House of Representatives
14 October 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 2341

PETITIONS

Pakistan: Trial of Sheikh Mujibur. Rahman

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

Kangaroos

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Mornington Peninsular respectfully sheweth:

Australians, custodians of the world’s largest marsupial, the Red Kangaroo, have allowed it to be reduced so low numerically that even the CSIRO research has had to be suspended in some areas and alternative means of research employed in others.

The Kangaroo is being exploited whilst facts on populations and numbers of kangaroos are unknown - any day the numbers can be reduced below that level needed for survival of droughts and natural mortality. At this date neither the number needed for survival nor the number of kangaroos left is known.

Pending the outcome of investigations by the Select Committee, it can be logically assumed that shooters, fearing restrictive legislation in the future, will intensify their efforts to obtain as many animals as possible, while they can.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.

Strongly urge the State Governments to ban the shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes, at least until the Select Committee has made its investigations and recommendations.

Add to the Constitution a clause giving power to the Commonwealth Government to act to safeguard any species of wildlife that is endangered through any cause.

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

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · 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 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 ENDERBY:

– 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 STALEY:
CHISHOLM, 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 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

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, 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 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 add 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 to Pakistan’s. Refugees

MrWHITTORN-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.

Education

Dr JENKINS:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australians is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.

As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further$50m over 3 years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Education: Australian Capital Territory Authority

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

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 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 471/2 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.

Telecommunication Divisional Office in Parkes

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Whereas the Postmaster-General in a statement to Parliament has decreed that, the telecommunication division of Parkes, Bathurst and Dubbo (with minor alteration) are to be amalgamated in one area, we the citizens of the community of Parkes respectfully submit that:

if the present staff employed in the telecommunication division in Parkes is transferred from this town grievous harm will result to this community. In as much as the removal of any personnel from the Parkes area will further depress the already straitened circumstances in this town.

The resultant loss of spending power due to the removal of families from Parkes will result in a progressive reduction in work force in service industries, commerce enforcing a movement of more people to the already overcrowded cities.

The removal of staff from Parkes is in direct conflict with the stated policies of the Commonwealth Department of National Development and the State Department of Decentralisation and Industrial Development.

The movement of these people will further increase the already over-taxed demand for services in the cities leaving redundant existing services established in Parkes.

The destruction of balanced employment and job opportunities for higher school certificate holders will eventually result in the enforced loss of many of the community’s potential leaders: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That Parliament take note of the evil effects of the closing of a divisional office in Parkes, and

That Parliament appoint Parkes to be the head quarters of the areas above. .

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, 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 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use 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; 29 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 concensus of international political, scientific and humanitarium opinion; and

that Honourable Members urge upon the Govermment 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 prohibition laid down by that Protocol.

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

Petition received.

page 2344

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I will move that a committee of the House be appointed to take into consideration the petitions for aid and relief for West Bengal and East Pakistan.

page 2344

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, ABORIGINES AND THE ARTS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Did the right honourable member for Higgins last night assert that the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts had given the House figures which were not accurate and estimates which were misleading on the national film and television training school? Did the same Minister on a previous occasion lose his place in the Ministry after giving the House inaccurate and misleading answers on the existence of flight manifests for the VIP squadron? Will the Prime Minister now table all documents and reports relevant to the national film and television training school, as his predecessor on the earlier occasion tabled the VIP squadron manifests? Does he regard the conduct of the Minister as seriously as it was regarded by his predecessor? If so, what action does he propose to take on the matter?

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

– I did listen in on the intercommunication system last night to the speech made by the right honourable gentleman from Higgins and I heard that part of it relating to the figures that had been presented to the House by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I have not had time to check them, naturally enough, because the speech was made at a fairly late hour. But 1 will do so.

What I can say is that if anyone knew the full story relating to the VIP incident, rather than being critical of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, he would say that he took upon himself an enormous responsibility when there was no need for him to have taken any responsibility whatsoever. We on this side of the House regard him as a man who should have received approval for what he did rather than be severely criticised. But this is not the kind of conduct that can ever be expected from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Whitlam:

– What do you mean by that?

Mr MCMAHON:

– What I said.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I ask that the right honourable gentleman withdraw those remarks. If they have any point to his reply they must be objectionable. Replies must be relevant and, under the Standing Orders, they must not be objectionable. This did not seem to be a relevant reply, but if it has any relevance it must be objectionable. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to keep the right honourable gentleman within proper limits. I would point out to you, Sir, that my question quoted words used by a former Prime Minister last night about a present Minister, the words being ‘inaccurate figures’ and misleading costs’. Now the present Prime Minister, in justifying the conduct of the Minister about whom the right honourable member for Higgins made these remarks, has said that I, the Leader of the Opposition, would not act in the same proper way as the Minister concerned had acted on an earlier occasion. If there is any suggestion that I would use inaccurate figures or misleading costs, any such allegation should be withdrawn immediately and unequivocally. 1 have quoted a serious allegation against a Minister made by a former Prime Minister. I am surely entitled to a serious reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question that the Leader of the Opposition raises is a serious one. 1 think that the actions of the Minister in regard to the VIP aircraft incident are well known to the House, and I understood that the Prime Minister in his reply complimented the Minister on his actions on that occasion. If, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Prime Minister was referring by implication to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would not act in such a way, I think that the line is fairly thin. However, I suggest to all Ministers that when answering questions personalities and implications in relation to the conduct of other members are completely out of order.

Mr McMAHON:

– Before I go on with my answer I want to assure the honourable gentleman that 1 was not thinking of, and I do know how he could draw the implication that 1 was referring to, the words he used relating to the figures that were presented by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. 1 had no such thought in my mind. To complete what 1 was saying previously, naturally enough I will look at the figures that were mentioned and the criticisms that were made about them. After I have looked al them I will decide what action is to be taken.

page 2345

QUESTION

OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that Sydney has ah over supply of office accommodation’ and that this situation will continue for several years? Is he aware that major insurance companies and the Commonwealth Government are mainly responsible due to insurance premiums being allowable tax deductions which have accrued huge capital reserves for insurance companies, which are investing these reserves in the construction of office space in the centre of Sydney and other capital cities? Will the Government take positive action to curb this type of development, which inflicts inflationary pressures on the building industry and creates havoc in the upgrading of the centre of Sydney and other capital cities?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am aware that there is over building in certain sections of civil construction, particularly in the nonhousing building construction industry in the capital cities of this country. The honourable gentleman’s comment is therefore correct. The problem arises here as to what kind of action can be taken and whether or not there is a real tapering off in the approvals that have been given and, consequently the forward construction orders that might take place. I have been trying to find out the facts but they are very difficult to ascertain.

Mr Uren:

– What about the insurance companies investing in these projects?

Mr MCMAHON:

– If the honourable member waits, I will give him the answer to that in a few seconds. As late as this week I have been trying to find out what the order books are like and whether the present construction programmes can be continued for a very long period. I must admit that when this question was asked some months ago by my predecessor we got an answer that seemed to be reassuring. On this occasion too I get an answer that appears to be reassuring. Nonetheless I will take the matter up with the Treasury and with the Department of Works to see whether I can get something more precise and definitive. Secondly, I will ask the Treasury to have a look at this problem of the investment of the life offices to see whether this is contributing in any substantial way to the over building that is now taking place.

page 2346

QUESTION

TARIFF PROTECTION

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that Australian manufacturers of woven man-made fibres were granted temporary and permanent protection alternatively by the Tariff Board during most of the last decade? Has the temporary protection recently been increased to an average of 1 10 per cent following a decision by the Special Advisory Authority of the Tariff Board? Is it a fact that this decision was arrived at despite the fact that evidence shows that declining markets in Australia for Australian man-made women fabrics is caused mainly by competition from knitted products rather than imported woven products? Will this decision add considerably to the cost of Australian clothing, and is there any time limit to temporary protection?

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

– What normally happens if an industry can show that it is being harmed by or is under threat from imports is that the matter is then referred to the Special Advisory Authority for tem porary protection, and it is the responsibility of the Special Advisory Authority to report back to the Government within 30 days. But once having received the report and temporary duties having been put on, if a case has been proved, it goes before the Tariff Board for full examination. The time which it takes the Tariff Board to make a recommendation to the Government depends upon the complexities within an industry, but by doing it this way we get a fair and just assessment of the level of protection that is needed for efficient and economic production of goods in Australia.

page 2346

QUESTION

PRESIDENT NIXON’S RUSSIAN VISIT

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister noticed newspaper reports that the President of the United States intends making a visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If so, has he received any communication from the United States President seeking the Prime Minister’s OK for this visit in view of the fact that he expressed concern at the President’s proposed visit to the People’s Republic of China without first informing him?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– We were informed through administration sources and the Australian Embassy in Washington that the President had made a decision that he would visit the Soviet Union. Naturally enough, he did not nor would I expect him to, obtain my approval, and I do not know what reply I would have given if he had asked me to approve of it.

page 2346

QUESTION

EXPORTS OF BEEF

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Trade and Industry indicate the current position regarding our beef exports to the United States of America? Is it possible to forecast whether we will meet the quota requirements? If not, will the quota negotiations for 1972 be affected in any way?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Last week there was a meeting between exporters and the Australian Meat Board to determine what would be the amount of exports to the American market for this year. Because of several factors - a big one has been the dock strike in America - we have been running behind schedule with our exports to that country. I think that up to that date we had about another 40,000 tons to export to the United States. There is meat on the water. Just what the final figure will be I cannot say at the moment, but as soon as we have information on this we intend letting the American administration know what the shortfall might be so that we will maini’uU its confidence and so that when we commence negotiations for next year we will certainly be able to hold the quota that we have this year or, I believe, get an extension of it. As I mentioned, the factors affecting our exports were, firstly, the dock strike, which has reacted adversely against our exports and about which we could do nothing and, secondly, the good seasons that have prevailed in some parts of Australia, where there has been a tendency to hold stock back and to breed up numbers. There is quite an increase in stock numbers in Australia and our potential to export more in the future is great. So I think that the Americans ought to realise that, although there has been some temporary slackening of our exports to America it has not been altogether our fault and it is no indication of what the long-term tendency will be.

page 2347

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is also directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. When did the Tariff Board commence its inquiry into the shipbuilding industry? Has the Board completed its inquiry and, if so, when did the Minister receive its report? In view of the important role that the shipbuilding industry plays in defence and merchant shipping, when can the Parliament expect to receive the report and the Government’s decision on that report?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I cannot give the honourable member the time when the report was started. It has certainly been a-

Mr Charles Jones:

– It was over 2 years ago.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I cannot give the date but it certainly has been a considerable time. I received the report on 12th July and it has been under study by Commonwealth departments and, shortly, an interdepartmental committee will be making recommendations to the Government to examine its action as a result of this report. But I am not here to canvass any of the recommendations that the Tariff Board has made, although I have noticed quite a bit of speculation in the Press as to what might be in that report. All I can say about this speculation is that much of it is inaccurate.

page 2347

QUESTION

RUSSIAN NAVAL VESSELS IN INDIAN OCEAN

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. Have nuclear submarines been seen recently among Russian naval vessels in Australian waters? What is the purpose of the presence of this fleet? If we cannot afford to equip our navy with nuclear propelled vessels, what steps can we take against this thinly veiled threat to our interests?

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

– Undoubtedly, there is world concern at the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. This is evidenced perhaps by what ‘Jane’s Fighting Ships’ said in its foreword, namely, that 5 years ago there were no Russian warships in this ocean but today there are more than a score of surface warships and an unknown number of submarines. It would not, I think, be proper to disclose the information that we have on actual types of ships. It has been announced only today that the United Kingdom has stepped up its construction programme to deal with this growing threat. We in Australia do not have immediate plans for nuclear propelled vessels, but installations . such as the Cockburn Sound facility will eventually be able to service nuclear powered vessels. This reminds us that as a small nation we do rely very greatly on the ANZUS Treaty to provide the kind of deterrent against the aggression that the honourable member obviously fears.

Dr Gun:

– ANZUS - in the Indian Ocean?

Dr MACKAY:

– I would have thought that this might have been of some importance to the nation and to the honourable member. Finally, I would say this: We do from time to time have sophisticated warships from the United Kingdom and the United States visiting our shores. These are undoubtedly welcomed by the Navy because they remind us of the umbrella that ANZUS affords us in this whole field.

page 2348

QUESTION

FREE MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does every eligible child throughout the nation receive free milk on every school day? Is it the practice where it is not possible to supply milk to supply fruit juice instead? Have any comprehensive surveys of child nutrition been carried out to evaluate the existing scheme or establish whether any new programmes should be developed with Commonwealth assistance? How important is the free milk scheme today?

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

– Unfortunately I have not the details that the honourable member requires, but I will certainly make some inquiries regarding the matter and see that the information is provided. I do know from past experience, as I was Minister for Health some years ago, that the scheme at that time was very successful and that the provision of something as a substitute for milk in areas where milk was not available was being considered. I will make inquiries regarding the various points which were raised by the honourable member and see that a reply is provided.

page 2348

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for Defence see an Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme on Tuesday night in which a graphic description of Australian forces’ movements in Vietnam was given, even down to their distances from certain places? Does not this endanger the lives of Australian soldiers and provide information of great benefit to the enemy7

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

– I have seen a transcript of the story which was filed by Mr Andrew Swanton from Vietnam and broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission recently. I have had a close look at it, but I believe that it refers only in general terms to numbers and that it does not refer to actual detailed movements of Australian troops. Therefore, I do not believe that there has been any breach of security in this article. I am informed by my department that there is, in fact, no censorship in Vietnam but that what happens is that correspondents are accredited by the South Vietnamese Government and by the United States Government. When they are accredited they are given guidelines and told that if there is any breach of security by them or if they conduct activities on the. black market the accreditation will be withdrawn. On a number of occasions the accreditation of correspondents has been withdrawn because of these breaches. But I have taken the opportunity of ensuring that all correspondents in the Australian’ Task Force area are reminded of the fact that should there be any breach of security on their part their accreditation will be immediately withdrawn. I have asked that they be informed that . particularly at a time like this they should make every effort to see that no information is given which could lead in any way to endangering the lives of Australian men in that area. I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

page 2348

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has he seen reports of takeovers of the top end of Australia by overseas pastoral and other interests? Has he also seen reports that the extent of these takeovers is not known by the Commonwealth or by the 2 Slates concerned because of the high cost of tracing the distribution of ownership in large areas? Will he arrange for consultations with the States with a view to setting up an electronic data bank accessible to the States and federal authorities to speed up the collection of statistics and to ease the increasing delay and the huge cost of conveyancing which is a major factor in land costs and which occupies nearly SO per cent of the scarce skills of the legal profession?

Mir McMAHON - I will have discussions with my colleague in the Treasury, and if it is thought desirable I will have discussions too with the States and other authorities, to see whether it is desirable to step up electronic data processing in order to carry out what the honourable gentleman has in mind.

page 2348

QUESTION

WATER STORAGE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for National Development who will be aware that most water storages serving Victoria are now at a satisfactory level, but this has not always been so and, as Mallee constituents are highly dependent on an adequate water supply, I ask: What progress’ has been made in discussions in regard to the building of the proposed Dartmouth Dam?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I referred to this matter in the House last week. I can bring the position up to date by describing what has happened since then. The position is that after South Australia at long last passed legislation approving the original agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for the construction of the Dartmouth Dam, certain actions had to be taken consequent on that approval by the South Australian Parliament. First there was an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States in relation to a number of points that had to be clearly defined. To the best of my knowledge that stage is either completed or is just in the process of finalisation.

The second point was that the estimates of the cost of constructing the dam then had to be reviewed. This was carried out by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation at the request of the River Murray Commission. I indicated that there had been an increase from S57.5m to $64m in those estimates, which will be considered by the River Murray Commission next week. But as the increase is above the 10 per cent set out in the escalation clause in the agreement the matter then has to be referred back to the 4 governments for reconsideration.

Also, this matter cannot be referred back to the governments for reconsideration until the Acts have been proclaimed by all the governments concerned. This is a machinery procedure which takes a certain amount of time and my understanding is that this will be done as quickly as possible. I can assure the House that immediately the Acts are proclaimed the River Murray Commission will refer the new estimates to the governments concerned. It will then be up to the governments to consider the matter. Under the agreement the governments have 6 months in which to make a decision as to whether to proceed with the work on the basis of the new estimates. I would anticipate, and hope, that this will not take the full 6 months. I would expect that within a matter of a few months the governments would be able to make up their minds in relation to the additional costs and refer the matter back to the River Murray Commission.

Therefore, the position at present is bound by certain time factors inherent in the agreement. But as I said last week, as President of the River Murray Commission I am most desirous to see this matter brought to fruition as quickly as possible.

page 2349

QUESTION

BUDGET-EVE CUSTOMS PAYMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise a question relating to a matter raised by the honourable member for Robertson a fortnight ago, namely, the loss to revenue through the practice of paying duty at the old rate on the eve of a budget. I have not since pursued my colleague’s question because the Minister was reported on Saturday week as saying that he was seriously considering giving details of these transactions to the Parliament to discourage similar moves to deprive the Commonwealth of revenue in future years. I ask him: Did revenue lose $5m this year at the hands of tobacco and oil companies through this practice? Can he say whether such prepayments have been made to the same degree before every Budget or only before those Budgets in which duties are thought likely to rise? Has he been advised, as he is reported to have said, that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to stop the practice? If not, what steps is he taking to stop the practice which - again he was reported as saying - he was glad had come to light?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– There are 2 aspects of the honourable gentleman’s question which I would prefer not to answer now in courtesy to his colleague who has 2 questions on the notice paper this morning concerning the position in past years. All of what the honourable gentleman has said is true. There have been evasions - if I may use that word - of revenue by producers and manufacturers of excisable products this year to an amount of approximately $5m. As I also mentioned in speaking to the Estimates debate last Thursday evening there were manufacturers of other excisable goods, such as beer and spirts, who gambled as did the petrol companies and the tobacco companies, but lost because the excise on those goods did not go up. I am informed that this is a practice which has gone on almost since federation on the eve of a Budget. The gambling goes on by individual taxpayers who can manoeuvre their disclosable income in anticipation of increased income tax. It goes on when the Tariff Board and Special Advisory reports are about to be released.

There seems to be nothing we can do legislatively to stop this practice. I have inquired into this matter since my appointment as Minister for Customs and Excise, and I have learned that some years ago a predecessor of mine was so concerned about it that he went to the Government and the Government, being concerned about it in principle, obtained top legal advice and was informed that constitutionally it was not possible to do anything about it in Australia. The reason my predecessor went to the Government, as I understand it, was that there is legislation in the United Kingdom. I am not a lawyer and when I asked why Britain could take action and we could not, the answer, I understood, was that we have a constitution and Britain has not. This is the difficulty that exists. However, as I said in my speech the other night, not only am I concerned at the loss of revenue, I am even more concerned that the savings gained by the gamble taken by these manufacturers are not being passed on to the consumers. I am still examining nonlegislative ways not to stop this practice but perhaps to discourage it. I will report to the House as soon as any possible solution comes up.

page 2350

QUESTION

EXPORT OF GALAHS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is the Minister aware that galahs are a pest in many parts of Australia and that in this situation farmers are allowed to wring the necks of these birds, if they can catch them? Is the Minister’s Department responsible for enforcing the regulations which prevent the export of galahs to other countries? Are those regulations based only on a desire to be kind to galahs? Looking at it from the point of view of the galahs, does the Minister think that they would prefer to have their necks wrung or to be exported in gilded cages on padded perches in luxurious aeroplanes?

Mr CHIPP:
LP

– The honourable gentleman is correct. I think that since the late 1950s there has been a prohibition on the export of native fauna - and galahs are classified in this category - without the explicit permission of the Minister for Customs and Excise.- The criteria laid down by the Government relate to total prohibition on, I think, 3 native species - the platypus, the lyre bird and the koala - and for all other native fauna the criterion is that export of species can be approved if it is on a zoo to zoo basis and if research indicates that the zoo to which they are being exported will not deal commercially in them.

I should like to comment on the apparent, if not real, incongruity of the situation so far as kangaroos are concerned. They come into this question. The incongruity that has occurred to me before is that hundreds of thousands of kangaroos, if not more, are slaughtered in Australia each year and their meat is put into tins and exported, but because of the situation export is not permitted of one or two live kangaroos unless the above criterion is met. This Government policy was the result of very strong representations from wildlife authorities back in the 1950s when export was allowed, and it was shown that cruelties were being inflicted on native fauna. But whether the situation now is completely cured by this attitude, I do not know. We know, for example, that a great number of birds are smuggled out of Australia ‘in very cruel’ and inhumane circumstances.

Dr Klugman:

– White slavery.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The humour has gone far enough. The Minister is endeavouring to’ make a serious reply to a rather flippant question and I think that the House should listen to him without interruption.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Prospect sees some humour in the situation. I think that if he had been anaesthetised and stuffed into a suitcase wilh 52 other birds he might find the situation singularly lacking in humour. However, I am glad that the honourable members for Wakefield has raised this matter. It is a difficult one. That is the Government’s policy, and I would welcome representations from people interested in this matter.

page 2351

QUESTION

RUSSIAN NAVAL VESSELS IN INDIAN OCEAN

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for the Navy. In what way is the presence of Russian ships in the Indian Ocean a threat to Australia? On what occasions has the Soviet Union evinced hostility to Australia of such a nature as to threaten us with aggression? Is it not a fact that in both World War I and World War II the Russians were on our side in a very powerful form at a time when their friendship was needed, and ought not we set out to generate friendship with the Russians rather than provoke their hostility?

Mr Whitlam:

– Have you forgotten the Crimean War?

Mr BRYANT:

– Perhaps it is the fact that they are refloating the ‘Cerberus’ that has aroused his feelings on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information!

Dr MACKAY:
LP

– In the interests of accuracy, the blanket statement that in the last 2 World Wars Russia was on our side is not the complete picture. Honourable members will recall that in the early stages of the Second World War this was not quite so. With regard to the question of a Russian presence and its potential threat, I would remind the House that the Indian Ocean is a very important trade route not only for ourselves but also for other neighbour nations in whose economic affairs we have considerable interest. 1 should have thought that the equipment of warships and especially the modern sophisticated warships capabilities are a fair enough demonstration that money and time are not spent in building them for anything other than the purpose of intruding into world politics and using the sanctions of force as an inducement for achieving the national aims of the country concerned. When we have around our shores and in our immediate vicinity a build-up of armed might, I believe that it is of concern and should be studied closely by every thinking Australian.

page 2351

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS AND LIVING ALLOWANCES

Mr STALEY:

– My question to the Minister for Education and. Science refers to his expressed intention of encouraging research in education matters. Will the Minister consider instituting a cost-benefit analysis of the administration of Commonwealth university scholarships and living allowances?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will certainly consider what the honourable member has suggested.

page 2351

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD: TEMPORARY STAFF

Dr GUN:

– My question to the Prime Minister concerns the engagement by the Tariff Board of temporary staff, in particular from the Department of Economics at Monash University. Is the Prime Minister aware that this department at Monash University is engaged in the preparation of an equilibrium model to show the effects throughout the economy of alterations in tariffs or exchange rates? Does not this department at Monash University contain the very expertise needed by the Tariff Board in its investigations? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Tariff Board will get the assistance of the best personnel available, whether temporary or permanent, so that it will be enabled to make recommendations which will advance the living standards of Australian working people?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I would like to emphasise to the House that I believe there has been a vicious and prolonged campaign against the Tariff. Board by some manufacturing industries and organisations which is bitterly regretted and deserves censure. As to the Government’s attitude to the Tariff Board, the first statement I want to make is that the Government is responsible for tariff policy. The Tariff Board is only an advisory body and the Government takes complete responsibility for whatever decisions are made. It was for this reason, for example that on the question of woven materials for shirts, woollen outer garments and other types of garments the Government decided in principle to accept the decision of the Tariff Board but to delay its implementation because 22,000 people were employed in the industry and we did not want the decision to be too harsh in the immediate future.

Secondly, the Government believes that the Tariff Board should work independently and does not want to interfere with its operations. For that reason we believe that it is entirely proper and right that if the Tariff Board thinks it desirable to have independent inquiries made it should be within the Board’s jurisdiction to do so. After all, in the case of inter-firm comparisons of which I am very well aware, this was a process agreed to by the Government and on other occasions the Government has agreed that universities and other authorities can carry out inquiries if requested to do so. The people involved are brought under the provisions of the Secrecy Act, rind consequently, have to give an assurance that they will not divulge to other sources any information they receive. But as my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, pointed out yesterday there is some legal problem associated with this. The Government is looking into it, and I believe the Minister will make a statement about it later. As to the rest of what the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Deputy Prime Minister, said, I thoroughly agree with it.

page 2352

QUESTION

MILK

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he is aware of a new treatment process of fluid milk called ultra high temperature sterilisation, or UHT, which enables milk to be kept in a non-refrigerated but fresh condition for at least 6 months. Is the Minister aware that this milk is now produced in Australia? Will he consider the use of this type of milk before reaching a decision on the availability of milk for free milk schemes to which he referred in reply to an earlier question today?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I have no personal knowledge of the process that has been mentioned by the honourable member, but as it is a matter which concerns the Department of Health I will see that it is referred to my colleague, the Minister for Health, in another place and a suitable answer provided.

page 2352

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: HEALTH

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I ask the Minister for External Territories: Is it a fact that the World Health Organisation has identified Port Moresby as one of 4 places in the Pacific having a serious health problem, in particular a rising incidence of tuberculosis? If this is so, what is the response of the Territory Administration to this situation?

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

– Health matters in Papua New Guinea are now a local responsibility. I am aware of certain factors in the Territory. When from time to time these factors reach a serious stage and we or the Territory believe that it is unable to cope with the situation, we usually get assistance from the World Health Organisation. I personally am not aware of what is being done but 1 will endeavour to find out from the Ministerial Member for Health and advise the honourable member.

page 2352

QUESTION

TAXATION: MINING SHARES

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister who is acting as Treasurer. Has the Government considered reintroducing double taxation deductibility on calls for mining shares of a speculative nature? By so doing would we reduce the. incidence of promising local mineral prospects falling into the hands of overseas companies?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The answer to the first part of. the question is no, we have not done so - or not to the best of my knowledge, lt might be in the Treasury, but it has not been brought to me. On the second question. I will have inquiries made immediately to see whether this would help Australian corporations maintain a greater degree of equity. If it turned out to be right I could give the honourable member the assurance that it is the fundamental policy of the Government to maintain the maximum Australian equity investment in corporations established in this country.

page 2352

ACCIDENT AT SYDNEY AIRPORT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - For the information of honourable members I present the following paper:

Accident Investigation Report - Canadian Pacific Airlines DC8-63 Aircraft, CF-CPQ, and TransAustralia Airlines Boeing 727 Aircraft, VH-TJA at Sydney Airport, New South Wales, on 29th January 1971.

This report was presented to the Senate yesterday and the Minister for Civil Aviation made a full statement in relation to the matter in that place.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Supply.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have called the- Minister for Supply. The honourable member may speak about this matter when the Minister has presented his report.

page 2353

ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTS SAFETY COMMITTEE

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present Report No. 2 of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee entitled ‘Strontium 90 and Caesium 137 in the Australian Environment During 1969 and Some Results for 1970’.

page 2353

QUESTION

ACCIDENT AT SYDNEY AIRPORT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has not sought leave to make a statement. He is speaking with the indulgence of the Chair at this stage, and he has asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question.

Mr Charles Jones:

– 1 am just trying to elaborate on it, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence. At the same time, these reports are of great importance and I believe that honourable members should be given the opportunity to debate them. This could have been one of the worst fatalities

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member has asked the Minister a question.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Then I seek leave to make a brief statement. I do not want to debate the report at this stage?

Mr Swartz:

– I seek leave to respond to the question that has been asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– When I was Minister for Civil Aviation my normal practice was to make a statement in this House and to table the relevant documents. Yesterday in the Senate the Minister for Civil Aviation. (Senator Cotton) did that. There is no desire on the part of the Government to stop debate on matters at any time, and if a debate is required in this instance this can be arranged. I draw attention to the fact that this matter is at present before the High Court and some implications could arise. The statement was not debated in the Senate. The Minister made the statement and there was a response to it, but the matter is now on the notice paper and I do not think it could come forward for debate until the High Court has made some decision. However, we can examine that aspect. If the honourable member requests it at a later stage I can, if necessary, make a statement when it would be appropriate so that the Opposition will have the opportunity to make some comments.

Mr Charles Jones:

– -I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I thank the House. The Opposition is concerned that reports of this nature are being tabled in the Parliament and no opportunity is being given to debate them. I welcome the statement by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) that he is prepared at some time in the future to make a statement on the matter. I ask that that statement be tabled as early as is convenient so that honourable members, if they desire, can debate the relevant findings of the inquiry. Courts of marine inquiry have been set up to investigate tragedies such as the ‘Noongah’ and the ‘Sedco Helen’ but there has never been any opportunity for honourable members to discuss these questions. 1 hope that in the near future the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Government will give serious consideration to making statements when reports of this nature are tabled so that honourable members can debate the merits of the reports. Too often the inquiries are held and then the reports are thrown into the archives and honourable members are not given the opportunity to debate them.

page 2354

ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTS SAFETY COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! What is the honourable member seeking to do?

Mr Foster:

– Similar to the honourable member for Newcastle. I refer to the report about atomic weapons that was just tabled by the Minister for Supply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member–

Mr Foster:

– I seek leave, then.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr McMahon:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is not granted.

Mr Foster:

– We do not know what it is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 2354

ACCIDENT AT SYDNEY AIRPORT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not a matter for the Chair or a point of order. This is a matter of Government procedure.

page 2354

QUESTION

ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTS SAFETY COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It is not the province of the Chair to advise any honourable member what action he may take in this House.

page 2354

QUESTION

REPORT OF THE COMMONWEALTH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Ministerial Statement

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of . the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee. The Committee was composed of a group of eminent Australian lawyers. It was charged with recommending to the Government the procedures by which administrative decisions could be reviewed either in law or on their merits. The members of the Committee were: Mr Justice Kerr, a member of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, as Chairman; Mr Justice Mason, who was first appointed to the Committee in his capacity at the time as the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and who continued to be a member of the Committee following his appointment in 1969 as a Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Mr R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., who joined the Committee on his appointment as SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth on 15th May 1969; and Professor J. Whitmore, presently Dean of the Faculty of Law in the Australian National University and an acknowledged authority on administrative law.

