if they do. Again, we should expect parents who can afford it to do more for their children. We should expect young people to work to further their education by part time attendance at institutions. This is how the highly skilled work force was built up in the United States of America. For people coming from impoverished countries in Europe nothing was too difficult and no sacrifice was too great on the part of their parents to enable their children to acquire education. They all worked for something they knew was extremely worthwhile. As I said, there are not unlimited funds and other sources of funds must be found. Those sources can be found in the parents who wish to make sacrifices for their children and in the young people themselves. This has been done. There is nothing new about it.

There should be, I believe, a revolutionary change in the school system. The Commonwealth could assist the schools by means of per capita payments in respect of each school child whether at a government or an independent school. It could abandon special programmes to provide finance to do this. The balance required could be made up by State Treasuries in respect of government schools and by parents in respect of independent schools. The advantages of this pluralistic over the monopolistic system of education to which we are moving and which is favoured by the honourable gentleman opposite would be this: First of all, we would channel more money and greater resources into education than we can possibly get from taxation. Again, we would give genuine freedom of choice to parents. It is completely phoney to say that when parents are taxed to the hilt, and they do not have large incomes anyhow, they have the right to pay fees to send their children to independent schools. Of course we are depriving them of choice, depriving them of that right, and such a suggestion is entirely phoney.

It would permit greater variety and experimentation in individual schools, something greatly to be desired. It would give greater freedom to teachers. It would allow participation by the community in the management of schools. There would be safeguards as to standards and qualifications of teachers through teacher training and certification by approved central establishments. Standards of accommodation and so forth could be laid down and standards established regarding curricula and public examination to ensure that children receive a proper education. By these means we could overcome the rigidity, inflexibility, centralisation, bureaucratisation and the deadly uniformity that we shall have if we opt for the monopolistic style of education which is the inevitable end of the road that is indicated by the honourable gentleman opposite. Sir, I stand for this because I believe that it is better for parents, for children and for the community and would produce a far better system of education than that to which we are rapidly moving.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), who has just resumed his seat, has continued this debate in the same dreary, conservative vein as that of his colleagues. We of the Australian Labor Party have never suggested that anything can be obtained for nothing. We have said only that no student should be disadvantaged because of lack of financial standing of his parents, and also that privilege should not accrue to wealthy just because of the existence of wealth. In other words, opportunity should be equal to all and limited only by the capacity of the individual.

In this debate, I wish to speak on one matter in particular. That is the question of Commonwealth scholarships. The current appropriation for Commonwealth secondary scholarships is S7m which, to all intents and purposes, is close to the $6,791,420 spent last year out of an appropriation of $6.8m. The situation with Commonwealth technical scholarships conveys much the same story. This year $ 1.065m is appropriated as against an expenditure last year of $ 1.096m of an appropriation of $ 1.23m. These 2 amounts do not seem to bear any relationship to their logical successors, the Commonwealth university scholarships and the Commonwealth advanced education scholarships, each of which has been increased considerably this year - and this seems to have been the practice over past years, as far as I can see. Perhaps the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has a logical explanation for the anomaly that seems to exist. However, prima facie it appears curious that there is no significant increase in the amount allowed from year to year for these vital scholarships.

Statistics indicate to us that our population is increasing constantly. Surely it is reasonable to assume that this increase is fairly evenly spread over the age groups in the community, and ours is a young community. The bulk of the people are in the younger age groups; indeed, 38 per cent of the entire population is under 19 years of age. The numbers of people in the younger age groups are also enormous and we can expect the numbers of young people moving from age group to age group to increase annually. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that as the numbers of potential recipients of scholarships increase, as the value of scholarships remains constant and as the total sum appropriated for scholarships each year changes only minimally, then there will be a decrease in the per capita allocation for scholarships. In other words, a smaller percentage of students will receive a scholarship each year.

Children living in areas such as the one that I represent will be further disadvantaged for a number of reasons. Statistics relating to scholarships granted per head of students clearly, show the imbalance that exists already between students in my area and students in more affluent areas. There is a greater percentage of young people in my area. Research shows that 49 per cent of the population in my area is under 19 years of age compared with the national average of 38 per cent. As I have said, there is a less affluence in parts of my electorate than in other areas of the metropolis and because of the inequitous practice of the Victorian Liberal Party Government in opting out of one of the major cost factors of education, that is, the provision of facilities in schools, and thrusting this cost upon parents, school committees and school councils, inequity has become rife. Schools situated in areas where parents are able to contribute are better served with facilities and teaching aids than are those schools where parents are not in a financial position to contribute. This serious situation is compounded by the fact that teachers are human and seek and deserve the best possible working conditions. In the main - and there I am not being critical of teachers - they seek postings to schools which are well equipped and they endeavour to by-pass those schools which lack the tools of trade that a teacher requires.

So the true position is that children who come from a background which is not conducive to extra curricular assistance are sent to schools which are ill equipped with facilities and on occasions staffed with teachers who are only marking time until a vacancy occurs at a school in a more affluent area. It would probably do a great deal of good if honourable members were to consider what I have just said. The student who starts out at a disadvantage remains at a disadvantage virtually for all of his student life. This situation has not been dramatised. I am simply stating my experiences over many years. I lay the blame fairly and squarely at the feet of the Liberal Party. It is in government in Canberra and it is in government in Victoria. If Australia is to progress as a nation of high repute and productivity, both materially and spiritually, we have an obligation to ensure that no intellectual resources are wasted. The best way to ensure that this happens is to see that every child, irrespective of background or the financial standing of the family, is assured of the opportunity to be educated to the capacity of his intellect.

The niggardly attitude of this Government will not solve the problem. A crisis exists in education, and that crisis can best be solved with money. Any money spent on this item is not an expense; it is an investment in the very future of Australia. This is a very deep question which requires a good deal more time than is available in this debate. My colleagues are covering this subject very well, but we will have an opportunity in the future - I trust in the very near future - to debate this subject at greater length and perhaps greater depth. Returning to the question of scholarships, I point out that inequities exist within inequities. Recently a matter was brought to my attention where a lad was attending the fifth form at a State high school and was studying physics and chemistry. He holds a Commonwealth secondary scholarship which entitles him to $200 for living expenses, $50 for books and $150 for school fees, if required. However, as he attended a State school where fees are not required, he received only $250 of a $400 scholarship, the $150 allowed for fees not being claimed. lt so happened that the teachers at this school took industrial action and withdrew their services. The lad’s father was concerned about the boy’s future, and on the advice of the principal enrolled the boy with a recognised correspondence school so that there would be minimal interruption to his studies. When the lad’s father made an application to the Department for the cost of the correspondence course, which amounted to $78, as part of the $150 allowable for fees which he did not claim originally, the application was refused. This Government was prepared to pay $150 towards fees if the lad attended a private school, but it refused to pay $78 when circumstances beyond the control of the father or the son caused the parent to consider that it was in the best interest of his son’s education to enrol him temporarily with a correspondence school. The Department’s reply was rather interesting. It stated:

The Minister has decided that parents of Commonwealth secondary scholarship holders could not be reimbursed for outside tuition taken as a result of strike action by teachers.

It seems to me to be a spiteful act when Ministers, whose Government’s policies cause teacher problems, vent their anger at teachers’ action against the innocent parties, the parents of students. There can be no justifiable explanation for such petulant action. 1 trust that the remarks I have made tonight, particularly those in the latter part of my speech, do not fall on deaf ears and that some action is taken to rectify such a situation so that no longer will parents of students who attend State schools be disadvantaged, as this parent was, through circumstances over which neither the student nor the parent had any control.

Mr REID:
Holt

– I wish to direct my remarks to the secular Acts under which education is administered in the States. Prior to the introduction of the Education Act of 1872 in Victoria, under which education became free, compulsory and secular, the churches ran most, if not all, of the schools, and much the same happened in the other States. This secular Act has been operating in Victoria for 99 years. Of course, it precludes any of the education grant being used to teach religion in schools. There was a very good reason for the introduction of the 1872 Act. Prior to the turn of the century most of the churches wanted their own schools for their own denominations in sparsely populated areas, with the result that it was costing de States far too much money as they had to subsidise the churches. However, the situation has changed greatly, particularly during the post-war period. For instance, there are more than 3 million people in Victoria. But the important point I want to make is that for certain reasons today people just do not go to church. It means that their children do not have the opportunities that existed when this secular Act was introduced in Victoria.

When national reservists are called up for training they go along to their training camps and they are interviewed. Of course they are asked the obvious questions: What church do you belong to? What contact have you made with the church? Fewer than 10 per cent have made any contact with the church. I think this is most alarming. It certainly brings home the point I am endeavouring to make here, that of the national reservists who were interviewed fewer than 10 per cent had made any contact with the church. For this reason 1 would like to see the old secular Act changed. To me it appears to be illogical. It is incomplete.

I do not quite see the logic of spending some SI, 500m, as the States and the Commonwealth are spending on education this year, giving our children every opportunity of developing mentally, physically and emotionally if they miss out on their spiritual growth. I venture to say that their spiritual development is just as important as any of the other 3 attributes I have mentioned. I will go even further and say that it is as important as the other three put together. Of course, this was one of the reasons why the Council for Christian Education in Schools was formed in Victoria in 1950. A few years later the Education Act was amended to enable chaplains to be appointed to secondary schools. Some 28 appointments have been made over the past number of years. Many more schools want to appoint chaplains, but it costs between $4,500 and $5,000 to appoint a chaplain to a secondary school. As I have mentioned, under the secular Act none of the education grant can be used, lt means that this money has to be raised on a voluntary basis. Each of these chaplains at the secondary schools has a district chaplaincy committee working to raise funds. Approximately one-third of the money is raised by the local churches, another one-third is raised by the school and the local chaplaincy committee raises the other one-third in various ways, mainly through donations and voluntary effort.

I do not think that anyone could assess truly the advantages of having a chaplain in a secondary school. For certain reasons students want to contact a minister of religion. The important thing is not so rauch the work that a chaplain does insofar as religious instruction is concerned; it is the counselling that is carried out in the schools. He has his own study. Any of the students can seek the chaplain out. One cannot truly assess the advantages to be derived from having a chaplain there. He is able to provide the students with information that could be of great assistance to them for the rest of their lives. The Victorian Government recognised the important work carried out by the Council for Christian Education in Schools and provide a grant of $40,000 per annum to assist with the appointment of chaplains. These appointments are mainly carried out in industrial areas because the people in those areas are not able to raise the $4,500 to $5,000. A lot of the very important work of school chaplains is carried out in industrial areas.

Religion in schools is primarily an educational subject and I see no reason why it should not become an integral part of any school curriculum in much the same way as other subjects are taught. Local churches must also realise that they have a vital part to play in education, and one way of assisting is with the appointment of chaplains to secondary schools. I know that the Council for Christian Education in Schools in Victoria and its counterparts in the other States are anxious to carry out research in education with a view to expanding chaplaincy work. However, they are prevented from doing so because of lack of finance. For this reason I would like to see the Commonwealth Government support the Council by providing a grant ot $250,000 for the purposes I have just expounded, as I really do believe that a return to religion in our State education system could well mean that our schools could turn out better balanced students, better able to adjust and meet the challenge of modern day living.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– In March 1969 a nationwide survey of educational needs was established at the behest mainly of the State Ministers for Education forming the Australian Educational Council. However, the Commonwealth gave its blessing to this project and promised to co-operate with it. Moreover, it was also promised that the private schools and their needs would be surveyed. This lifted the hopes of people in State education and in private education. But what has come to pass? The nationwide survey was killed by the Commonwealth’s failure to provide leadership. It could have ensured that an overall national viewpoint was reflected in the inquiry but it deliberately chose not to do so. It now eagerly pounces on the report’s inadequacies and inconsistencies, both real and imagined, as an excuse for further evasion. The acknowledged misunderstanding about who was to inquire into what and on what basis is both pathetic and absolutely scandalous.