The report is a valuable contribution to Australian study of the subject of administrative review. It reflects the considerable expertise and industry which the members of the Committee brought to their task. A glance at the chapter headings of the report will serve to indicate the breadth of the Committee’s consideration of the matters referred to it. The report canvasses the problems associated with the review of administrative decisions. Against the background of experience in some overseas countries, it discusses the efficacy of traditional means of redress of grievances, including by representations by members of the Parliament. It notes the steps taken by the Parliament itself in particular statutes to provide for review of the decisions of administrative tribunals. It examines the adequacy of the traditional review procedures through the courts by the prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. The Committee has concluded that a Commonwealth administrative court should be established to provide a means for judicial review of the decisions of Commonwealth Ministers, officials and administrative bodies. The jurisdiction of the court would be limited to judicial review on legal grounds. Alongside the court would be established an administrative review tribunal. The tribunal would, in appropriate cases, review on the merits the exercise of administrative discretions under Commonwealth statutes and regulations.

In addition, the report outlines a proposal for an administrative review council. The council would be charged with supervising the procedures of administrative tribuals and with making recommendations as to the administrative discretions to be reviewed on their merits by the tribunal. The tribunal would be assisted by a general counsel for grievances and a small research staff. The general counsel for grievances would be a member of the council and have a right of audience before both the Commonwealth administrative court and the administrative review tribunal. It can be seen that the Committee has produced a report which sets out in an informed and elegant fashion a comprehensive structure for administrative review. Even from this summary’ honourablemembers will appreciate that the report will require considerable study. We have decided to make it available at this stage in order to promote informed and considered discussion in the Parliament and in public, academic and professional circles.

The Government has not had an opportunity to consider the report in detail. But we have decided that immediate action on 2 fronts is appropriate. A group of 3 people will be appointed to examine existing administrative discretions under ‘ Commonwealth statutes and regulations and to advise the Government as to those in’ respect of which it considers a review on the merits should be provided. This study of heeds will proceed immediately, and ahead of any decisions about further aspects of the report. We intend that the group to study and make recommendations on the review of administrative discretions under statute and regulations will be constituted at a high level. It will include perhaps one member of the Committee whose report is now being tabled, a very senior and experienced public servant or ex-public servant and perhaps one other with wide experience in the legal, political or administrative fields. In the light of the recommendations from the group and of responses from those interested in the report now tabled, the Government will be able to determine in detail what additional arrangements for administrative review may be necessary.

In addition, the Government has decided to ask the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to institute a review of the prerogative writ procedures available in the courts. We accept the comment of the Committee that the legal grounds on which remedies can at present be obtained are limited and often complicated. The Attorney-General’s review of remedies available in the courts will take place concurrently with the study 1 have mentioned of the existing range of administrative discretions under statute or regulation. This review should also lead to recommendations which the Government will consider. The Government believes that these two immediate decisions relating to the report of the Commonwealth Administrative review committee will be taken as a tangible demonstration of the significance it attaches to the protection of the rights of individuals at a time when governments exercise extensive powers on their behalf.

I think it appropriate to add at this stage 2 comments. The first is that this report should be of particular concern to members of the Parliament. They themselves have a significant role in the review and criticism of the administrative processes. It is important that their . own role be regarded as central and that any steps taken in response to the report should have this in mind. My second comment relates to the possibility of these reforms causing delays in the administrative process. The Government, and the Commonwealth Service, are often criticised for delays that occur in administration. In large part, these are due to the need for co-ordination and for clearance to ensure that all’ aspects of any particular matter are fully considered. It must be recognised that any substantia] extension of institutions and procedures for the formal review of administrative action will in the nature of things add materially both to the time taken in the administrative process and to the costs it entails. I need not remind honourable members that speed and efficiency in the conduct of Government business are important both for the Government itself and for those who rely on decisions of the Government. I believe honourable members will welcome the report and the action the Government proposes to take. I commend the report to the House for consideration. I present the following paper:

Report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee - Ministerial Statement, 14th October 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I would like to say a few things immediately on this matter. First of all, I suppose we should reassure honourable members, in view of the number and the intensity of their attendance and interests, that this is not the other report which Mr Justice Kerr is preparing, nor can - we expect–that it will be acted upon as rapidly. But having said that, I would like to say that it is impossible to exaggerate the significance of the matters dealt with in this report. The life, property and pursuit of happiness of the average citizen now are affected in many more cases and to a’ much greater degree by administrative decisions which cannot come before courts or be in any other way reviewed than they are by most issues which can come before the courts.

I, and I believe my Party, support the general approach which has been taken in this report and by the Government in the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on it. I would also like to thank and compliment the Prime Minister for tabling the report. When in November 1968 I first asked Attorney-General Bowen, who appointed the Committee, about the tabling of the report, the honourable and learned gentleman did not want to give any assurance that he would table it. He repeated the same attitude when I asked him again about tabling the report on 29th April 1971 dur ing bis second term as Attorney-General. The report has been tabled and, as these things go, with relative speed.

The next thing I want to mention arises from a statement which the Prime Minister made about the report and which I believe did not give the full story, nor should it give entire satisfaction to the House. The Prime Minister said:

The Committee has concluded that a Commonwealth administrative court should be established to provide a means for judicial review of the decisions . . .

In fact, at paragraph 245, what the Committee said was this:

If there were to be a Commonwealth Superior Court we would recommend that it should be the court to have the jurisdiction by way of judicial review which we have in mind. If proposals for the establishment of that court are not to be proceeded with, there would remain for consideration the question whether a specialist court to exercise the jurisdiction of judicial review of Commonwealth administrative decisions should be established.

Paragraph 246 states:

If the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court is not established we would then recommend that a Commonwealth Administrative Court should be established. ….

This is not unreasonable.

Mr McMahon:

– Might I suggest that you refer to paragraph 390 where you will see that the Committee recommends this and gives a summary of its main recommendations, one of which is the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court, etc.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, the Committee recommended it in the alternative. I thank the right honourable gentleman for drawing my attention to this passage because it makes it plain that the Committee is not recommending just a Commonwealth Administrative Court. It is recommending, firstly, a Commonwealth superior court but, if that is not established, it recommends a special Commonwealth administrative court. The significance of this lies in the fact that as far back as December 1962 Cabinet authorised Attorney-General Barwick to design a Commonwealth superior court. Sir Garfield described the court in an article in the ‘Federal Law Review’ in June 1964. Attorney-General Bowen made a ministerial statement on the proposed court in May 1967. He was asked a question about it by the honourable and learned member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in October 1968 and he introduced the Commonwealth Superior Court Bill in November 1968. The previous month, in his answer to the honourable member for Moreton, Attorney-General Bowen said:

Assuming the Bill -

That is, the Commonwealth Superior Court Bill- is passed in the autumn session ….

That is the autumn session of 1969. Two and one half years have elapsed and the House has never been told what is the attitude of the Gorton Ministry under successive Attorneys-General or of the McMahon Ministry, under successive Attorneys-General to this Bill. It was approved in principle by Cabinet in December 1962. The report brings this clearly to mind because the original term of reference to the Committee on 29th October1 968 by Attorney-General Bowen was this:

To consider the jurisdiction to be given to the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court to review administrative decisions.

On 14th December 1970, Attorney-General Hughes amended this term of reference to read thus:

To consider what jurisdiction, it any, to review the administrative decisions made under Commonwealth law should be exercised by the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court or some other Federal court or by some other court exercising Federal jurisdiction.

I believe that it is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister at this stage what decision has been made on this 9-year old proposal on which the House was given a Bill 3 years ago. Also - this is not of the same importance but is related to it - what has happened to the committee which also was appointed by Attorney-General Bowen in October 1968 to review the Judiciary Act and. the effect on related laws of the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court Bill?

Two committees were appointed 3 years ago. They both related to a proposal approved by Cabinet 9 years ago for which a Bill was introduced 3 years ago. In speaking to that Bill, I welcomed it. I need not go into much more detail as to the complexity of administrative decisions in Australia at present. There is too great a diversity in the existing bodies and too great a mystery in the existing methods. I refer honourable members who are inter ested in seeing the scores of Acts and regulations and the hundreds of review bodies, boards, tribunals, committees or courts to an answer which Prime Minister Menzies gave me on 17th August 1965 and another which Prime Minister Gorton gave me on 15th October 1968, exactly a fortnight before the Committee was appointed. Prime Minister Gorton’s answer occupied 4 pages of small type. It also was interesting because it listed the legal or other representation available to persons before these tribunals. Anybody looking at these very complex answers will see how urgent is this matter.

There are 2 remaining small matters that I should like to mention. I notice that the Committee says that there should be no appeals from decisions of the GovernorGeneral. Paragraph 265 states:

We have deliberately omitted to recommend review of powers exercised by the GovernorGeneral.

The Committee may, of course, have been speaking of matters of high principle determined in effect by the Executive. I would point out, as an example, Federal matters which in Australia or its Territories can be determined only by the Governor-General - in other words, by an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. Honourable members will see these matters in answers given to me by Attorney-General Bowen on 26th March 1969 and by Prime Minister Gorton on 19th September 1969. They include appeals to the Governor-General by public servants dissastisfied with any surcharge made by the Auditor-General, persons arrested or detained without reasonable cause under section 84 of the Crimes Act and officers dissatisfied with a decision of the Military Board vide Australian Military Forces Regulation 194. Again, as part of our imperial bequests, there are now to the Governor-General appeals which formerly lay to the Governor of Singapore in respect to the CocosKeeling Islands under the Arms and Explosives Ordinance, the Banishment Ordinance, the Registration of Schools Ordinance, the Undesirable Publications Ordinance and the Theatres Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore. Also, to complete the list, there are some small matters of appeal concerning the Air Force, the Army and the Navy and, finally, under the Venereal Diseases Ordinance of the Australian

Capital Territory. I am at a loss to know why there should be an appeal to the Governor-General on such varied public and often intimate matters.

The other matter which I wanted to mention concerns security appeals. The Committee makes some . reference to this subject in paragraph 344 of its report. There are migrants whose applications for naturalisation are deferred or rejected on security grounds or who have been notified of the grounds upon which it is proposed to deport them. One would think that we ought expressly to give some power of review in such matters which concern the rights of a very great number of persons to pursue occupations in Australia or to secure citizen rights in Australia.

Those are the main matters, that I wished to mention in this context. Not only honourable members, but all citizens will be very much interested in this pioneering and comprehensive report. It will make a very great contribution to citizen rights in this country. I would imagine that there would be support on all sides - this has been plain for many years - for the judicial and the administrative bodies which it is proposed to establish. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask what has happened to the proposal to establish a Commonwealth Superior Court and what has happened to the Judiciary Act Committee which was appointed, pursuant to that proposal, at the same time as the Committee whose report has just been presented was appointed.

Debate (on motion by .Mr Hughes) adjourned.

page 2358

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Mr ERWIN:
Ballaarat

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications 1 present the Committee’s report relating to the distribution and pricing of parliamentary publications, together with appendices and extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee. I seek leave to. make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ERWIN:

– The report which I have just tabled represents a landmark in the parliamentary oversight of Government publishing operations. This is the first Report of the Joint Committee on Publications operating under the powers granted to it by Senate standing order 36 and House standing order 28 which came into force last year.

The subject matter of the inquiry was referred to the Committee by the then Treasurer, Mr Bury, on 5th March 1971 when he wrote asking the Committee to inquire into the whole question of the pricing of parliamentary publications and the associated financial arrangements. Parliamentary publications include Hansard, the Notice Papers, Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the 2 Houses, the Parliamentary Handbook, the various pamphlets and lists published by the parliamentary departments and the Parliamentary Papers series - which comprises some 250 papers which the Houses order to be printed during each year. This category does not include Government departmental publications which are circulated in the Parliament but not ordered to be printed as parliamentary papers, nor does it include Acts of Parliament although Bills and tariff proposals do fall into the category. In essence parliamentary publications are those for which parliamentary departments pay for the printing and distribution.

Most honourable members of this House tend to take for granted the . supply of information papers and Hansards which are produced by the various parliamentary departments. This is, however, an area of considerable importance involving the expenditure of at least $lm per annum. The present arrangements for the supply of parliamentary publications to universities, libraries and the public, etc., stem mainly from edicts of the Presiding Officers at the beginning of the century and, apart from their consideration by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Hansard in 1954 and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Government Publications in 1964, very little attention has been given to these matters.

One of the reasons for the then Treasurer requesting the Committee to conduct an inquiry into the distribution and pricing of parliamentary publications was the short-fall experienced by. the Australian

Government Publishing Service Distribution Section Trust Fund from which funds are provided to distribute such publications as Hansards, Bills, parliamentary papers, etc. The then Treasurer suggested that the arrangements, whereby the Trust Fund was reimbursed to the extent of 25 per cent of revenue raised by subscriptions to these publications, were not very reasonable as the expenses incurred by the publishing service were in some cases some thousands per cent greater than income earned.

During the course of the inquiry, the Committee established that there had been no real attempts to rationalise free distribution and paying subscriber arrangements for these publications, and that the criteria of eligibility for free receipt of parliamentary publications had not been challenged or varied for many years. The Committee found that a large proportion of these publications were issued free, the cost of production being met by the Parliament and the cost of distribution being met by the Publishing Service and that in the case of most publications there were few subscribers to parliamentary publications. In the case of publications to which there were a relatively large number of subscribers, for example Hansard with 1,400 subscribers and Parliamentary Papers and Bills with between 100 and 200 subscribers, the subscription charges levied were totally unrelated to the cost of production and distribution and did not even cover postage costs.

The Committee also considered the publication of Hansard, taking a special interest in the nature of the daily and weekly Hansards. The Committee heard evidence and received submissions pointing out that the Select Committee on Hansard of 1954 and the Joint Select Committee of 1964 both recommended that the daily Hansard be made a ‘for sale’ item which would be publicly available on the day after the debates which it reported. The Committee agreed that this seemed an excellent idea but established that the current work load of the Government Printer prohibited such a step being taken in the near future. However, the Committee has recommended that as soon as the Government Printer is able to produce daily Hansards with sufficient speed and in sufficient quantity, arrangements be made to sell the daily and io decrease the extent of the publication of the weekly Hansard. This will not only change the nature of the Hansard from that of a reference document to a news item, but should also enable it to be produced somewhat more economically as revenue from sales should offset production costs to a greater extent than at present.

The Committee has made several recommendations concerning the free distribution of parliamentary publications to educational institutions, such as universities, colleges, of advanced education, institutes of technology, teachers colleges and secondary schools and believes that one of the most important functions of the Parliament is to inform the rising generation of Australians about its operations. The Committee can see no reason for charging institutions such as these for parliamentary publications and has made similar recommendations concerning State and municipal libraries.

However, the Committee has also recommended that certain classes of persons and organisations be deleted from the free distribution lists and required to pay subscriptions for parliamentary publications. In the main these are trade, business, employer, employee, professional, commercial and similar organisations (excluding newspapers and the Parliamentary Press Gallery). The Committee can find no justification for such organisations not contributing to the costs of production and distribution of the publications which they wish to receive. At present the subscription rates for parliamentary publications are substantial the same as they were several decades ago and the Committee has recommended that the subscription rates be increased. The Committee has had to bear in mind 2 conflicting factors in arriving at this decision. The Committee is well . aware of the necessity for providing deserving organisations .arid persons with inexpensive access to parliamentary publications and believes that it has done so by recommending that persons and organisations falling into this category be eligible for free receipt.

At the same time the Committee has borne in mind that persons and organisations capable of .paying a fair price for parliamentary publications have obtained them very cheaply in the past. So cheaply, in fact, that the cost of an annual subscription to parliamentary papers or Hansard can be less than the production cost of a single issue of such publications. As a result the Committee has recommended that a person subscribing to Hansard, parliamentary papers, or Bills, etc., be required to pay a subscription fee which approximates to the run-on production costs plus postage, labour and overhead costs. This will represent a change in the subscription to the parliamentary papers from $5 per annum to $85 per annum, a change in the annual subscription to Hansard of the 2 Houses from $1.20 per annum to approximately $27 per annum and a change in the subscription price of Bills from $3.50 per annum to about $33.

The Committee is aware that, in percentage terms, these increases are considerable but points out to the House that the present subscription rates are totally unrealistic in the light of the present costs, that deserving persons and organisations have been recommended to be eligible for free issue of publications and that the trust fund of the Sales and Distribution Branch of the Publishing Service from which funds are made available to extend the operations of that Branch and publicise parliamentary and government publications will be boosted by this added revenue (or, at least, the extra revenue will enable the Trust Fund to remain liquid).

The Committee has made one other recommendation apart from those relating to the cost of subscription to parliamentary publications, the extent of the free distributions lists and the selling of the daily Hansard. This relates to the equipment currently used by the Government Printer. In evidence to the Committee and in letters to the Committee and the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, the Government Printer has indicated that for several years he has been attempting to obtain new equipment which would enable him to use computercontrolled type-setting processes that would vastly increase his printing capacity and decrease his printing costs. The Printer advised the Committee that this equipment, which would cost some $755,000, would enable him to make a saving of about $200,000 per annum in the production of

Hansard, that is about 50 per cent, and similar savings on other major items such as electoral rolls. I know that Mr Speaker has himself made inquiries concerning these costs and that he is aware of the fact that the Government Printer is serving under such wretched circumstances. Mr Speaker is fully aware of the problems here. The Committee is unable to see the logic of the Government in rejecting the Printer’s request for funds for this equipment and strongly recommends that the Government reconsider this matter.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the other members of the Committee for the work they have put into this inquiry and also I would like to thank the Clerk to the Committee, Mr Grahame Horsfield, for his invaluable assistance during the inquiry. .1 would like to remind the House, that the present Joint Publications Committee, as it is currently constituted, is a direct result of the report of the Joint Select Committee, on Parliamentary and Government Publications of 1964 and the actions of the Government and the Parliament in accepting the recommendations of that report. To a certain extent this Committee replaces a since disbanded committee of the Department of the Treasury - a welcome change with Parliament taking over some of the functions of the Executive rather than vice-versa. This is the first report produced by the Publications . Committee, constituted in such a manner. I trust that our next investigations, which will concern overseas exchange arrangements for government publications and the publishing activities of a number of government departments will prove as interesting to the Committee and as fruitful as I would hope that this report will be. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That the report be printed.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– by leave- I wish to make a short statement on the same matter. On behalf of members of the Opposition who sat on the Joint Publications Committee which considered the matters that have just been brought before the chamber, I want to add a few remarks to compliment the Chairman of the Committee the honourabe member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) on the very adequate way in which he provided the opportunity for all members of the Committee to put their iews and the very fair way in which he allowed discussion to take place. I want also to support the remarks made by the Chairman when he complimented the secretary of the Committee, Mr Grahame Horsfield, for the excellent way in which he carried out his duties. I was very pleased to listen to the Chairman’s remarks when he tabled this report because I think he spared himself no effort in putting the facts as the Committee saw them, before the chamber

I would like to support the Chairman in one or two matters that he brought to the attention of the chamber today. The Chairman referred to the matter of the daily Hansard being available very readily on the day following what was said in the Parliament. He said that the daily Hansard was made available in order to give a comprehensive and exact report of what took place in this chamber. I support the Chairman in this regard and I support him in his efforts to have the Government reconsider its decision not to approve the machinery that is so vital to Mr Murray, the Government Printer, to enable him to carry out his work.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to make these comments. I am sorry that I do not have the time to make further comments on the report. I will close by saying that this has been my first experience of serving on a joint committee of this Parliament and I see the immense value that a greater use of committees would be to the House. 1 hope that the Government will move very quickly, and follow the lead of the Senate, towards the establishment of more joint committees. I trust that it will not be much longer before this House has the same opportunity to do the valuable work such as is being done by the Senate committees.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– by leave - I should like to support the remarks of the honourable members for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) and Bowman (Mr Keogh) on this subject. I think that the Joint Publications Committee was a very interesting and valuable committee. We turned up some extraordinary anomalies and curious his torical accidents in the distribution of various documents and papers, and we have come to clear and consistent conclusions.

I would like to support the remarks of the honourable member for Ballaarat concerning the outstanding work done by Mr Grahame Horsfield, the Secretary of the Committee. It was always a source of astonishment to members of the Committee how our sometime, rambling discussions were codified to clear and concise conclusions. The best way I can sum :ip the work of the Secretary is in the words of the old poem which run:

And so while the great ones depart for their dinner, The secretary stays growing thinner and thinner, Racking his brains to record the report.

What he thinks they’ll think they ought to have thought.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2361

LOAN (DEFENCE) BELL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks parliamentary approval to a borrowing by the Commonwealth of up to $US90m from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to assist in financing the purchase of general defence equipment in the United States, and approval for the execution of the loan agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth for this borrowing. Under the Loan (Defence) Acf 1970, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US89m to finance orders for general defence equipment placed with United States suppliers in 1969-70. The amount of that credit has been fully committed.

Under the Loan (Defence) Act (No. 2) 1970, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US123m to finance orders for general defence equipment to be placed with United States suppliers during 1970-71. However, $US74.2m of this loan was subsequently cancelled by the Commonwealth. This cancellation was due in large part to a re-evaluation , by the Service departments of equipment needs during that year. Negotiations have recently been completed for a credit to cover orders placed during 1971- 72. The present Bill will provide the necessary authority to enter into an agreement for this further credit.

The loan agreement with the ExportImport Bank which is set out as the schedule to the Bill, follows the usual form of agreements with the bank for defence loans. The loan will carry an interest rate of 6± per cent - the rate current for this type of Joan when the. loan was approved in July 1971. A commitment fee of onehalf per cent will be payable on the undrawn amount from 8th August 1971. Drawings on the loan may be made at any time up to 31st December 1975, and repayment of each amount drawn will be in 14 semi-annual instalments commencing on 15th November next following the close of the financial year in which the amount was drawn. Since the borrowing is for defence purposes the approval of the Loan Council is not required. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2362

REFERENCE OF WORKS TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Anula and Wulagi Neighbourhoods, Sanderson District, Darwin

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

– I move:

The 2 neighbourhoods will provide 1,808 residential block and 22 special sites for services such as schools, parks, shops, flats and service stations. The works comprising the proposal are roadwork and drainage around and within the neighbourhoods, water supply, sewers, electricity, grading of playing fields, construction of ‘ amenities buildings and an arterial road. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $8.75m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support this proposal and once again to commend the Government on its forward planning and, might I add, the Public Works Committee which appears to spend about three-quarters of its time in looking after growth requirements of the Northern Territory. I would ask that Committee to ensure that the sewerage arrangement for those 1,808 residential blocks will be handled in such a way that the public will not be disadvantaged and that the sewerage outlet will run towards the Leanyer Swamp instead of toward the open sea. I commend the Government and the Public Works Committee for this excellent proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Stage 5 Extensions, Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin

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

– I move:

The proposal involves the installation of an additional generating set (No. 6), associated boiler plant, auxiliaries, transformer and switchgear, augmentation of the cool? ing water system, construction of a stores building and other minor building and site works. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $5. 85m. 1 table plans of the proposed work.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

- 1 rise to support this proposal for the installation of an additional generating set. 1 might point out that it is No. 6. This means that the Government is keeping ahead of the population growth in the Northern Territory with extensions to the Stokes Hill power station. 1 would hope that as a result of the extensions the reticulation to the south of the city towards Batchelor and the Adelaide River will be possible and also that reticulated power will be made available to some of the developing areas immediately to the south of the present city limits. I once again , commend the zealous work of the Public Works Committee. This Government is looking at the future of the Northern Territory and is making positive plans for future increases in its population.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2363

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 th October (vide page 2033), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

The great majority of bona fide wool growers will receive little tangible benefit from the Government’s 1-year wool subsidy which will cost at least $100m. This $100m grant should be devoted exclusively to those bona fide wool growers, big or small, who are in a desperate financial position with the principal objective being centred on progressive reconstruction and the alleviation of local debts. Most of this money will finish up with the banks, the pastoral houses and hire purchase companies which are already exerting pressure on growers to honour their debts. Indirectly, of course, the Commonwealth will also regain a share of these funds through taxation. A significant proportion of this money will be paid to affluent wool, wheat and cattle producers including companies whose financial position and assets do not justify the receipt of this one-year Commonwealth financial assistance. I stress all along that this is financial assistance for one year; it is not a long term subsidy, which would have quite different principle from those that I am enumerating now. This is at least $100m being given to the wool producers of Australia as an emergency grant with no strings attached. The principles are quite different from accepted principles of stabilisation or subsidies for a longer period.

These funds will be paid to the thousands of professional and non-bona fide primary producers who are engaged in running sheep as a sideline for the purpose of major income tax benefits. The Government in effect is forcing the general faxpayers, especially those on lower incomes, to pay extra taxation this year to enable this money to be given to many people who are in an extremely affluent financial position. Under this legislation the Government will be giving taxpayers’ money to people who are recognised as established millionaires and just as outrageous is the fact that the large amounts of money which will be paid to rich foreign owned companies engaged in wool production will finish up in the pockets of shareholders living in other parts of the world. A very serious consequence of this legislation is that a large proportion of the funds which will be paid indirectly to the banks, the pastoral houses and the hire purchase companies will be lost forever to country areas. This money will certainly not be re-loaned again to primary producers in country areas. It is more likely that it will be invested in, say, real estate in the middle of the cities.

It is claimed, for example, that Dalgety Australia Ltd controls approximately 1 million sheep. This overseas owned company will receive a total cash subsidy which could be as high as $600,000. In addition, this company has first lien on wool sales, including the subsidy paid to thousands of producers, because the definition of a producer under this Bill is the person who owns the wool; he need not be the wool grower. If he has first lien on those wool sales, he is the legitimate producer, as defined in the Bill, and he will have direct access to this subsidy money. I believe that this is a blatant miscarriage of social justice. If Dalgety’s were in desperate need of this cash subsidy, as is the case with large numbers of desperate wool growers and their families, then this company would He entitled to financial assistance. I do not argue against that, but it is reported that the company has just made a profit before taxation of $5m.

The cash subsidy will also be paid to other rich and affluent companies, such as Elder Smith and Co. Ltd and the British Tobacco Co. (Aust.) Ltd, just to name two which run large numbers of sheep. I said previously that some millionaires would also be entitled to this cash subsidy. One individual interest in South Australia is alleged to control 12,000 bales of wool each year. The cash subsidy which will be paid to this person, or to his interests, will be at least $300,000. The total cash payment to be made by this Government only to those interests to which I have referred is equivalent to the total income tax paid by 2,000 married men and their families earning the average Australian wage. I believe that the Government is guilty of gross deceit and even political fraud. The Opposition fully supports the payment of this oneyear cash grant to those bona fide wool growers who have a genuine need of financial assistance to overcome a desperate financial position.

If this SI 00m cash grant were distributed on the basis of real need, the Vast majority of wool growers would receive far greater benefits than they will now receive under this Government’s scheme which so blatantly discriminates against the smaller family-owned wool property. Supplementary to this subsidy scheme should be the implementation of a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme to apply to those producers and areas of production and marketing which need reconstruction and assistance. The Opposition also believes, as stated in the amendment, that the third part of this scheme should be complementary to the establishment of a single marketing statutory authority - a strong buyer and a strong seller which would be given the authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip. This authority would operate within the provisions of a reserve price scheme, and I will talk about that later.

So far as the overall Bill is concerned, it is not my intention at the second reading stage to debate at length the various clauses of the Bill, or the implementation of those clauses, because after all the Government’s plan is different from that of the Opposition, and most of the clauses really are irrelevant when I am arguing in this way. But, nevertheless, at the Committee stage I should like to ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) certain questions. For example, with respect to private buying, I find it difficult to understand how the Government can discriminate against private buyers and the auction system. The Government is discriminating when one considers that the subsidy which could be 20 per cent or 25 per cent is actually levied, in the one instance - that is, the auction system - on gross sales and, as regards private selling, it is levied at the farm gate.

Of course, it is argued that the costs of selling are significantly less under the private buying scheme than under the auction system, and that is true. It is argued also that under this system producers selling under the private buying scheme could receive more than the amount received by producers selling under the auction system, and this is true. But the . fact remains that there is discrimination in the payment of the subsidy, and this is an essential part of the Bill. Why is there this discrimination against private buyers. If the Government does npt like private buyers, then it should establish a statutory authority which has powers of acquisition. But the Government should not sit on the fence and have it both ways. It should not discriminate against any section of the community.

I want to say a few words about the problems facing the wool industry itself. It is quite clear that the United States of America is the key in the immediate future to the progress of the wool industry in Australia. It is the largest consumer of wool in the world. Although relatively, it does not import large quantities of raw wool it does import very large quantities of woollen products, particularly from Japan, Italy, Europe and the United Kingdom. It is quite clear that the international monetary problem has an effect on our exports directly to the United States, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it has an effect on our exports to the countries which manufacture consumer goods for sale to the United States. It is clear that on these 2 counts Australia is heavily dependent on America both directly and indirectly because Australia is exporting raw wool to the other countries.

The Americans have imposed a tariff on our greasy wool. In addition, an extra 10 per cent surcharge has been imposed on those commodities which bear this tariff, and greasy wool is one of them. There is also a 10 per cent surcharge on the importation of woollen textiles into America. Thus Australia is affected in both ways. There is the effect on the one hand, on demand from Japan and the other manufacturing countries and, on the other hand, on direct sales of raw wool to America. In addition, we have the problem that large contracts are made in American dollars. Contracts in relation to our greasy wool sold to Japan are in United States dollars. Contracts in relation to our greasy wool which is shipped to Europe are in United States dollars. Everybody knows that with a time lag of, say, 9 to 15 months before raw wool is converted into the finished product, the wool buyer himself is in a quandary in knowing what price he should pay under the auction system, as we have it today and which is the basis of this whole scheme, and with the international monetary problem which makes it difficult to know what is the true level of the dollar in relation to other currencies. Is it any wonder that we have problems with respect to the price and the quantity of wool bought. It is obvious that buyers are buying as low as possible in terms of quantity and price. In addition, of course, the entire world textile industry covering synthetic products as well as woollen products, is facing degrees of difficulty.