The matter of private schools comes to my mind. The Commonwealth thought that the States were doing the survey. The states did not do it. Ultimately the Commonwealth had to go out and conduct some kind of survey itself in the private schools. It is the young generation particularly and the nation generally who must pay the price of this downright incompetence bred out of the Commonwealth’s determined reluctance to become properly involved in the inquiry. Notwithstanding these virtually admitted evasions by the Commonwealth, it still claims that the States have been put in such an improved financial position that they should be able to meet most of the needs outlined by the survey for both the public and private sectors of education. Time will not allow me to mention anything more than some of the most obvious fallacies in this claim. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) says that the average State education budget now shows an annual increase of 17 per cent.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– This year.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– This year; very well. He compares this with the 10 per cent assumed annual growth in State education expenditures which was the basis of the survey’s calculation of needs. The survey concluded that over the 5 years 1971-75 $ 1,443m extra would be needed urgently from the Commonwealth by the States for their government primary and secondary schools and teachers colleges alone. Docs the Minister really mean to say or imply that this extra 7 per cent above the assessed 10 per cent now being spent by the States is anything like equivalent to the $ 1,443m which the survey says will be needed over the next 5 years? Nowhere are we given any statistics or provided with any calculations even to suggest such a possibility. All the indications are that the increased finances available to the States will go nowhere near meeting the needs outlined in the survey.

This conclusion applies particularly, in my view, to the capital or building needs - the school buildings to be constructed, the land to be purchased and the playgrounds to be formed - mentioned in the survey. The survey indicated that an additional S722m would be required from the Commonwealth over the period for the capital needs, as distinct from recurrent needs or running costs, of the State public schools and teachers colleges. According to research I have had done with the aid of the Parliamentary Library this would require an estimated growth in capital funds of almost 28 per cent annually. But the increase in Commonwealth capital grants to the States in 1971-72 amounted not to 28 per cent but to a meagre 4.5 per cent.

It is no wonder that it was reported that the State and Federal governments’ spending on buildings for education in New South Wales dropped - not increased - by about 15 per cent in the 6 months to the end of May this year. The situation becomes even more desperate when it is realised that out of their so-called greatly improved finances the States are supposed not only to meet the total of Si, 443m needed for the capital and recurrent costs of government schools but also another $267m which the survey says will be needed by the non-government schools for similar costs. Quite frankly many of these non-government schools, especially the Catholic parish ones, are in as bad a position as the worst of the government schools. None of these education authorities would imagine for one second that the position of the schools would be substantially or dramatically improved by the per capita increases that have been provided by the recent State budgets. Apparently they can expect nothing further from the Commonwealth Government.

Let it be stressed that the survey dealt only with primary, secondary and teacher education. It had nothing to do with preschool education, the education of the handicapped or with the vast field of technical education at the pre-tertiary lc /el. Somehow the States’ alleged ‘greatly improved’ financial position has also to try to meet all these educational needs along with their heavy commitments to universities and the quickly growing sector of colleges of advanced education. I am sure that not even the Minister for Education and Science or the Government sincerely and honestly believes that the States are now in a satisfactory financial position to meet this kind of challenge for the 5 years ahead. The Commonwealth, I believe, is trying to carry out a massive deceit on the Australian community. It has dumped its responsibilities as far as the nation wide survey is concerned. It ought at least to be decent and frank enough to say so. It did so at least in the case of the kindergartencumchild minding centres. 1 believe the Minister is desperately clutching at straws when he refers to the case of the unspent $8. 5m Commonwealth grant that was available to the States for the capital costs of building new teachers colleges in 1970-71, the first year of the triennium. This pointed reference was meant to suggest that the States were physically unable to use all of the money that the Commonwealth was already providing. Why should they be clamouring for more? From my own personal experience I know that the main reason for this situation was that the States bad insufficient notice of the grants to be able to carry out the detailed planning for the construction of the colleges within any short time after the grants were announced. Unfortunately there had not been any recent research into the forms modern teachers colleges should take.

Moreover, the Commonwealth grants were limited to capital or building needs. Contrary to the advice of the Martin Committee in 1965 the Commonwealth made no provision for the very substantial running costs of teachers colleges. This I believe put another brake on State activities in this important field. In this, as in so many other areas, and not forgetting the nationwide survey which we are currently discussing, I believe the Commonwealth has had pathetically poor relations and understanding with the States. May I make the positive suggestion that whilever the system of specific Commonwealth grants to the States for educational purposes endures, it be on a 5-year basis rather than 3 as at present. This I believe would make for better planning and continuity of development. 1 am becoming increasingly more convinced of the need for clearer and more definite political responsibility for education. No doubt this could be true for many other spheres of our community life. For education I think there is a good case for clearly dividing responsibility so that the States retain pre-school, primary and secondary education and the Commonwealth accepts responsibility for all post-secondary and tertiary education. This would, of course, have to be a matter for agreement between the Commonwealth and States. Technical education, so closely allied to the economy and to employment policies, seems admirably suited to Commonwealth responsibility. Now that teachers colleges are being absorbed into colleges of advanced education and universities and, thankfully, becoming less tied to education departments, they also would readily fit into a national pattern of tertiary education. These bodies - teachers colleges, colleges of advanced education and universities - have or are receiving a substantial amount of autonomy. As such there can and ought to be a healthy diversity in their development. At the same time they could help form an integrated and interrelated national pattern.

Apart from these considerations the overriding thought in my mind is that such a solution would help to rid us of the present indecisive control in which there are no clear lines of financial responsibility. Without the burdens of having to meet the Commonwealth’s conditional grants for tertiary institutions the States could accept full and definite responsibility for the very important pre-school, primary and secondary schooling. Whilst 1 regret what has happened in regard to the survey on educational needs I would stress that the Commonwealth should not opt out but it ought to accept the proposal of the Australian Labor Party to set up an Australian schools commission which would not only carry out a thorough investigation into all these levels of education but would do so on a continuing basis.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– May I initially, because I feel that the time allowed to honourable members to speak to the Estimates has been limited to too great a degree, touch very briefly on a side of the estimates for the Department of Education and Science which I have not heard anyone refer to until now. And what a gross oversight this would be if I am correct. I hope I am not. I refer to that part of the portfolio of the Minister for Education and Science which relates to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation. This Organisation comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister. I have not time, because of the many remarks made by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds), to go as far as I would like tonight in relation to the CSIRO. Perhaps it would suffice to say that more and more electorates, including the electorate of Angas, must fall back on the technological experimentation and fundamental research carried out in Australia today by the CSIRO.

Today we have more people available and more people susceptible to learning new techniques for their own sake and for the sake of the export industries they represent. I believe that we must look very carefully at the wide open field of practical handing on of new findings in the vacuum of extension work between fundamental research and the practical application of it to farmers and other industries in the use of this tremendous resource that is available in Australia today. I must leave this matter there because there are other subjects I wish to refer to relating to education.

I would say that probably for the first time in the history of this country we now have federally a much more balanced approach to the whole problem of education. I refer primarily to the importance, in my view, of the Australian Council for Educational Research. I would say that more and more meetings of this Council will become - if they have not already done so - the common meeting place at which discussions will be had on State and Federal responsibilities in the vast field of education. I believe that it is of profound importance to this country for not only State and Federal Ministers for Education but also the officers in their departments to meet, discuss and negotiate on areas of need. One subject, for instance, that the Opposition is not very fond of when Government supporters mention it and which obviously needs research is the problem of class size.

Not long ago when the Minister mentioned this, I think during a second reading speech the Opposition howled its fury. Nevertheless, we do not know at this point of time whether it is to the benefit of children - not teachers but children - that class sizes should be smaller, as we have all accepted for many years they should be. The results of investigations in the United Kingdom suggest that in that area at any rate there could well be a case for saying that most progress is made by students in classes of a size that perhaps would not be acceptable in this country. I am not saying that this would be appropriate in our environment. I am just pointing to this as an example of the sort of research that must be carried out in this country under our conditions, not under the conditions in Czechoslovakia, England, Ireland or Scotland. That is only one example of the very many matters that need proper study and research in this country so that we can make the best use of the resources that are available to us.

I suppose the honourable member for Barton had as much fun as a member of the Opposition can have by talking endlessly about the importance of the survey of educational needs. Many of us accept that there is a lot of merit in the statistics behind the report of the nation-wide survey of educational needs, but there are very many things taken into account in this report that one might say are not essential to the nation’s needs. Looking back, when this Government so correctly brought in its austerity campaign, if you like to call it that, 6 months ago it was right, for instance, that we should expect the State governments, whose level of expenditure had not been affected, to do something about looking at their own economies. One matter about which I would like to tell this House very briefly, a matter which concerned me very much at the time, is the sort of matter that State governments must be aware of and must try to remedy. It concerns a small country school which had a water tank that was leaking. The Department of Works in its full glory, armed with many people, trucks and facilities, came to the school to patch up a tank. It took down a tank that perhaps was only 10 feet high and 3 feet in diameter and put up a tank which was 4 feet high and 8 feet in diameter, or whatever the measurements were. Of course, this took time. The men had to lift the old tank off and empty it and weeks went by during which time there was no water laid on at the school. I might mention that it was not the Commonwealth Department of Works which was involved.

After many weeks of trial and tribulation, what happened? The Department installed the new and squatter tank in place of the higher tank and when it hooked up the piping system it found that water would not run through it. They had carted water from many miles away to fill the tank in order to see whether water would run out of it. Finally the Department had to install a pressure system in order to pump water from the new tank into the system and out of the taps at the other end. As one would imagine, this took some weeks more. After having got the whole system working by virtue of having to replace the entire piping in the school to cope with the considerably lower tank, the Department decided 4 weeks later, the job having taken months of solid work, to do away with the country school. One hopes that in time to come, when grants are to be made *.o State or local authorities or any other body, someone will ensure that the system is efficient. I am not so sure myself, nor have I ever been, that retired or senior school masters are the right people to administer State departments of education. Unquestionably many of us can think of such people we regard as competent in this field but I would bet my last dollar that there are many who are not competent. There are probably good teachers, well respected, worthwhile people in the community, but they are not people who should involve themselves in the administration of what is becoming an enormous business.

One of the problems for us as a national government, having taken over quite quite recently some of the more important responsibilities for education throughout the nation, hinges around this same observation. I would do nothing but laud Sir Hugh Ennor and many of the people who work in the Department of Education and Science here. I think they are utterly magnificent. But what we must do more and more is to bring in people trained to administer big instrumentalities efficiently. I am not so sure at this point of time that we have got even close to the effective use of our resources. People such as the honourable member for Barton can say that we should be finding many millions more for education but they do not tell us where we should get this money. In my view the population of Australia is taxed fairly heavily today and, quite frankly, I think the answer to this problem lies very much in our capacity as a Government to take further advice from people of competence, people who are capable of giving governments, both State and Federal, a proper grounding. The equivalent of costbenefit analyses in terms of the new structure that I mentioned at the start of my speech tonight are of grave importance to teacher education in this nation.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The vexed question of State aid was raised and I would like to deal with it a little. The real question is not whether the Commonwealth should provide more funds for education; of course it should. This country spends 4.3 per cent of its gross national product on education while many western countries are spending 6 per cent to 8 per cent of their gross national product on education. But the real question of State aid concerns aid for private nongovernment schools. When the schools are rich, well endowed, with standards of buildings, equipment, facilities and staff superior to the State schools, surely there is no case for giving these schools aid. Yet the allocation of funds by the Commonwealth is very favourable to the rich private schools compared to the State schools. For instance, the allocation of funds for science facilities for the period 1968-71 was as follows: Government secondary schools with 75.2 per cent of total pupils received 57.8 per cent of the funds; Catholic schools with 16.8 per cent of the pupils received 28.4 per cent of the funds; non-Catholic private schools with less than 8 per cent of the pupils received 13.8 per cent of the funds Of the projected spending for 1971-75 60 per cent will go to government schools with 75 per cent or more of students, 27.2 per cent will go to the Catholic schools with less than 16.8 per cent of students and 12.8 per cent will go to the non-Catholic private schools with less than 8 per cent of the students.

The allocation of secondary school scholarships further highlights the grossly unfair distribution of assistance. In 1970 State schools, with 75.2 per cent of students, received only 57.8 per cent of the scholarships; Catholic schools with 16.8 per cent of pupils received 20.5 per cent of the scholarships; non-Catholic private schools with 8 per cent of the pupils received 22 per cent of the scholarships. Finally, the projected dollar aid per student for 1971-75 shows a marked discrepancy between the State schools receiving $36.83 for each pupil and the Catholic schools receiving $73.60 per pupil. Each non-Catholic private school pupil will be subsidised to the extent of $74.28. The fact that parents of children going to private schools pay fees is irrelevant to the argument. If non-Catholic private schools did not offer better facilities, quite apart from the other attractions such as class and status, then people would not be so foolish as to send their children to these private schools. Why pay private school fees to have one’s children in schools inferior to the State schools? In other words, non-Catholic private schools are already superior to State schools. So why is the Commonwealth Government giving them over twice as much money and equipment as it is giving to the State schools? This is simply aggravating the social inequalities in the community.