Let me deal with the organisation of the wool industry itself. The organisation of wool marketing and wool administration can be described only as archaic and inefficient. In fact, it is a disgrace. Wool growers have been led by the nose by this Government and, I am sorry to say, by a lot of industry leaders, to the brink of economic disaster through sheer and gross inefficiency in wool marketing and administration at high levels. Let us look at the position. We have the International Wool Secretariat whose function is to promote wool throughout the globe - with very little power other than that. We have the Australian Wool Board which also has the responsibility for promoting wool throughout the world. It has some powers in respect of research and periodical investiga- tions in relation to marketing. We have the Australian Wool Commission which has certain powers. It is obvious that the most constructive move which can be made is to bring the management or the powers directing the production and marketing of wool in Australia under one head in one coherent body. The only way this can be done is by means of a single statutory marketing authority. Such an authority has proved successful in every other major industry marketing primary products. But, of course, the Government is tied so much to the pastoral houses, the private banks, the hire purchase companies and the brokers, and there is such violent vested opposition to this scheme, that it does nothing but procrastinate.

What amazes me is that when we are out on the stump we hear that the Country Party is all for a single statutory marketing authority, but when its members are in Parliament, as we have seen in the last 18 months, they remain silent about it. If the Country Party believes in a single statutory marketing authority surely it has the numbers when voting with the Opposition to get what it wants, but it will not do this, lt annoys me to hear Country Party members of this Parliament speaking to farmers in their own electorate - I have heard them - indicating that they are 100 per cent behind a statutory marketing authority when they will not say a word in favour of such an authority in this Parliament. It is obvious that the Australian wool industry is in a very serious economic condition. No-one in this Parliament will refute that. Does the Government really believe that this scheme, which will cost the taxpayers of Australia at least $100m, is the bes) way to achieve the most constructive and progressive measures for the wool industry? 1 do not think anybody can argue legitimately that it is.

In reply to questions I have asked in the Parliament and in other places, it has been argued that the reason this $100m scheme could not be directed solely to those wool producers who are in desperate need - whose need is bona fide in every sense of the word - is that we cannot tell who are those in need and who are those not in need. Does this Government believe that an accountant looking at the balance sheet of a foreign or Australian company which is running sheep in this country, could not tell whether the company’s assets or liquidity justified its sharing in this subsidy? This is what the Government is trying to tell us. No-one could possibly agree with it because when we look at the proposed distribution of this money we find that approximately 170 producers in Australia who are running over 20,000 sheep will get $4m. Will anybody tell me that the Government could not look at the balance sheets of those producers to determine whether they are entitled to this one year grant? Will anybody say that the Government could not look at the balance sheets of British Tobacco Co. (Aust.) Ltd, Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd, or Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd and in 5 minutes know whether they are entitled to a subsidy? This is what the Government is saying it cannot do.

Surely if there is any economic justice in this country the payment of a one year emergency cash grant with no strings attached should be made to those producers who need it most providing - I stress this - that there is some direction from the Government regarding reconstruction. I emphasise that it should not be the aim of the Government to reduce the wool industry of Australia to the equivalent of the dairying industry by granting long term subsidies and increasing the number of marginal producers throughout Australia. That is what we must guard against. What I am emphasising here is that this $10Om should be concentrated on those producers who need it most while at the same time we should apply the principles of reconstruction and rehabilitation, which are just as important. I cannot see how the Government can argue logically against that proposition.

There are many clauses in this Bill which we can deal with in the Committee stage but there is one matter, which I touched on before, that I must emphasise and that is the propriety of the first lien. It is proposed that any body or person, whether it be a bank, hire purchase company or a back alley money lender, shall have a first lien on the sales of a producer. Under this Bill they are protected by definition and entitled to have the full subsidy paid to them providing, of course, the producer’s debt to them is greater than the total value of his wool sales.

Mr Sinclair:

– Would you treat the payments differently from the ordinary wool receipts?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I have already told the Minister that I would incorporate in the legislation a provision relating to specific, not general moratoria, to stop large money lenders who have loaned at exorbitant rates of interest to producers who had no option but to borrow from them, and then let the Government make a judgment, as it did during the depression years, on individual cases. The Government will not in this way, as it has suggested, tie up the industry. It will not do this. This was made clear from the investigations of the reconstruction commission after the war. Specific moratoria are quite different from general moratoria. I, and I think most people, believe that if companies have been guilty of lending to primary producers irrationally at high rates of interest those companies, not the Australian taxpayer, should bear some proportion of the national loss. That is the basic principle behind specific moratoria. It has worked before in Australia and it has worked in other countries.

I fail to see why this Government should bring in legislation which will simply transfer taxpayers’ money straight into the hands of affluent companies, many of them foreign owned, simply because those companies have a first lien on the wool sales. Let nobody try to tell me that the private banking sector in this country is so broke that it could not carry these producers for at least another 12 months until the whole wool marketing system was changed to operate on some rational basis. The Australian Labor Party believes that there is an urgent need for the Commonwealth to take immediate and positive action to restore the wool industry to the former strong and viable financial position it occupied in the Australian economy. The decided comparative advantage enjoyed by Australian woolgrowers over those in other wool producing countries is being eroded at an alarming rate. The deteriorating economic condition of the industry has been caused, on the one hand, by the insidious increase in costs and, on the other hand, by the progressive decline in the average price of wool.

The Opposition recognises that there must be a radical change in the appraisal and marketing of WOOl. We accept the fact that the only way in which a statutory marketing authority could operate as efficiently as possible would be by the complementary use of, say, core testing or objective measurement. We accept that, but let us do something about it to accelerate its introduction. Let us have a plan. If we are going to concentrate in the future on an objective measurement then let us have some legislation and some finance directed towards accelerating this method and let it be complimentary to a statutory authority.

Labor’s wool policy embraces, as I keep hammering, a statutory wool authority to acquire, appraise and market the whole of the Australian wool clip, not just parts of it. I have mentioned the reconstruction scheme. Surely all of us will agree that this is fundamental to it. No-one is going to tell this House that the present reconstruction schemes in Australia are either speedy or effective. My friend the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) asked a question yesterday on the viability of the rural reconstruction scheme in New South Wales. It is pitiful to see what is happening in New South Wales and in other States regarding reconstruction. The machinery is just not there. The Commonwealth has to step in in a big way to assist the States and the wool industry in streamlining not only the production and marketing techniques in wool but also in streamlining reconstruction and rehabilitation at the same time. lt is easy for me or for any other person to put forward schemes. The Opposition knows that. We have been criticised for it. But the present system of producing and marketing wool is archaic and inefficient. I am certain that this legislation will do nothing constructive in overcoming those basic physical problems. Something radical and revolutionary must be done before the whole wool industry collapses to such a degree that it will cost the Australian taxpayer so much money as to be a major drain on the Australian economy. I for one completely support the wool industry. I am not a pessimist who says that it is doomed, although after studying the relationship of wool and synthetics I believe that the position of wool in the future is going to be tougher. It could perhaps finish up, as I have said in this House before, with the same relationship to synthetics as fillet steak has to other beef - an exclusive, high-priced, magnificent product. But there will not be available as great a quantity of woollen goods as there will be of synthetics, as is the case with fillet steak and the cheaper cuts of meat.

We must guard against that situation. I believe that the only way to do it is to have a very strong single statutory marketing authority which would bring under one strong management the management of wool in Australia and our woollen interests overseas. The authority would make the decisions without having to go back to the wool industry all the time and have the wool industry’ people fight among themselves, as they have been doing perpetually, before reaching a decision. Often those decisions are not unanimous. We should have competent men running a statutory authority, negotiating shipping rates, writing contracts in the currency most favourable to Australia, actually owning the wool, entering into bilateral agreements with foreign countries by going directly to Russia, China or some other place and trying to sell the type of wool that those countries want. But this cannot be done under the present legislation. The Australian Wool Board has no authority over the wool. Although it is written into the Act, there is some doubt about whether the Australian Wool Industry Commission can negotiate directly with foreign countries. We know that all these things are needed urgently. I do not think anyone would argue against that. The question is: How do we do it, and how do we do it quickly? Time is running out. I can remember saying in this House perhaps 18 months or 2 years ago that time was running out. The only thing is that there is less time now. If a panic started in the wool industry through trustee companies or some other companies starting to put the pressure on and to foreclose, we would see a run in this country, because of the tremendous debt structure, which would parallel what happened in the depression. If we do not have to deal with it, the Commonwealth machinery that we had in the depression, the position of wool will be far worse than it was 40 years ago - unless we do something constructive in the production and marketing fields now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Crean:

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

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– Before the suspension of the sitting the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was spelling out the fact that he did not think the money ought to be paid in the form of a deficiency payment to wool growers because it would be grabbed by the money lender. I was interested in this point of view, particularly as he ended his speech with a stirring appeal to the Government to do all it could to prevent a run on the banks, as he called it - panic stations in the industry - which would mean that credit would he quickly withdrawn from the industry. One has to only put those 2 propositions down clearly side by side to see that they are obviously self contradictory. I can think of no quicker way to lead to a run on credit in the industry than to say that the industry is not obliged to take all proper steps to repay debts when incurred. Let us take this a little further. The honourable member put up the proposition that rural industry should not have to pay debts to big companies or overseas companies. Those 2 groups were mentioned particularly.

I am interested to see whether this is to be Labor Party policy in the future because if it is, it represents a very important and serious departure from the beliefs that the Labor Party used to hold in Chifley’s day. Speaking for myself as a wool grower, I have an old fashioned belief - I am glad to say most of my fellow wool growers have it too - that if I promise to repay a debt I take all proper steps to repay it when I can. If this money comes into the wool growers’ possession and they are not expected to repay their debts, and if the Labor Party does not ask them to repay their debts, I think this is a very grave departure from the position as we used to know it. In legislation similar to this the point is usually made that we should not pay a subsidy to the big growers. I know the Labor Party did not put this forward but it is commonly put forward in the industry. That is pretty popular political stuff because there are, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, far more small ‘growers than big growers, and so to kick the big growers makes one popular with the small growers. So it is, I suppose, politically attractive. Of course, when one looks at it closely it becomes nonsense.

One of the basic facts of life - I hope the honourable member for Dawson realises it - is that wool branding stencils are cheap. One of the easiest things I know is to split a clip. If we are to limit the subsidy to 35 bales the way is wide open for that to be done, lt would not be done by the electors of Wakefield and perhaps not by the electors of Canning, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, but other growers all over Australia would have a very real temptation to split their clip. We have an open door for private selling so we could have 35 bales going out to the broker, another 10 bales going to the private buyer when he came one day and another 5 bales a week later. It just makes nonsense of the proposal. It may be a politically attractive idea, but the only problem is that one could not make it work. Otherwise it would be all right. I know that the Labor Party has not put it up on this occasion but it has been put up frequently before that the chap who has a lot of cattle and a few sheep - this is if the subsidy is to go to the small grower - and Ls really making money, will get the full subsidy for his wool.

When one puts it like that people say: Oh, well, we do not really mean that’. The chief problem is that this will encourage the grower to be small when he really ought to be bigger. When it is spelt out clearly like this everybody can see that it is a silly idea and the Labor Party wisely turned from it. Now the Labor Party says that there will be a means test, but what is really meant, is that a person will get the subsidy only if he is poor. There is known to be a minority of wool growers - I have none of these people in the electorate of Wakefield - who do not work very hard and spend a lot of time in the pub. They are the ones who will get help under this scheme. The harder a chap works, the better he is at his job, the less he gets. Is that the way it is to work? I can see no other way.

Mr Foster:

– How do you work that out?

Mr KELLY:

– If a man gets it only if he is poor - one way a man becomes poor is to stay in the put) - then 1 say that it is a direct encouragement to the bad farmer. Is this nonsense or not? This is the way it will work.

The honourable member for Dawson went on to talk about acquisition. He ought to be careful to spell out his terms. What did he mean by ‘acquisition’? There are 2 basic kinds of acquisition. One is acquisition of the whole clip to be sold by auction, and the other is generally regarded as compulsory acquisition but with the wool to be sold by the Commission in the position of a strong seller.

Dr Patterson:

– Nominations?

Mr KELLY:

– Nomination of prices and so on. They are the 2 kinds. I have no philosophical difficulty in accepting acquisition. I have only one stipulation - before anybody takes away my right to sell my wool where I want to sell it I have to be asked. There has to be a referendum. I do not think anyone would disagree with that as a proper philosophy and a proper way to tackle the problem. So we have to be asked. That is the only philosophical question I have about acquisition.

But let us look at the effects of the 2 kinds of acquisition that are put forward. Firstly, there is acquisition and then auction sale. There will be some advantages in this. There will be economies of scale that come through a big organisation handling the whole clip because it will be able to marshal the clip. But immediately one runs into the problem of having an organisation in a large solid lump. It will not then be able to respond quickly to the changes that we know the industry has to make in the future. That is my own opinion. I think there has to be competition to get the industry to change practices to meet the changing situation. A clear illustration of this is the success of Economic Wool Producers Ltd which set out earlier in literature and now has shown by demonstration that there are better ways of selling. One can sell by core testing, by objective measurement, by tender. We have all been talking about it. Everybody has been paying lip service to it. At last EWP has come forward and shown that it can be done.

If we had compulsory acquisition we would not have this yeast of EWP or anything of a similar nature working in the industry to bring about the changes to which the honourable member for Dawson so rightly referred. 1 think that with compulsory acquisition the most we could expect would be a very marginal benefit. We would not get any increased demand for wool because it would be sold in the same way, but there might be some economies in handling. We would run the risk of having a monolithic selling structure which I would think, on balance, would be a risk that I would not be prepared to recommend. Then we have acquisition with sale a fixed price; we will nominate the price; we will be a strong seller; we will not sell by auction. The authority will hold the market. This has a great deal of attraction for a lot of people. They quickly illustrate how the Australian Wheat Board has demonstrated that there are benefits in this method of selling, but let us have a look at it. lt is not much good holding stocks of wool and demanding a certain price and that the buyer will have to pay 35c per lb and will not be able to buy wool under that price. I do not know but 1 think the buyers are very likely to say: Thank you very much but we can go around the corner buy from either another country or from a synthetic source’.

One of the basic differences between the wheat industry and the wool industry, besides the numbers of classes, is that wheat is buttressed by the International Grains Arrangement. There is also an international agreement relating to sugar. The price for wheat can be maintained far better. But if we try to sell wool as we sell wheat without any such international arrangement other countries will undersell us. While we are saying that the minimum price for our wool will be 35c per lb the Argentinians may come in and start selling wool at 30c per lb and we will be really in a mess. I know that acquisition is the popular plea nowadays. I know that in a time such as this there is a tendency for the farming community to chase after every marketing hare that jumps up. I know that if I wanted to get votes now - I hope the honourable member for Dawson will listen to this - I would recommend acquisition; but I think we have to ask ourselves whether it is wise.

We have done too many things in this place - I take part of the blame - because of a feeling that we must do something because industry is asking for it. These times have passed. The position in the wool industry is so desperate that the next step we take must be wise even if it is unpopular. I say categorically that anybody who says that he knows that acquisition will solve the industry’s problems is either very brave or very foolish, because no-one knows what will solve the problems. Some of us think that a solution can be achieved one way; some of us think it can be achieved in other ways. I will come back to the importance of being right later on. But do not let us kid ourselves. Chiefly, let us not kid the industry that acquisition is automatically the cure.

I come back to the Bill. Let us call the deficiency payments a subsidy and be frank about it. No-one is opposing the fact that the subsidy should be paid. It is justified this year. It is probably only justified, I will admit, because we have left it rather too late, as we usually do. But it is introduced at a time when we have to do something, and this is what we have done. There is no doubt about the need for it. It is quite clearly demonstrated. There is also no doubt that if the subsidy is continued for too long it will harm the industry in the end. It will discourage change. It will stop people like myself from changing over to other ways of using their land. I know that it is not easy to find other ways of using land but I also know that if we accept the fact that there is no other use for our land that is indeed the kiss of death. There are other ways we can use our land.

A subsidy that is continued for a long time will destroy the incentive to change. A short term subsidy is acceptable and desirable, but I beg the House, the industry and the Government to realise that this legislation will cease to have effect at the end of this financial year and between now and then we have a very short time in which to really think about what we are going to do. We know in our hearts that if we continue this method of subsidy payment indefinitely we will damage the industry in the end, and none of us wants that, Maybe we will have to extend the subsidy for one more year but we know that if we continue it for too long we will damage the industry.

Let us look at the opportunity that presents itself. We are spending under this Bill about $100m. I do not know the exact amount. No-one seems to know, and of course we cannot tell because we do not know what wool prices will be. But let us say we are spending $150m all told. We have a unique opportunity to work out ways of spending the same amount of money to do far more good. I am sure that the Government will continue to be generous about the way it treats the industry, but it is more important to be wise than it is to be generous. We have a duty as a House not to pick at one another across the table but to get down and work out ways of spending this amount of money wisely because if we do not, we will damage the industry in the end.

I do not have any easy solution to offer, and I am not holding myself up as an authority; but there are lots of things I would like looked at not because I know they are going to work but because I think they should be examined. I know that a lot of other honourable members with more knowledge than I have will come up with their own ideas also. But for the sake of the industry as well as for the sake of the Australian economy let us bend our will to working out ways of using $150m wisely to help the industry.

What are some of the things I think should be looked at? I have been saying frequently that I can see no real part for semi-processing of wool because freight charges would go up and sometimes trade barriers would be put in your way. But I am beginning to change my mind on that. I think that if we were employing modern machinery in a big processing plant there would seem to be opportunities for economies of scale that may help us to put wool on the market in a more attractive form. There is the obvious exploration of the benefits and methods of core testing. Everybody will speak about that. All I say is that this is another course we should examine with all vigour. One of the really exciting prospects is the possibility of mechanical shearing. When I came into Parliament I think the proportion of my clip that went to pay shearing and selling expenses was about 7 per cent. I think this year the proportion will be 18 per cent. This proportion that goes into the labour intensive shearing process will become an increasing burden unless we can beat this cost and think of other ways of doing the shearing. If we cannot it will put us out of business.

Very promising processes are opening up. I am not saying that I know they will work. I am saying that we should be looking at them with great care. 1 think we should be looking too at the benefits which would follow the use of long term credit for helping wool sales. I think that perhaps - I cannot categorically say that I know - there are opportunities for selling wool by methods other than auction. Selling woo) by auction will be a thing of the past before long. It will be sold by other means. We may have a system of agents going round the country and setting it as the fibre makers sell their products. Some of these things offer opportunities; all of them offer a challenge. I hope that the industry in particular and this House will, with a real urgency, try to work out ways to help the industry without hurting it.

This brings me back to an old hobby horse of mine. I have always pressed for the establishment of a rural industries board that could do for the rural sector what the Tariff Board does for the secondary industry sector. It could examine matters publicly, hear sworn public evidence, make a public report and give the Government economic advice on which it makes political decisions. It seems so sensible to me that we should plan carefully to assist rural industry. Our record of government help to the rural sector has not been good. It is not easy to help an industry wisely and in a popular way. I look with considerable suspicion at any honourable member from a rural electorate who claims his people regard him with great affection because, if that is true, usually he is not telling them the truth. We have a pre-eminent responsibility as a House, as a Government and as an industry to get down to the bare bones of our problem. We should not be slinging off at one another across the Chamber.

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

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I support the amendment moved by the honour able member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). I should like to refer briefly to the general points made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who has just resumed his seat. First, he seemed to be saying throughout most of his address that he doubted very much whether acquisition was the answer to the wool growers’ problems. He questioned acquisition as an approach. Well, the Opposition has made its decision and it is up to the honourable member to make his decision. I was also surprised that he should interpret what was said by Opposition members, including the honourable member for Dawson, as in some way questioning the need to assist substantial wool growers. By substantial, I mean wool growers with substantial holdings and substantial numbers of sheep. This was not the basis of our approach.

The Opposition has a very simple approach to this problem. “We say that the taxpayers’ money should not be used, for example, to add to the profits of overseas corporations which in the last 12 months have shown a net profit of $12m and a 14 per cent return on capital. We maintain that there is no need to do this. Yet, in effect, the honourable member for Wakefield said: ‘Well, you cannot do anything else because it is not possible to have a needs basis for any programme’. This is extraordinary because only yesterday the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) introduced a new needs policy relating to schools. So, it seems that it can be done but that there is a lack of will to do it. However, I am not particularly concerned about what T regard as minor objections. I am concerned at the fact that this legislation has been introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) as part of a complex of measures to help and to rescue the stricken countryside. For the third time in 24 hours I refer to the fact that the rural reconstruction scheme is stalled in New South Wales.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is utter nonsense.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The Minister for Primary Industry says: ‘That is a lot of nonsense’. I refer him to the Liberal Minister for Lands in New South Wales who administers the scheme and who yesterday spoke about the rural reconstruction scheme in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. A Press report of his speech states;

The State Government would not be able to give more financial aid to farmers under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme unless the Federal Government provided more funds by the end of the month, the Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, said yesterday.

I challenge the Minister for Primary Industry to return to the chamber. The Press article continued:

He had already sent a telegram to the Minister for Primary Industry saying he felt the proportion of money for financial reconstruction was running out but this had failed to bring an increase in the allocation.

I intend to speak to the Premier later, and ask him to contact the Prime Minister, and I will be contacting the Minister for Primary Industry, to see if it is possible for us to gain additional funds’, Mr Lewis said.

The response of the Minister for Primary Industry is: ‘That is a lot of nonsense’. You take that story to the New South Wales Minister and his Government and answer them.

Mr Sinclair:

– I did that a fortnight ago.

Mr GRASSBY:

– You did?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Well, I am happy to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I suggest that the Minister has some part in this dialogue. It is extraordinary that the Minister should say that he has already dealt with this because these statements were made in the New South Wales Parliament only yesterday. From a practical point of view, only $4.5m is left for reconstruction in New South Wales in the next 3i years. Yet the Minister says: ‘That is a lot of nonsense’. I hope that Government supporters will see him in his chambers afterwards.

The Minister has introduced this wool scheme as part of a complex of measures which the Government claims is the answer to the rural crisis. This scheme is supposed to be an emergency grant for only 1 year to help the struggling wool grower. 1 point out right away that the whole of the operation of the scheme is designed to do 4 things. Firstly, it will pay the most money to those who have the most sheep. Secondly, the formula means that the man with the lowest return will receive the least. Thirdly, the overall effect will be to give the most to those who need it the least. Fourthly, to compound these errors, although the scheme is designed to help the struggling man on the land, the Government will pay the money not to the grower but to the broker. If the broker decides to pass on the subsidy to his debtor client, the grower will receive it. If the broker says: ‘No, we would like it. We need it. We want it’, the wool grower will get nothing.

We know from the structure of the rural debt that 95 per cent of the more than S2,000m which is owed across the nation is owed to banks, pastoral finance companies and insurance companies. All of these institutions have done particularly well in the last 2 years despite the rural crisis. For example, the banks have reported record profits. The pastoral finance companies, as a result of their very astute operations - I commend them for their diversification - have reported multi million dollar profits. Likewise, the insurance companies have shown extraordinarily good profitability. So, the Government’s method of providing help for the wool growers in trouble is to give the money - which, as the honourable member for Dawson pointed out, is the taxpayers’ money - not to the struggling wool grower as an emergency grant but to the pastoral finance companies. Their debtors, whose wool is involved will be hoping to goodness that the companies will pass it on. In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The payments . . . will depend upon the active co-operation of persons carrying on business as brokers, registered classing houses, wool merchants and agents who export wool, or who sell wool by tender on behalf of producers.

That is the rule, but the decision is left to the brokers. Of course, the Government hopes that they will co-operate. It is obvious that this is the last desperate attempt by the Government not to help the wool grower but to save the discredited auction system. The Minister admitted this when he said:

The whole of the Government’s deficiency payments scheme and the market support by the Commission is based on the auction system.

Why does the Government have such a desperate preoccupation with the auction system? Why is there this utilisation of taxpayers’ money to shore up a system which is archaic and which is a hangover from the past? In the course of his second reading speech the Minister also took a pretty heavy swipe at the private wool buyer. In effect, the Minister said: ‘This is the man who is depressing the market’. That is an interesting observation. Why does a wool grower go to a private wool merchant? He does not go to him out of love and affection. In the cases that I know, and I speak from some personal knowledge, he goes to him because the private wool merchant offers a better net return. I do not see anything wrong with that in the present depressed conditions in the country. In fact, at first the Minister was going to exclude private sales from the scheme, but he has now brought them into the scheme again.

I turn now to the question of the guarantee payment of 36c a lb. I have seen a whole sheaf of Press headlines on this topic. ‘The Country Party stands firm on 40c’ and ‘If you do not do this we will sack you if you do not sack the Government’ - these were the fighting words across the countryside. Again, the headlines proclaimed: ‘Wool men demand action’ and ‘End the coalition’. What brave words! The tribal rock musical on my left is no excuse for effective opposition to something that is less than useful. The guaranteed price is 36c a lb and not 40c a lb. A Victorian member is interjecting. The voice of organised farming people in Victoria said that the wool price guarantee of 36c a lb is no real help. Let the honourable member go back to his electorate and tell his people what he has said about this matter. We should consider what is actually happening today. In the last few days a grower whom I know and who had held 500 bales of wool for as long as he could, has been approached by the people to whom he owes money and they have said to him: ‘We want that wool. We will put a price on it and it will go in. We are going to clear the store and the price on the move is 17c a lb.’ This is the sort of situation that we face.

But let us come down to the specific. The Minister for Primary Industry has received urgent representations from some of the leading stud masters in Australia. In one case a stud producing some of the finest sheep and the finest wool in the nation faces extinction. The assets are there, the management is sound but because, in one instance anyway, there were difficulties caused by Government resumptions for other purposes, the whole enterprise finds itself caught up in the rural recession and a vicious credit squeeze. The Minister knows the case. He has said that he wants to see the stud continue as the basic lifeblood of the nation’s greatest export industry. But he knows that this scheme will not be the answer. In fact, his original proposal, which I am glad to see he has changed, would have been even more of a disaster because it would have excluded in some years half the wool from some areas, including some of the areas that I represent. Well, he has seen the error of that and he has changed it, and I compliment him on that. But here we have a scheme that will not save some of the strongest men in the industry, let alone the struggling wool grower. I invite the Minister when he replies to answer specifically. He knows the cases. He knows the circumstances and he will either help or not help. But the decision is his. 1 know we have regular alibis as to the global position in regard to wool. Let us look at them. In the last couple of years, global consumption of wool has risen by more than 2 per cent. Global production has risen by less than i per cent and the utilisation of wool as a percentage of an apparel fibre - and this is an interesting fact - has dropped by only 1 per cent from 9 per cent in 1963. That is a pretty dramatic figure. Where has the movement been? The big movement has been the increase in non-cellulosic fibres at the expense of cotton - not wool but cotton. There was a drop in cotton utilisation in that time from 63 per cent to 54 per cent and an increase in the non-cellulosic fibres from 8 per cent to 2 1 per cent. But against these figures, the price drop in Australia has been 33 per cent, and the figure is higher now. It just does not make sense unless the fact is recognised that the wool auction system is the greatest surviving charade since Punch and Judy.

Where does the Opposition stand? lt stands behind this amendment clearly and definitely. It stands for the urgent establishment of a national wool authority to acquire, appraise and market the clip in a streamlined way. It has been estimated within the industry itself that savings of 10c per lb can be made in handling, and savings of up to Se and 6c per lb in overseas freight. That is only on present preliminary assessments. The Opposition stands for the injection of sufficient funds at 3 per cent interest to keep the viable growers in business, as our spokesman on primary industries (Dr Patterson) said today, and a moratorium in every case of need. In New South Wales, co-operation with a State Labor government there would mean $500m by means of bank guarantee, at a 3 per cent subsidised interest rate, and incidentally it would cost the taxpayer only $15m to achieve that level of assistance.

Once the Authority is established and the old fragmented system replaced the way is open for entirely new ventures. I would like to mention one that has been thought of by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilation Administration mission which went to China way back in 1947. Members of that mission thought of what could be done in relation to China even as long ago as 1947. This was the idea of a Australian Chinese wool corporation. We could be active in placing wool before a quarter of the world’s population. The objective would be to sell to China each year raw wool to be processed there. A 5- year plan has been suggested and discussed by responsible industry people. It would mean that ultimately we would have a partnership which would arrange for the utilisation of large quantities of raw wool for, as I say, a quarter of the world’s population. There are people in China who are interested in this. The honourable member for Dawson knows this from his onthespot investigation. There are people interested in this in our own industry. Submissions have been made. But how can we proceed, with the present fragmented and inadequate structure that we still have? A national wool authority is a necessity to initiate such new ventures as this.

Let me again warn the Minister and the Government that if they leave this thing as it is, if they administer it as they now propose, if they fail to take possession of the clip and properly organise its marketing, if they do not take action to save the reconstruction programme, then they will in fact drive 100,000 people, growers and those associated with them, into the cities. I am appalled and shocked . to hear the

Minister say today that there is no crisis in rural reconstruction and that there is no problem in New South Wales.

Mr Sinclair:

– I did not say that.

Mr GRASSBY:

– That is what you said earlier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

– Order! Interjections are out of order.

Mr GRASSBY:

– If the Minister is apologising for his original statement I am delighted. He had better answer clearly and definitely. He is dealing with the lives and responsibilities of people, not in abstractions. I know that there are powerful city vested interests that are quite happy to see their labour forces augmented by 100,000 people from a denuded countryside. They have said so. They are quite happy about it.

Mr Corbett:

– They will get them under, a 35-hour week to.

Mr GRASSBY:

– My goodness; what a tired old statement we get again from the tribal rock musical on my left. Let us be quite clear about this. We are dealing with serious matters and not with Party politics. A few honourable members on my left are still trying to interject. I am glad to hear that there are some fighting voices. 1 put on record here that we fought for our policies. We are still fighting for some of them. At least we are fighting and not sitting like stunned galahs unfit for export. The crisis is worsening. 1 would invite all of the members of the Parliament to address themselves to the problems in hand.

Mr Fulton:

– Do not upset yourself; just carry on.

Mr GRASSBY:

– My good colleague on my right says: ‘Do not upset yourself. This is a time when members of the House of Representatives ought to be concerned. When honourable members receive calls and visits from people who are on the verge of extiction, from families who have been in the business of farming and who have been on their properties as efficient managers not just for one year, or 10 years, but in some instances up to 100 years, and who through no fault of their own are caught up in an artificial situation brought about by an archaic handling sys- tern, then it is time to get concerned. I make no apology whatsoever for my concern. I want to draw attention to the fact that in every case across the nation the suggestion that there should be simply 36c a lb as a support for one year of emergency was rejected. Let us just look at some of the people who were concerned in that rejection. There were spokesmen for wool growers. One is Mr P. B. Leach, Federal President of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Association, Australia’s largest wool grower organisation. He said:

  1. . anything less than 40c a lb would see thousands of farmers wiped out before a more effective marketing scheme could be implemented.

He continued:

Such a tragedy will automatically cause a mass exodus of more than 100,000 rural dwellers throughout Australia to towns and cities.

I would think that Mr Leach is probably a member of the Country Party, but that is his privilege. It does not always have to be a matter of party politics.

Mr Turnbull:

– He is a very loyal member too, I might tell you.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) says that he ls a very loyal member. That is all the more reason why the honourable member for Mallee should take some notice of what he says. The next statement that I would draw to the attention of the House is one by Mr Solomons, the New South Wales State Chairman of the Country Party - not the Mr Solomons who is the new member for Tasmania or the new member for Coiro, but Mr Solomons of New South Wales. He said:

The Country Party would have to consider its position in the Federal Government if Cabinet rejected the wool industry proposal for a 40c minimum return . . .

This was a challenge. I say to New South Wales Country Party members that this was something that was put forward by the State Chairman of the Country Party in New South Wales. What happened to that challenge? It was sort of evacuated or it evaporated. Let me refer again to Mr Anthony. I quote from the Melbourne Age’ of 27th July 1971 which states:

The annual conference of the Western Australian Country Party yesterday telegraphed the Party’s Federal Leader (Mr Anthony) asking him to stand firm on a 40c minimum price for wool even if it meant breaking the Liberal-Country Party coalition.

My goodness, that great effort evaporated pretty quickly. Then, in New South Wales Mr Milton Taylor, a well known grower leader, demanded that the Government’s delay in facing the wool situation - and he was referring to the 40c per lb subsidy and acquisition - was a case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Right across the nation there is this sort of situation. I refer to a remark by Mr Sewell in the ‘Victorian Farmer’. He maintains that in the present situation and with the present recommendation 20.000 wool growers will not survive I am putting these views forward in all sincerity. They are not party political views as has been just acknowledged by the members on the Government side pf the House. The wool growers are people who are concerned about the future of their industry; they are people who expressed the hope that in the Parliament there would be some sort of joint approach on this problem. But there has not been a joint approach. There has been an abdication of responsibility in meeting basic demands.

I sum up in this way: The crisis is worsening and the time for action is now. I support with every bit of conviction that I can muster the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson and the policies we put forward today.

Mr KING:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · Wimmera · CP

and he appears to me-

Mr Turnbull:

– Be kind to him.

Mr KING:

– I always try to be kind to the honourable member because I believe he does need sympathy from time to time when he is discussing issues such as we have before us at the moment. We have heard quite a bit from him. But the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who spoke this morning, and the honourable member for Riverina did not put forward one proposition to try to rectify the problems within the wool industry.

The honourable member for Riverina made great play of a point about people refusing to accept the 36c wool deficiency payment. But he made no mention of what the Opposition would do. I want to answer some of the matters raised by the honourable members although 1 should not be wasting my time on them. However, I would like to refer to the suggestion that the Australian Country Party should leave the coalition because this contention should be answered. 1 believe that one always has to look at such a suggestion and see what the alternative is. This is the simple way of doing it. It is pretty obvious to me what the result would be if the Country Party left the coalition. If they did, as some members on the opposite side would like it to do, the growers would not get even 36c per lb for their wool. They possibly would get no more than 30c, the ruling price today. If the Country Party left the coalition we would have a crises in government, the Government would eventually resign and we would have to go to the people. Maybe the Opposition through promises would win the government benches. If it did - and I agree with my colleagues that I do not think it would - a lot of time would have elapsed in the meantime and we would be half way through the wool selling season and all of the wool that had been sold in the first 6 months would have been sold for about 29c plus per lb. That would be the advantage that the Riverina wool growers would get.

I will not answer any more of the hypothetical questions raised by the honourable member for Riverina because I know, as this debate proceeds, that his arguments will get knocked over one by one. Over the years this Parliament has debated many important subjects and some minor ones, but there has been no more important subject of benefit to one section of the community than the one we are dealing with right now. The purpose of this Bill is to give approval for making a deficiency payment to wool growers and so assure them of a reasonable return for the year’s labour. This legislation will not create a lot of millionaires as has been suggested by some people, particularly by the members of the Opposition who have spoken today. But it certainly will help growers to survive through a most difficult period - no doubt the most difficult period in their history.

The actual sale prices today are running at about the equivalent of 1947 prices while our costs, naturally, are at 1971 levels. If we compare returns with costs the result must be classified as an all-time record low. I would like to ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table taken from the ‘Wool Outlook’ of August 1971. I have spoken to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) about this and he is agreeable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

page 2376

TABLE 10

page 2376

AVERAGE PRICE RECEIVED FOR WOOL AND GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCTION: AUSTRALIA

Sources: National Council of Wool Selling Brokers and Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics

Mr KING:
CP

– The total return to the Australian wool grower as quoted in the table for the year 1970-71 is less than $550m compared with $840m 2 years ago. I say that we cannot take a third of a grower’s income away from him without the loss having some drastic effect on him financially.

In supporting this legislation one naturally must” ask the question: Why has the price declined and how can we have it improved? As a representative of a large wool growing electorate - and no doubt most honourable members know and appreciate the point that I am a grower myself - I have, like a lot of other honourable members, devoted quite a deal of my time to trying to find the solution or answer to some of the questions which have been raised. If one were to ask the growers generally for their answers one would expect to hear a great variety of solutions. These would vary from floor price schemes, guaranteed minimum price, total acquisition ranging right through to a leave it alone and it will right itself type of policy. Although the last idea is in the minds of some people I do not think it would go very far in the electorate today. I believe that the Government and the industry and indeed, the Opposition, have a very great responsibility in helping to find a solution. If the Opposition is not prepared to help the Government find a solution without bringing up hypothetical arguments, it is certainly not a responsible Opposition. A solution will be found only by very sound thinking, discussions and negotiations by all parties that are really concerned about the industry’s future.

I deplore the comments of some of the people who are crying doom and who try to make cheap political capital out of the misfortunes of wool growers without offering any type of solution or constructive criticism. No industry can expect to develop without some form of confidence and unity within itself. While some people are urging disunity within the industry, real solution naturally will never be found. Before we can secure an answer to any problems we must sort out the reasons and the causes of such.

The simple answer is that buyers do not appear to want to pay satisfactory prices. Why is this the case? This is what we really have to find out. I believe that this situation has been brought about by a number of reasons, the chief one being that the quantity of apparel available to the consumer is at a record high level. Man-made fibres have increased beyond all expectation over the last 2 decades. While woollen products have in the past been recognised as a top class commodity this unfortunately is not the belief of some people today. They have turned to the brighter colours; they have accepted the cheaper type, changing styles with quick repurchases and replacements. While wool is still a top class material the controllers of it have not been able to keep pace with its competitors. This has had its effect on consumption and thereby on demand and consequently the actual prices. Countries like Japan virtually overbought some 2 years ago because of the drop in demand from the United States. In this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’ there was an article in the financial pages entitled: ‘The US Economy - Nixon Puts deadline on textiles’. The article read:

Washington, October 13. - President Nixon yesterday threatened to take steps against Japan and other countries if they fail to show this week that they will agree to curb textile exports to the United States.

Mr Nixon, using his toughest language so far in the long wrangle over textiles, publicly confirmed the United States had set an October 15 deadline for breaking the deadlock in the negotations.

Later the article stated:

However, officials in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have said the United States has threatened to impose quotas on non-cotton textile imports.

There is not a great deal of difference between 99 per cent and 101 per cent but it can certainly make a very big difference in the outcome because, as I said, whilst there is very little difference it does mean on one hand a shortage and on the other a glut. So this is the position we are in today. We have more wool available than the buyers are prepared to purchase at reasonably economical prices.

The Australian Wool Commission established last year to a degree has taken part of the shock by its purchase of those wools which were not securing a reasonable price on the day of auction. For the life of me, I would not hazard a guess at what would be the position today if the old system was still the order of the day. The growers and the present Government have, over a number of years, contributed a considerable amount of money in an endeavour to increase the demand for wool. They have been partly successful but not sufficiently successful. They, through the Australian Woo! Board and the International Wool Secretariat, have spent large amounts of money on research and promotion.

Over the last 2 years the Government has contributed a considerable amount of money for promotion and research. I think that the amount 2 years ago was somewhere in the vicinity of $15m for promotion and research and for the last financial year the amount had increased to $28.9m, almost double the figure of 2 years ago. We have all had our ideas as to its success or otherwise and while there has been some success in the promotion field I believe that promotion will never solve the problems of a surplus if the goods which we are trying to sell are not of the quality which the purchaser demands. This is most important. This is the position in the wool industry today.

We have quite a record of achievement in research but despite this it is not sufficient. Under the circumstances I believe that the IWS has used to the best of its ability the amount of money that has been made available to it.I might add that unless we continue to increase our financial contribution to the IWS we will find that the activities of this organisation will doubtless slacken because of the increased costs in the field in which it operates. Japan is a typical example in terms of successful research and promotion as far as the IWS is concerned. I was privileged to visit Japan recently and I took the opportunity to explore many areas of the wool trade. I spoke to people in the consumer field right through to the manufacturing section. It is very evident that the IWS has had a lot of success with its research as well as with promotion. The IWS has been able to convince the Japanese people that wool can be used successfully to replace many other commodities such as manmade fibres, cotton and even silk.I have personally seen commodities which were previously 100 per cent silk and are now made entirely of wool. I do not believe that this was brought about by accident but rather is it a case of sheer determination by members of the IWS to dispose of our wool. Again I say that had the IWS not been so active then the consumption of wool in this part of the world would be much less than it is today.

In the United Kingdom, which is the headquarters of the Secretariat, the people involved there have not been idle in respect to either the promotion or research side of wool. The Secretariat now has a treatment known as chlorine hercosett. It is a liquid treatment used in the early stages of wool manufacture. It was originated at the Geelong research centre of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and it is now being implemented in various parts of the world including Ilkley, near Bradford in the United Kingdom. Early tests have proved that as a result woollen goods can be machine washed with no ill effects. If this treatment can be introduced Into the trade as a general practice then I believe that we can expect to see a great lift in the demand for wool.

There is no need for me to elaborate on the effects of Woolmark. Woolmark is having a very big effect throughout the world in retail stores. The recent decision of the IWS to include blends is one that, as I have already said, has been overdue for some time. It is a major decision and I believe that it will be very successful in the long term. Unfortunately we have a surplus of wool right now. The present supply exceeds demands. In 1967-68 the estimated world production was 2,690 million kilograms and for 1970-71 this estimate had increased to 2,704 million kilograms. I would seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table on the estimated world wool production. I have spoken to the Minister about this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr KING:

– During the time when we have had this rather slight increase in wool production it can be seen that the actual consumption of wool, particularly last year, dropped by some 2 per cent. It was not a very great drop but I do not believe that we should allow this trend to continue. If it does the price must continue to fall unless we create some method of jacking up the price of wool. This is what we are endeavouring to do at this time with the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission and the introduction of deficiency payments. The establishment of the Wool Commission last year was the first move in a real effort by the Government to try to solve this problem. I think honourable members would admit that this Bill now before us could be regarded as the second move in guaranteeing a reasonable income to individual growers. It is very easy to say, and the honourable member for Riverina was very critical of the Wool Commission, that 36c per lb is not enough. I suppose if it were 40c per lb it could be said that it was insufficient. I would like to see it ever so much higher than it is. But I do not want prices such as those in the old days some 20 years ago, in the early 1950s, when wool was £1 per lb. No doubt we are now feeling the effects of those days of high prices.

A multitude of suggestions have been put forward as to how we can improve the return to the growers. I believe the answer lies in introducing a number of these ideas but not necessarily in this order: Mention was made of the acquisition of the entire clip at a reasonable return to the growers. Of course we have to consider acquisition and all types of acquisition as the honourable member for Wakefield said earlier this afternoon. Another suggestion was continued activity as far as the Wool Commission was concerned. Naturally this is very important. A further idea proposed by members of the Opposition was the extension of the provisions of this Bill to guarantee a price return beyond the 12 months period. Naturally this suggestion will be considered. Another proposal was that we should take advantage of new selling methods such as sale by sample. Again I think it was the honourable member for Wakefield who referred to this matter. No doubt there will be plenty of other comments on this before this debate is concluded. As I said at the outset, we could have a combination of more than one of those proposals.

I am a firm believer that our objective must be to improve the quality of the finished article, and we must carry through the ideas and innovations of the various research centres, which are playing such a magnificent role at the present time, into such developments as machine washable woollen goods. This is an absolute must. I think it would be fair to say that the first question asked by potential purchasers of wollen goods as soon as they walked into a store would be: ‘Can you throw this thing into a washing machine? If not, I am not interested.’ I think that if we can overcome this difficulty of making goods machine washable then we will have gone a long way towards solving some of our problems. This legislation is a move to assist the wool industry. It is not the be-all and end-all of Government assistance. Nevertheless I believe it is a determined effort to help the industry. I only hope that as a result of the discussions taking place today in this debate the Government will be able to find a long term solution that will put this industry back on its feet. I have not covered as many aspects as I would like to have done simply because time does not permit me to do so in this debate. I do know that some of my colleagues on this side of the House are very anxious to make a contribution to this debate.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (3.15)- Mr Speaker - (Quorum formed.) I was very surprised to hear the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) go to so much trouble to tell us what would happen if the members of the Australian Country Party left the coalition Government. It seems to me that it is a sign of the times. I do not think that they have very long to go, whether they stay with the terrible Liberals or not. But there seems to be a lot of difference of opinion on rural affairs amongst various members of the Country Party. I happened to notice an article in the ‘Riverina Grazier’ of 2nd July 1971. Under the heading ‘Government rural policies are under attack: Double standards and double talk’ it states:

If anyone in Rural Australia, -be they country or town workers or businessmen, farmers or graziers, still believes that the Federal or State governments have done or are doing anything significant to reverse the rural depression, then it seems that perhaps they should have their ‘heads examined’ as well as their bank balances, comments Mr David Houston, of Budgewah, Hay, Chairman of the Hay Branch of the Australian Country Party . . .

That will give honourable members some idea of the difference of opinion which exists among members of the Country Party. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) because it makes some provision for the taxpayers’ money to reach those people who are most in need of assistance and most entitled to it. It also contains some concrete proposals to put the marketing of wool where it should be. Of course, it must be admitted that this Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately for many capable and hard working graziers it is too little and it comes too late. I am speaking of the 1.800 Western Division leaseholders who are mostly in my electorate.

One of the unsatisfactory provisions of the Bill is clause 9 which gives every protection to people authorised to receive the deficiency payment on behalf of the producer but which makes no provision for the producer to use the money in the way he thinks is to his best advantage in his particular circumstances. Clause 9 states: (1.) Subject to this section, the person entitled to receive a deficiency payment in respect of wool is the producer of the wool. (2.) Where-

  1. a deficiency payment has become payable by reason of a sale of wool or the exportation of wool for the purposes of sale outside Australia; and
  2. if the deficiency payment were part of the proceeds of the sale, or of a sale of the wool outside Australia, as the case may be, a person would be entitled or authorised to receive, or a person being the registered person by whom the deficiency payment is payable would be entitled or authorised to retain, the whole or a part of the deficiency payment by virtue of a security assignment, direction or authorisation given by the producer or a right of set-off. that person is entitled or authorised, as the case may be. to receive or retain the whole or that part of the deficiency payment.

It is well known that producers in the Western Division are heavily in debt to the brokers and the wool houses. It would seem to me that in these cases this clause of the Bill makes it quite legal, and even gives it a touch of respectability, for the broker, who has already taken the greater part of the proceeds of the sale, also to take most, or all, of the deficiency payment. As a result of this clause the shopkeeper, the petrol supplier and the shire council will get nothing because in many cases the producer will get nothing. At present many producers are being allowed only a small living allowance and, in fact, are so much in debt that they do not own anything on the lease. Such a producer is the cheapest labour that the wool broker and the banks can get to manage the property. Already stock and station agents and brokers have refused to extend any more credit to many of these people. For many of them the only source of income is to catch goats in the hills and offer them for sale. Sometimes they have to use them for meat.

Towards the end of his speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) called for a number of measures to be taken to support the deficiency payments scheme. He said:

The Government recognises that the present crisis in the wool industry calls for a number of measures which in aggregate represent a concerted approach to the urgent problems affecting woolgrowers. The deficiency payments scheme should be viewed in the context of this total approach. . . . marketing, research into industry problems and farm reconstruction are being pursued with all urgency. . .

This all sounds very good, but does the Minister mean it? Honourable members on this side of the House keep reminding the Government that country shire councils, country stores and petrol firms are all a part of the industry and pressures applied in one area affect the position in other areas. In every town in the Western Division of New South Wales there has always been the big store which, over the years, has assisted lessees to carry on. Over many years these firms have adopted a credit system that has helped graziers in bad times, in the knowledge that when the season improved - mostly in a year or two - the stores would be repaid what the graziers owed. I have been approached by the owners of many of these stores and asked what assistance from the Federal Government’s proposition will reach them. They have told me that many graziers owe them as much as $12,000 or SI 4,000.

If the Government really wanted to help the wool growing area it would make some provision to ensure that banks and broken do not get the greater part of these deficiency payments; it would make some provision to ensure that the extra finance supposedly going into the wool industry reaches some of these country business houses and shire councils because they are the bodies that are providing employment for many of the bard pressed graziers’ sons and daughters as well as for many other people who in normal times would be directly employed in the wool industry. If these employment opportunities are allowed to dry up it will affect the wool grower just as much as it would if the Government reduced the deficiency payment. Many of the banks and brokers seem to be getting out of it scot-free because they are rapidly moving away from their connections with the country towns. Of course, the Bill does not make any provision to ensure that anyone other than the bankers and brokers gets a cut out of the deficiency payments. Instead, it seems to me to head in the same direction as does the New South Wales legislation which makes provision for large companies to control vast areas in my electorate, [f this practice is allowed to develop the smaller towns will soon disappear.

The Minister for Primary Industry must be congratulated for being big enough to have another look at the list of types of wool to be excluded from the deficiency payment. He will probably remember my asking him a question on this matter. It would have placed many wool growers in my electorate in a hopeless position if some adjustment had not been made to the list. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Gwydir, the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt), also used his influence to have this adjustment made because it is no secret that his electorate would have been affected as much as, if not more than, mine. I cannot see any reason why we should not be asking for the same thing if our electorates are facing the same crisis. The position is so bad in the western division of New South Wales that more of the problems in the industry, in my opinion, should be decided on a non-party basis. Also there should be some connection between action taken by the Department of Primary Industry and action taken by other Government departments, such as the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education and Science. What use is there in the Minister for Primary Industry trying to assist people in isolated areas if the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) only sees these measures as another opportunity to put up the postal charges?

All over my electorate the people are complaining of the crippling telephone charges. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) would have much in common with me in this regard. The Hungerford Progress Association is bitterly complaining about telephone charges. It is necessary for people in this area to obtain a large amount of their supplies from Bourke. Since the new rates came into force on 1st October, it costs 86c for a 3 minute call to Bourke. The Association is asking that this be reduced to 57c. I remind the House that Bourke is the nearest main centre from which these people can get supplies. If some grocery item has been forgotten a telephone call to order even a pound of butter will cost 86c. When there is a breakdown of machinery and a man has to ring in to get a part sent out, he has to pay 86c.

The Minister in his statement mentioned farm reconstruction. This is also a very vital issue for the people in my electorate because, according to a report of the Upper Darling District Council of the Graziers Association of New South Wales made on 9th July, during the previous 6 months 362 applications were lodged for rural reconstruction and of this number only 2 were accepted. The report went on to say that the rise to 36c per lb for wool may mean in a small number of cases that the Board could consider the property viable and render assistance to the grazier. It also stated that the interest rate for debt readjustment was 4 per cent but for farm build up the Commonwealth Government insisted on a rate of 6.25 per cent. The only conclusion that one can draw from these figures is that both the State and Federal governments are prepared to write off most of the graziers in this vast area. In my opinion, this will prove to be a false economy as far as the nation is concerned because in normal times this area has returned a greater income for the amount of capital invested than have all other areas of New South Wales. Even a continuous drought from 1963 to 1970 would not have put them in the position they are in today had there not been a temporary lifting of the drought in some areas. On 2 occasions graziers borrowed money to restock at high prices and on each occasion they sold their stock at give away prices, and did not have a chance to repay their debts to the bank.

At the present time the country in this area is the best in Australia. Some real reconstruction should be taking place in the interests of Australia, if not in the interests of these very efficient graziers. But while these capable and hard working Australians are waiting for some genuine assistance from the Government extra burdens are being piled on them. Take the case of the conversion of the double side band radio to a single side band radio. The Government has given people using these radios a certain time to change over, but a single side band set costs approximately $1,000. There is no subsidy from the Government as there was in the case of conversion to decimal currency. These people have to find another $1,000 or go without, in many cases, their only means of communication. Yet between 4,000 and 5,000 medical consultations are carried out monthly, and between 18,000 and 20,000 telegrams are sent each month throughout Australia by the use of these radio sets, to say nothing of the School of the Air and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. They depend, for their means of communication, on the efficient functioning of these radio services. lt appears to me that all that is required is a little commonsense and most of these people will be back in the position where they will be putting revenue into the Treasury.

Another matter of vital concern to the people in this area is the zone allowance. People in such places as Nymagee, 60 or 80 miles from Cobar, who receive no zone B allowance but they have to drive into Cobar which is within the zone to get their supplies. People on one side of Ivanhoe receive the zone B allowance while people on the other side receive no allowance. This type of thing is ridiculous. People who are forced to travel to the city for specialist medical treatment for themselves or their dependents get no income tax deduction for the expense they incur.

Of course, one of the big problems in the area at the present time is the education of children in isolated districts. I had occasion to bring a delegation from the Bourke area to meet the then Minister for Education and Science. Unfortunately, the Ministerial switches were taking place at the time and this delegation had hardly left before there was a new Minister. I ask the present Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to take a good look at the case presented by this delegation. In my opinion, the Bill does not go far enough. It looks after a few graziers who are viable while those who are in financial difficulties because of severe drought will get no benefit from it. It looks after the stock and station agents who were the main cause of the problems in the western division because they encouraged the wool growers to borrow money at high interest rates and let them get in too deeply. I believe that the measure offers too little. It should at least provide for a price of 40c a lb for the people in the western division. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson which contains some real guidelines for the recovery of the wool industry.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– Like other honourable members, I was fascinated to hear the list of troubles besetting the people of the Darling electorate, particularly those relating to education and the type of radio they have. But I saw very little relationship between those remarks and the matter under discussion. The honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) also mentioned that he considered that the scheme looked after only those wool growers who were viable. I suggest in this case that he read the Bill more closely, because he will find that there is no discrimination amongst the various wool growers.

I must say that when I first heard of this scheme to provide a deficiency payment in respect of wool production I was very greatly perturbed. I was fearful that this could be the start of an escalating subsidy which would not only cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars but also lead to a situation in which adjustment to the economic circumstances of the day in relation to wool production would be at best delayed or at worst baited. The presentation and explanation of the Bill by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) have done much to allay some of my fears. But there are aspects of :he philosophy behind the introduction of the Bill and the provisions contained in the proposed legislation upon which I would like to expand. The necessity for some form of aid to rural people at the present time is widely and openly acknowledged. Both from a social and an economic viewpoint there was and is a need for some concerted action to be taken in respect of urgent rural problems.

What is proposed then is a scheme, operative for one year, to enable, in the words of the Minister, some cushioning of the effects of substantial restructuring and readjustments in the wool industry. I have no quarrel with this totally admirable objective so far as it goes, but my initial objection, and the first point I would like (o make, is that the rural problem is not confined to the wool grower. Producers of most primary products are experiencing difficulties of varying severity. We have had presented to us the rural reconstruction scheme. It is significant to reflect that $40m is being made available this year for the rural reconstruction scheme which, by its terms, covers the whole range of agricultural production while the wool deficiency payment scheme, costing almost certainly more than Si 00m for this one year, will be limited to wool producers, with all wool producers receiving the same rate of payment. My first objection is that this huge amount of money will be divided up amongst only one group of primary producers - those who produce wool. As I said in my speech on the Budget earlier this session, I believe that the money would have been spent more wisely and more equitably had it been applied to a liberalised reconstruction scheme. There are approximately 90,000 wool producers in Australia - these are the people amongst whom the $100m will be divided - whilst the total number of registered farm owners, who will have access to the $40m, is in excess of 250,000. The wool producers who will have access to this amount of over $100m will also have access to the $40m under the rural reconstruction scheme. This seems to be a very real objection to the scheme.

Moving on from this general objection I would like to look more closely at the Bill itself. Firstly, the Bill was conceived, as the Minister said, to help cushion the harsh effects of the dramatic fall in the price of wool. In a sense, its purpose is largely of a welfare nature. If one admits this proposition the next logical step is to assess the scheme, using as one’s cri* terion the possibility of attainment of the welfare objective. In other words, will the scheme provide help for those who are most in need of financial assistance? In pure economic terms - I stress that - a case can be made out for imposing some form of means test to delineate those considered to be most in need.

On the face of it, those people with large numbers of sheep who presumably, because of economies of scale, access to financial resources and other factors, would best be able to cope with either the absolute fall in prices or the necessity to change the enterprise, will be most highly supported whilst those least able to cope, because of the size of their enterprise, the size of their property, their restricted access to alternative sources of funds, lack of training and a host of other factors, will receive only a small total remuneration. For example, if the average price for greasy wool stays around 29c per lb, with the guaranteed price of 36c per lb, taking an average fleece weight of 10 lb the subsidy per sheep will be about 70c. By a simple mathematical sum one can find that the owner of 1,000 sheep would receive a subsheep would receive a subsidy of about sidy of about $700, the owner of 5,000 $3,500 and the owner of 10,000 sheep would receive a subsidy of about $7,000. The argument is: The bigger you are the more you get; and. presumably, the less you need it.

The smaller man who in many cases is said to be the person who needs the help most is not assisted to the extent he should be. I can understand this thinking, and it ties in with my earlier objection to the scheme. If the money had been made available with some control over who should qualify for assistance in terms of real need and the capacity for recovery - that capacity for recovery is most important - then 1 believe that a more sensible income distribution would have resulted and a more realistic channelling of scarce resources towards those most capable of effectively utilising them would have been achieved. But the facts of the situation are that the big man and the small man are in the same sort of trouble. Size is no indication of financial situation, despite what the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) might tell us.

The inclusion of some form of means assessment in this scheme would probably cost more than it would save. Those difficulties have already been outlined very capably and very graphically by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly). This would have become totally apparent. Another aspect of the scheme which worried me initially and which, to a certain extent, has been overcome by the provisions of the Bill, relates to the granting of a subsidy at all. We are all aware of the need for reconstruction of our rural industries. Indeed, the Government has produced its rural reconstruction scheme to ensure that reconstruction is encouraged. However, it must be admitted that subsidies and the urge to reconstruct are incompatible.

The granting of a subsidy automatically cuts down the rate at which reconstruction will occur. If the subsidised price is above the long term price of a commodity, producers will be encouraged to stay in an industry which economic reality would have them leave. It may be that the long term average price of wool is below 36c per lb. In fact, on all the evidence I have seen this proposition is more likely than unlikely. If this were the case and if the subsidy were continued beyond the one year laid down its effect would be to encourage people to stay on in an industry which economic reason would dictate their leaving. If they did stay on and the subsidy were continued this would be at enormous cost to the taxpayer.

I know, and it encourages me, that the provisions of the Bill state quite explicitly that the scheme shall apply for only one year. In fact this is one reason why I can support the Bill. But it worries me greatly that those who have applied extreme political pressure to achieve the setting up of the scheme may feel that they have every expectation of further success in the future. I would hope that it can be made abundantly clear that this scheme is in the nature of a one year holding operation to allow individuals, industry leaders and the Government a few precious months in which to formulate and apply appropriate courses of action. The scheme will fail if it induces in the minds of individuals or industry groups a lack of resolve to tackle the urgent problems of the wool industry. This scheme is not an answer to those problems. It is, and must be seen and realised to be, a short term holding operation, lt must not be allowed to mask the need for adjustment and change.

On this point 1 would like to refer again to a proposal I made in my speech on the Budget earlier this session. As I said then, I firmly believe that the need for an independent survey into the future prospects for wool as an industrial fibre has never been more urgent. Whilst I appreciate the very real efforts of various bodies connected with the wool industry in assessing future trends, it is apparent to everyone that these people have a vested interest in the industry and hence are more likely to unconsciously emphasise the optimistic aspects of any statistics. I believe that in fairness to these bodies, and to the Australian people, this Government should immediately commission an independent survey so that no hints of selective presentation of facts can be levelled at organisations connected with the wool industry, and also so that the Australian people can truly believe that they have been given an unbiased presentation of the prospects of wool as an industrial fibre. If this were done the Government could then make up its mind on what policy it should pursue in a more detached atmosphere than has hitherto, been possible in this case.

I will support this deficiency payment scheme because it does allow this period in which such a survey could be carried out, but I would like to stress again, as did the honourable member for Wakefield, the need for urgency. Proposals, whatever they are, must be considered and assessed before the end of this short period, and that means urgent action on a number of fronts. There are other aspects of the scheme which disturb me, including the fact that whilst there is a ceiling subsidy price at the lower end of the scale there is no such limit. In other words, the more the realised ave rag* price drops below the subsidy level, the more the Government and the more the taxpayers are up for. Therefore, we are in a vicious cost situation. If the Commission, in order to keep average prices up, is forced to buy at existing or even higher levels, what we save on subsidy is spent on payments to the Commission. There may be, and it can be argued, some hope of getting the money back due to subsequent sales, but if the Commission prices are unrealistic then massive stockpiles with attendant storage costs and subsequent dampening effects on demand will occur. If the average price is allowed to fall below its present level then the cost of the deficiency scheme rises accordingly. Unfortunately, the sales so far contracted this season allow one little hope for a rise in demand and subsequently realised average prices.