It is claimed by some that more taxation revenue goes to State schools than to private schools, but Professor Fensham of Monash University has analysed this claim and has proved that private schools take very little less of taxation funds than State schools. Even so, granting that the State schools may be getting more there is still no case for spending more taxation revenue on private schools which are already superior to State schools. However, this objection to the spending of Commonwealth funds on rich private schools fails to recognise that there is a significant group of private schools - the Catholic parish schools - which are poor, inadequate and over crowded and in which the children in the main come from poor families. This means that 18 per cent of Australian primary school pupils are receiving their education in conditions as bad as or even worse than those suffered by State primary school pupils. There is no question that this canont be allowed to continue.

The Labor Party proposes that an inquiry be held to determine the state of education at all levels. Let us assume that this inquiry establishes that the Catholic primary school is inferior in many respects to government schools. Then obviously something must be done about it since it is politically irresponsible to permit the children in those schools to suffer educational deprivation compared to their counterparts in government schools. If the decision is taken to give money to the Catholic Church for its schools, what controls, if any - what strings, if you like - should go with the grants? Firstly, one would expect conditions in terms of size of classes, standards of teachers, the curriculum and so on - which already are nominally observed - would presumably be rigidly enforced. This would mean almost certainly a dramatic increase in the number of lay teachers in the schools which would tend to diminish the church influence.

Since large sums of money are involved and since it is inefficient to have schools competing with one another for pupils it would be necessary to expect a Catholic school in an area to accept non-Catholic pupils, if needs be, with the only limitation being the number of pupils the school could take and if some must be eliminated then it should be by ballot and not based on religion. With the concept of freedom of religion accepted by all, it would be expected that religious instruction would be provided for non-Catholics by their coreligionists in the schools while the Catholic students are getting their religious instruction. In a sense, the private schools receiving large sums of money from the public purse become community schools. None of this discussion has dealt with the real problems of education in the country. The question is: How do we increase the involvement of parents, remove authority from centralised bureaucracy; and, what is the real nature of education in a modern society? An educationalist, John McLaren, has claimed that the prob lem of over centralised bureaucracy can be solved by changing the State education system: . so that it gives more authority to parents and teachers, more choice to students, and more variety generally, and so that it can be integrated with its immediate social environments without being limited by them. We certainly will not do it by enlarging the State juggernaut.

I quite agree. He claims that the answer is that the Commonwealth should decide how much money should go to education and then finance individual schools directly. He says:

The impossibly reactionary State departments would be eliminated.

He also says that in-service training of teachers could be provided by a subsidy to teachers’ professional organisations or incorporating teacher training into the tertiary system. The Commonwealth would pay the complete capital costs of raising any existing school building to an adequate standard and the complete running costs of any existing school which agreed to accept students regardless of academic, religious or social qualifications. In the case of applicants exceeding available places a ballot would be used. In essence, all schools would become part of the public system, but not run by State education departments. It would eliminate the narrowness based on social status or religious denomination of the present private schools, allow greater autonomy of the schools with their staff and the interested parents associated with those schools, and seems to me to offer the best way out of the present sterile impasse our education appears to have reached.

The faults of narrowness and lack of imagination are not confined to the government school sector for the private schools are just discovering that co-education may be a good thing. Whilst theoretically private schools are claimed to have given opportunity for new approaches this is not the case at all and often these new adventures have arisen in the lamentably backward State school system. McLaren continues:

New schools could be set up with Common? wealth finance by any group which could establish at a public hearing, with opportunity for objections, that it commanded enough support to make the school economically viable by current standards . . . and that its establishment would benefit the total educational community in its area.

I agree with these views which, to me, in essence remove the schools from the control of any form of central bureaucracy, whether it be State or church, and permit the teachers and the local parents to have much more say in the running of the school. With all the evidence I can find, both in my own reading and in my own personal experience with the problems of my own children at school, it seems to me that this is the only constructive future for education. It is time we stopped arguing the question of education around the political football of State aid. It is time we stopped using State aid as a means to buy votes. It is time we started to act as if we mean some of the things we have been saying in theoretical discussions for years; namely, that education is not just to teach techniques but to teach one to live and think, lt is time we acted as if we believed these things. It . is time we allowed education to produce free, honest thinking young minds instead of trained acceptors of authority.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– In the short time that I am permitted to speak on the estimates relating to the Department of Education and Science there are 2 matters I must mention which I consider of extreme importance, especially to the people of northern Queensland. The first matter I mention is one raised by the Chairman of the Hinchinbrook Shire Council at the recent meeting of the North Queensland Local Government Association and one which I support wholeheartedly. This is the establishment of a research centre to undertake a comprehensive programme of study into tropical agriculture by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In May of this year the Chairman of the Executive of the CSIRO stated:

Despite the current state of world markets I see merit, for example, if funds were available, In a proposal we have before us to expand our agronomic research in tropical Australia. The time will eventually come when the high rainfall areas of tropical Australia must be used more effectively for crops as well as pasture production, as are the higher rainfall areas of the temperate regions.

Just a few days ago the Secretary of the Agricultural and Biological Sciences Branch of the CSIRO was reported to have said in Canberra that the CSIRO executive held the view that tropical agronomy research was a matter of priority in Australia. He went on to say that any action on the establishment of this research programme must be deferred until financial resources were available.

I find this situation extremely difficult to understand because here are 2 capable, responsible and learned men in important executive positions advocating the establishment of such a research centre but we cannot proceed with such an important project because finance is not readily available to commence it. I find this decision completely unrealistic and, I might say, a little short sighted. I make this statement in view of the fact that it is widely accepted that urgent attention should be paid to the maintenance of our rural industries. Sensible exploitation of our agricultural resources should be permitted. I think this is fair enough. In this respect the research work that is performed by the Ingham Research and Promotion Bureau is to be commended and the Bureau congratulated for its efforts. But these people do not possess the requisite technical and scientific knowledge to probe deeply into this subject in order to achieve some definite solution. Neither have they the facilities to do so. But the personnel with the requisite knowledge are available in the Department of Education and Science and their knowledge should, in my opinion, be utilised without any further loss of time. I mention time specifically because given time there is no doubt that we as a people, with the resources available to us, could achieve anything that we desire.

But while we defer important projects which could place us in the lead on a highly competitive world market other tropical zone countries may not be so inactive and could steal this initiative away from us. The opportunity is there for us to grasp. Sensible productivity planning could lead to the development of a specific profitable rural industry, despite falling prices on competitive world markets. A strong market exists for some forms of primary production. I instance feed grains, oil seeds, pulp fibres, protein meals and meat. Our contribution to the improved quality of these products through intensive research in tropical agriculture would mean a lot to Australia’s economy. Already the research stations of the Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in northern Australia have made outstanding progress in improved tropical pastures. Fortunately I am in a position to see what is happening. Outstanding progress has been made and our economy has benefited greatly. The next step seems rather obvious - a research centre to undertake a comprehensive study of tropical agriculture. Such a centre could be established in the Ingham district. I have travelled throughout the north and the conditions in the Ingham area are ideal for such studies. The establishment of such a centre is essential to ensure the success of any future agricultural development in northern Australia. The suggestion that there is a lack of finance to enable the establishment of such an extremely important asset is weak. I wholeheartedly support the submission made to CSIRO by the North Queensland Local Government Association and hope that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will give this matter his immediate consideration. “ Another matters that bugs me quite a bit is the question of the pre-school education of Australian children. I am interested in pre-school education because I firmly believe that a sound education for our children and .young people is a necessary requirement for Australia’s future security. Some years ago, Mr Corbett, you will remember that the attainment of a junior standard of education was sufficient foundation for a career for a young person. However in recent years that situation has changed considerably. This has been brought about by the constant changing pattern of world events. The emphasis on education has placed a greater responsibility on the pupil or student. In the technical age in which we live far more has to be learned and absorbed in a shorter time, consequently in my view pre-school education does much to assist the child. Aspects of pre-school education which concern me greatly are that not every child has the opportunity of receiving such education, mainly because there are far too few preschool centres; there is great difficulty in obtaining the requisite staff to increase the number of centres; attendance frequently is on a roster basis and the cost of maintaining a child at a centre in some circumstances

20W)/1 - R. - 1793

stances precludes the parent from permitting a child to take advantage of such education.

During the 1969 Federal elections one of the platforms of the Government’s policy was to assist the States with their programmes of pre-school education. However, because of the cutback in Government expenditure on the initiation of new projects, this important matter has been deferred to a future date. I personally believe that this was a wrong decision. As I said earlier, the education of our young people is becoming increasingly important and every effort should be made to prevent any delay in implementing a scheme which would assist pre-school education. Some details have to be considered concerning the success of such a scheme. I have summarised those details and will be as brief as possible. Complete co-operation would have to be maintained between the education departments and the local parents associations. This must be the basis of any preschool system. The education departments, through their various governmental agencies, should provide and maintain the pre-school centre buildings and playgrounds and should staff the centres. The departments should meet running costs, such as the costs of electricity, telephones and water supplies, and should meet the requirements of some consumable material. The departments should provide equipment and furnishings. The organisation of the educational programme should be the responsibility of preschool teachers under the general supervision of regional directors. The parents associations should provide mother-help rosters to assist the teachers. Parents should be encouraged to become part of the life of the centre. For instance, when a child is enrolled his parents should automatically become members of the parents association. This may entail their attending monthly meetings and taking part in the planning of the work of the association, sharing in roster duty and helping in organised efforts arranged by the association to raise finance. My time has expired, but I will raise this matter later.

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

- Mr Corbett, 1 am sorry that me honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has left the chamber. The honourable member made a fairly rambling and incoherent speech full of his usual inanities. When he replied to an interjection I began to wonder whether he had not been present with some of his colleagues last Friday night supporting the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) at his pre-selection meeting. 1 want to speak primarily about education and the estimates we are now discussing. lt has been said that education is the key to an egalitarian society. We have lived for many years with the myth of equality of opportunity. Our community believes that by the provision of free primary and secondary education sufficient has been done and that those who fail to make it through the system fail through their own fault and their inability to cope adequately with the education system. 1 believe this is a myth - a myth perpetrated by the Liberal-Country Party Government. UNESCO research has shown clearly that any group of people, irrespective of its religion, race, nationality or economic grouping, has an equal proportion of people of low, medium and high intelligence quotient or capacity, yet in any society such as ours it is clear that the high economic groupings still provide the majority of the professional and commercial ruling classes. They continue to dominate as it can be seen that about IS times the number of graduates come from the north shore of Sydney as come from the working class suburbs.

If one believes the UNESCO studies and any accepted demographic studies, there must be some great deficiency in our education system if it continues to perpetuate privilege in this way. One must recognise that environment plays an important part in the development of society, and it is extremely difficult to change environment. It is also extremely difficult to give a child motivation, but it can be done through the education system. At the moment deprivation in the home - that is, in the homes of low income earners, in migrant homes, in Aboriginal homes, in the homes of unskilled workers and in broken homes - and the lack of a proper cultural environment retards children from this background and perpetuates inequality. The only way to break this cycle is through the immediate introduction of pre-school education which the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) mentioned. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said on this subject. Those who are now deprived of pre-school education are those who are most in need of it.

I want briefly to quote from the platform of the 1971 Launceston conference of the Australian Labor Party the objective in education. It reads:

Education should promote love of freedom and justice and should develop critical perception, ability to choose intelligently, capacity for selfgovernment and a sense of social responsibility, lt should instil belief in the equal rights of all people and respect for their essential humanity, irrespective of nationality, colour or creed. It should ensure free and harmonious development of intellect, physique, emotions and abilities. It is the obligation of the State to provide a universal, free, compulsory, secular system of education open to all citizens.

I wanted to make a brief reference to the fact that in this year, the year designated by the United Nations to combat racism and racial discrimination, the Government has done virtually nothing through our school system to try to eliminate one of the great blights upon our society- - racism. I mean prejudice of all kinds - religious, national and racial prejudice. That opportunity has been missed this year, and in this of all years that is a disgrace.