The open ended nature of the scheme could thus not only prove very expensive but is also another strong argument for strict adhesion to its one year operation. I would also like to say that under the present provisions I can no longer see the need to exclude the 10 per cent of wools of an inferior type. I believe this provision was introduced originally to deter the production and presentation of hurry wools. 1 can understand this objective, but now such wools are eligible for deficiency payments. One cannot deter the production of crutchings and other types listed as being excluded because they are an integral part of our wool production, no matter where the sheep is grown or what type of sheep it is. Additionally, the deficiency payment is calculated on the whole clip so no money is being saved by excluding 10 per cent of the clip as being ineligible for payment. In fact, money is being lost because the administrative difficulties and costs associated with policing and delineating the excluded types will be considerable. Unless the Minister has some reason unknown to me for the retention of this aspect of the scheme I can see only administrative turmoil, grower bitterness and cost escalation arising from its implementation.

The Bill has within it provisions for deficiency payments for wool sold outside the well-known open auction system. I was initially very concerned that such organisations as Economic Wool Producers Ltd may be disadvantaged b> these provisions as deficiency payments are to be made on an assessed price rather than on a realised price for organisations such as this. It seemed to me that the marketing method employed by EWP, which to my mind has so far provided a very clear demonstration of what individual determination, foresight and enterprise can achieve, may have resulted in that company, and similar companies should they be formed, being put at a disadvantage. I would certainly not like to see any obstruction put in the way of any people capable of such self help and enterprise, and I am glad the Minister has assured me that this will not be the case.

I reiterate the main points of my approach to this scheme. I am sorry that this amount of money will be spent only on the wool industry. I would like to have seen it being spent on an expanded rural reconstruction scheme. It must be clear to everybody - Government, industry leaders and individuals alike - that this scheme is restricted to one year. This restriction places upon us the very real responsibility to ensure that we act quickly to try to come up with some realistic approach to the problems of the wool industry in this one year. Again, I would like to stress my advocacy for the setting up of an independent survey into the future of wool as an industrial fibre. Finally, I am very glad to hear from the Minister that the scheme will not act to the detriment of such enterprising organisations as EWP but, in fact, will safeguard those people who show some enterprise and some ability.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– The Bill we are presently discussing proposes the adoption of a scheme which carries the title of wool deficiency payments whereby the wool growers whose wool does not sell at or above a certain price at auction or by private treaty will receive, as a result of this scheme, some amount of money which will be determined on the actual price they receive for the wool as against the notional price of approximately 36c a lb greasy. Because it is impossible to accurately or even approximately forecast the future state of the wool market and as a result the approximate auction or return price for wool, it is also impossible to determine the actual or even approximate amount of money that will be required to finance the scheme. In addition, it is an across the board scheme whereby every wool grower, irrespective of his means, will qualify to participate and to obtain payment. The only qualification to be met is that the wool grower must have received for his wool at a normal sale a price below the amount laid down. Furthermore, it is impossible to know what amount of wool will sell short.

Notice of this Bill was given in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) last August and the estimated amount of expenditure he gave for this year was $60m. I do not know whether he was simply trying to fool the taxpayers or had himself been badly advised, but the fact of the matter is that an amount of $60m will be nowhere near sufficient if the present price trend continues, and is more likely to be in the vicinity of $120m or $130m. I would like to think that $60m would be more than sufficient to meet the needs, but it is most unlikely that this will be so. Before I go any further let me just say that I, and all other honourable members on this side of the House, are fully aware of the very serious situation applying in the wool growing areas. We fully realise the extreme difficulties which face so many people who grow only wool, wool and wheat or wool and something else. We are fully appreciative of those difficulties and are very anxious to see them overcome, but the money which will be required to finance this scheme will not necessarily be channelled into the areas or the pockets where the assistance is desperately needed and to which it is entitled to go. In fact, it would appear that the highest level of assistance or the more substantial amounts of subsidy - call it what you like - will go, to a large degree, to the very people who are in the least need and, in fact, taking their overall situation could be described as reasonably well off.

I know very well that size of farm or size of flock is not necessarily a proper guide. I know that a large wool grower could be worse off than a small wool grower and vice versa, and one cannot arrive at a proper conclusion on assistance simply on that basis. But surely the main object and the real target of any assistance scheme, especially where large amounts of taxpayers’ money are involved and where the assistance is in the form of an emergency grant, must be to ensure that the money goes where it is most required and where it will do the most good. Unfortunately, under this scheme such will not be the case. In fact, a great injustice can be done to some taxpayers. On this point I cannot help but recall at this time that one particular wool grower who, I am quite certain because of his means would not be suffering to any great extent as a result of the depressed wool prices, refused point blank to support a proposal for additional assistance for gold mining but who, from his remarks on the same day on the question, would nevertheless be ready and eager to accept from taxpayers in the gold mining industry some part of their hard earned cash by way of a wool subsidy to further swell his already well furnished bank balance.

On the other hand I am pleased to say that to the best of my knowledge he was the only wool grower in that district with such a shortsighted and selfish attitude. But even forgetting that person’s peculiar outlook, surely where taxpayers are obliged to contribute to an emergency grant, one to meet special needs, they should be safe in the knowledge that their contribution will find its way to where it is really needed and not into the pockets of those who do not need it. Apparently Government supporters claim that it would be very difficult to apply a means test to a proposition such as this deficiency payment scheme. Quite frankly I fail to see why. I have a lot of wool growers in my electorate. Many of them are very good friends of mine. I could adopt the attitude of members of the Country Party and give away principles for votes, but I am not prepared to do so. If a wool grower is in financial difficulties through no fault of his own and he needs assistance, he should get that assistance but he should have a good idea why he needs it, and it should not pose any great difficulty for him to show why. I would be surprised if it were not a fairly simple matter for him to do so. After all, wool growers keep books of some sort. Surely they all make taxation returns. Surely they all know or could quickly work out what their income from sources other than wool may be.

I do not accept for one moment that any great difficulty would arise. If a wool grower requires some short term or long term assistance to overcome real problems, I would be one of the first to come down in support of him, and this goes for any farmer or anyone else irrespective of who he is or where he may be. 1 find it very difficult to support a proposition under which taxpayers with very meagre incomes are obliged to contribute to people whose net incomes are substantially in advance of the contributing taxpayer, and 1 do not think that any self-respecting wool grower or anyone else would accept such a situation either.

Speaking of supposed difficulties in submitting statements of means, let me again refer to the assistance to gold mining. That assistance is not granted to large producers across the board as a fiat rate. The producers have to submit proof of their qualification for entitlement to assistance. If a company considers that it is entitled to assistance it is obliged to submit documents to show what it cost the company to produce each ounce of gold, if that production cost is more than a certain amount determined against the actual price of gold, the company may be entitled to assistance, but the amount of assistance will not necessarily be the maximum. It may be only a minor portion of it or if may be a substantial portion, depending upon what the cost of production actually is. It is this Government which required and still requires the gold mining companies to produce those figures, and I think properly so. But if those companies arc expected to do this and can show just how much it costs to produce an ounce of gold, it should not be difficult for a wool grower, particularly a company, to show actual overall financial circumstances.

After all lt must bc kept in mind that every person who grows wool is not engaged solely in rural activities, nor are all people who grow wool solely dependent upon the returns from their rural interests. There are the so-called Pitt Street farmers, the Collins Street pastoralists and the St George’s Terrace graziers who have business interests in the city, live there in very fine style and great comfort, and employ a manager to look after their property - and in some instances a very poorly paid manager at that. Then there are doctors, solici tors, land agents, stock firms and even members of Parliament who have substantial interests in wool growing. Surely a labourer on the main roads, a foresty worker, a miner or an attendant employed in this House should not be obliged to pay additional tax to provide members of Parliament and those other people to whom I have referred with additional income dimply because they are having a lean time in their wool growing activities but are 0 !herwise well off.

If such people have incomes from other sources sufficient to give them quite a good living they should not be permitted to qualify for Government assistance or to participate in a scheme such as this - an emergency grant. It must be remembered also that by disqualifying such people we would not be doing them any injustice or causing them any hardship, but on the other hand it would mean that those who really needed assistance and who could be put on the road to recovery would receive from the available finance a more realistic and useful amount. As I said at the beginning, that should be the real target of an emergency grant.

Let me return to the total amount of money that is likely to be required to finance this scheme, and in addition let us look at the amounts of individual assistance that the different wool growers could be expected to receive. When F «,ay different wool growers I am talking about the size of flocks. With a wool market such as we have today and with no real prospect of any sufficient upward movement in the price of wool for at least some months we can only arrive at the conclusion that under an across the board scheme such as this practically every pound of wool that is sold will attract some subsidy. In that regard it seems reasonable on price trends to estimate an all-round or average deficiency figure of 6c a pound.

I am unable to say with any accuracy how much wool will be produced and sold between the beginning of July this year and the end of June next year, which is the period this proposed scheme will cover, and unfortunately or perhaps unavoidably the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) did not give us any estimate either; but if we use the 1968-69 figure as a guide - I know of course that sheep numbers between 1968-69 and now could have been greatly reduced, but these are the latest figures I could obtain from the Parliamentary Library - approximately 2,000 million lb of wool will be produced during this period. This then would mean that the amount of money required to satisfy the demands on the scheme would be in the vicinity of $120m or double the estimate given us in August by the Treasurer. However, whatever the amount should be, whether it be $120m or $60m or some other amount, the important point is that it should be used in the manner by which it will do the most good - and not simply the most good for certain individual wool growers but the most good for the wool industry as a whole. That is the important point.

I am quite certain that every member on both sides of this House would want to see the wool industry recover to its former solid position, and anyone else with any sense of responsibility must surely feel the same way. The mere fact that the industry has been such a very large export income earner for Australia in past years is an obvious and sufficient reason in itself why we should all want to see its return to a similar position as quickly as possible. Therefore it is natural and indeed very proper that we should in turn want to be very sure that the money provided by this scheme or any other wool assistance scheme is used to the best advantage of the industry as a whole. In fact Parliament has a responsibility to that end.

But how can we decide whether money being provided is being used for its best purpose if it is to be distributed without any knowledge of the actual overall circumstances of those who apply to become beneficiaries. In that regard let us examine how the SI 20m or the $60m, or whatever it should be, will be distributed without any investigation of the receiver’s overall financial circumstances. Whatever the amount, the same principles and the same comparisons must apply. According to the statistics I obtained from the Parliamentary Library there are 10 rural holdings which carry flocks of 50,000 or more sheep each. This means that on a 9 lb fleece average those 10 holdings would each receive at the very least $27,000. Some would receive more, perhaps $32,000 or even more again. Certainly I find it extremely difficult blindly to accept simply on an application basis without any particulars of actual financial circumstances that one holding and indeed perhaps one person should be entitled to receive an amount of $27,000 or $30,000 of other taxpayers’ money.

The money to be paid out under this scheme is an emergency grant, yet no-one is obliged to show that he is in an emergency situation. If it were a loan, even a very low interest loan or even an interest free loan, it would be an entirely different situation. But this is a straight out grant; it is a gift of cash; it is a gift to one person of money from another person, from a taxpayer or a group of taxpayers. In these circumstances, when in fact some of the actual givers are much worse off than are the receivers, I fail to see how a government or this Parliament can justify gifts of $20,000 or $30,000 to individuals or companies without first conducting a proper inquiry into their overall position to ensure that they are in real need. As a matter of fact I fail to see how a gift of even $100 can be justified without proper inquiry.

This is not our money; it is not the Government’s money. It is the taxpayers’ money and the taxpayer is entitled to expect protection from the Parliament in matters such as this. If wool growers or anyone else expects assistance they should be prepared to make available, not to Parliament where it would become public knowledge but to a committee or a department, where it would be dealt with in confidence, whatever information is required to substantiate their claim. It must be remembered that this scheme, or one like it, may need to be continued beyond one year. If that is so, and certainly there is no indication that it will not be so, an even greater amount of finance will be required. In those circumstances, surely the committee or the department is entitled to know what real advantage has come from the scheme in its initial stage and, if that is not known, how can any future proper conclusion be reached by this Parliament?

There are 248 holdings with flocks of between 20,000 and 50,000 which each will receive assistance of between about $11,000 and $27,000. On that basis, using an average of $18,000 - I would be surprised if it were less - it will be found that an amount of some $Sm will be distributed amongst 258 holdings. I would suggest that a number of those holdings would be run on an absentee ownership basis with some of them even being owned by persons such as Hollywood film stars whom I would suggest are not exactly on the poverty line. At the other end of the scale are the growers who run flocks of between only 1,000 and 2,000 sheep. In this classification there are just over 2,500 holdings. Those growers will receive between $540 and $1,080 each, depending on the actual size of their clip. I certainly cannot imagine an amount of $500 or $600 making any significant contribution towards putting such people on the road to recovery or towards easing their particular problems if they are in real difficulties. Yet, if $60m, $120m or some other amount is available to assist the wool industry in getting back on its feet, it could well be that a proper investigation would show that a payment of $5,000 or $6,000 rather than $500 or $600 to each small grower would be of much greater advantage to the overall industry than would be a payment of $20,000 or $30,000 to each of 10 or 12 large producers.

If individual applicants were required to submit details of their overall circumstances and their total income from all sources, it may well be that something higher than 6c a lb could be given to those who really need it and who, if they were properly assisted over this year, could become self-sufficient from then on. Statistics show that 15 per cent of the wool growers produce approximately 60 per cent of Australia’s total wool clip. This in turn means that 13,500 growers out of a total of 90,000 growers who run 200 or more sheep could receive between them approximately $72m while 76,500 growers would receive only $48m between them.

On this basis, we would find that very large amounts could go to people who are on very large properties and who could never be properly re-established or become self-sufficient for several years even if the price of wool increased substantially. The fact is that the properties have been overstocked and have never had anything ploughed back into them by way of pasture improvement or control. They are completely run down and will need spelling for several years before they can again become anything like a reasonable sheep grazing proposition. Many of these properties are owned by stock firms and any money which is received by them through this scheme will not be put into the properties concerned but will be used for other purposes. This scheme, like others produced by this Government is a hit and miss, hotch potch affair which will do little, if anything, to solve the real problems of the wool industry. The money is more likely to go where it is not needed than lo go where it is needed. What is needed is the introduction of the policy of the Australian Labor Party which states:

Labor will legislate for a statutory wool marketing authority to acquire and/or market the Australian clip in the most efficient way. Reserve Bank funds will be made available to Finance the Authority. Labor will reconstitute the AWIC and the Australian Wool Board on a democratically elected basis and have an investigation and an evaluation of wool promotion and research.

I would not think that anybody would dare to criticise that policy. As I said earlier, I have a proper appreciation of the industry’ difficulties. I realise what its value shoud be to Australia. I know how important it is that it should be firmly re-established and I am prepared to give my full support to any scheme or proposition that has the means of doing this. Unfortunately, the scheme now before the House can, at its very best, only slightly assist towards that end. It will assist only a few of the genuine, bona fide wool growers while many others will receive practically no help at all. It is only because some deserving growers will be assisted that I am prepared to support this Bill, if our amendment is defeated. However, at the moment, I support the amendment.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– I rise to support this wool support scheme, knowing how extremely important it is to everybody who lives in the rural areas. I speak as a woolgrower and as a member of growers* organisations, not as a bureaucrat or an ex-journalist or somebody who has no real sympathy or understanding of or stake in the industry. This has been one of the best pieces of legislation to come before this

House for some time and it has been introduced during a time of difficult circumstances. The wool industry is an important industry. This country was built on wool. It has carried the people of this country since Australia’s foundation. It has gone through bad times before and it has survived and it is going through a difficult period at present.

Current difficulties have been aggravated by the world monetary crisis and the 10 per cent surcharge which has been imposed by the United States of America on our wool exports on top of the existing 25c a lb import duty. This has clouded the whole issue at a time when, according to those who were in a position to know, it seemed as though the industry was recovering, that demand was rising and that prices were starting to increase. In the meantime, this Bill will provide an assured price for wool to all wool growers. As 1 said earlier, wool is still Australia’s most important export industry and the future livelihood not only of the wool growers and most of the people who live on the land but also of those who live in country towns - business people and wage earners alike - depends on the wool industry. We were able to get agreement on this support price scheme in the face of opposition from many quarters because, I believe for the first time in the history of this country, all rural organisations were united in pressing for the need of a support price. Not only were all the rural organisations united in their support but also business houses throughout the country gave their support to the proposal. In my own town of Cootamundra one organisation made a tremendous effort to get in touch with as many business houses as possible in country towns seeking their support of this proposal. I believe that this is what has swayed the Government eventually to provide a support price.

We have been told by those who claim to know that although the price support does not reach the 40c a lb sought by the Australian Country Party - an amount this will solve the problems of the industry which it thought was really necessary to provide a solid background and price for Australian wool - in actuality it will be close to 39c a lb. The Minister said that this will be about 20 per cent on the price that wool will fetch. I do not suggest that - far from it. However, it does give producers a breathing space and an opportunity to do something that will be more effective and long-standing for the wool industry. It will give them time to readjust and take control of their industry and to eliminate some of those people - the parasites - who have been making much more out of the industry than has the wool grower. It will give the wool growers, who are in a position where it is difficult to become economic at anywhere near present prices, a chance to diversify. It will give them a breathing space in which to adjust and time to see whether wool will return to its rightful place as the world’s superior textile. I believe that we have a lot of homework to do ourselves. I do not exempt completely the primary producers from the present crisis. I believe that we primary producers have to do what was done in the case of wheat. We have to take control of our own product and follow it through. For too long we have been prepared to put all our effort and all our scientific knowledge into improving our product and then, as I heard the Minister once say, to push it out on the landing and say to those who handle it from there on: ‘Do what you damn well like with it’.

I remember very vividly when members of the International Wool Textile Organisation came to meet our Committee. Mr Peltzer started his discussion with us by saying: ‘Gentlemen, we represent the biggest wool manufacturers in the world. Our companies throughout this continent and in Japan have many millions of dollars tied up in machinery. We have been in this game for generations. We have a clientele and we have a business. We want to stay in it. But the trouble today is that wool is too dear in the shops’. That is a fact. Wool is dear in the shops, lt is a premium fabric in the shops. He continued: ‘It follows that we cannot pay you growers any more for your wool’.

That is where I objected and many of us who were practical wool growers objected. I said to him at that meeting: M happen to be wearing a $100 pure wollen suit today, but my share of the raw wool in that suit is worth less than 50c’. I said: If you want to stay in business, so do we and neither of us will stay iri it alone’. I also remember vividly when he laughed and said: ‘For years you wool growers have been taken for a ride. You have paid expensive wool classers. You have put a straight merino clip up in 15 to 16 lines and so often we buy it and then put them back together again.’ This is where we have fallen down as growers in not following through with the sale of our wool.

Mr Peltzer represents, in my view, the biggest wool manufacturing interests in all the world. He went on to say: ‘What we will hope to do is to buy on sample. It will be a sample perhaps taken in the shed, maybe on the sheep’s back. The bale will be pressed in the shed and possibly not opened until it is taken to the factory’. One does not have to use much imagination to see what would be saved there. But, he said: ‘We will want to buy it in 1,000 or 2,000-baIe lines’. This means that we have to have a stockpile. We hear all this ballyhoo about the small stockpile that the Australian Wool Commission has at the moment. The cost of it is peanuts when you consider it in relation to other costs in this country. Why, the granting of an extra week’s leave to our public servants, so I am told will cost about $250m a year. Yet there is a scream about the spending of $100m in the support of our greatest industry. The wool does not disappear. It will still be there to be sold.

I remember the days of the Joint Organisation and how wool made a comeback. We have homework to do. I think the move into blends is a tremendously important one. I think there is a great deal that can and will be done. We have perhaps 9 months in which to show that something can be done. If, within those 9 months, we are able to show that wool is coming back, if we have done our homework in cutting our costs and cutting handling costs then we can legitimately expect the Government and the Australian people to support the industry until it gets right back on its feet, as I believe it will.

We have heard some members of the Opposition. Maybe the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who has just interjected, was born in Currabubula. I am told it was in a manger, but I am not sure about that. But that would be about the limit of his knowledge of the wool industry. He has lived on the wool grower, like many others, ever since. It always aggravates me to hear the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) talking about their interest in (he wool growers. These are the people who support a party that is pressing for a 35- hour week. Nothing would be more detrimental and more disastrous, not only to the wool industry but also to the whole community. It has been reliably estimated that a 35-hour working week would increase costs in the city by at least 12 per cent and in the country by 20 per cent. We hear these honourable members who claim to represent rural electorates rising and weeping crocodile tears for the primary producers and then supporting a policy that would do more than anything else to destroy them. If I have any criticism of this Government, it is that they have not been firm enough with those who are disrupting our economy and forcing our costs up. No matter what we do in regard to supporting our industry, no matter what we do to improve our handling and presentation of the product, it will be of no avail whatsoever if our costs go on skyrocketing as they are. I remember very vividly a quotation made by Mr Hawke. He said: The only farmers who are in trouble are a few small inefficient farmers’. By God, let him come out into my electorate and make that allegation - and my electorate is a good one, with good country.

I have heard the same sort of statement made by some of the banking fraternity. They have a complete lack of appreciation of the problems and the importance of the wool industry. I believe that the time is fast approaching when we will have to have some type of acquisition. When one talks about acquisition one can be given a dozen different ideas of what it means. I believe that we have to be in the position to be able to do as Mr Peltzer said. That is, we must be able to present wool on sample and say: ‘Look, we can load within a week a thousand bales and guarantee it to your specification*. I think this is tremendously important. I think that in any plan that is adopted we must make room for Economic Wool Producers Ltd, an organisation that has shown what can be done. This is a prime and typical example of private enterprise getting out and helping itself.

Do not let us be afraid of at least some stockpiling. I remember all the criticisms of what would happen when the Australian Wheat Board first came into existence. It was said: ‘How will growers be paid?’ We were told that it was impossible for many farmers to join the Board because the grain merchants financed them. They supplied them wilh seed and super and everything else. We got over that problem. Who would want to return to the old days without the Australian Wheat Board, the most successful selling organisation this country has, despite the attempt by the Opposition and the honourable member for Dawson to make it a political issue.

The Australian Wheal Board is still our most successful selling organisation. We arc still selling more goods to China than many other countries which do recognise China. Many countries who do not recognise China at all are selling vast quantities of goods. It was never a political matter until the Australian Labor Party tried to make it one and tried to play politics. There is a future ahead of the wool industry as there is a future ahead of the wheat industry. I believe the future is very largely in our own hands. Many other industries are tied up with the future of the wool industry and with primary industries generally.

I believe that most important of all is the provision of long term finance. Anybody who has had anything to do with primary production in a practical way knows that the length of term of the loan is much more important than the rate of interest. We are pressing for the provision of this sort of long term finance. I there is a reluctance on the part of the trading banks we must press for the setting up of a special division of the Development Bank. I know that there is opposition from the Treasury and from the trading banks. I have never yet heard a legitimate, sound reason why there should not be a provision of long term rural finance. If the wool industry and our other rural industries are to survive, this is a necessity.

But the provision of finance, the development of salesmanship - and there is a great deal to be done here - will all be of no avail unless we keep our costs within reason. Today on every hand costs are escalating. We heard Mr Hawke say: ‘This will be the year of strikes’. He is VicePresident of the Australian Labor Party. We saw what happened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) very quickly when he suggested there should be some control of strikes. We have seen the opposition to proposals for compulsory secret ballots so that sane sensible people could gain control of our industrial unions. I, am not an opponent of industrial unions. 1 am an opponent of the Communist leaders who have aggravated the whole situation. This is extremely important to the wool industry.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill. I am amazed that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, could sit there for the last 3 minutes and listen to a speech on industrial unions and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! There is no point of order.

Dr Patterson:

– If you want to say that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will have no option but to move dissent from your ruling. There is a point of order. We are speaking to a Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Payments to the growers are factors in the effects of the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill. Finance has been referred to before and I think it is a factor which is involved.

Dr Patterson:

– This is dealing with Communism.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 call the honourable member for Hume.

Mr PETTITT:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot get away from the fact that costs are our biggest problem and no matter what we do to sell our wool more effectively and to present it more effectively, unless we can contain costs this deficiency Bill will be of no avail at all. The honourable member for Dawson has suggested that costs have nothing to do with the problem. This shows the shallow thinking of the so-called shadow minister and members of the Opposition. Costs have everything to do with the problem.

A few years ago when we went through a period similar to the present, we had bad seasons. When the seasons improved and a fair increase of price occurred many primary producers and many wool growers in the western section were able to pull out of their problems and regain prosperity. But what chance have wool growers today? The seasons will be just as good as those of past years and wool prices will come back again but growers have no hope while the present cost structure is affecting them and making it impossible for them at every point of the handling of wool. The more we can eliminate this unnecessary handling, the better. No country in the world has a greater opportunity to produce wool and food more cheaply than this country given a reasonable opportunity, encouragement, finance and the chance to tide over this difficult time which has been caused not by the wool growers but by world conditions beyond their control and principally by continued attempts to force up costs beyond reason. High costs are of no help to anyone. They are of no help to employees in the country areas, to primary producers or to the people whom even the Opposition claims to represent.

This is one of the most useful pieces of legislation that this Government has brought forward for many, many years. As I said before, it is not the complete answer to the problem but it does give the people who have been the backbone of this nation for generations a chance to get back into production and to pay their debts. The honourable member for Riverina suggested that debts should not be paid. He suggested a moratorium. Nothing could be more disastrous to the rural economy than a moratorium. Finance that would be available to the practical man would not be available at all if a moratorium were introduced. Who would be game enough to lend money to a primary industry when there was talk of a moratorium? Such talk has already done untold damage. I believe that the statement made by the honourable member for Dawson suggesting a moratorium has done more to tighten bank credit in many areas where the country is sound and where people are efficient, than any other single factor. I have yet to hear one answer from these calamity howlers and other people who tell about all of the problems that face country people. What do they do? They even try to play politics with the wheat industry, which is one of our really productive industries.

Those of us who represent country areas may be a minority but we are prepared to fight. We have had a tremendous win in getting this support scheme. We won this success in the face of tremendous opposition and difficulties created by the policies put forward by honourable members who sit on the other side of the House. I strongly support the Bill and I support the Minister. I commend him for the tremendous amount of work that he has put into this legislation. The Government has said that more money will be available. However, we should not forget that this money is an advance to primary industry. Primary producers generally - and this is the case with wheat growers - always have to pay for the money that they are loaned. We hear people from the city talking about the cost of these schemes. The popular Press loves to talk about the cost to the taxpayer of payments for wool, wheat and other products. However, it forgets that the primary producer pays interest on these loans and repays the loan over the years.

The future of the rural industries and all of those people who live outside of the great metropolitan areas is tied up with the prosperity of the wool industry. Any political party or any government that neglects the wool industry will neglect it to its peril.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support the Bill and I wish that the amount were 40c instead of 36c.

Mr Pettitt:

– Don’t we all.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would be prepared to vote for such an amendment as the honourable member for Hume would not.

Mr Pettitt:

– I would not risk it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right. I do not support the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I am opposed to the provision of this assistance on a basis of proof of need. If I had no other objection, I would have strong objection based on the recent experience of the wool assistance measures which did require the fulfilment of certain conditions. The result, as I think - and in fact I know - the Minister himself realises, and as 1 think would be known to nearly every member of the House who has wool growers in his electorate, was that by the arbitrary terms of that assistance many people who desperately needed it were shut out from receiving it.

There is no need for me to speak of the desperate condition of the wool industry today. That is now generally known. I believe that the wool industry is as much entitled to protection under the established protection system of this country as is any other industry. The battle between free trade and protection was fought very many years ago. Protection won and it has been the system under which we have worked ever since. Rightly or wrongly this system is based on the premise that every Australian is entitled to an Australian standard of living, that Australian industries shall not have to compete with industries which are producing at lower world prices, but that both the employer and the employee are entitled to protection so that the employers can obtain an Australian price for their product and pay an Australian standard wage to their employees. I see no reason why we should now depart from that basis. When I see members of this House voting to confine protection for secondary industries to those manufacturers who can produce proof of their dire need and exclude General Motors, the Broken Hill Company and many other wealthy companies from protection then 1 will be prepared to consider applying the same system to the wool industry.

However, while the established protective system of Australia remains and that assistance is granted on the basis of a price supplement irrespective of the individual means of the manufacturer or secondary producer, and so long as that continues to be the policy in Australia, I will strenuously oppose any other basis for assistance to the wool industry. The honourable member for Hume has stated correctly that the basis of the wool industry’s problems today is cost. I put it to the House many months ago, and the honourable member for Hume would not then agree, that the great evil which has beset primary industries is the product of inflation and I think that this is perhaps more clearly recognised generally today than it was 12 months ago.

A heavy responsibility rests upon the Government because it has allowed inflation to develop unchecked since 1950. In 1950 I think the basic wage was about £5, the equivalent of $10. Today it would require S50 to give an equivalent standard of living. In 1945, 1946 and 1947 the price of wool was somewhat akin to its price today. The wool producer today would have been able to live without Government protection if the value of money had remained unchanged since that time. The value of money has declined so greatly, firstly, because of the Government’s failure to take adequate monetary and economic measures to preserve the value of the Australian currency. Secondly, it has inevitably developed because of the need to provide through the Tariff Board protection to the secondary industries of Australia so that they could continue to sell on the Australian market with increased costs bringing about an increase in the prices of secondary products. The third reason for the decline is because the workers in secondary industry have had to be given, through the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, periodical increases in the amounts of their wages to offset increased prices. Their living standards have not necessarily improved, but at least in the whole secondary sphere an effort has been made and machinery has operated to maintain the living standards of the workers by granting the amount of money they need as the value of money declines and by preserving the prosperity, and the ability to produce, of the manufacturers and other secondary producers through the machinery of the tariffs and other similar machinery.