In the time left to me, however, I wish to refer to the education system as it is working in Robertson, the electorate that I represent. I have in recent weeks undertaken a private survey, and I am proposing to continue this over the next months. I intend to visit and I have visited a number of schools, but unfortunately, owing to a mixup with the local inspector of schools, I have been unable to visit many of the State schools. However, next Tuesday, I will be visiting with him Chertsey School, Gosford Primary School, Gosford High School, Henry Kendall School and the Point Clare Primary School. Some 12 months ago I did a similar tour throughout the Ettalong-Woy Woy area, but I have done quite an extensive one in the time available. I have visited all the Catholic schools in the area. My survey was prompted by a visit to my office by a number of concerned members of parents and friends associations, so I took it upon myself to visit each and every school and spend some hours at every one. I visited St Josephs Girls High School, St Edwards Boys High School, St Patricks Mixed Primary School, Our Lady of the Rosary School, St Cecilia’s School and St John the Baptist School.

Without being qualified to comment on the quality of education, I could readily ascertain some very serious physical deficiencies. 1 want to quote one small section from the nation-wide survey of educational needs. It states:

In most areas about 8 to 10 acres has been regarded as necessary for the larger State primaries, while for secondary schools IS to 20 acres has been accepted as a norm.

Let me compare the physical sizes of the Catholic schools in my electorate. Our Lady of the Rosary, St John the Baptist and St Patrick’s all are located, I would think, in an area well under one acre of land, and they have pupils ranging from 150 to nearly 500 in the case of St Patrick’s. St Joseph’s Girls High School is located on less than an acre yet the survey of education needs suggests 15 to 20 acres. 1 think that class sizes are terribly important, because it has been accepted that in primary schools there should be no more than 35 to a class, in junior high school about 27, and in the senior 2 years 20 to 25.

Let me quote the figures for St Patrick’s Primary School from kindergarten upwards. They are 33 and 34, 41 and 41, 45 and 45, 42 and 38, 39 and 45, and 42 in fifth class. It falls in fifth and sixth classes, but of course the boys go on to St Edward’s High School. At St Cecilia’s each teacher has 2 classes and the numbers are 40, 22, 41 and 36. At Our Lady of the Rosary School it is 35, 37, 42, 34, 32, 21 and 21. Listen to these class sizes at St John the Baptist School. What hope have these children of getting a proper start in school? The numbers are: Kindergarten 61, first class 52, second class 54 and third class 38. At the high schools, in respect of which it was said the norm should be 27, St Joseph’s has an average of 36 and St Edward’s 34.

There is a shortage of space for both future classrooms and recreational purposes. The development has proceeded in an ad hoc fashion, and future expansion will be extremely expensive owing to the high cost of land in the newly developing areas surrounding the schools. There are practically no assembly halls and there is no protection from wet weather. There are no specific art, crafts and music rooms, and in some cases there are no special library rooms although through the Commonwealth Government grant that is available a library will be going in at St Edward’s shortly, and St Joseph’s has quite a nice library.

There is a shortage of teachers, and I believe they are quite inadequately paid. The Catholic education on the central coast of New South Wales is approaching a crisis situation and will need very heavy support from both the State and Commonwealth Governments if it is to survive. I want finally to quote from the Australian Labor Party’s platform under the heading Australian Schools Commission’. It states:

The Commonwealth to establish an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students In government and nongovernment primary, secondary and technical schools and recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to assist them meeting the requirements of all school-age children on the basis of needs and priorities.

I would like to have more time to stress this question of needs and priorities, because as someone who has had experience in the private school and State school system I am one who wants to see support for the Catholic school system.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Before discussing the estimates for this Department I would like to thank the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) for his conducted tour around the schools of his electorate - mainly the Catholic ones, by the sound of it. I note that he was lauding education on the north shore of Sydney Harbour. But to discuss the estimates, I see that according to the Budget document entitled ‘Civil Works Programme 1971-72’, the Government will spend $6.22m this year in the Northern Territory on education and science projects. The work will be of some significance for quite a number of schools - 3 infant schools, 10 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, 2 high schools and 4 area schools. Also included in this total is a sum of $3.1m yet to be spent on the Casuarina High School in Darwin and $3.2m yet to be spent on the Alice Springs High School. Proposed works total $8.2m, which includes $4.2m for the Darwin Community College but which does not include expenditure on the Yirrara Aboriginal College which is to be built just south of Alice Springs. This programme includes work on 5 infant schools, 2 primary schools, 3 high schools and 2 area schools at Katherine and Tennant Creek.

Yet we hear continually the Government being attacked by Opposition members for not spending money on government schools. All the schools I have mentioned are government schools. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) when he spoke earlier in the debate mentioned that expenditure on independent schools in the Northern Territory had increased by 42.7 per cent while expenditure on government schools had increased by 8.5 per cent. In the face of the figures I have just quoted from the Budget documents that is completely and utterly wrong. The works programme on behalf of the Department of Education and Science is as follows: Works in progress, $8. 96m; proposed new works, $8.1m. As I said before, $6.2m will be spent on the works programme for the Department of Education and Science this year compared with last year, when $5.1m was appropriated but only about $4m was used.

So I put it to the Parliament that the Government is planning for the education of the young in the Northern Territory and is really looking ahead to the very fast growing population and the quick growing numbers of children in the Northern Territory. In Division 232, item 01 under subdivision 2 relates to scholarships, boarding and travelling allowances. I see that this year the amount appropriated is $254,600, whereas last year there was an appropriation of $217,000, of which $203,000 was spent. However, under this item I urge the Government to consider revising the boarding allowances of $250 per annum for Northern Territory children living away from home to attend school. The allowance has been at this level for some time and, along with $100 bursaries, it has been free of a means test. This has also been the case with the $100 subsidy for children under 12 years of age who live in the Northern Territory. For children who receive supervision from governesses a subsidy of $100 has been payable for some years. In view of rising costs these amounts need review. When they were introduced they were small enough but now, with rising costs, they are practically negligible.

I also urge the Government to look at the grants it is making to non-government schools. At present the Government grants $55 a head for primary students, $80 for each child in forms 1 and 2, $90 for each child in forms 3 and 4 and $95 for each child in forms 5 and 6. I heard one honourable member say this afternoon that government schools receive $200 to $300 per head. I do not know whether or not that is so because it is very difficult to extract figures for that side of the grants. I urge the Government to look at the level of per capita grants because costs are escalating very considerably. The independent schools in the Northern Territory previously had teachers who belonged to various teaching orders and who were not really paid the full amount that was received by government teachers. These schools are finding that, with the number of students increasing, they now have to employ lay teachers and pay for their accommodation. As a result, costs are rising rapidly. Therefore I urge the Government to keep in mind rising costs when it assesses the assistance it will give to these schools.

Under Division 232, subdivision 2, item 07 I notice the provision of an amount of $3.1m on payments to South Australian Education Department and teacher movement expenses. This amount has been reduced from an expenditure of $3,462,118 last year because of the phasing out of South Australian teachers from the Northern Territory over a period of 5 years. However, I notice also that there is also listed an item: ‘Equipment and materials’. Last year the expenditure for this item was estimated at $68,000 and this year the estimate is $80,000. I wonder whether this estimate includes provision for such equipment as projectors and epidiascopes and the like which I find are non-existent in some outback schools. I urge the Government to check on these items and to assist these schools to obtain them because such equipment is in everyday use in schools down south.

Briefly I would like to mention the introduction of the Commonwealth Teaching Service which will be recruiting teachers to take the place of teachers who are employed by the South Australian Teaching Service and who will be phased out by the end of 1976. I am concerned about whether enough teachers will be coming in under the Commonwealth Teaching Service. I believe that 70 teachers were recruited this year and 130 will be required next year. Eventually over 500 teachers will be required. I see that the Government is instituting a scholarship scheme and I hope that this will be able to produce the number of teachers we require. It is absolutely vital that we have a sufficient number of teachers to staff the very fine schools that are being built in the Northern Territory. I believe that the Government proposes to institute 200 scholarships in 1972. The Government is planning ahead and I hope that graduates take advantage of these scholarships.

I notice that in this year’s programme the Government is continuing to pay Aboriginal students a living allowance of $1,100 under the Aboriginal study grants scheme, and $300 to those who are living at home. On top of this the Government is paying a textbook allowance. Compulsory fees arc paid together with other allowances for dependants. Some 3,500 students are being trained under the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme. This figure applies all over Australia; it is not restricted to the Northern Territory. Also, 377 students are being trained under the Aboriginal study grants. Finally, I would like to mention the Darwin Community College which is in the estimates for this year.

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

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Deputy Chairman, this Government has a policy of utter discrimination so far as education is concerned. During the course of the debate this evening, one has sat here and listened somewhat patiently to members on the other side frequently say that because expenditure has increased one year in comparison with that in the previous year, they - with their thumbs in the lapel attitude - have done all they could possibly do for education. Mr Deputy Chairman, I want first of all to complain very bitterly about the fact that we get only 10 lousy minutes in this debate in which to discuss the Department of Education and Science and the explanations of the estimates for 1970-71 which number 130-odd pages. Coupled with that is the ministerial statement which takes in a study and survey of education in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory generally. It is just not possible for us to cover all those matters in the time allocated. I believe that the number of minutes that are provided for us by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) for this debate is totally inadequate and matches, admirably or otherwise, the Government’s effort towards meeting the educational requirements of the young people of this nation.

During the course of last 12 months I have visited many, many schools in my electorate. I went to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who is at the table tonight, and endeavoured to get his consent to the incorporation of some of the submissions of those schools in Hansard. But the Minister wiped me off as he has been wiping off the problems of education for some time. I would extend to the present Minister, who at one time-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr Deputy Chairman

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr Deputy Chairman, the honourable gentleman apparently wanted some letters from some school children included in Hansard. If the honourablehonourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has no objection then I have no objection if the honourable member so requests it.

Mr FOSTER:

– Why did he not say so before instead of taking up my time? It was not only that. I have submissions from Campbelltown High School, Stradbroke Primary School and Highbury Primary School which are in my electorate. In fact, I have submissions from almost every primary and high school throughout mv electorate. The preparation of these submissions was brought about by a meeting that was called during the winter recess by the parents and friends organisation and the Institute of Teachers in South Australia. The then Minister, who is now the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), finally, with some reluctance attended that meeting and no doubt he got the story, if he read the signs correctly, as to what the meeting of almost 2,000 people thought of the manner in which he addressed them on that occasion. What was said by the Minister was indicative of what has been said here today - the Government does not want to pursue the question of education. So I ask the Minister for Education and Science now whether he is prepared to visit South Australia as his predecessor was not.

Mr Giles:

– What nonsense.

Mr FOSTER:

– He was not game enough, and this is recorded in the minutes of the meeting that the honourable member attended. Surely the honourable member’s memory is a little better than that? The honourable member for Angas who is interjecting knows that perfectly well. Anyway, he is out of seat. Put him out, Mr Deputy Chairman. The fact is this: The former Minister for Education and Science went to South Australia, but he dodged the issue by not inspecting actual school conditions. He was challenged in that regard -

Mr Calder:

– He did not dodge the issue.

Mr FOSTER:

– He went there and he only attended a meeting. Just listen to me. He attended a meeting, somewhat reluctantly, but he backed off completely from a request by the State Minister for Education, Hugh Hudson, to familiarise himself with the schools and the conditions of schools in South Australia, conditions which have been brought about by the attitude of this Federal Government down through a great number of years.

What then does the Government propose to do about the gap of $l,443m? This money is considered necessary for education over the next 5 years? The Minister was given a pamphlet on this matter but he probably stuffed it into his brief case and did no more than that about it. What does the Government propose to do? Certainly, whilst the Government has increased expenditure in some fields of education it still is not making any real provision for many of the schools in most of the States of the Commonwealth. It is merely paying lip service to the idea. The line of last year’s figures is being held. The Government is doing no more than that. Where is the massive grant that ought to be given to the whole range of education in Australia, about which we have heard talk? No provision is made for this in the estimates for forthcoming years. These massive grants are not (here.

It is all right for Government members to rise and to say that this is a problem for the States and that the Commonwealth has given the money to the States. Who the hell collects the most money in the country? The Commonwealth Government does. What does the Commonwealth want to do? Does it want to sit on a great pile of gold? The honourable member for Angas asked: ‘Where are you going to get the money from?’ ‘Where has the money gone?’, is a better question.