But all those costs have had to be met right up until now by those primary industries which receive no protection and which still have to sell at the world price Their position is impossible today and they face ruin mainly because of that factor. The time has come when it must be recognised that the primary industries, which in former years were able to compete on world markets and still pay the price of protection of secondary industries in Australia now must have a similar measure of protection provided for them. This could be done - it should be done - by the establishment of governmental tribunals to estimate, as they do in secondary industry, the costs of production and the amount necessary to be received by the producer to enable him to maintain an Australian standard of living, the difference to be made up from public funds as a price deficiency. I have heard even farmers themselves say that this would be impracticable because of the huge expenditure which it would involve from the public purse. The amount of expenditure from the public purse todav in all forms of monetary assistance to primary industries amounts to a few hundred million dollars and this present legislation may increase it, depending on the future of the wool market, by perhaps another SI 00m or SI 50m, I do not know.

The fact needs to be taken into account, however, that from the public purse today directly and indirectly we are providing assistance and protection to the secondary industry at a rate close to S3,000m a year - somewhere around §2,800m every year. The position, therefore, has become untenable and impossible. There is no sign that the inflation is ending. There is every indication that it is indeed increasing in speed. Unless action is taken now to do 2 things, both to curb and stop the inflation and, at the same time, to bring primary industry into the sphere of protection which is already given to secondary industry, then the alarming and dreadful situation which we already face in Australia will intensify. That is the situation of extreme and increasing poverty in country districts, and extreme and increasing money affluence - I am not talking of living standards - in the metropolitan areas.

Already there is a constant everincreasing stream of country people who, out of sheer desperation, being unable any longer to make a living for themselves and their families on the land and in country towns, move into the great capital cities of Australia. We know that Sydney and Melbourne are each likely to have a population of 5 million by the year 2000, less than 30 years from now. At the same time the denuding of the country districts of population is steadily proceeding. I can speak very clearly of the position that has continued to develop in my own electorate and in other rural electorates over the last 20 to 25 years. It is a position completely unhealthy from the point of view of the Australian nation. It is a position fraught with all kinds of threats to our wellbeing as a nation, but it must and will continue while secondary industry and secondary industry workers are protected always - properly so - against increasing costs and increasing prices, and an equivalent measure of protection is not recognised as just for primary producers.

The present Bill does something - very little - to redress the position in the wool industry. It will not by any means restore the position of the wool industry to a share in the prosperity of this nation which it formerly enjoyed. It will do no more than enable some wool producers to stay upon their properties and succeed in battling it out. I do not deny - no-one could deny - that if the Government provides this money to all growers some will have more need of it than will others. Some, through private wealth or other resources, will not be in nearly as much need of it as the majority of wool growers will be, but once we begin to impose arbitrary restrictions, means tests and requirements of proof of poverty before payment is made then, firstly, we fail completely to recognise the justice of providing this measure of protection to the wool industry, and secondly, we create humiliating unreasonable and unfair conditions for this section of Australian producers which conditions do not apply to all sections of producers in the secondary division of the Australian economy.

Dr Mackay:

– You are attacking the amendment then, are you?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have you just come in?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am, Sir. I am saying that the Minister for the Navy apparently has just come in. Therefore, it is quite understandable that he did not hear me say in my first sentences to the House that I support the Bill - although I wish the price were 40c per lb. not 36c - but I do not support the amendment which has been moved at the second reading stage. However, there are some good things as well as bad things in the amendment. I feel a great objection to not voting in accord with my stated position in the House. If this amendment had been confined to the establishment of this means test, then I would have voted in the House against the amendment, much though I would have disliked the necessity to sit with honourable members on the Government side instead of with my colleagues on the Opposition side. However-

Dr Mackay:

– Here is the escape clause coming.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no escape clause. The amendment contains provisions which are of value. Therefore, I propose to abstain from voting on the amendment. I have already informed my Party that I am not to be paired as being in favour of the amendment. I have done my very utmost, after studying the amendment, to examine my own position, and I feel that that represents the proper way to do it. At the same time, I want to make it plain in the most unqualified terms, my objection to this proposal. I have objected to it since the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) first stated it in the House as being the attitude of the Labor Party, or so I understood him. That was prior to an attitude on the matter having been decided by the Party to which I belong. I immediately sought leave to make a statement, but it was not possible to obtain it. I immediately informed the honourable member for Dawson and the Leader of my Party of my attitude. Since then I have not taken part in any discussions on the matter inside the Party room. It is very unlikely - it is certainly not my intention - that I will again be seeking suffrages of the electors of Eden-Monaro, so I hope it can be accepted that I am speaking purely in regard to a matter of principle which I believe to be of the utmost importance. I thank the House for its attention.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– My friend the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Allan Fraser) has put forward what appears to be a very just and cogent argument, but I shall have occasion to indicate a basic fallacy in it. He is perfectly right in saying that what has greatly affected, precipitated, emphasised, if you like, the problem of the rural industries is the increase in costs and the decline in the value of money within the Australian economy. This is all perfectly true, and if it were the only factor with which we were concerned, his argument might stand. But the fact is that what has really brought about more difficulties for the rural indus tries generally, and for the wool industry in particular, has been technological change, and in its proper place in the course of my speech I shall be referring in some detail to the effect of technological change upon the wool industry. This totally destroys the strength of the honourable member’s argument. Let me proceed, and in due course return to this subject because it is obviously vital.

We are dealing now with the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill, but in the course of this debate there has been considerable comment on another aspect of the Government’s rural policy, and that is the aspect of rural reconstruction. Indeed, the 2 are closely related because if you spend money on the one you may not have it available for the other, and you may have to make a choice as to where the amount of money that is available can be spent to the best advantage. Let me say, as other honourable members have done in the course of this debate, first of all something about reconstruction. The Government has allocated $100m for this purpose, but this is for all rural industries, and wool is but one. Firstly, if I may remind honourable members, one-half of this sum was provided for the reconstruction of the debt structure of farms which, if assisted in this way, will in the opinion of the administrators become viable. It is a matter of nursing back to financial health farms that are potentially viable. The other half of the $100m is to be used to assist in the consolidation of uneconomic farm properties because they are too small. This is what has been called farm build-up. It is a matter of a property owner buying up adjoining land to make the larger property viable.

This, 1 believe, has been a far too niggardly proposal because the $100m - it is small enough in itself in relationship to the problem to be solved - is to be spent over a period of 4 years. A large part of it is to be provided by way of loan and will come back to the Treasury. When one considers that the national farm income was more than SI, 000m in 1969-70, it is obvious that the amount proposed to be expended on rural reconstruction is very small indeed. It is only about 2.5 per cent of farm income. It is also extremely niggardly to expect a man who has to go off the land, to start a new life on $1,000, because this again is part of the scheme. Technically it is a loan but in fact it is designed to enable a man to leave the land if he cannot profitably carry on his farm. At last we have had something better from the Government - and I am still speaking about reconstruction. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has adumbrated a scheme for retraining those people who are forced to leave their properties. It provided for a living allowance of $46 a week, free training and the payment of a subsidy to employers for those men who have to learn while employed on the job. Of course, this is designed to meet only the needs of those who must leave the land.

I suggest that more is required in the reconstruction aspect of the scheme to make viable those farms or stations which can be made so. I believe that more should be provided to assist the older people who cannot be expected to be retrained for another job because, in effect, they are being compulsorily retired at an early age. These then are deficiencies in the reconstruction part of the scheme and it is because I believe that money would be better spent on that aspect of the rural problem than on the one that is directly before us, that I have made some reference to the reconstruction scheme.

I now pass on to the Bill before the House, the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill. How much will be required for the purposes of this Bill? Each lc per lb of the price of wool supported by the Treasury will cost taxpayers approximately $20m. So if the price is 29c per lb and the Treasury guarantees 30c it will cost the Treasury $20m, and so on. In the Bill provision is made for supporting the price up to 36c per lb. In the last season and in the current season when prices have plummeted, I understand that the lowest price received was about 27.5c and the highest price was 33c. At the moment I think it is something like 29c. If the average price obtained for wool sold during the current season were 27.5c the cost to the Treasury would be about $I70m. If the price returned to 33c, the upper limit of the last 2 seasons, it would cost the Treasury $60m. If it sold between those prices - say, 29c - it would cost the Treasury $140m. Nobody knows how much it

20369/71- -R- 185)

will cost because nobody knows what the average price will be for the current season, but I suggest it could be anything between $50m and $200m. This, it is said, is for one year but there are those on the opposite side of the House who advocate that it should continue indefinitely.

What are the prospects? I will not draw about me the mantle of a prophet. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) told us recently that the stagnation in the textile industry generally shows signs of lifting. It may. We hope it will. But a pessimistic view was put by Emeritus Professor T. G. Hunter, until recently Professor of Chemical Engineering at Sydney University, at the Australian Institute of Political Science Spring Forum ‘The Crisis in Wool’ held at Goulburn in October 1970. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) was present and spoke, and I was also present. It is suggested that there should be an authoritative survey, that somebody should look into the future with a more discerning eye than anybody has been able to do up to the present time. Coming back now to the matter I first raised in connection with the speech of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, let me read the relevant parts of Professor Hunter’s paper at the conference to which I referred. He said:

Having studied the production of natural materials in competition with synthetics and substitutes and examined the history, economic history, chemistry and chemical engineering of all such materials, I am certain that wool cannot survive the competition of synthetics.

He speaks as an expert with considerable knowledge. He goes on to say:

Eighty natural dye-stuffs have been replaced by synthetic dyes . . . whilst many natural perfumes and flavourings have been synthetised Polyurethane plastics have largely taken the place of sponges and synthetic camphor has replaced the natural product.

I might add what he does not add, that some people are concerned about synthetic meat as well. He continues:

Costs are … of primary importance, but reliable costs for synthetic fibres have never been published - the . . . manufacturers . . . being particularly cautious and unrevealing

He goes on:

However, we can use one measure of economic activity for which data can be obtained to compare the man-made fibre and wool-growing industries. This measure is termed the Capital Ratio and is defined as the ratio of capital invested (in U.S. dollars) to the production capacity in pounds per annum. That is to say that the Capital Ratio is obtained by dividing the capital invested in millions of U.S. dollars by the production capacity in millions of pounds per annum.

He then sets out a sum with which I will not trouble the House, and continues:

This technique shows that the capital investment required by wool-growing is from 7.0 to 10.0 dollars per annual pound, depending upon the situation of the property in the 3 wool-growing zones of Australia, whilst the capital investment required for the manufacture of the 3 major classes of non-cellulosic synthetic fibres is from 0.7 to 1.0 both in Australian dollars per annual pound. In other words, it requires in aggregate about 7 to 14 times the capital to be invested in wool-growing than that invested in the manufacture of synthetic fibres in order to produce the same quantity of clean fibre.

This is the nub of the matter. It requires 7 to 14 times the capital to produce a pound of wool as it does to produce a pound of synthetic fibre. He continues:

Wool-growing, with up to 14 times the investment required, cannot compete in costs with synthetics and therefore the wool industry of Australia cannot survive the onslaught.

He concludes:

Since wool growing is at least 10 times more expensive than synthetic fibre manufacture in initial investment, this cost difference must be reflected in the production cost of natural and synthetic fibres. This conclusion represents the end of the wool industry in Australia, as no competition between wool and synthetic fibres can exist at this cost differential. Wool growing as an income producer will slowly disappear.

Of course, he does not deal with differences in kind or quality. Wool may have certain qualities that synthetic fibres do not have - maybe cannot have - and wool may, up to a point, survive. But at least, with all the qualifications that one may think attach to the statement of Professor Hunter, one must have grave doubts as to the future of the wool industry. This is where I cannot agree with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. It is not just a question of increased costs and compensating for this by means of a subsidy. We may be dealing with an industry which to all intents and purposes cannot survive or cannot survive in anything like the form in which it has existed in the past. One does not know the prospects but one has to be highly dubious about them. At any rate, it will cost a lot of taxpayers’ money to shore up a great and valuable industry which has this dubious future. It will affect directly up to perhaps a quarter of a million rural producers and, indirectly, perhaps, one million people, lt is tremen dously important, not only in economic terms in connection with balance of payments but also in social terms from the point of view of human welfare and the suffering of individuals.

What is to be done? We have the deficiency payment concept. Should this be for all people, rich and poor? Many honourable members have spoken about this. One is, of course, on the horns of a dilemma. The Minister for Primary Industry has said that half of all wool growers have had only $2,000 of income left after servicing their debts, so a tremendous number of them are in a very difficult financial position. Nevertheless, there may well be - no doubt there are - some who are wealthier. We are on the horns of a dilemma because if we subsidise them all, some people who do not need the subsidy will receive it. If we subsidise only the poorer producers, then we encourage them to stay on the land whereas in their own interests as well as in the country’s interest they should leave it. So we are in this dilemma. We will be giving too much to everybody, some because they do not need it; others because we encourage them to stay in an agonising economic death. There is no justice in doing the one and there is no kindness in doing the other.

There are some fundamental criticisms of the scheme, lt is said to be designed to give a breathing space - at the price of millions of dollars for each breath - so that we can see over another 12 months what is likely to be the fate of the industry. I hope that this is how we shall regard it, but in about 12 months we may well have an election. I know that many promises are made at election time. I know that there is a competition in promises. So I fear the scheme may continue. I am not without sympathy for the idea of a statutory authority that sells wool by sample through core testing, that parcels the wool into appropriate lots that are suitable to buyers, that holds supplies maybe in stores overseas so that the product can be supplied as expeditiously as artificial fibres can be provided overseas, and that gives technical advice, perhaps even financial support, to users of wool.

I can see great merit in an organisation that can go out and sell. Perhaps it will not do so well in the sophisticated countries of western Europe and North America, but it may do better in countries like China and those in eastern Europe. But I fear that this may become like so many of the marketing schemes related to rural products with which we have become familiar in the past, in the extent to which the growers are paid from the proceeds of the sale of the product and in the extent to which they are paid by subsidy from the public purse. This distinction can be completely blurred. This is what I fear about a statutory authority. Indeed, for that matter, I would not like to see Economic Wool Producers Ltd prevented from carrying out this experiment.

So I cannot give unqualified support to the idea of the Commission. I can see enormous merit in it but I have one fear about it. May I refer in the few minutes that I have left to a myth that has seriously been propagated and believed by many people. The myth is that you can bolster up the price of wool if you can establish a selling monopoly and that if one board can have in its hands the whole wool clip it can hold the buyers to ransom and say: ‘We have a monopoly of this product and you will have to pay for it at our price’. I hope that those who propagate this myth will realise that they are doing a great disservice to those whom they are professing to help. It is quite obvious that the wool industry does not have a monopoly. Indeed, its troubles are due to the fact that it is in the severest competition with synthetic fibres. It has no monopoly, and any attempt to rig the market in some way for monopoly selling to raise the price is foredoomed to failure. Indeed, if it holds wool off the market it will only the more quickly induce consumers to switch over to synthetics.

Again, I greatly regret the lack of foresight on the part of the Government - for that matter, the Parliament - in regard to decentralisation. Nothing can be done by the penny package sort of decentralisation that has been advocated here for so long. Quite obviously, any decentralisation, to work, must involve the establishment of cities that can quickly grow from at least half a million population and upwards. Because we have not done this we have no decentralisation at all. The time that such a policy can be carried out is when people are footloose. Because of the present position in the rural industries there will be a certain number of people who are footloose, who have to change to something else and who do not mind whether they settle here, there or somewhere else. If the places were there for them to settle we would have some chance of getting them into new cities. The same applies to migrants. I greatly regret that these 2 sets of footloose people - the migrants who come here and those who are going to be displaced from the land - have not been settled in such a manner.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to comment on the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill and to say at the beginning that, in my view, the immediate problem of wool - this is what we are talking about here, because the scheme is described as a provisional one - is not one of costs at the moment but one of price. The other day I happened to be reading a paper written by Dr Harris of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics about primary production and the national income generally. He indicated that the figure achieved for the sale of wool last year was the lowest figure since 1948-49. Of course, two or three things need to be looked at. Firstly, the same sum as in 1948-49 would have a very different purchasing power in 1970-71. Secondly, it took more sales of wool, in the physical sense, in 1970-71 to achieve even that low figure than it took in the 1948-49 period. Roughly, as I understand it, the production of wool now is somewhere between 6 million to 7 million bales annually. In 1948-49 it was in the region of 5 million bales. So there has been .an. increase in the quantity of about 30 per cent. But the sum received for the sales overseas was the same in 1970-71 as it was in 1948-49 even though we were selling more of it. Of course, the purchasing power of the money received is probably only . about half of what it was in 1948-49. To my mind, to some degree this speaks for the great resilience of the wool industry in that it has been able to survive in the face of that sort of circumstance. I do not know that any other industry would have been able to do the same kind of thing.

The question to which I find it difficult to get an answer is: Why has the sale price dropped so dramatically and to such a proportion in such a short space of time? The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) who has just spoken said that the sale price had dropped because wool did not have a monopoly. I do not think that anybody has ever claimed that wool did have a monopoly. It has been recognised for a good number of years now that wool is no longer used purely on its own. It has been used in blends with synthetics. Until this season there have been no accumulations of wool. Growers have sold all they produced annually and there has been very little carry over. I am not sure - these are the kinds of problems one has to look at - that our problems might not have been significantly fewer if our total production had been a million bales or so less than it is. But we have reached the point we are at because of the remarkable improvement in the productivity of the industry, something that in other directions by and large we claim as a virtuous performance.

The honourable member for Bradfield quoted from a paper delivered at a seminar some time ago which referred to the capital that was employed to produce 1 lb of synthetic fibre compared with the capital employed to produce 1 lb of wool. If we were talking - we need to get to the bottom of these ‘ifs’ in the discussion - about an industry that did not exist and we were going to create A or B, the relative costs of the two might be of some significance. But our problem in the wool industry is that we have vast amounts of capita] employed that is not capable of being transferred. That sort of argument is all right if we are not faced with the prospect, as in my view we are here, that if the wool industry goes a lot of capital simply goes out of existence; it is not transferable somewhere else. As I see it, what we are doing here is trying to provide a bridge of 12 months or so in which to take stock of the whole situation. I took part in a private discussion some time ago on this question, and one might polarise the argument by saying that some people - there is a significant number of them in Australia - believe that the wool industry is doomed, almost totally.

Mr Grassby:

– But why did they say that?

Mr CREAN:

– I am simply trying to put the two poles of the argument. On the other hand - this is the side of the argument to which I subscribe- I think the wool industry is viable and has shown itself to be so in the past, the reason it is in any kind of economic jeopardy at the moment is, I believe, not because of costs but because of prices. It would be nice if costs were lower, but costs are rather like the problem of the transfer of capital. There is no way by which one can suddenly and dramatically reduce costs. I think that honourable members, if they are honest, will admit that in many ways labour is not a very prime factor as far as the immediate problem of the wool industry is concerned.

I am astonished sometimes when I find that for debating purposes honourable members on the other side of the House offer the bogy of the 35-hour week, which we do not have as yet, as a sort of answer to a problem that we do have. All too often this is what the Government does. It does not face up to the problems that bedevil us immediately; it runs away and says: ‘Well, if the Labor Party does this or something else, in 12 months or 2 years it will be so much worse.’ I am not too sure that some of the people we are talking about have 12 months or 2 years to wait. This partly is the reason we have written our amendment in the way we have. If money is to be devoted to saving sections of the industry it should go to those sections of the industry which need it most. After all, there are some who are surviving fairly comfortably on today’s prices; there are others who will not survive with the small amount that they will get from this kind of bounty. It is not, as my friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) suggests, a tariff.

There are differences between a tariff and a bounty. I often define a tariff as a tax which the person who makes the good hopes will never be collected because he hopes still to make the good in his own country, and the tariff is there to stop the article being imported but he produces the good at a price plus the tariff and he sells it accordingly. What is envisaged here is in the nature of a bounty and what we are suggesting is that the bounty could be more equitably distributed. It is not right simply to say that if a person has 20,000 sheep and the floor price is such-and-such and the average that is agreed upon is 36c, and the difference between the price he gets and the 36c is 6c or 7c, then the bounty is paid on the number of pounds of wool offered and the number of sheep that he has. We regard that as inequitable. That is the basis for our objection. If honourable members opposite regard this as equitable and the most sensible way to do it, I suppose they are entitled to their opinion.

Let me get down to the question of the price, which seems to me to be the bedevilling factor. If, as some people say, the Japanese are holding off in the market - they ought to be paying a higher price but they are not - would not the fact that the Australian Government proposes to underwrite the price lead the Japanese to say: *We would be fools, would we not, to pay 36c a lb for the wool if the Australian Government is to underwrite the difference?’ At least I think that would be the sort of argument that some shrewd buyers might arrive at, and this is why I think that ultimately we are right in our amendment when we go on to suggest in the second part that there should be a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip. It seems to me to be a curious kind of auction when we are doubtful about the principal buyer in the first place, and when the only buyer who is matching the principal buyer is the Government auctioneer who is buying in at certain prices. I would like to give it another 6 or 8 months to see whether this is a viable scheme. Up to date it does not seem to have been a very workable scheme.

If it is not successful I think the next logical step is to come down to compulsory acquisition. If people believe as I do, and as I am sure the Minister does, that the wool industry is viable why are not the principal buyer and other buyers paying a fair price for the product? After all, the Japanese would not sell a motor car to us at lower than the cost of production, and this seems to me to be something of the problem of the wool industry. Two or three years ago for the same quantity, and roughly the same qualities in aggregate of wool, we received $839m I think the

Minister said, yet in the last full year for which figures are available - 1970-71 - this amount had dropped by nearly $300m. Why? Is it because the buyers are better organised than are the sellers? The view that we on this side hold is that this has been the main difficulty. It is not that wool as a product has a monopoly. I do not think anybody suggests that. But surely we are as entitled to claim for wool as a product something like a reasonable cost of production as we are, or were, in the case of iron ore when it was sold by contract in Western Australia to certain Japanese buyers, and in the case of wood chips. Through private negotiation between the 2 countries we got a better price. Is not the same kind of thing a possibility as far as wool is concerned? One other matter was raised in the Minister’s speech about which I want to say something. He said:

During the course of the year it is anticipated that there will be a’ settlement of the international currency siuation

I would submit that one of the difficulties at the moment as far as Japanese buyers are concerned must be in relation to the ratio which they think should apply to the yen and the Australian dollar. I have been prepared to accept the view that up to date the Government may have been wise to sit out this sort of crisis. But in a situation where, as I understand it, the yen has dropped from 360 yen to the American dollar to about 330 yen to the American dollar, or a variation of about 9 per cent, surely Australia has to make up its mind in its trade relationships with Japan what it thinks are fair trading terms in the 2 currencies.

I would submit that instead of waiting on what is taking place at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the meetings of the Group of Ten - it has now become a group of nine versus the United States as the tenth - it is about time that Australia began to do something about arranging separate terms if need be, between Japan and itself and, if need be, in respect of wool. After all if, as some people say. we should follow the American dollar - I cannot say that I subscribe to that view either - and there is likely to be a drop in the yen compared with the American dollar from, say 330 even down as low as 300 yen to the American dollar, it is extremely unlikely that any Japanese buver will buy something when he floes not know what the Australian exchange rate will be in the circumstances.

I would suggest that we have reached that critical time in Australia. It is interesting to see that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) on his way home is at least to spend a day or so in Japan. It seems to me that these are some of the matters that will have to be strenuously examined in the next few months. Is one of the hitches at the moment the uncertainty about the currency? On the other hand, if we in this country really feel that wool is underpriced, why should we let it be further underpriced by accepting an unsatisfactory arrangement about the exchange rate, which is surely what the Government is proposing to do.

Listening to. the kinds of arguments that have prevailed in this debate, particularly from the Government side, I suggest that there is a little bit of whistling in the dark rather than a tendency to face up to what is a highly critical situation. I do not think there are any simple answers to these problems, and I think we are foolish sometimes to suggest that there are. But at least here is a proposal before us that we think is inequitable as far as the immediate difficulties are concerned, and the difficulty arises out of the fall in the price of the product that is being sold. What this measure does is simply to distribute on an inequitable basis to everybody irrespective of bis total income or relative circumstances in the industry, the same flat payment.

As my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) showed, the biggest part of the subsidy goes to people who in one way are not doing very badly at the moment. They certainly would be doing better if their wool cheque were greater, but they are not going out of existence. On the other hand, when recently I went to the Western District of Victoria, to the electorate of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), I was told that even with this assistance payment many of the smaller people there still would not survive. Maybe we can callously say that their capital would be better employed in a synthetic plant somewhere else, but that is a very unrealistic and uncharitable attitude to the problem.

Therefore I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson, and I hope that honourable members on the other side of the House will realise that it is a genuine view on our part that this is an inequitable way to bestow temporary largesse to the industry. la the words of my friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, even if it means having something in the nature of- a means test, means tests are not unknown on the other side of the House either.

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

Mr MAISEY:
Moore

– While supporting the Bill before the House and commending the Government for bringing this very necessary measure of relief to the wool industry, I want to express some reservations and disappointment with the provisions of the Bill. The opportunity to make this measure an effective instrument of reconstruction has been abandoned, as has been the opportunity it presented effectively to promote the production of better and commercially viable types of wool. That these omissions have occurred obviously in the interests of petty political considerations is to be regretted and detracts considerably from the merit which would otherwise be due to the Government. The decision to make provision for the continued operation of sales by private treaty is a wise and commendable one, but the restrictions placed on the percentage of deficiency payment to these transactions is unnecessarily discriminatory and offensive.. Let me make my position in respect of private treaty selling perfectly clear. I believe implicitly in the need, for the Government to acquire the entire Australian, clip and market it through a single selling authority. This does not necessarily mean any far-reaching departure from existing machinery. In fact, the facilities of the existing wool receival organisations would be needed as much as ever, as also would their trained and competent staff. ‘ But I believe that a situation,, as at present, where we have every grower competing to sell his wool to a relatively few Jeeply entrenched buyers, is completely indefensible.

But having said this, let me now affirm that while this situation exists, I insist on the right of the grower to exercise his judgment as to how he will sell his wool in this marketing situation. If he decides, in his own judgment, to sell at the shed door, he must be free to do so. Any attempt, for reasons of political patronage, or indeed for any reason at all, to try to force him to market his wool across a broker’s auction floor is completely reprehensible and must be resisted at all costs. If we are to have an open market, I say let it be an open market. If a grower elects to dispose of his clip privately, he reduces the necessity of the Australian Wool Commission’s appraisal, the Wool Commission’s reserve price support, and possible use of additional Government funds if the Wool Commission buys in the wool. Why then should this grower be differentiated against in the application of the deficiency payment? Another aspect of this proposal which disturbs me greatly is the decision of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to amend completely the list of excluded types. Under the original list declared by the Minister in his statement tabled in this House on 20th August, Western Australian growers and growers in some other States would have been eligible for a considerably greater overall share of deficiency payments due to the absence of heavy vegetable fault in any significant quantity of the State’s clip. The complete about-face that has taken place regarding the types to be excluded has completely altered this position. The original list of excluded types undoubtedly was made on a strictly commercial basis and was uninfluenced in any way by political considerations. But we now have on our hands a political decision which, in its desire to spread the list of excluded types evenly over every State, has lost sight entirely of the need to exclude from the benefits of deficiency support, wool which in its natural state has little or no commercial value. At the same time a situation has been created where no merit whatsoever exists in excluding virtually any type of wool. In the interests of simplicity and reducing administrative costs, it may just as well be that we simply pay 36c per lb average on the whole Australian clip.

In Western Australia, the position has altered from that of approximately 98 per cent eligibility over the entire State clip, to about 90 per cent eligibility. In real terms this represents an annual loss to Western Australia in excess of $250,000 and is clearly another instance where Western Australia has been differentiated against for political considerations. Apart from it being abundantly clear that political considerations have over-ruled rational thought on this matter by the reinclusion of carbonising types in the eligible types for deficiency payment, it is obviously clear that much of the oversupply situation referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech is being aggravated by the production and marketing of this type of wool. If we are to allow deficiency payments on poor style and heavily burr infested wool, then why discriminate against the grower who wants to sell this type of wool by private treaty and in the process save the Government and the Commission some costs and, at the same time, himself reap the benefit of this saving?

If, as we are told, there is a situation of over-supply in the market, now, and I repeat, now, is the time to discourage marketing of not only the 10 per cent of those types laid down in the first schedule of the Bill, but also to discourage production of the 10 per cent of inferior types originally excluded. Only after a combination of all these types are removed has the wool industry a real chance of recovery as a supplier of a commercially acceptable commodity, a commodity worthy and capable of demanding a firm price from the world’s textile users. This will be possible only after pruning out from the efforts of wool growers the types of wool that are not commercially viable. The fact that such a large number of growers in New. South Wales and Queensland are affected by the production of inferior burry types of wool should be of sufficient significance to warrant immediate attention to the possibility of evolving a separate system of reconstruction for those growers who are unable to produce any better types of wool. In short, what I am suggesting is that those wools which previously were considered to be of sufficiently low value to be excluded from deficiency payments are still significant enough to warrant the attention by the Government to either work towards the complete elimination of, or immediate reduction of, this production which, at this stage, can only depress the ruling prices for those wools which are commercially acceptable to the trade.

If rural reconstruction measures are to abide by any criteria, surely this criteria must have regard to the economic value of the commodity being produced as well as the economic viability of the producer concerned. The world’s textile processors have in the past shown, and will certainly in the future show, little concern for social and political problems involved with the production of the inferior types of wools in Australia, and neither can we: realistically expect them now to support this type of commodity in the market place. The Minister for Trade and Industry has already indicated the possibility of the need to introduce supply-management techniques for the control of production in the industry. Such a possibility would be most unwelcome and it is to be hoped that it will not become necessary on any large scale. However, the industry has reached a stage, in fact a critical stage, where the Government must face up to the problems and if over-supply is one of them, and too much badly grown wool is another, then it should go straight to these areas and deal with them.

Obviously there is an urgent need for a revision of the nation’s wool-growing areas, based upon not only economic viability but also the quality of the commodity produced in those areas. Areas in Australia can be identified where management techniques have reached their optimum levels and yet it is still not possible to eliminate the production of wool which is so heavily burr infested that it has little commercial value. On the other hand, it is only too true that there are other areas where management techniques could reduce vastly the significance of burr infestation, providing, of course, we make sure that it simply does not pay to ignore this need. The role of the deficiency payment scheme should have regard to the need to promote the production of the type of wool which can claim a fully competitive role in the international textile fibre market. Conversely, what I am suggesting is that the scheme should work side by side with rural reconstruction proposals and supply management techniques to remove from the market place those wools which have little commercial value.

In the battle for a place in the textile markets of the world, is it not the time for the wool industry to retreat and consolidate itself in the production of a fibre able to compete openly and without unnatural protection? Perhaps at this stage I mould emphasise that I am perfectly well aware that as well as dealing with a Bill to assist the woo] industry, we are dealing also with a matter which does contain a great human element. Perhaps the most significant part of the Minister’s second reading speech was where he referred to the fact that it has been estimated that approximately one million persons are wholly or substantially dependent on the wool industry for their living. May I emphasise that we must not allow a situation to develop where the vital interests of almost one million persons are being unduly prejudiced because we lack cither the political courage or initiative, or both, to reconstruct a relatively small percentage of these one million persons - persons or companies who are operating in an area which does not now lead itself to the production of the sort of commodity which we must produce if we are to command a place in the world fibre market. If rural reconstruction has any meaning at all, surely it means that this is an area where reconstruction should operate and it should operate to the overall good of the whole industry as well as those relatively few people who find themselves situated in the area of virtually unsaleable production.

Perhaps another most significant part of the Minister’s second reading speech was where he stated that the aim in excluding the 10 per cent of inferior types was to withdraw support from wools which do not bear the full cost of the disproportionately high sale and handling costs they involve; and that the Government considered it would be undesirable to encourage delivery of such wools by increasing their value through the mechanism of deficiency payments. I could not agree more with this part of the Minister’s speech, but I cannot help but feel, and feel very strongly, that this part of his speech must surely have been written in association with the original list of excluded types. The Minister continued and said that it would be seen from the first schedule to the Bill that the excluded wools were primarily locks, crutchings, and similar wools which are common to the whole clip and the incidence should be equitable as between growers. I maintain that it is not possible to produce wool in any area which does not, to some extent, result in the production of locks and crutchings and wools of this type. lt seems now that the object of excluding some wool from the benefit of deficiency payment has changed from one of discouraging the production of wool with a high and uneconomic processing cost to one of identifying a group of oddments common to all growers, so as to create the illusion of a higher average return from Government funds. If this has been the Minister’s objective, then he has deceived only himself and, in the process he has seriously detracted from the value of the costly exercise we are now considering. The compilation of the original list of excluded types obviously had as its objective the discouragement of production and marketing of those types carrying little or no commercial value due to high processing costs, and endeavoured to concentrate the incentive for production in those areas of Australia where wool could be produced reasonably free from extraordinary high content of vegetable matter. I am prepared to concede that a case does exist for the exclusion of heavily stained wools and those wools containing a high percentage of foreign matter. But the very least that should be done, so far as this legislation is co’ncerned, is to bring back into the list of excluded types those types originally indicated by the Minister in his paper presented to the House on 20th August,

In his second reading speech the Minister said that in reference to the present or new list of excluded types, these wools are easily identifiable by growers and are difficult to mix with eligible wools without being readily detected, and that growers who fail to class out these types of wool will be penalised either by having their wool reclassed at their expense, or by the lower price received. If the Minister has added these words as a justification for the alteration in this list of types, then surely to goodness he must think that there is no one in this House who has any knowledge at all of the wool industry. To sug gest that it ls any easier to detect the amended list of excluded types than it would be to detect heavily burr infested woo] which has not been classed out, is surely one of the weakest arguments I have heard yet for the alteration in the list of excluded types.

I revert again to the Minister’s statement of 20th August in which he said that it is quite unrealistic to suggest that the deficiency payment scheme will impede or hinder the rural reconstruction scheme by encouraging people to stay on their properties who have no long term prospects of viability. Let me say in connection with this part of his statement that by the abandonment of the list of excluded types of which this statement forms an integral part, it can now be fairly slated that this reference to rural reconstruction is no longer valid. While the original objective of the price deficiency payment scheme was to introduce a measure of assistance to the wool industry aimed at complementing the rural reconstruction scheme, the Bill presently before us cannot now so effectively perform such a function.

In the exercise dealing with a problem of the magnitude which has now developed in the wool industry, there can be no place for petty political ‘ considerations. The proposed enactment of this legislation means that we are establishing a precedent in an industry which has been remarkably free of this form of support. It is, therefore, vitally essential that whatever precedent we establish now should be established against the background of practical commonsense and in the long term interests of the industry in its every aspect. While I am prepared to support the Bill, I want to conclude by again expressing my keen disappointment in the Minister for bowing to what . has obviously been a political instruction. In doing so he has established a dangerous precedent in supporting wool of little commercial value, in detracting from the concept of a price support plan which would make a valuable contribution to the overall quality aspects of the entire clip, and finally, by detracting from the value of the deficiency payment as an effective instrument of rural reconstruction.

Mr BUCHANAN (McMillan)’ (5.49)- One of the remarkable things about this debate is that all speakers have agreed that they will support the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill. Although everyone has his own slant on the future of the wool industry, it is generally agreed that this measure is purely a palliative. If honourable members cast their minds back a few years to the time when we were debating a floor price plan - it will be recalled that there was some trouble about a referendum - there were acriminious debates about who was right and who was wrong, about what should be done and what should not be done. At the time, many people came forward with the suggestion that we should have full acquisition of the clip. I was one of them. I still believe that this is .the way in which we should be aiming now. I think that the main reason why this has not been introduced is simply because those in the industry itself, with all the various organisations that claim to be speaking for the growers, have not been able to . sit down around a table and talk sense in trying to resolve what has obviously been a growing problem for many years. It is only because the position is now so bad that those in the industry simply had to come up with some sort of agreement.

As 1 said, we all agree that this is only a palliative. There is no need to go into the details of the Bill. I do not think many speakers today have done so. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) has not gone into the details of the plan as laid down in the Bill, but he has done a great deal to elucidate these political differences between the types of growers and the different thinking that they bring to finding a solution for a problem that has confronted us for a long time.

For years now people have been telling us that wool is on the way out. The fact that the actual percentage of the total fibre market that is filled by wool happens to be shrinking does not indicate that wool is not a very much appreciated fibre and that it is not very much wanted by the people who appreciate quality, or that it is anything like being on the way out. Actual production is up. It is not a reflection of world demand for wool. With approximately a 30 per cent increase in production, the individual grower is receiving for his wool only the same return as that which he received previously. It is a reflection on the ability of the people who control the industry to manage the affairs of the industry. I am amazed that we have been able to stagger on for so long with an auction system which obviously cannot give the grower the optimum results over a period. There would be days on which a particular grower would receive more for his wool than he received last year and when other growers would receive less. The wool grower is entirely dependent on the fluke of who decided to go into the market at a particular time. The wool grower is dependent on the fact that many wools grown in one area may all go on to the market on the same day and none of them receive a good price. The small grower, who has been obliged to put his wool on the market as soon as he got it off the sheep’s back, in order to get himself out of the clutches of his banker, has to take the price that he can get. The big grower is able to say: ‘I will take so much for it or I will take it back. And he takes it back. I cannot think of any other sensible industry in which this auction system is used, although I am always told that this auction method is still used in the stock market, in the selling of beef, lamb and so on. But even in that industry, there are the same weaknesses. Why they have stuck to this method for so long I cannot understand. Equally, I cannot understand how we can possibly have an auction system in which the Australian Government - and remember that it is Australian wool and it is the Australian Government supposedly trying to look after the grower - is coming in and buying on behalf of the grower his own product. I sincerely hope that much more thought will be put into what is to be done for the future of this industry by the time we have to come up with a new proposal, before the end of June next year. This proposal that we have before us today is purely and simply to see us through these few months. People have been talking in terms of 12 months, but this is not so. We have only until June of next year arid for the next wool selling season we must have something much better.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– The purpose of this Bill is to give assistance to wool growers to bolster the poor returns that are being earned at present. Without the export earnings of this great industry it would have been impossible to achieve the high standard of living which we take for granted today. It is up to us to get the industry back to the state of its former glory. Anyone who begrudges assistance to it in its great need now does Australia a disservice. There are about 100,000 wool growers. Also, there are 300,000 employees and their dependants and probably something like the same number of people in Australia who are partly dependent on it in other activities. So this Bill provides some encouragement and assistance for quite a large proportion of the Australian population.

Many of us have seen the present situation coming for some years. The failure of the industry organisation leaders to come to grips with the problem has been of great concern to those of us who have been looking on and seeing Australia’s most important industry slowly degenerate into one which, if the drift is not stemmed, will become a dead loss. I am not going to delve into the whys and wherefors of the types of wool that are being- grown. Suffice to say that there is far too much that should not be marketed at all. But the answer to that can only be the economic one of diminishing returns which will force these growers of unwanted types to grow something else - preferably, of course, to grow saleable wool. What I want to put forward into this very interesting debate is that wool is a fibre that has established an enormous industry on a world basis. Australian wool growers have built up a great trade for Australia by supplying the raw materials that have been going to mills on the other side of the world, and Japan, where it is turned into products 10, SO or even 100 times the value of the raw material which other countries buy from us.

For generations Australian wool growers have been able to earn above average and really quite generous incomes because the mills in other countries set up processes for scouring, carbonising, spinning and weaving and the world population provided a growing demand for apparel, carpets and all the wonderful fabrics that make life pleasant today. The trouble with wool today is that the growers have sat back and said: Well, wool is better’. They said: ‘Buyers will have to come to us for it’. Before the invention of synthetics there was a lively demand for wool in the auction rooms, but since the development of synthetics mill owners can be selective and do not need to compete with each other, and the auction system is shown to be the disaster it always must be when demand is slack. But I remind the House that the ‘living fibre’ market in the world has been so great that if it had not been for the advent of synthetics we would not have been able to grow enough wool to supply the world’s demand. There is a growing demand for, and a growing use of, wool in quantity. Although it may not be quite so much in percentage, the market is there. Although there is talk of competition with synthetics, this does not mean that wool cannot be sold to the same mill owners who will use synthetics if they are sold to them for the qualities that wool possesses and at a price which will make it worth growing.

Several speakers today have said that the problem of the wool grower is his costs. Others have preferred to say it is the price that he gels for the product. I want to go a long way further and say that it is the marketing. There is a complete absence of expertise in meeting the challenge of the market place. One of the problems in the past has been that wool has been used for garments for which it did not give complete satisfaction. Resistance to the use of wool as a blending material has held wool back. I do not think we can really see the degree to which this has occurred. No-one today would regard all wool socks for ordinary wear as satisfactory. The synthetics have made wool socks acceptable to women who objected to the darning and men who did not like the holes. Light weight suits need a synthetic stiffener to resist creasing yet, strangely enough, suits made wholly of synthetic material crease so badly that they must be ruled out altogether by anyone seeking a well-groomed appearance.

I would like to suggest a few things that are not done. I read the other day that the cricket season is with us now and that cricketers want a cable stitch woollen garment but this article is not made in Australian factories. If a cricketer wants a woollen garment of this type he has to buy an imported one. However, synthetic garments of this type are made in some of our Australian mills. This is a wrong approach to the marketing of a product which is wanted for its superior qualities. People have to put up with a substitute because the mill owner in Australia might find that the synthetic article is a little easier to handle or sometimes a little more profitable. However, I believe that with the proper marketing techniques, he can be shown that he can do just as well by selling good stuff as a shoddy copy.

Too much time effort and money have been lavished on trying to make wool exclusive or to alter the fibre so as to achieve such things as making it machine washable. After all, wool has its own characteristics and has to be sold for the product that it is. We should leave all the gimmicks to the synthetic people. Let them have their market and we will take ours. Too much of growers’ money has been spent on promoting ‘wool’ and not ‘Australian wool’. This is holding us back more than most people realise. Wool is being sold on the simple basis that wool is good. For all that, wool today enjoys about 6 per cent of the apparel fibre market, but that is still a big and valuable market. We should put a lot more effort into providing that market with what it wants, not what we think it wants.

Wool, as we are speaking of it today, is a raw material. We sell it in the greasy state and naturally take a very low price for ft, just as we get a very low price per ton for iron ore compared with the price that the producer receives for the steel he makes from it. In our planning for the iron ore industry we stipulate the establishment of steel mills within a certain time. If only the early wool barons had thought of this, we would today have flourishing wool scouring, wool top, wool spinning and wool weaving industries of a size to compare with the great mills of the world. As it is we have the highest quality weaving mills in the world. I say this without any fear of getting beaten in any argument on it.

I can take honourable members to mills that are producing materials from Australian wool which they buy. Australian wool is treated wholly at those mills. It is woven and we are able to send the finished product to markets outside of Australia such as Hong Kong, America and the United Kingdom. These products and their quality are fully accepted for what they are. If we go to a show put on by the wool industry - not an Australian Wool Board show because it is no good going to one of them if we want to see wool in its best form - we can see the industry showing off what it can make. At these shows the industry gives its awards to the best materials. We would not get any better suitings, materials and various fabrics anywhere else in the world.

As my allotted time has almost concluded I will now sum up my remarks. As I said earlier, the auction system has failed the wool grower. When competition left the price left with it. When prices are falling the manufacturers hold off buying; this is historically true. Under present conditions no good buyer, no sharp buyer would do more than buy minimum stocks when he knows that the Wool Commission will store the wool until he wants it and then give it to him at a price he wants to pay. On the other hand, total acquisition and marketing by sophisticated techniques, with one marketing authority instead of the conglomeration that we now have, properly equipped to present the wool in its most attractive form, properly classed, using core testing, objective measurement and all the latest techniques, offering guaranteed parcels of anything from 25 to 100 or more bales to suit the buyer’s specifications, the wool industry can once again become the most important industry in Australia.

We should go further and establish Australia as the world centre for Australian merino wool, shift the International Wool Secretariat from the other side of the world to Australia where it belongs, and establish a woollen manufacturing centre perhaps similar to Bradford - and, I would hope, better - and set ourselves up as the authority, which we are and which we should be recognised as. We could then go out to capture world markets wherever they may be. There is no need to have organisations such as the IWS located on the other side of the world. When we have modern travel facilities available, Australia is the country in which these organisations should be located. We could go out to capture world markets, but not by selling our wool as a raw material from which other nations can build up their economies. Our wool should be in the form of finished products that will capitalise on the fact that in its proper end use wool is the top quality fibre in the world.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Mackellar:

– What about your suit?

Mr Buchanan:

– Look at the creases in it.

Mr COHEN:

– I do feel somewhat guilty in standing up to speak to this Bill whilst wearing a dacron and cotton suit because most of my suits are made of wool. I did not know that this Bill was to be debated today, otherwise I would have been appropriately dressed. Some time ago when the Australian Wool Commission Bill was being debated I spoke as a retailer who had had some 1 2 years experience in handling wool and selling woollen garments to consumers. I am not the only one in this House who has some retailing experience. I have a colleague on the other side who I understand has had some experience in this field. 1 refer to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). I hope that he will join in the debate and mention some of the things I hope to speak about this evening.

What I want to do tonight is to reiterate a lot of what I said in speaking to the Australian Wool Commission Bill. I think that we need to look at wool from the consumers’ point of view. I must say that I could not agree with much of what the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) said in relation to the importance of forgetting whether woollen garments are washable and of selling wool for its own quality. I think we have to look at the qualities of synthetic materials and measure those qualities against the qualities of wool. In this way we can ascertain the deficiencies in wool and thereafter try to improve it. I think the problem of a washable material is a very, very real one. Having dealt with housewives in the sale of garments over many, many years it is my experience that they have constantly asked the question: ‘Well, can I throw it in the washing machine’? What can one say?

Mr Buchanan:

– What do you want to throw in the washing machine - suits?

Mr COHEN:

– Not suits, but knitwear. People do not ask whether suits can be washed. They ask whether slacks, knitwear and children’s garments can be thrown in the washing machine. I think this is one of the reasons today why we are losing out in the field of children’s garments, because anyone who has 3 children, as I have, will know that within 10 minutes of dressing them their clothes will be filthy dirty. The housewives want something that can be washed every day. In the debate on the Wool Commission Bill I said that I thought it would have been possible for Australia to become a fashion centre, but this we have not become. There have been changes throughout the world in regard to the fashion centres. There was a time back in the 1950s when we looked to the United States and then in the early 1960s the switch was to Europe. Then of all places England became the centre of fashion. Honourable members will recall that in the swinging sixties England became the fashion centre when the Beatles achieved fame. The young people in the world followed the fashions of Great Britain. Nothing has been done in this country at the marketing level to promote Australia as the fashion centre. For this reason I believe that a great deal of criticism can be levelled at the people who have marketed our wool.

In my speech on the Wool Commission Bill I asked: What attempts have been made to assist the Australian textile industry and the fashion industry to produce garments? I want to talk only about the garment end because I do not pretend to know anything about the production of wool. Coming back to what the honourable member for McMillan was talking about, there are certain areas in which we should concentrate in regard to the use of wool. In my earlier speech on the other Bill I said at that time that pure wool suits and slacks were still in great demand. I would think that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of suits sold by most Australian retailers would be made of wool. The balance would be made up of blends, mixtures of terylene and wool. The firm of Anthony Squires has used hundreds of thousands, if not millions of yards of material, called ‘varano’ in their suits. It is one-third terylene, one-third wool and one-third mohair. That represents 66) per cent natural fibre. Those suits are mostly sold as summer garments.

I think we have to recognise that a light weight woollen garment is a very comfortable garment to wear. It is the most comfortable summer suit that one can possibly wear but it is a fact that it crushes very, very easily. One has to have a pretty fair sized wardrobe to be able to afford a number of light weight woollen suits. The average man, and he represents about 90 per cent of the market in the purchase of suits, cannot afford this type of luxury. I can afford - perhaps because I get them at a better price - a couple of light weight woollen suits, and I would rather have them. However, I think we must recognise that there are limitations in this field. Slacks are in the same category as suits.

In regard to shirts my view is that there is a very limited market for woollen shirts and certainly not in the business shirt Held. Cotton and synthetic materials are in demand in this field. As to sport shirts, a woven fabric shirt is very comfortable but it is very expensive. The cheapest woollen shirt today in a quality brand sells at about $14. This does not give a mass market, in the knitted field there is the problem with the coarser woollens of skin irritation. 1 thing it is true to say that most people do not like coarse wools close to their skin. In the knitted field the fine wools are superior but the price range in this field is from $14 upwards.

In the sock field there is no : question that woollen socks - a 50-50 mixture of wool and synthetics - are on their own. There is nothing better. I have had a tremendous amount of trouble and complaints from customers who have complained after wearing synthetic socks of any description. I certainly never, wear them. I wear a mixture wool sock all the year round, summer and winter. To talk about pure wool socks in this field is absurb because today housewives will not darn socks when they can buy a mixture sock which will last for 12 months or more and worn each week. There are limitations. I heard someone talk of woollen ties. The amount of wool in woollen ties is infinitesimal. There is not much in that field at all.

I said then and 1 will repeat that I do not think that the people in charge of the Wool Bureau have satisfactorily sold WOO to Australians. I think that the general promotion - and I would agree with my friend here - has been concentrated primarily on the big retail stores, on television and on the sophisticated women’s magazines. But there is no community consciousness about the need for Australians to use wool. The best interests of Australia and Australians are served by Australians buying wool whenever the opportunity presents itself. We could refer to it perhaps, as economic nationalism, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Most other countries do this with fabrics and products that they manufacture. They encourage their own people to buy the products upon which the survivability of their nation depends. I do not think that we have got this message through to the Australian people. It is all very well to say: You have not got it through’. How does one get it through? Previously I have related my own experiences with the Wool Bureau. At the start of every season we would ring up the Bureau and say: ‘We are going to start our winter season. We would like some help from you. We have got a 37-foot window and we can do a very beautiful promotion’. We have done some excellent promotions, but we need help. One cannot spend $500 on a window promotion. One needs props. I have done this. I have gone to great trouble to obtain raw wool in order to demonstrate with posters the production of wool from the sheep’s back right through to the finished garment. One can do a very attractive display. That is the sort of thing that one would want to do. We would ring up the Wool Bureau, but the assistance which we received was deplorable. We would get one or two posters, and that was it; that was the total contribution. We would receive no financial assistance.

I believe that someone from the Wool Bureau should have come up there, spent a day with us and helped us with the windows, lt could have provided a window dresser, if you like, and better quality posters and props that could have been moveable; they could have been moved around bie; they could have been moved around from retailer to retailer. A retailer will not go out of his way to promote wool. He wants to sell garments. If he can get this work done inexpensively by someone who provides that sort of a service, he will avail himself of the opportunity. But he will not spend $100 or $150 - and window dressers are extremely expensive - to do this for someone else, although in his long term interest, in a very vague sort of a way, this will benefit him. So I think that this is the sort of provision that the Wool Bureau ought to make.

It seems to me that growing numbers of tourists are coming to Australia. I have forgotten the exact figures although I should remember them because I made a speech on tourism recently. Hundreds of thousands of tourists are visiting Australia every year, and1 the number is increasing. I have done a little travelling, as I am sure most honourable members have. We know that when we visit a country the thing that we most want to take back from that counry is something which represents it. One does not go to New Zealand to buy woollen garments. One does not go to Fiji to bring back Savile Row suits. One buys something which represents the country. If you go to France, or even to Noumea, you bring back French perfumes because that is what Mum wants you to bring back.

I have found, particularly with American visitors who come here, that they want to take back something which represents Australia. It may well be boomerangs or koala bears. But the thing of quality that we have, that they immediately think of, is woollen garments. Yet when one goes to our international airports at Tullamarine and Sydney one would not know that Australia ever sold or grew any wool at all. All sorts of leases are let out for shops at Tullamarine and Sydney airports. I hope that if the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is listening he will give consideration to this suggestion concerning our major airports. 1 notice that he is talking to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). At our international airports people should be greeted with the image of Australia as a wool country. We also should let out these leases - I do not mind who gets them; I am not asking for one myself - to the big retailers or to a consortium of retailers who, I am sure, would establish wool stores at the airports - not small, pokey little things, but something fairly grand in which people could buy woollen garments either as they arrived, or preferably as they left, the country. The important point would not be the total amount of wool that is sold at those shops; it would be the impression given of the country which is the producer of the finest wool in the world.

I also think that there is a need to communicate at the store level with the people who sell wool. I am not talking about the owner or the manager; I am talking about the man in the big retail stores and in the small stores. We ought to establish some sort of lecture system so that these men could be invited to come out for a day or two and have explained to them the qualities of wool and be imbued with the spirit that the selling of wool is in the long term interests of themselves and this country. What happens is that these people will approach a customer - and I have seen it happen constantly in stores - who is looking at 3 garments. The natural thing to do is to select the most favourable features of the garments. The customer will ask: What do you think of this one as against that one - wool versus synthetics’? The man serving the customer will say: *You can throw the synthetic one into the washing machine’. He forgets all the qualities of the woollen one because he knows that this will appeal to Mum. What he should be doing, in my view, is selling the qualities of wool - -warmth, wearability and the whole range of qualities which wool possesses - against the synthetics because, as 1 have said, it is in his long term interests.

Encouragement should be given to manufacturers to use wool. I note that the Australian Wool Board, in its report, stated:

In the past, wool growers have defined wool marketing as the method used - to transfer the ownership of wool from the wool grower to the wool trade. However, the Board believes the definition should cover all that happens to wool from the sheep’s to the consumer’s back.

Within this concept the Australian Wool Board’s current major research effort is aimed at establishing the cheapest and most efficient way to market raw wool.

Fortunately the Wool Board has changed its attitude towards the restrictive practice with the Woolmark. It will now allow a Woolblend mark, which . will allow manufacturers to use a little bit of synthetics with woo] and still receive the imprimatur of a type of Woolmark. I went and spoke to a number of manufacturers. I went out to one of the biggest woollen mills in Australia. I spoke to a manufacturer about the problems which he has to face. He said: ‘I am a wool man’. I might say that most of Australia’s manufacturers are extremely loyal. They know of all the qualities that wool has and they want to use wool as much as possible. But they have said: The frustrations that we have in dealing with the Wool Bureau are unbelievable’.

One gentleman, talking about shirting, demonstrated the point. He said: ‘I will produce 12 pieces of cloth in say, these 9 coloures - blue, red, bone, light blue, orange, mustard, dark green and so on’. The Wool Bureau will then say: ‘Yes, they are very good. They are the colurs that we have set for this year’s Wool Bureau’s colours. We will give you the Woolmark in that one, in the blue, in the bone, in the orange and in the mustard, but the other 4 colours do not come up to scratch’. No manufacturer can send out half of his range with the Woolmark on it and half without the Woolmark because it is not exactly as it was desired. All the manufacturers have experienced these sorts of frustrations. The other matter is that if the quality was not exactly as laid down, it did not get the Woolmark. Eventually, what they said was: ‘To hell with it. Who needs these sorts of headaches? We will go on and use synthetics’. I met another gentleman who manufactures school uniforms. I am very glad to see the reference on pages 25 and 26 of the report to market research; a special school uniform marketing team was appointed. I have had some discussions with these people and I know the volume of cloth used in the school uniform field. They said to me that the synthetic manufacturers had set out to undercut the price of pure wool just enough to make their product sufficiently attractive for a switch over and there was no way that the manufacturers of the wool textile could get their price down those extra few cents. As a result they lost the market for hundreds of thousands of yards of material.

It seems to me that there should be some avenue open to the manufacturers when these problems crop up to go to the Board and say: This is the problem, this is what you will lose in yardage and this is what you will lose in customers who are now wearing wool. Can you give us some assistance to get the price down?’ This could possibly be done by way of an incentive to help them reduce their prices below those of their competitors. When one talks of losing a market for school uniforms one is talking, 1 would think, in terms of millions of yards of material and it is a field we may well never get back into. I feel also that there should be more cash incentives not only to promote the use of wool but also to assist in constantly finding ways of plugging gaps in markets we are about to lose as well as to encourage manufacturers such as Anthony Squires, Speedo and Sutex, to export their products. A lot of manufacturers are already exporting to the near north, to America and to Great Britain. This is a way not only of getting export income and selling wool but also of selling the name of wool in the long term.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I rise to speak to the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1971. Assistance to the wool industry, provided it is intended to assist in restructuring rather than to avoid it, is probably justified but the financial plans must be definitive and positively directed to long term adjustment and benefit. However, the operations of the Australian Wool Commission and the provision of a wool subsidy are completely incompatible. We are now paying subsidies based on the unrealistic reserve prices of the Commission and on a commodity much of which we still own. In effect we are taking to profit funds not yet earned and distributing them as dividends. This is economic madness. The subsidy is for 1 year and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) hopefully states that this will provide time to promote adjustment with a minimum of economic and social disruption. The. Commonwealth rural reconstruction provisions have in no way come to grips with the problem and we can only assume that the Government either does not understand the complexities of the problem or is ignorantly believing that changes will occur thus making reconstruction unnecessary. Reconstruction will scarcely be understood within 1 year. It will be a continuing development over 10 years if the right action is taken.

In 1960 the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry recommended measures to reconstruct the dairy industry in order to remove the growing weight of support payments. Ten years later agreement on methods for adjusting the dairy industry and its production has not been reached and the subsidies continue at close to peak levels. The Wool Commission by endeavouring to force prices is adversely influencing demand and has amassed a stockpile of over 600,000 bales. The Commission is therefore depressing prices while on the other hand the subsidy is designed to increase the price to growers. Prices are unlikely to improve in real market terms so that in a year’s time the position of wool will have deteriorated further unless the needs of the trade are admitted. In effect, the Wool Commission’s activities are creating a situation which will cause indefinite continuation of the subsidy. The Minister states that the Commonwealth and the States are deeply involved in rural reconstruction, making the deficiency payments legislation a most appropriate measure. Assistance for a year would be accepted if this were so, but it is not. The question is whether these subtantial support schemes are economically justifiable on the grounds that they form part of a fully researched and well directed restructuring plan. Patently this is not so. The subsidy provisions stand in isolation as welfare measures which will’ discourage the forms of rural adjustment proven to be necessary.

The limitations of the Commonwealth legislation on reconstruction are now well known. In effect, the Government has provided an institutional framework for the provision of some relief to some farmers and has laid down guidelines for limiting the number and class of persons to be helped. For the Minister to suggest that such progress will be made in 1 year so as to make the continuation of the wool subsidy unnecessary is on these grounds alone unrealistic. The wool price subsidy can be justified on economic and welfare grounds only if the collateral provisions to promote restructuring are substantially more far reaching and effective than the current reluctant attempt to admit the need. If the problems of individual welfare and political considerations are to determine eco.omic policies for rural industry the result will be chaos, increasing charges on the taxpayer and a progressive loss of export market outlets.

On the basis of the present wool market and on the assumption that Commission reserve prices are held at the June 1971 level, the subsidy will cost about SI 20m, not S60m as provided in the Budget. Additionally, by June 1972 the Commission will have in its stocks not less than l.S million bales costing at least Si 25m. On much of this stock the subsidy will have been paid. If rural industries are to survive, policies must be promoted to eradicate protection and to improve productivity. In 1969-70 support payments to rural industries totalled $138m or 12.9 per cent of farm income. In 1970-71 they amounted to $2 10m or 25.9 per cent of farm income and, on the assumption that farm income in 1971-72 will be maintained at $8 10m, the support payments provided for in the Budget at a cost of $275m will approximate 33.9 per cent of farm income. However, as the wool subsidy will approximate SI 20m and not the estimated $60m, support payments in 1971-72 are likely to approximate 41 per cent of farm income. This completely unjustifiable trend will continue if current protectionist policies are not amended to meet economic reality.

My following comments deal more specifically with the wool deficiency payments legislation and the ‘ Minister’s second reading speech. It is estimated that over half the work force is wholly or partly dependent on rural industry thus making unavoidable rational steps to ensure a sound long term economic base for rural production. The Minister is still obviously working on the assumption that wool prices will improve with the currency situation determined and other factors bearing on the price of wool clarified. Trade and economic indicators do not justify this opinion. The basis of entitlement to deficiency payments on privately sold wool is inequitable in relation to auction sold wool. Freight and selling costs amount to about 6c a lb or 13.2c per kilogram. As the Bill admits the right of subsidy on private sales there is no justification for prescribing a penalty basis. The Minister naively states that this should have the effect of encouraging merchants to increase the prices they are prepared to pay to growers, which in turn should reinforce the auction floor prices. This statement reveals complete ignorance of the industry and the market situation.