Mr Giles:

– I told you.

Mr FOSTER:

– The money has gone on Vietnam. Amounts of money totalling millions of dollars appear in the estimates under consideration. People probably think that these estimates set out expenditure on education for students and children and the provision of facilities. But bound up in these estimates is a domestic conversion worth half a million dollars. An appropriation of $45,000 with respect to the crown.crownofthorns starfish appears in these estimates. So it goes on and on. The estimated expenditure for the Anglo-Australian telescope that is being built is included also.

The Estimates that are under discussion at the moment should spell out correctly and properly in the figures presented where we are heading so far as the betterment of education for the student children of this country is concerned. More than Si 30m would be needed to eliminate all the temporary classrooms in South Australia alone and to provide some form of decent accommodation. What attention is being paid to this pile of submissions that I hold aloft now from primary and secondary schools in my electorate? I say to the Minister at the table: What do you propose to do about the actual size of classes in

South Australia? Do you propose to do anything about this matter? If this matter is not included in this Budget - and the Minister has not done this so far - he is unlikely to do it.

Some members on the Government side have spoken of the additional increase to non-government schools. If time would permit, I could go to my office in this parliamentary building and fetch down to the Committee letters from the heads of nongovernment schools in South Australia. They express opinions of utter disgust because of the action of this Government. The false promises of this Government have been confirmed by its action in this field. The Government has used this section of the community completely to achieve office. It is using the minds of children to achieve office. That is all that its action amounts to.

The Government has done nothing real and tangible in this field with respect to lower private schools - the St Joseph Orders and so forth - which are in the electorates of many honourable members. Can any say those schools have received sufficient assistance from the Commonwealth Government? Of course they cannot. Can anyone say that the Federal Government has paid proper regard to what it ought to have done as far as the States are concerned? Can any sane person or any reasonable thinking person accept the attitude of Government members who have risen one after the other and said that, because Commonwealth expenditure on education has been greater in a certain year, the Commonwealth must be doing something for education?

What is the good of Government members continually rising and saying that as far as education and a whole host of other matters, including hospitalisation, health and what-have-you - if I may transgress for a short moment, Mr Deputy Chairman - are concerned, the problem is one for the States? The Commonwealth is the main taxing authority. Most of taxation money collected comes into the Commonwealth which should accept its proper responsibility over a whole range of fields none of which is more important than education. Nothing is more important than education.

Nothing is more depressing than to go into primary schools particularly and see evidence of the concept that we still retain that with good parents and teachers organisations and good welfare committees certain equipment can be obtained but that if these bodies do not exist a school can go begging for this equipment. In the last 12 months in South Australia, the State Government has altered this concept to some extent by making grants available to schools. I cannot recall the figure at the moment. This means that each and every type of school receives something for this type of activity whether or not an active school committee is at work. It ought to be and it should be the responsibility of this Government to do these things.

Honourable members opposite have hung on to office for 21 years by subterfuge and dishonesty. It is time that the Government realised the need for Commonwealth action. The Minister has been given back the crumb of this portfolio. The portfolio is a crumb from a little fellow who is now Prime Minister and who made the promise to give the portfolio to the Minister provided he drove a knife into John Gorton’s back. That is how the Minister comes to be Minister - with a big dagger. Now he has used the dagger and brought forth blood, let him get down to the real job for which this country pays him damn near $30,000 a year and let him-

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

Mr FOSTER:

– 1 am informed that he gets $45,000 a year. It is time that he got down to using that money for the benefit of the people-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, I will resume my seat, Mr Deputy Chairman. I had not noticed that my time was gone.

Mr BROWN:
Valley · Diamond

– Yes, Sir, I may say to the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) that fortunately his time has expired, but in his enthusiasm, and despite having wasted his own time and having obtained an undertaking from the Minister that he was quite agreeable to have representations from various schools incorporated in Hansard, apparently the honourable member for Sturt did not think them of sufficient value to be incorporated in Hansard. The honourable member for Sturt is a continuing entertainment. I say that in good spirits. I suppose he is a continuing example of the need for the Commonwealth Government, State governments, local governments or someone or other to spend more money on adult education. The honourable member for Sturt has trotted out the 2 basic arguments that have been put forward time and time again by members of the Opposition. The 2 basic arguments or contentions are these: First, that it is a matter for the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth should be setting out to provide millions of dollars immediately for education; and secondly, that the Government is lining the pockets of the rich who send their children to Geelong Grammar, to St Peters School and to all the other leading independent schools in Australia. But what the honourable member for Sturt does not seem to realise is that those 2 points gain nothing in the retelling. They are both basically false and can be easily demonstrated to be false.

It is said that this is a matter for the Commonwealth. What the honourable member for Sturt simply does not understand and what many of his colleagues do not understand is that at the moment education constitutionally is the province of the State governments. Arguments can be advanced - I have done so myself on occasions^ - that a case exists for saying that the Commonwealth should increase its activity and its involvement in education. That is what this Government has done. Bearing in mind that it is the basic responsibility of the States to provide the basic education structure throughout the Commonwealth, this Government has endeavoured to locate specific areas of need where intervention of the national Parliament and the national Government on a national scale can be advantageous to the education system of the country. That is what has been done, bearing in mind all the time that education is basically the province of State governments. Now, until that situation is changed, that is the constitutional structure within which any responsible government of this country must administer the education system and must plan its educational appropriations.

The second point which again, as I say, gains no strength in the retelling, is that the Government has been over-concerned with the expensive private schools to the sacrifice of the poorer and in particular parish schools. This is utterly false. It is true that, if we take a needs test we can see that some of the smaller parish schools need, in the strict sense of the word, more money than they are receiving at the moment from the Commonwealth and more money than they are receiving from the State governments under their particular schemes. I have put forward in this House on occasions that I would like to see some attempt made to distribute state aid to independent schools on what I have referred to as perhaps a more equitable basis. But what I ask myself and honourable members opposite to do is to try to devise a scheme under which that could fairly and equitably be done to all children in all schools throughout Australia without the Government being laid open to any charge that it is motivated by a sectarian influence or, if any untoward event happened and the Opposition formed the Government one day, the Opposition being laid open to that accusation. No government could, or should, be put in that position. In the absence of a water tight scheme which will enable Government funds to be distributed on such an equitable basis, then there is no alternative to the scheme which is presently being adopted by this Government.

I suggest that there is a need for additional aid to be given to the independent school system. Sometimes it is said that the Government is pouring out far too much money for the independent school system. When one looks at the very basic facts - and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) referred to some of them in his statement - it can be seen quite clearly that this is not so. For instance, throughout Australia, as the Minister said in his statement, 78 per cent of school enrolments were in State schools, and those schools received some 25 per cent of State revenue funds. In the independent school sector there were 22 per cent of school enrolments and those schools received one per cent of State revenue funds. This is a basic and obvious statistic, and in the face of that it just cannot be alleged that too much money is being spent by the Government on independent schools.

Other honourable members have referred to schools in their electorates. I do not want to take honourable members on a conducted tour of my electorate, but I want to say that if one looks at the accounts, the balance sheets and the detailed financial situation of independent schools, especially the small parish schools, one finds that many of them are in very dire circumstances and have a clearly demonstrable need for additional support from this Government. For instance, I am thinking of one school in my electorate which has some 642 pupils. In 1970 it had a current loss of about $10,000, after including per capita grants from both the Commonwealth and State governments. At the end of June this year the debt owing on school buildings was about $120,000. That school is not a luxurious school; it is not a school where there is a guarantee that students will receive education in the type of circumstances which any educational authority would think was desirable. For instance, there are 4 classes of more than 49 pupils in the school. The average class size is 38 pupils. A neighbouring parish school will have a debt of $140,000 on its buildings by the end of this year. Another neighbouring local parish school has about $178,000 owing on its buildings. One could go on and give more examples, but it is not necessary to do so. It is sufficient merely to say that there is a clearly demonstrable case for additional support perhaps along the lines which the Commonwealth adopts in the Australian Capital Territory.

As with many services, strains appear in the outer suburban areas where the schools are situated. These areas have increasing populations, more school buildings will have to be erected and more teachers will have to be provided. The financial strain on parents grows even greater. The increased per capita grants announced in the Victorian State Budget are a substantial help. But despite those grants the financial burden is still considerable. There are at least three ways in which the Com monwealth can give additional assistance to the independent schools sector where it would be most valuable and most needed. The first of these, I suggest, is that the per capita grants could well be increased. As has been stated repeatedly in this debate, since the scheme was introduced costs have increased and grants are of substantially less value than they were when they were made originally.

The second method that could be adopted is, as I have said, to implement some of the methods of assistance that are given to the independent school sector by the Commonwealth itself in the Australian Capital Territory and in the other Australian Territories, that is, to extend to independent schools some of the capital aid that is determined by the Minister for the provision of school buildings and ancillary facilities in the Federal Territories. The Commonwealth makes an annual interest payment up to the long term bond rate in the Territories. It also assists the independent school authorities to borrow funds for their building programmes by the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act of 1969, under which the Commonwealth guarantees the loan. I suggest that the Commonwealth should at least consider extending some of these programmes to independent schools in the States.

Thirdly, as regards teacher training, the independent school system is experiencing great difficult in meeting its immediate needs. Of course, the Commonwealth has given some assistance in this field under its teacher training programme whereby 10 per cent of the places at the colleges are reserved for students not bonded to State education departments. The Commonwealth has paid out and committed $54m under this scheme. This is a very generous provision and benefits teachers destined for the independent schools, but I believe that there is a case for providing further assistance to such teachers and for giving direct support for trainee teachers for independent schools.

These are some of the reforms that I believe the Commonwealth should consider in order further to assist the independent school system. Reforms of this nature are essential if the independent school system is to survive, if State schools are not to be flooded with pupils who would otherwise be educated in the independent school sector, and if the principle of support for the independent school system is to be given the full meaning we originally intended it to have. If we subscribe to this principle we must ensure that it is properly implemented, and I suggest that some of the proposals I have made would give more weight and more strength to the implementation of this very important principle.

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I wish to speak briefly on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and then to touch very briefly on an education question. In the early part of this debate officers from the CSIRO were in the gallery. I do not know whether they have given up in despair that nothing will be said about the CSIRO, but 1 want to say one thing; I want to comment on the set-up of the Ministry. The CSIRO is conducting research into a very large number of industrial questions, but they relate mainly to the agricultural and primary section of industry. The CSIRO derives its funds from the Commonwealth Government and from private industry, but private industry which contributes funds to the CSIRO is overwhelmingly agricultural. The agricultural and pastoral sectors of industry have put most into the CSIRO, and the amount received from secondary industry has been disappointing.

The CSIRO has carried out research into a great diversity of subjects, such as weather, wildlife, soil science, agronomy, rain studies, air pollution - you name it. There has been a tremendous range of scientific studies. Perhaps at one stage some of these matters were not thought to have as direct a bearing on our national life as they are beginning to have. For instance, studies of wildlife are beginning to be more revealing at this stage of history than perhaps they were earlier. But I do not believe that the CSIRO and government activity in science should any longer be attached to the portfolio of Education and Science. I do not believe that we should have a portfolio of Education and Science. 1 believe that we ought to have separate portfolios for education on the one hand and science and technology on the other. I believe that we will increase the scientific activities of the Commonwealth Government or of the CSIRO in the fields of secondary industry if we use the expression ‘science and technology’ as is done in the United Kingdom.

It is very clear that the education portfolio is becoming increasingly onerous as Commonwealth activities in education increase. It would be valid to have a Minister for Education to handle the university activities of the Commonwealth Government alone. This is apart from the increasing Commonwealth intervention into the field of secondary education, both public and church. I think that the time is overdue when, if science is to get the attention it deserves, it should come under a separate portfolio and should be allied with technology. I believe that this is a must. This development will take place in the future. I think it would be good to make the decision very soon. Having a separate portfolio for science and technology would show that the Commonwealth does not regard the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as an adjunct to something else, as it has been for so long. It was attached to the Prime Minister’s Department and is now attached to the portfolio of education.

The honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid) in the course of his address referred to religious instruction in State schools as it existed in Victoria, paradoxically as a result of the intervention of Archbishop Mannix who at one stage said that Catholics should not be called on to pay taxes for Protestant education and got scriptural education knocked out of Victorian State schools and then, rather illogically, turned round and asked for assistance for Catholic schools. He provoked the logical retort that if Catholics should not pay taxes for Protestant education Protestants should not pay taxes for Catholic education. He had asked for it more or less, and he got it. He bedevilled the whole question of state aid for another 30 or 40 years as a result of that intervention. But the banning of scriptural education in Victorian schools does not have a parallel in every State. In my teaching days I used to have to teach a course that was called scripture, with frightful warnings that I must not enter the field of dogmatic and polemical theology, according to the Education Act of Western Australia. I had no desire nor any qualifications to enter the field of dogmatic or polemical theology, but we used to teach a set course of scripture lessons.

What took place in Victoria as a result of certain accidents back in 1913 does not have a parallel in every State of the Commonwealth. The church schools are indeed church schools. We hear this euphemism of independent schools’ all the time. It is a misnomer. Huntingtower is a Christian Science school. The Friends School is a Quaker school. Carey in Melbourne is a Baptist school. Any ‘independent’ school one can name is attached to some church. As far as Catholic schools are concerned their undoubted intention is the promulgation of the Catholic faith. It seems to me that realistically, if the increasing burden of education is to be carried by such private bodies they will have to come to accept what was once offered, I understand, by a former director of education in Western Australia. He said: ‘If you cannot carry the burden of teaching because you no longer have enough people in the orders to staff the schools, why not assume control of certain State schools, which we will allow you to do? We will appoint only Catholic teachers from the State schools service to those staffs additional to whatever from your orders you are prepared to put there.’ I understand that this was rejected by the Church in that State but that the German Pallottine order accepted it because it had parallels with their experience in Germany.

A Catholic priest in my own electorate who is a Yugoslav and who has recently been back to Communist Yugoslavia says that Tito, to unify his country against Russia in case of a Russian attack, has arrived at much the same solution. He said to the Jesuits, to the De la Salle order or to the Marist Brothers, whichever order it was: ‘Here is a state school. You staff it. You will be paid by the state. Those people who want their children to have a religious education may send their children to this school.’ This seems to me to meet every requirement of those who are primarily concerned about the Church teaching a faith but not primarily concerned perhaps about its independently owning property.

It seems to me that if the church has difficulty - and I am quite concerned that people should have freedom to give their children the education which they want to give them - one of the solutions may well be that those Catholics who are part of the State school teaching staff should be free to teach in church schools. The Commonwealth cannot arrange that in the States but it could make that arrangement in the Northern Territory. If it set up as it should in the Australian Capital Territory an independent education authority, it could make such an arrangement in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not know whether such a process would be objected to today as it was some years ago. I doubt whether it would be in view of the difficulties that there are in finding staff in the non-government sector and in the church school sector. Other schools - I do not say this as a criticism but as a statement of fact - from other churches in the main have not attempted to reach every child with their form of religious education. They are in fact elite schools, and I do not believe that they are in the same financial straits as are the Catholic parish schools. I believe that from the point of view of meeting the needs of children we should look at the needs of the children and the needs of the schools and give priority to those who are in greatest need and not to those who are in schools which, because they can charge high fees, can provide adequate facilities.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– Might I have a small second bite at this cherry? Unfortunately most honourable members opposite have not brought the same constructive approach to this problem as did the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in the last few minutes of his speech. This matter of education provides well-nigh intractable problems. It encompasses an area which is probably vaster than that of almost any other portfolio, certainly in terms of the expectations of the recipients of any money which may be given under the system. I think we should set to rights so far as honourable members opposite and the public at large are concerned just what it is that we are attempting to do in this field. In saying this I do not make apologies for any inadequacies or any lack of invention on the part of the Government now or in the past. But let us get the matter on a reasonably balanced keel.

The plain fact of the matter is !hat the Commonwealth has gone into the broader field of education in very recent times, la doing so it has brought considerable assistance to particular areas and in some general areas of education down to the school level. But largely this assistance lias been in the area of tertiary education. This is a fact which is often gainsaid by honourable members opposite and by many of our critics in the electorate at large. However, it should be restated that the Commonwealth is taking a major and significant share in the total burden of education at the moment. As the Commonwealth collects the taxes, why should it not do so?

But we cannot go on wilfully pretending that the States do not have obligations in this regard. In saying that I mean that practically the whole of tertiary education is now paid for by the Commonwealth in fairly direct measure. In the primary and secondary areas of education, Commonwealth assistance, so far as it can be enumerated, comes largely in the area of specific grants involving this $345m about which the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has spoken. If we look at particular areas of education we cannot talk about a diminishing involvement when we say that colleges of advanced education on which less than $12m was spent 4 years ago will have $37m-odd provided for them in the Estimates for this year. We are telling the same sort of -story in relation to teachers colleges. They had $4.Sm spent on them 4 years ago and it is expected that $13m will be spent on them in this financial year. So the story goes on. Scholarships generally have moved from $24. 5m to more than $43m in the same 4 years. It is not enough to say: ‘Here is more money. I am aware of the position.’ The plain fact of the matter is that on every hand, in every field of education that we turn to, significant - not paltry - increases are being made by the Commonwealth in its specific grants. That leaves us with the States.

The Minister for Education and Science pointed out in his statement on education a week or so ago, as did his predecessor, that when the States were given the increase of 15 per cent or so in grants, which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) referred to as ‘in globo grants’, against an expected 10 per cent increase some 2 years ago, of course this had implications for the $ 1443m worth of educational need, assessed in that survey. It is really pathetic to find no less than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) again tonight reiterating, as all teachers’ federations in this country have and still are in editorials, on front pages, and elsewhere in their journals, that this figure stands fast - that any increased grants to the States have no bearing whatsoever on this.

This is not a question of lack of intent. The Commonwealth is doing things on all hands that it has so far taken on. It may not be enough but it cannot do both of these things increasingly all the time. Sooner or later members of the Opposition will have to recognise that the States must rearrange or give greater emphasis to their priorities in respect of education if that position is to be improved. It is not basically a matter for the Commonwealth to come to that very considerable need of, for example, the inner city schools and perhaps some country ones. The inner city schools, almost by definition, by lack of education basically in that particular community, by lack of income, and as a result of that by the environmental deficiencies that have accrued, have provided less for themselves than some other schools but to me it is negative thinking to say that those people who will or can help themselves should not be helped any further because there are others who are less capable of helping themselves. It is in fact an intractable problem. You cannot win both ways without an infinite amount of money. But the plain fact is that if you means test everything you will test for mediocrity in the long run. You will not have any emphasis on self help. You will destroy incentive and if the parties on this side have ever stood for anything, they have stood for initiative, self help, incentive and matters of that kind.

That still leaves us with some intractable problems. I know and I accept this but we have to find a way in which, by per capita grants of some sort, somehow we catch up with those deficiencies in certain areas. I believe we will be very lucky ever to catch up with them unless we take a view that I could not accede to and that is that we allot money in inverse proportion to the capacity of people to make use of it in a productive fashion and to end up with a world in which apparently it is intended that everybody is absolutely equal because we have applied money in sufficient quantities and sufficiently differential fashion to make them absolutely equal. If they ever tend in those circumstances to be more than totally mediocre I will be extremely surprised. That may be a great world to live in but I tend to think that we will have lost our total zest for living.

In saying all this I am not advocating that we should keep the depressed schools depressed and depressed people depressed and keep allocating money to people who do not need it. Of course, the system as it operates can be better operated but I do not believe it is a change in total kind that is required; what is required is a change in emphasis. I believe that change ki emphasis is already in train. I hope I have made my point clear and that 1 have not made it too convoluted. In saying what I have said I believe I understand the problems of teachers federations here, there and everywhere whose members in fact see inadequate buildings, aging premises and a lack of equipment in certain quarters. Those problems are real; they can be seen and they can be understood. But the plain fact is that it will not be sufficient now or, I believe, at any other time for this or any other government to say that it is entirely your fault, the States are playing a great game, your Hugh Hudsons and others are doing their jobs and we exonerate them from all responsibility in making good the State deficiencies in education.

The basic things at primary and secondary level will have to be fixed by the States by their ordering of priorities. The Commonwealth cannot take over the whole field and 1 do not think it should. Whatever the government, I think it is most unlikely that it will take over the whole field. As my colleague the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) said, the portfolio of Education and Science is certainly becoming increasingly complex and vast and he may well have a good point in suggesting a division of responsibilities. However, I will not take up that point now. Perhaps those sorts of things will help, but they will not help the basic problems that have been enumerated here tonight. I ask for a display of a sense of responsibility in making an assessment and in trying constructively to solve the problems, lt is of no use, for political or other purposes, beating a can which has long since sounded very hollow indeed. We must find a better means of spending the money that any government will make available.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– 1 agree with some of the sentiments that my friend the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has just uttered. However, I do not think that we on this side of the House, who may well claim to have initiated or at least captured at the parliamentary level the idea that the Commonwealth ought to participate more fully in education, meant that the Commonwealth would take over anything in the sense of taking over the total operation. I am not saying that I do not believe a Commonwealth department could run a school, no matter how far it is from Canberra, as well as some of the people who run that type of school now; but there has to be acceptance of a national attitude if we are to iron out problems in areas of deficiency for some Australians.

We have discussed here and in the public forum at great length the inequalities of education. The facts are that there are great areas of inequality, some of which could be ironed out by this Government by direction from Canberra. I think it is essential that a Commonwealth government, acting for Australians as a whole, set out to achieve that purpose. In other words, in the remotest area of Queensland a person should receive what might be called equal effort in his education. We are not trying to turn out equal people. Whoever has thought that we could all be equal? I suppose that we are all equal in humanity and have a right to equal access to the good things of life in the community, but the objective ought to be an equality of effort for people in the most remote parts or in the most congested industrial areas, as we do in Canberra.

Many things are wrong with Australian education. I suppose it is heartening that there is increasing research in the field of education. The honourable member for Denison referred to equality but we do not know what equality is. We are not claiming that everybody has to be turned out equal. We want equal effort put into everybody’s education. As to the question of priorities in the field of education, it is true that many State governments have odd priorities for assistance. For instance, in Victoria Sir Henry Bolte and his team have the most quaint priorities. They spent $35m on building a freeway from the city of Melbourne to the Tullamarine airport. My heart bleeds for people who have to catch aeroplanes at Tullamarine. I suppose it is essential that they be able to drive to the airport at 60 miles an hour instead of 35 miles an hour. At the time the freeway was opened I pointed out that the sum of $35m spent on its construction would have rebuilt every State school in my electorate to the standard of the Canberra schools and left a balance of $13m or $14m. I believe that that is a haywire system of priorities. There is a possibility of readjustment inside the State system but finally the emphasis and initiative for any sort of equalisation, better classrooms, improved teachers and so on will come from Canberra because there is a lack of initiative at the State level, and the resources of the States have been absorbed somewhere else. 1 really rose tonight to challenge what might be called the Fraser thesis on the teacher-pupil ratio. I do not agree with what the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to say the other night. It is true that he cited several instances of research that have been carried out, and which reported that one could not show that because a teacher-pupil ratio is smaller there is a higher level of attainment. I would like to get hold of the evidence, see its basis and study it very closely. A good start might be made at the bottom by defining attainment. What do we mean by attainment? I am prepared to admit that in teaching arithmetic - that 7 multiplied by 8 equals 56 - in some classrooms 100 pupils may be taught as effectively as 50, or 50 pupils as effectively as 25. Of course, that is not what is happening in the classroom anymore. The Minister has overlooked or is unaware of what goes on in the classroom these days. By some miracle there is a change in some parts of the Australian education system. By some miracle it is happening principally in Victoria as far as I can tell. There is a new relationship developing in the classroom. The classroom now is not where one would see the old method of teaching by rote which occurred through most of the education system, particularly in primary schools.

What occurs in the classroom today? First of all, there is an interaction between the teacher and the pupil. This cannot be measured by any system of attainment of which I am aware. There is also an increasing interaction between pupil and pupil. The classroom situation is now one of interaction, not one of straight teaching. Therefore, research projects should not ignore the classroom as a social unit and regard it just as a teaching institution or a means of getting information from out of the air or out of someone’s mind and planting it in someone else’s mind so that it can be reproduced in an examination paper. Anybody who thinks of the classroom in that form is living in the past. I have no doubt that the Minister is a product of a system which was pretty well endowed in terms of the teacher-pupil ratio and all the other benefits that accompany it. I do not begrudge him that. I would like to see the same thing apply in the rest of Australia. If we look at his politics he is one of the system’s most disastrous failures. There is no doubt that his parents sent him to such a school because of the advantages that it conferred upon him.

I hope that honourable members who are concerned with education will take a closer look at what is going on inside the classroom and what it is all about. Listening to this debate and debates of this kind in recent times one would have thought that all that education in Australia was about was state aid. We seem to overlook the demands and needs of the great proportion of children who go to the state schools in Australia. But the issue as far as education is concerned is what will happen in the classroom, what kind of teacher will the pupils have, and what kind of relationship will the teacher and pupils have? I have jotted down 4 headings to cover the differences between the activities of the classroom 30 or 40 years ago and what is developing now, at least in some classrooms in Australia. First of all, the schools which I attended were run in an atmosphere of authority. We moved into the classroom, sat down in a row and did as we were told. At least that is what people such as I did. What is the difference now? A co-operative spirit has developed in the classroom. We have change from authority to co-operation But it has not happened everywhere. I can take honourable members to schools in my electorate where it has happened and to schools where it has not happened. This is where the new society will develop, inside the classroom.

There has been a change from verbal teaching, such as I am trying to practice with honourable members opposite at the moment, to research and discussion, and this will happen even more when libraries are developed to meet the needs of the schools and the pupils indluge more in this activity. This means there is a different relationship inside the classroom and a different ratio between pupil and teacher. In the old school there was silence. One could tell the busy schools because when one walked around the corridors they were as silent as the grave. Everybody had his head down and was working hard. What is happening now? We have a classroom in which there is movement and interaction between the pupils. It has become a social unit. Instead of just teaching, we are searching for something which we might call education. So I challenge the Minister’s thesis, with the humility of a backbench member of the Opposition in the face of the great phalanx of research officers and others who helped him to produce his speech. I will take a lot of convincing, as will most people associated with education, that the teacher-pupil ratio is not an important factor in the education system.

I represent an industrial area of Melbourne. I have said before, and I will put on record again, that back in 1938 I was at the Melbourne Teachers College and visited some of the schools in Brunswick where trainees did their teaching rounds, as it was known. 1 would say that almost all children in Brunswick is now less well served in education than they were in 1938. In 1938 every building was 30 years newer, every teacher taking the classes was trained and most of the classes were smaller. Probably the only enterprise in this country which has large areas that are in fact worse off than they were 30 or 40 years ago is education. Transport is better than it used to be. Health services are better than they used to be. Public communications are better than they used to be. But in large areas of education in Australia children are now less well served than they were 30 or 40 years ago. That is a real challenge to this Parliament and to the Australian community.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Education and Science · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I would like to thank honourable members for what they have said during the debate this afternoon and this evening. I think it has been quite an interesting debate. I would like to comment on one or two points that were made by honourable members. I shall start with the remarks of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), which will be fresh in the minds of honourable members. I should point out that what I said on pupil-teacher ratios in a ministerial statement on education was not a view which was born or dreamed of by myself but one which was given credence, support and weight by the report of the Scott Committee, which was an independent committee set up to examine the problems of class sizes in New South Wales. That report itself quoted other learned academics as putting forward the point of view which I mentioned. It was partly as a result of that, and as a result of the pressure which is at present being applied in Australia to reduce continually class sizes that I said that we need more research on this matter in order to see where we ought to go. I think even the honourable member for Wills will recognise that there is a limit to the degree to which one would want to reduce class sizes. We might as well know what that limit is but I do not think anyone will at the moment admit the point. However, research in this area is certainly a serious matter and Australian research is required.

A number of honourable members have mentioned the importance of assistance to independent schools and made the point that some of the independent schools are experiencing quite acute difficulty at the present time. The honourable members for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) and Denison (Dr Solomon) amongs others made suggestions about the manner in which support for independent education might be extended. Those matters will be kept well in mind. I am well aware of what is happening in Tasmania. I am also well aware that a potential decision by Victoria would prevent any further expansion of the Catholic secondary education system and that that decision has been forced upon it by financial stringency. That obviously will have implications on not only the Catholic secondary education system but also the State schools as well. The Premier has already announced that the Minister for Education in Victoria is examining the implications of this particular report.

The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in his contribution to the debate this evening made some remarks which I took to suggest that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was spending the greater part of its funds on primary research.

Mr Beazley:

– No. The funds that it receives are from the Government and from industry. I said that most of what it receives from industry is from primary industry and not the secondary sector.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member was not trying to suggest that most of its work is undertaken in the primary industry area?

Mr Beazley:

– I was not trying to suggest that at all.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am sorry, but that is the inference I gained.

Mr Beazley:

– I said that secondary industry was not giving enough to the CSIRO by comparison with primary industry.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I think that that is a point well made. The honourable member for Fremantle will know that the Government has other programmes under the administration of another department that are designed to stimulate and, for that matter, subsidise research undertaken by secondary industry, but it is largely research undertaken in secondary industry’s own establishments and not so much research undertaken by the CSIRO, although some of it might well be a collaborative effort. When the honourable member for Fremantle spoke earlier in this debate he appeared to me to be under a misconception about what is happening or has happened with the library facilities programme. There is no difference in thi manner in which the requirements of a school are judged and no difference in the standards that are being applied. When the scheme was first introduced the Standards Committee met and prepared a document of standards which the Commonwealth accepted. We have been making money available according to the recommendations of State Advisory Committees which determine the timing of payments to schools in the different independent sectors. None of this has changed.

We have done the same thing with the secondary school science facilities programme. Since the inception of that programme all the requirements and the entitlements of a particular school have been adjudged against objective standards. If a school has a library or a science laboratory up to the standards indicated by the Standards Committee, which is an Australiawide committee, then that school will get no support from the Commonwealth and it never has. Both the honourable member and, I think, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) spoke as though there had been some significant change in the actual allocation of funds to any particular school.

Mr Reynolds:

– But you did double the per capita grants to private schools.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The actual entitlement of a school was always judged in the same manner and whether a school gets a grant or not depends upon the number of science teaching periods it has, the number of science laboratories it has and the number that it requires judged objectively against the standards, which anyone can test. The same applies to the library facilities programme. What was done - this can be debated when the libraries programme comes on for debate - was to even out the payments to independent schools between the different States so that the different sectors will all progress to the completion of the programme or rather, as there will always be emerging needs to the removal of the backlog at an even pace.

If we give a per capita distribution of bulk funds based on school enrolments and

State populations as was initially the case with the science laboratories programme we get a State like South Australia with a very small secondary enrolment in independent schools which can obviously, because of the State population element in the formula, make progress to completion of the programme much more quickly than another State. With the present 4-year programme for science laboratories this led to an alteration in the bulk distribution of funds which in turn has led to less money being made available to South Australia and more, I think, to Queensland which had not progressed as rapidly as other States. But none of that has altered the method of distribution of funds to a particular school which has always been judged against objective standards. This, of course, can be done when we are talking about capital expenditure. There is no problem in that. If we have a capital programme for one of these facilities or if there is a programme in the future for other facilities we can make objective judgments as to whether or not a school has a requirement. Again, there is no problem. But if we are talking about recurrent grants and the per capita payments to independent schools, then another set of considerations apply.

It is not an accident that the Commonwealth and all States but one have chosen to distribute funds on a flat per capita basis so far as support for running costs is concerned. The exception, of course, is South Australia which has introduced a means test which I think is not really understandable if one reads the booklet and documents. For example, one of the principles is based on pupil-teacher ratios and presumably the better the pupil-teacher ratio the less support the school gets and that means that the incentive to excellence in this area is removed because a school can improve itself out of the grant getting area. That does not seem to me to make a great deal of sense as one of the 4 or 5 principles which were enunciated in the document published by the South Australian Minister for Education, or Department of Education, when distributing the initial $250,000 on this basis. But I think it should not be forgotten that nearly all the independent schools around Australia have come to support the method of allo cation of recurrent funds that has been selected by this Government and all the State governments but one. They have done this of their own free will and initiative because they believe, I would imagine, that it is the best and most equitable means of payment, all matters considered. The National Council of Independent Schools is a body that represents most independent schools in Australia. The Catholic Education Offices in each State certainly are involved in it and they have made a statement to this effect. The Catholic Schools Committee of New South Wales, which obviously has one of the largest independent school systems in the Commonwealth, has made a similar statement. The Australian Parents Council and its constituent parts also has endorsed the same principles.

When the Opposition pushes a different kind of policy, a means test policy, too far in these matters it wants to look to the implications of what it has in mind. But there are some oddities in the Opposition policy in these matters. The Opposition wants a means test for recurrent aid to schools; it does not want a means test lor social service pensions - rich and poor alike would be entitled to them. It does not want any kind of means test approach to universities or university scholars, and there is a means test on the living allowance basis for university scholarships. If the Opposition wants to abolish all fees in universities, that shows a contradiction with the kind of support it wants to offer independent schools. Therefore why be opposed io means tests in a great variety of areas in its social and education philosophies and then want to establish a means test in relation to support for independent schools? I think that in this respect there are some basic contradictions in the policy of the Opposition which would need more explanation than they have had at the moment.

The honourable member for Fremantle added one further education promise to the Labor Party’s programme - a promise to establish, as I took it, an open university. At least he said the Government should do this, which is making a financial commitment.

Mr Beazley:

– That is on the Labor platform. It is not my promise.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Well, it is an additional promise from the Labor Party platform, fine. The honourable member may not know that when the Open University was established in the United Kingdom 1 am advised that the British visited the University of New England to gain experience or learn from the experience that that university had had in establishing quite excellent external studies courses. The University of New England has been one of the world leaders in this field. I have not checked since I came back to this portfolio but I think the University of Macquarie also is pioneering the field in science teaching by external studies.

Mr Bryant:

– You cannot get into that if you live in Victoria.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– That is an argument applying in Victoria in respect of Victorian universities, as the honourable member for Wills would well know.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! There are too many interjections. The Minister is entitled to be heard without interjection.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– But the principle of external studies which has been adopted by some universities in Australia has not been adopted by all universities. The honourable member might also be interested to know that the Secretary of my Department is overseas at the moment for an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting and amongst other things he will be looking at the open university concept to see how it is operating and to ascertain what implications there might be for this country. He will see whether such a proposal would have some application to Australia. The point I wanted to make is that the principle and practice of external studies is not something which is foreign to Australia although it is something that I think could be more widely practised. There are some who believe that external studies are much better constituted from a fully established and traditional kind of university because then you have the base teaching framework not only solely orientated for external studies. But that is a matter for experts and expert advice.

The only other point I wanted to make concerns some remarks from the honourable member for Bowen (Mr Keogh) who suggested that the failure to proceed at a faster rate with the second university in Brisbane was a responsibility of this Government. I had been involved in the acceptance by the Government of the current report of the Australian Universities Commission. The funds allocated by the Universities Commission were to the limit that the Queensland Government was prepared to provide. I think the honourable member for Bowen made that quite plain but to suggest, because of this, that the whole established framework of Commonwealth-State joint support for universities should be upset is a suggestion that does not really stand on its own feet. The universities have attracted a great deal of support from State governments and from Commonwealth governments and many people have benefited very much as a result.

It should be borne in mind that H is not as difficult to gain admission to universities in Australia as it is in, I think, a number of overseas countries. When the Martin Committee brought down its report on the future of tertiary education in Australia it recommended that scholars basically should be able to complete their university education in a minimum time or in a minimum time plus one year. If that was not the standard the Martin Committee wished to set for all scholars it was, at least, the standard it believed Commonwealth scholars should be able to reach, but even Commonwealth scholars have not yet reached that particular standard. There are failure rates in our universities for a whole variety of reasons and these rates are significantly higher than in many other countries, and much higher than in the United Kingdom where the opportunity for a university education is very much less than it is in Australia.

My only remaining point is in relation to the final comment of the honourable member for Wills who suggested that in many areas education now is much behind that which he had known as a boy 30 or 40 years ago. I think that even the honourable member for Wills, in his more reflective moments, will agree that that is a nonsense suggestion.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.

page 2223

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Armed Forces: Rank Individual Weapon Sight (Question No. 3573)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has any branch of the Australian Armed Forces investigated the potential of the Rank Individual Weapon Sight (IWS).
  2. If so, is it the intention of the Government to equip any of our forces with the IWS; if not why not.
  3. If no investigation has been made, will he undertake to have one carried out immediately.
Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes. Demonstrations of the Rank Individual Weapons Sight were given to representatives of the Service Departments and the Department of Supply on 3rd and 4th March 1971.
  2. and (3) It is not intended to equip the Services with the IWS at this time as the equipment in service is satisfactorily performing a similair function.

Papua New Guinea: Forestry (Question No. 3667)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

To what extent does the agreement signed in Tokyo between the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and the JapanNew Guinea Timber Company Ltd conform to the recommendations of the United Nations Visiting Mission, 1971, concerning encouragement of indigenous participation in forestry enterprises and in particular to the recommendation that as has happened with forests in other developing countries, the first forestry permits could be granted to joint associations of indigenous inhabitants and expatriates.

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

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

Timber permits for small scale operations have been granted to Papuans and New Guineans for many years and the Government is continually exploring ways of further increasing their participation in the development of the forestry resources of Papua New Guinea. At this stage however, there is some danger In actively promoting investment in the timber industry by Papuans and New Guineans as many of the small expatriate operations are marginally pro* profitable and unable to compete on the export market due to cost disabilities.

The Government believes that large scale operations, such as that being undertaken by the Japan New Guinea Timber Co. Ltd in the Gogol timber area near Madang are the most effective means of developing the vast timber resources of Papua New Guinea.

In negotiations between the Government and the Japan New Guinea Timber Co. Ltd the need for maximum participation by Papuans and New Guineans was given first importance. The project will provide direct employment for up to 1,400 persons, mainly Papuans and New Guineans, and the Agreement provides for many of these to be trained in special skills. The Agreement also makes specific provision for the replacement of expatriate technicians and skilled workers by Papuans and New Guineans under a programme agreed with the Administration. The Administration will have an option to take up 20 per cent shareholding in the operating company, for later disposal to Papuans and New Guineans. The operating company will make substantial royalty payments for the timber harvested, in .addition to the normal company tax committments.

The Gogol woodchip venture is a substantial enterprise involving an investment of about $12m. Woodchips, veneers and sawn timber worth over $5m annually will be produced for export to Japan and elsewhere. The agreement represents a major breakthrough in the utilisation of Papua New Guinea tropical hardwood resources. After many years of scientific research by the CSIRO and Japanese paper mills, an opportunity is available for assessing the quality of PNG tropical hardwood chips under commercial conditions.

Vietnam: Prisoners Captured by Australian Forces (Question No. 3987)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

How many prisoners have been captured by the Australian Forces in Vietnam since the answer by a former Minister on 13th October 1970 (Hansard, page 2073).

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

Between 1st August 1970 and 31st August 1971 30 prisoners of war were captured by Australian Forces in Vietnam. A total of 199 prisoners have been captured since June 1965 when the first Australian battalion arrived in that country.

Taxation: Comparable Countries (Question No. 4031)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the answer which his predecessor gave on 15th September 1970 (Hansard, page 1158) on taxation in Australia, Britain, the United States of America and Canada.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The following tables bring up to date the answer supplied to the honourable member by the then Treasurer on 15lh September 1970 in relation to the number of taxpayers, income and income tax payable in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. No similar statistics for Canada later than the 1968 statistics supplied by the then Treasurer are yet available.

Department of Immigration: Population Study (Question No. 4238) Mr Uren asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the personnel engaged in the population study which has been instigated by his Department.
  2. What are the qualifications of the personnel.
  3. Are there any ecologists or natural resources scientists involved in the study; if not, will he ensure that they are included as soon as possible.
  4. When does he expect to receive their report.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. and (2) The population study ‘Australia’s Population and the Future’ initiated by the Department of Immigration is being carried out at the Australian National University. The study is under the direction of Professor Borne, Director of the Research School of Social Sciences, a leading world authority on population problems and author of earlier studies on Australia’s population structure and growth. The full-time staff will consist only of a small group, with not more than 2 Research Fellows and 2 Research Assistants. This group will be mainly concerned with the investigation of areas where the basic materials are inadequate. It is intended that experts from the many areas under investigation will be commissioned to prepare papers, and that the interrelationships will be explored in depth using seminar-type activities. The present staff consists of a Post-Doctoral Fellow, Dr C. Y. Choi, a Sociologist, B.A. (I.C.U. Tokyo), M.A. (Western Reserve), Ph. D. (A.N.U.); Research Assistants, Mr O. B. Di Iulio, B.Ec. (Monash), Mrs J. M. Davis, B.A., Dip. Ed. (Flinders); and Secretary Mrs P. C. Hayward.
  2. The advisory committee to the study includes scientists holding professional appointments specialising in natural resources and in ecological studies. In addition, experts from disciplines in these areas will be commissioned to prepare material.
  3. In view of the fundamental nature of the project and the requirement that much new work should be undertaken, it is not anticipated that a major report would be available before mid- 1974.

Universities: Post-graduate Students (Question No. 3643)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave on 23rd September 1970 (Hansard, page 1579) on post-graduate students.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The number of new students admitted to post-praduate studies and the total number of post-graduate students in 1970 and 1971 at Australian universities was:

These figures show the number of students enrolled in Masters and Ph.D. courses. Figures provided in respect of the 1970 enrolment year in answer to the honourable member’s Question No. 1345 (Hansard of 23rd September 1970 at page 1579) were preliminary figures only and differed from those shown above. The figures for 1970 shown above are final figures as at 30th April 1970.

  1. Actual expenditure on benefits for the Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards Scheme in 1970-71 and the estimated expenditure for 1971-72 are as follows:
  1. Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards are given to assist students to undertake full time postgraduate research; this need not necessarily take the form of a course leading to a higher degree. The normal tenure is for two years in the case of a candidate for a Masters degree or three years for a Ph.D., although extensions into a fourth year may be granted in special cases. The research undertaken may extend beyond these periods. Award holders who do not submit a thesis or obtain a postgraduate degree during the maximum period of their award should not however be considered as failures as they may subsequently complete their research successfully. The figures which follow give an indication of the progress of students holding Research Awards between 1st July 1970 and 30th June 1971. The first Course Awards were made at the start of 1971. These are of one to two years in duration and the first intake will not complete tenure of their awards until 1971-72. Between 1st July 1970 and 30th June 1971 555 students completed tenure of a Commonwealth Postgraduate Research award. Of these: 125 had submitted their thesis before benefits under the award had expired; 239 had not submitted their thesis by the time the maximum duration of the award had expired; and 191 benefits were terminated before the full duration of the award had expired.

Of this last group, 34 relinquished their Commonwealth award in order to continue their studies with assistance from other awards; 8 awards were terminated following the receipt of a report of unsatisfactory progress from the university; and the awards of the remaining 149 were terminated for other reasons, in most cases because the student entered employment.

No systematic record is maintained of the progress of students after the expiry of termination of their Commonwealth Postgraduate award. Hence it is not possible to say bow many have continued their studies and submitted a thesis. However it is known that at least 51 out of the last-mentioned 149 have continued studies towards a degree.

  1. The numbers of men and women who at 30th June 1971 were in receipt of benefits under the Commonwealth Postgraduate Award Scheme were as follows:
  1. The answer to this part of the honourable member’s question was provided in answer to bis Question No. 2423 at page 2407 of Hansard of 3rd May 1971.

Colleges of Advanced Education (Question No. 3645)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave on 25th September 1970 (Hansard, page 1749) on colleges of advanced education.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Census and Statistics collects information on tertiary enrolments only in colleges of advanced education. Information supplied to the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education by colleges and college authorities gives a provisional total of 45,400 tertiary enrolments in advanced level courses at colleges of advanced education in 1971. This provisional figure was sought on the same basis as the official statistics of 37,794 tertiary enrolments in advanced level courses in 1970 as published by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician.

In past years the answer given in reply tothis question has included details of enrolments in sub-tertiary parts of advanced level courses. In 1971 these amount to approximately an additional 5,000 enrolments.

No preliminary information for new enrolments for 1971 is available at this stage. Official statistics of new enrolments will be published later bythe Commonwealth Statistician.

  1. (a) The total number of students holding Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships at 30th June 1971 is 5,866. All of these students are enrolled in courses entry to which normally follows completion of full secondary schooling. The colleges at which these courses are conducted include most of those named in the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act and also a number of other Colleges. The number of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars at 30th June in colleges named in the Act is 4,852. This is 10.7 per cent of the total enrolment of 45,400 given in answer to part (1) of this question.
  2. (a) The number of applications received for Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships available in 1971 was 48,873. Most of these students also applied for other scholarships and awards.

    1. The number of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships offered in 1971 was 8,870.
    2. The number accepted was 2,840 of which 2,309 were for students entering first year. The acceptances represent 5.8 per cent of the total number of applicants, or 31.9 per cent of the students who received the offer of an award.
  3. The following numbers of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars are enrolled in the first approved year of their courses in 1971.- It should be noted that certain courses to which entry may be gained one year below matriculation level are, for purposes of the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme, approved from the second year of the course. The statistics shown here include students who accepted awards in earlier years, deferred entry to their courses at the time and commenced training in 1971.
  1. At 30th June 1971 there were (a) 4,630 holders of Commonwealth Advanced Education

Scholarships studying full-time and (b) 1,236 studying part-time at colleges of advanced education or at other approved institutions.

  1. Under the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme, living allowance is payable only to scholars in full-time study and is subject to a means test. For most scholars the rate of allowance is assessed on the basis of their parents’ income. At 30th June 1971 the number of full-time Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars eligible to receive (a) part living allowance was 1,630 and (b) full living allowance was 739. In addition there were 234 scholars classified as ‘independent’ of whom the majority were receiving full living allowance.
  2. The actual expenditure on benefits to students under the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme for 1970-71 and the estimated expenditure for 1971-72 are: .
  1. The number and percentage of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars who failed in their courses in ‘1970 were:
  1. The information is not available.
  2. and (11) At the following colleges in the advanced education courses specified quotas were operative in 1971. The figures given relate to eligible applicants not offered a place in the course of their first preference in the first term/first semester at the college concerned. In some cases it has not been possible to say how many students have been excluded on a first preference basis.

Notes, Definitions -

  1. Type of study: F/T = Full-time; P/T = Part-time; Ext = External; SW = Sandwich.
  2. The eligibility of an applicant generally relates to his having achieved the prescribed minimum academic standard and having satisfied any further requirements such as interview or special examination.
  3. The figures given relate to eligible applicants not offered a place in the course of their first preference in the first term/first semester at the college concerned. Students intending to undertake tertiary studies commonly submit applications for a number of courses and institutions, therefore:
Students shown as being excluded cannot, on this basis, be assumed to have been excluded from their course of first preference as their outright first preference may have been for another course at another institution; the figures given for exclusions are inflated since students not offered a place in particular courses may have been accommodated within other courses or institutions. Mitchell College of Advanced Education: Diploma - Teacher Education. {: type="a" start="d"} 0. A large number of these students were enrolled and commenced studies at the College at the beginning of the second semester. Other notes {: type="a" start="e"} 0. Details of operative quotas are not available from the following colleges: New South Wales - National Art School; Victoria - Emily Mcpherson College of Domestic Economy, Footscray Institute of Technology, Gordon Institute of Technology, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (part-time). {: type="a" start="f"} 0. Intake quotas for some specialised courses may be based on the assessed need of the profession within the State for graduates, examples are - Diploma of Occupational Therapy - The Occupational Therapy School of Victoria; Diploma of Teaching (Art) - South Australian School of Art; Associateship in Occupational Therapy - Western Australian Institute of Technology; Diploma of Dental Nursing - Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. {: type="1" start="12"} 0. The only college of advanced education which increased its teaching fees for full-time diploma-type' courses for 1971 was the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. The increases were as follows: This information was also given by my predecessor on 6 May 1971 (Hansard, page 2840) in response to Question No. 2425. {: type="1" start="13"} 0. The information sought is not available. 1. As noted in my previous answer to part (13) the States, in respect of colleges of advanced education are not required to separate State grants and fees for the purposes of assistance under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1967. Therefore the figures of fees received by such colleges and by other colleges hot in receipt of assistance are not available. However the following table shows for each State the amount paid by the Commonwealth for fees on behalf of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarship holders in 1970. {: type="1" start="15"} 0. The information sought is not available.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711012_reps_27_hor74/>.