Farm prices equate equitably to auction prices less freight and selling costs, and the buyers will not pay prices higher than the competitive market situation and supply and demand factors permit. To suggest that, by penalising the private seller, buyers will have to pay higher prices is ludicrous. This is yet another means for making wool hard to buy. The buyers have stated that even if acquisition were introduced the alternative method of buying by private treaty should be retained. The Bill seeks to make private selling less attractive and is once more affronting buyer opinion. We should recall that if there were no buyers there could be no sellers. It is about time we woke up to this. It would seem that the unrealistic prices at which the Commission purchases wool will be regarded as sale prices for the purpose of determining the percentage addition to grower proceeds. Those wools supported by the Commission will therefore receive the percentage subsidy on prices having no relationship to real market values. When these wools are eventually sold a loss will result, so the taxpayer is carrying the double burden of an unduly high subsidy and Commission losses.

The Minister’s reference to sheepskins avoids the main point. If, as is provided, wool on skins does not receive the subsidy, sheep will be shorn before they are sold to the butchers for slaughter. The volume of woolly skins available from butchers for export will be almost nil. In fact, the growers will retain the wool and the position as stated by the Minister will not arise. The substantial export income from sheepskins, purchased particularly by France, will disappear. The various companies and persons required to make returns to the Commission to establish the authority for the subsidy payment will not be recompensed. This is iniquitous, as substantial cost will be involved to make the calculations necessary and to submit the necessary documentation to the Commission. Again, the Government seems anxious to drive the buyers away from Australian wool.

In saying that the combined effort of the Commission’s marketing activities and (he deficiency payments scheme will be to lift wool growers’ returns by some $100m over last year’s market place realisations, the Minister has admitted that. the Commission in itself is providing a subsidy element. This is clearly outside the legal scope of the provisions of the Australian Wool Commission Act 1970. Certain clauses. of the Wool (Deficiency Payment) Bill raise pertinent questions which the Minister should be required to answer. In relation to section 4(1) I ask: Does the definition of approved auction’ exclude the forms of auction conducted outside the members of the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers which have become an accepted and effective method of disposition particu Early in Melbourne and Fremantle? In relation to clause 4(1) again I ask: What authority will determine ‘an appropriate deduction in respect of the cost of the scouring and other processing’? Is it reasonable that such a vital consideration should be left undefined for determination by an unstated authority?

The market value of the wool on an Australian auction floor basis presumably includes the prices paid by the Commission. As the prices paid by the Commission are clearly not representing the market value, is it intended that the Commission purchases shall be regarded as sales, having regard to the fact that ultimate sale to the trade will result in a loss to the Commission? Clause 9 (3) does not make sense. Why, in the circumstances quoted, should the deficiency payments be regarded as other than proceeds of wool? Is it intended to free the subsidy from all or any liens over the proceeds of sale of wool, thus invalidating legal charges of banks and financing institutions over the total of wool proceeds? I turn now to clause 10 (3). Yet again the non-auction transaction is penalised in that the cost of appraisal by the Commission, which is a condition of eligibility for the subsidy, is to be charged to the applicant. As the principle of nonauction transactions has been admitted, for what reasons does the Bill so inequitably penalise them?

Clause 12 (3) is an extraordinary provision. It allows the Minister on his own initiative to vary notional prices and therefore the basis of the subsidy percentage at any time. Is such a provision justified in the light of the Minister’s statement that the Bill seeks to maintain equity among all growers? Let me refer to clause 19 (3). It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of the Wool Commission should be given arbitrary powers to determine a payment. Should not such a disbursement .of public funds be assured by reference to the Commission itself? Clause 33 contains a most iniquitous provision, as it provides authority for officers of the Commission to enter the office of any person or company registered under the Act and to have access to all trading records. What do honourable members think of that? Clause 33 (2) is particularly obnoxious, as it provides that where an authorised person has reason to believe that relevant books and documents of importance to the provisions of the Act are held on certain premises, he can require to be given access to them under warrant issued by a justice of the peace. This means that any buyer of wool–

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable gentleman, who is reading his paper, is not pronouncing the words properly. No-one can hear what he is saying. Would it be possible for the paper, which was written by the wool brokers, simply to be incorporated in Hansard?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr IRWIN:

– I was battling against time. Sit down, you mean contemptible thing.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, T think the honourable member called me a dirty, miserable beast and 1 ask that he withdraw that statement.

Mr IRWIN:

– 1 withdraw it. Any buyer of wool may, on the initiative of an authorised person appointed by the Minister, be subjected to a search of all books and records. This is an unacceptable intrusion into the affairs of any company. I had to rush my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, to get it through. I dislike the attitude of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron).

Such an authorised person, who would probably be an officer of the Commission, can become aware of all the most confidential trading details of any wool buyer or merchant. This will cause the greatest hostility among buyers and again is an affront to those who determine whether wool is sold. Is it the intention of the Act to provide autocratic means to compel buyers to give confidential trading information to the Minister so that the Commission will become, quite improperly, aware of the price limits of the buying houses and particularly of the merchants? I want it distinctly understood that I am in favour of assisting the wool industry to the utmost, even in the first instance up to S500m, but I want the money utilised intelligently to the greatest benefit of the industry and those engaged therein. There cannot be any protest against what I propose, because secondary industry over the years has been subsidised many times the $500m that I have referred to and at the expense and cost of primary industries. However, what we are doing is not in the best interests of the wool industry. I suggest the withdrawal of the Bill before the House. The International Wool Secretariat, the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Industry Conference should be wound up forthwith. The Australian Wool Commission should be the sole authority and its charter altered. The Government’s action may be well intentioned, but it is misplaced. The people who will benefit most from the support price plan in the short term are opposed to the provisions of the Bill and are convinced that the implementation of such provisions will mean the eventual elimination of the wool industry. They would prefer to work to a long range plan to build up a strong viable wool industry adapted to totally different conditions and conceptions from those of the past.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I would like to make a small contribution to this debate. First, I express my support for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). During the last 12 months we have seen a number of schemes introduced to assist people in rural industries. An amount of $30m was granted last year to assist people in the wool industry, this was made to tide them over a period because of the drop in income due to falling wool prices but the money provided under that scheme was allocated in, I think, a most inequitable way. We found plenty of cases where people who were thoroughly deserving of assistance got practically nothing out of it. In fact, I can cite the case, from my own area not far from Port Lincoln, of a farmer whose income was about $4,600 in one year and $4,300 the next year. Because on a percentage basis his income for the second year was 92.37 per cent - just over the 92 per cent prescribed - this chap was excluded from any benefits under the scheme. But the person on the next property, who had no debts on his land although he possibly had debts on machinery and so forth, received the $1,500. I might add that the person who wrote to me about this had total debts of about $60,000 on his property. His gross income was about $4,500 and this was one case where a farmer got absolutely nothing.

I noticed in the Adelaide ‘Chronicle’ a letter from a rural producer attacking this scheme; he cited 3 cases. He mentioned a wealthy husband and wife team who received the maximum $1,500 each while the neighbouring soldier settler who was struggling and paying $800 a year rent received nothing. Sheep men were endeavouring to stay afloat by getting bigger only to find themselves with more work, more debt and no assistance while those lucky enough to be able to , shift from unprofitable sheep to highly profitable cattle all received the $1,500. Those who sold out well and retired in the normal course also received the $1,500. I think I read that somewhere along the line the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) stated that there were some injustices in this scheme.

I move on to the next scheme which happens to be the rural reconstruction scheme. Although we on this side did not oppose the scheme it was said at the time the legislation was passed that the amount would be inadequate. I think South Australia received a total of $!2m to be spent over a number of years, and when one considers the debt position not only in South Australia but in other States also it is obvious that the amount that was allocated under this scheme was totally inadequate. Other legislation relating to the wool industry concerned the Australian Wool Commission. Whilst not condemning the Commission, I do not think that any of us know where it is going. This is obvious when one listens to what has been said by honourable senators opposite. There have been various viewpoints as to how the Wool Commission is operating, whether it is a success and whether it will finish up wilh a big stockpile oi: wool it will not be able to sell. So 1 think we can say that we are still not sure where the Wool Commission is going.

We are not opposing what is in this Bill in principle in that the wool industry is to be assisted in the form of deficiency payments. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned that he did not object to those payments providing’ that the money is put into the pockets of those people who genuinely deserve it. I submit that those producers who are entitled to this assistance, whether they be big or small, should receive it but they should have to prove their, entitlement to it. Just to give an across the board subsidy to bring the price up to 36c a lb is a. travesty of justice. I honestly do not believe that the Pitt Street or Collins Street farmers or other people who arc not directly connected with the industry and who have come into it purely as a taxation dodge are entitled to the deficiency payment. I am sure quite a number of people on the other side of the House think the same way. Although there were very many people in necessitous circumstances who received nothing from the S30m provided last year, under this scheme people who probably do not need assistance will get it. It seems that the Government has gone from one extreme to the other, there has been a big change of front. 1 do not have much more to say but I do suggest that the important point in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson and the main difference between himself and the Minister is the question of who will get the money. It is quite obvious from views that have been expressed by honourable members opposite that this difference of opinion exists on the Government side too. The Minister and the honourable member for Dawson also differ in their views as to the acquisition scheme and here again we see a difference of opinion amongst honourable members opposite. We have heard about 4 different views as to whether an acquisition scheme would be good or bad. The honourable member for Dawson has come out straightforwardly and put the Labor Party’s policy which is in favour of an acquisition scheme. I conclude by urging that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson be carried.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– First of all I would like to commend the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). I think he made quite an important contribution to this debate because in retrospect most of us will agree that there have been 2 contributing factors to the present situation in the wool industry. One of these has been the obvious vulnerability of the present system of selling wool, the auction system with all its now quite obvious weaknesses. The second - and this is terribly important - has been the failure of the retailing aspect of the average woollen article, garment or whatever it might be. It is almost unbelievable that when one wanders into stores in our own country to buy a woollen tie, for instance, one sees only a small number of woollen ties presented in a rather unattractive manner, but literally dozens and dozens of imported ties - usually of inferior quality - made in Italy and France. Hence I do think that the honourable member for Robertson did make an important contribution to the debate.

Much has been said in this chamber about wool. Many of us on this side of the House who have spent a lifetime in sheep raising areas have in the last few years made every attempt to serve warning on this nation that the crippling conspiracy of drought and poor market conditions would bring Australians giant industry to a crisis point. Five years ago I advocated the raising of Si 00m to sustain growers, and through them inland communities, to prevent the position from deteriorating as it has now done to a situation where the economic vitality of wool areas has been dissipated to a point where the undertakings of a number of our people are quite beyond reconstruction. However that is in the past. We are concerned with the future. We are concerned with the restoration of an industry which still at this time, with all the adverse conditions, is worth probably the best part of $600m to Australia. We are very much concerned with the survival of the splendid people who live and work m the inland areas and who are standing fast in the hope that this economic nightmare will pass and that security and prosperity will return. Any possibility of this would have been out of the question if the Government had not adopted 2 critical measures - the introduction of the

Australian Wool Commission and the deficiency payments scheme, with which this Bill is concerned.

It had been hoped that a deficiency payment based on a minimum price of 40c would have been approved, because, as I shall indicate the decline in income and the rise in costs created a situation where almost without exception the wool grower was so heavily in debt that it was thought that with a guaranteed minimum price of 40c for his wool he would barely balance his budget. However the payment will give an average as near as possible to 79.37c per kilo greasy over the whole season for the full clip. This of course is the metric equivalent of 36c per lb.

As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) pointed out in his second reading speech, gross returns from wool declined from $83 9m in 1968-69 to $547m in the season just concluded. During this latter period more than half of all wool growers were estimated to have less than $2,000 on which to live after servicing their debts. When we further consider that over one million Australians are wholly or partly dependent on the wool industry it will be appreciated just how they will be affected by an inevitably reduced standard of living. Hence the urgent and critical necessity for this deficiency payment. For a long time there was harsh criticism in editorials in the Press and in documentaries on television. There was a great upsurge of dissent even over the consideration of a subsidy to the wool industry. But then the message began to get through loud and clear, that if this industry was not restored this country would have to get round the ridges and raise another $600m to help balance its budget.

In the amendment the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has suggested the introduction of an acquisition scheme. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would completely set aside the possibility of serious consideration of full scale acquisition in the future, but I think it would be just a little stupid at this stage to abandon the scheme which has been accepted and commended by the producer organisations. I do not think we should set it aside before it has really had a fair trial. In the future it may be necessary to consider the full scale acquisition of the wool clip, but for the moment I think the sensible and reasonable thing to do is to give the twin approach that has been adopted, that is the operation of the Australian Wool Commission and the deficiency payment scheme, at least a fair trial. 1 have said in the House quite often and I say again with complete conviction that I do not think there are any areas in the whole of the Commonwealth more seriously afflicted by the present situation in the wool industry than are the far western areas of the electorate of Maranoa and the western areas of the electorate of Kennedy. There is a special reason for this. In these areas we have had continuing drought conditions over a period of 10 to 14 years. This is no exaggeration. It is only over the last 6 or 9 months that we have been able to say that this drought has in effect been broken. The great distance we are from markets imposes a penalty on us in the form of freight charges and multitudinous handling charges. The most critical reason contributing to this more drastic action situation in these areas is the fact that the growers cannot diversify to any significant degree. They are dependent almost entirely on the production of wool. So they face an extremely serious situation.

At the moment people in these areas feel that they at last have some new hope for the future. They feel that the downward spiral in the market price of wool throughout the world must reach a point where the tide will turn and prices will come back to a reasonable level. In the meantime, for at least one year, they will have the benefit of this deficiency payment provided by the Government. One thing (hat causes concern to many people, and particularly to us who represent these people, is that if they should inevitably have to walk off their properties, what will happen to these thousands of square miles of what is normally good and productive Australian territory. One of the great fears we have is that some of those people who represent the large vested interests, whether they be of this country or from overseas, may be hovering like vultures ready to pounce when these people have reached the point of despair at which they actually have to walk off their properties. (Opposition members interjecting)–

Mr KATTER:

– The Government is very conscious of this situation despite the peculiar utterances that come from these King William Street squatters who constantly make peculiar noises. As I said before, this man is absolutely the personification of the didgeridoo. He makes loud hollow noises from nothing. Graham Kennedy is back in business. Why in the name of fortune does this other honourable gentleman not follow what is obviously his natural occupation, that of a clown? Getting back to the Bill-

Mr Foster:

– What is he up to? I want a withdrawal of that statement. Who does he think he is?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order!

Mr Foster:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, if we on this side of the House had passed the remarks that the honourable member for Kennedy has you would have pulled us with a round turn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member must not make a reflection on the Chair, and he will apologise for that reflection.

Mr Foster:

– I am not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Sturt will apologise to me for that reflection on the Chair.

Mr Foster:

– I will apologise if you want to take it as a reflection. I made no reflection. I am taking umbrage. If you recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rose because of the remarks of the honourable member for Kennedy. Did you not hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, what he had been chattering on about? Had you not heard’ the insults?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not entitled to make a speech. I did not hear what the honourable member for Kennedy said. What were the words that the honourable member for Kennedy said to which the honourable member objects?

Mr Foster:

– Ask him. He is still there.

Mr KATTER:

– I referred to the honourable member as a didgeridoo.

Mr Foster:

– No, you did not. Now he is telling fibs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr KATTER:

– You came first but your associate came second. I referred to him as having the attributes of a clown.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member for Kennedy would get on better if he confined his remarks to the Bill.

Mr KATTER:

– I accept your evaluation of the situation, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the possibility of a wholesale takeover of this land which could possibly be deserted by people who are no longer able to stand fast and weather this economic nightmare that we are going through. Many other matters are associated with the necessity to restore economic stability in these areas. These are quite obvious. For instance, there has been almost a wholesale abandonment of many of the country air services. Services have been reduced gradually from, say, Fokker Friendships to Twin Otters to small 6-seater aircraft. Only yesterday I was informed that one of the mod important towns in the central west of Queensland, to town of Barcaldine, is now without any air service at all. This is intolerable. But these sorts of things follow economic instability. Many organisations - airline companies or whatever they may be - have drawn literally hundreds of millions of dollars from these - areas. Now that the crunch has come and there is what we hope is a temporary economic instability, they have used this as a reason for going to greener pastures. In many cases, they will openly admit that they want to go to the coast where there is no economic risk whatsoever. This is entirely contrary to the concept of development or, at least, of sustaining the way of life that people in the western areas of Queensland hold in great value.

A part of the scheme which is associated with this Bill is somewhat worrying. In the description of the method of sustaining the price of 36c a lb for wool it is stated that at the end of each week registered brokers will forward to the Australian Wool Commission a list showing their clients who sold wool at auction and the amount of deficiency money payable. The Commission, acting as an agent of the Commonwealth, will make a lump sum payment to the broker for disbursement to his individual clients. That is quite acceptable provided this disbursement does take place. However, there is a danger here. After all, these stock and station agents and finance houses who have financed the graziers, perhaps for some years, may feel that they are entitled to take all of the results of the sale of this wool against the accounts that are owing to them. This would be quite disastrous and I imagine that the Government would watch this closely. I would certainly hope so. I will be quite frank about this. I have asked the people whom I represent that I want to know if an occasion arises when their wool is sold and their broker submits the claim for the deficiency payment and the whole of that money is taken against the moneys owing to the broker and nothing at all is forthcoming for the producers for, say, restocking and to make them viable again. If this happens I intend to expose it in this House. I certainly hope that this does not happen but, of course, there is a danger of it happening. This is just one of the things which will need to be watched.

One of the most serious consequences of the recession which has occurred is the way it has affected local authorities throughout Australia. It is not peculiar to any particular area. It is not even peculiar to wool growing areas, although it is far more critical in those areas. When the role of local government in these areas is considered, it is immediately recognised that it is always the most important employer of labour in any small community. In fact, in many small communities local government is the only significant employer of labour. A situation now exists where numerous wool growers and those who are dependent on them cannot pay their rates. It is not a matter of their paying half of their rates: nor is it a matter of coming to some arrangement whereby they will pay them over a period of years. They just cannot see how they will pay their rates at all. Here again, the Government’s contribution of this 36c a lb deficiency payment will go a long way, we hope, to assisting in this particular aspect of the serious situation that exists.

Finally, we hear a great deal of pessimism in this Parliament, The Opposition has become renowned for one particular thing- -

Its efforts to destroy the morale of this nation. Members of the Opposition are 5-star calamity howlers who seek political gain. They wander in and out of other member’s electorates and this is not appreciated. Opposition members should not be worried; I am not referring to my electorate. I would welcome all Opposition members to my electorate of Kennedy. I would be delighted to have them because they would so expose themselves that they would be in an even greater mess than they are at the moment. My final comment is that I do not think that ever in the history of any Australian parliament have there been people who have so contributed to the destruction of the morale of this nation as have the present Opposition - the so-called Australian Labor Party.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I hope that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) will remain in his seat for the next few minutes.

Mr Kennedy:

– Which seat do you mean?

Mr FOSTER:

– I mean his parliamentary seat in this chamber. He has made a speech in this chamber tonight that was designed purely and simply for his electorate. Here he sits and here he will cast his vote tonight in favour of the measure now before this House, without any qualms or thought or anything of that nature. But he will cart the Hansard record of his speech around the electorate that he now holds like a Bible and. when the crunch comes a little later, he will say on the street corners: This is what I said: this is what I did. My colleagues would not agree with me.’ He has made a speech in this House tonight purely and simply for his own selfish political ends. Why did he not stand in this House tonight and say: ‘We have suffered. My Party has brought upon the rural industry 20 years of absolute rural betrayal.’ That is the way an honest person would have spoken. The honourable member made cheap, snide remarks against members of the Opposition, including myself. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, your attention was distracted for a moment and he took advantage of that and you apparently did not hear what he said. That does not worry me in the least. The honourable member made some reference to King William Street farmers or Pitt Street farmers. Let me say this to the honourable member: It appears that he does not know that he may have been getting somewhere near the truth because the provisions of this Bill will pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of the Anthony Horderns in the city streets of Sydney. Why did he not point that out? Why did he not oppose this measure? This Bill will allow the taxpayers’ money - not the Government’s money - to be pourned into the pockets of absentee landowners in this country. Make no error about that, lt will pour millions of dollars into the pockets of the wool barons and the brokers, not the battlers. The honourable member for Kennedy, who was the last supporter of the Government to speak on this matter, mentioned this specific provision, and he will accept it. However, the honourable member for Kennedy, with the narrow view that he holds, will protect himself by inserting certain words in the Hansard record. Why did he not underline the following words which appeared in the Ministers second reading speech:

The payments mechanism will depend upon the active co-operation of persons carrying on business as brokers, registered classing houses, wool merchants and agents who export wool, or who sell wool by tender on behalf of producers.

There could be written into that provision the subversives, Bagots, shakes and lizards, New Zealand magnates, the ship owners and the whole host of vampires who have been feeding on the wool growers for years. The honourable member wants members on this side of the House to support a measure, camouflaged as it is, which has been introduced into this House and which purports to help the wool grower. The honourable member for Kennedy will vote for a clause like the one to which I have referred. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for ever and a day. Why did you not protest?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I suggest that the honourable member address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the fact that this clause is in the Bill. It is an indictment against you or the Party which you represent because in the Bill there has not been inserted one single clause which will guarantee that the overloaded producer - the producer who is loaded with debt, with stock mortgages and land mortgages - will get one cent in bis own pocket. There is no provision which protects such a person in his own individual right. It is not in there, and the Minister knows it.

Mr Robinson:

– What rot.

Mr FOSTER:

– The honourable member for Cowper has not spoken in this debate. You get up afterwards and tell me where you can see that in this Bill. Where does it say that the grower and the battler in the industry is really protected and is afforded some protection. You tell me where in this measure a producer with a wife and 4 children, 3 of whom are going to school, is guaranteed one cent? Where is it in this measure before the House? You cannot do it because of the one section of the Minister’s second reading speech to which 1 have referred and which indicates to me quite clearly that the battler and the producer on the line have to beg cap in hand for their money from the brokers. Look at it - do what you like. That is what it means. You tell me differently. 1 have made the challenge. You tell me where the situation is different.

But for every 1 million sheep that Dalgety’s, Goldsborough Mort, British Tobacco Ltd and others run in this country, they will make $600,000. I directed a question, did 1 not, last week to the Minister for Primary Industry, who is not in the House at the moment. I cannot see him any way. He is not in the House at the moment. The Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) is at the table. The Minister may be hiding under a razor blade; I do not know. The fact. is that the Minister did not deny in reply to my question last week that Country Party funds had gained Sim from Goldsborough Mort, Elder Smith and so forth. Why should they not get this assistance? They are the people that you are protecting.

Mr Corbett:

– Prove it.

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not have to prove it. I cannot prove it. I admit that. I cannot prove it. I will admit that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Orders! Interjections are out of order. The honourable member for Maranoa has spoken already.

Mr FOSTER:

– I have not access to the bank accounts. I have not access to the safes Which they sneak to and stuff with their credit notes in the hours of darkness. You will not carry a measure in this House that will have the effect of disclosing such things.

Where is the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the moment? He is not in the House either. What a grandstand he made last year. Let me remind the House of what he said. This article reads:

On 25th March 1970 the former Minister for Defence informed the 10,000 farmers who assembled in Melbourne, that, ‘acquisition is the only sensible way to market the Australian wool clip,’ and that, ‘he would work his guts out for the industry’.

Those are his words. He worked his guts out, kicking Gorton’s guts out. That is what he did. His words are here. That is exactly what he did. Let me go on a little further with this quotation because this happened not so long ago, did it, when all is said and done. The gallant right honourable gentleman is not in the House either. This article continues:

Then on 29lh April 1970 he advised the 1,200 wool growers assembled at Narrandera ‘not to be put off by a 15 or 20 per cent rise in prices in August or September’ and that, ‘he and his Cabinet colleagues would work their guts out to find a solution to the problems of the industry*.

Mr Grassby:

– They had more guts than performance.

Mr FOSTER:

– As my colleague interjects: ‘They had more guts than performance’ or they said they did, anyway. I will quote further from this document. It states:

Apparently he did just that, and is now a backbencher representing one of the vulnerable rural electorates.

We in this House all know that he has got around to becoming a junior Minister in Cabinet. I spell his name with- a ‘z’ because I think that he is ‘zero’ in the Cabinet.

Mr Staley:

– What are you talking about?

Mr FOSTER:

– I am talking about Fraser. This article continues:

On 10th August last the Member for the Federal Electorate of Mitchell, Mr L. H. Irwin, M.H.R.- he has spoken in (his debate tonight - . . warned the then Prime Minister of Australia by telegram, copy of which was published on the front page of a Sydney newspaper that same day, that any attempt by the Government to interfere with the free and open wool marketing auction system could bring about the disintegration of the Liberal Party and the downfall of the Government.

And, that night while being interviewed on a national television broadcast Mr Irwin stated we licked ‘em before and we will lick ‘em again’.

What great attention to wool growers you have paid. There is no doubt about you fellows. Let me deal with some other further matters-

Mr Robinson:

– What about the waterside workers?

Mr FOSTER:

– Now, an honourable member has interjected to ask something about the waterside workers. They copped the measure of the shipowners years ago and got what they ought to have got from them. It is about time that you got off your posterior and got for the people you represent their just deserts from the ‘shipowners’. But you will never do that either, will you? Of course you will not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I suggest that the honourable member direct his remarks to the Chair and ignore interruptions.

Mr FOSTER:

– But you have not heard me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not about time that you fellows over on that side of the House thought about marketing wool on behalf of wool growers and not brokers? Why do you not give some thought to this? Is it not time that you started to market wool on behalf of growers and not bankers, speculators and shipowners? Why not think of the producers now and again?

Mr King:

– You have not told me yet where you are going to draw the line.

Mr FOSTER:

– You draw the line. I do not have to draw it. You have been in government for 20-odd dreary years-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr FOSTER:

– … and you along with them, Mr Deputy Speaker. They ought to draw the line, not me. That is not my function. I support the amendment because of the fact that I do not agree with what the Minister said to this House a few days ago. He said the whole idea of the scheme was that it would treat equally all in the industry. He would not have a bar of applying a means test within the industry. But it is all right to apply a means test to the poor old pensioner. There is nothing wrong with applying a means test to the battler. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

As I said before - and I am going to repeat it - is there any one member on the Government side who is prepared to examine this matter on the basis of figures which surely must be available - figures with some degree of near accuracy - in regard to the number of sheep that a particular grower might shear and how much he is going to get? Is it right that the people of this country, the taxpayers, ought to have this levied against them? This Bill is not, as they are being told by the Government, a measure to assist the industry but is merely to see go out of this country what can be considered large sums of money to absentee land owners.

Is it right that the Australian Medical Association which is running a lot of sheep - you know that, if you want to examine it further - ought to be able to touch the Government on this matter as it touched them with regard to the health scheme? Are you going to let them touch you on this Bill? That is what you are doing. I come back to the interjection made by the honourable member for Kennedy. Anthony Horderns is keeping sheep. Tt is going to shear them. It is in the rag trade. It is in big business. It is not relying on this industry for its living. Why then should you not make some distinction with regard to large and small owners? What is wrong with that concept? I ask you: What is wrong with that concept?

Mr Lloyd:

– It does not work.

Mr FOSTER:

– It does not work! You mean to tell me that you cannot define who runs the sheep in this country? What you ought to be doing is pouring the money not into the measure that is before the House but, if you are to benefit the battler and the smaller grower, what you ought to be doing is seeing that he does receive something from this measure. In many cases these people will not get a zac out of this Bill. You might as well put the money straight into a bank and say to this fellow: ‘Here, mate. Your land is now freehold.’ You should settle his mortgage for him because you are not helping him at all. Is it right also that, by this measure, the Government will ensure that the high percentage of freight rates that exist will continue to be levied through certain agreements on trade and what have you to which this Government is a party? Is it right that the corner of the shipowners will be guaranteed but that the growers’ corner will not be guaranteed?

Mr Maisey:

– What are you talking about?

Mr FOSTER:

– He says: ‘What are you talking about?’ I do not know how you keep wearing the size hat that you wear. The fact is this: You have been a member here longer than I have. You should know that the conference line shippers are going to get their pound of flesh. You were here last week. Surely you must have heard it said on this side of the House-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order!

Mr FOSTER:

– It was not denied, Mr Deputy Speaker-that the apple growers would receive a bill instead of a cheque as a reward for their efforts in sending their fruit overseas. I see the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) nodding his head in agreement as he has on many occasions previously in this type of debate. Yet you ask me, and reveal your absolute ignorance, why I make the statement that the shipowners will get their corner. The shipowners are guaranteed their pie. They are guaranteed the benefit from the freight charges on woo), ever increasing as they are. There is no doubt about that. Whatever the price of wool is, the shipowners will receive their freights. The point I make to honourable members for their benefit is that there is no guarantee to the grower as fas as that aspect is concerned.

Another aspect of the whole matter is that the grower has been denied any direct benefit from technological changes that have been brought about in the industry and in handling methods. I do not know how many times that one has to stand up in this House and raise the question of containerisation so far as wool is concerned. If anyone with any sense at all sets out to convince me that it is necessary to put wool in to containers, he will spend a life time endeavouring to do so. A system of banding is in operation in many of the woo) dumping areas of the Commonwealth. Machinery has been installed in Adelaide over the last 2 years at considerable cost to the taxpayer but the Commonwealth does not own it. Who owns it? Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that the barons, the wool brokers and burglars own it.

Mr Bryant:

– Who?

Mr FOSTER:

– The burglars, the barons and the wool brokers. They own this machinery which has been given to them on a plate. The use of this high density dumping machine and its associated machinery means that 6 bales can be put on the ground and banded. This secures the bales ready for shipment. Do you get that, Mr Minister? The bales are banded together. The Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), who is sitting at the table, represents a country electorate, but looks as if he does not know or understand what is being said. We can continue to band the bales together until such time as we have them in lots of 6, 18, 36, 72 and so forth. Having done that we can completely mechanise the whole of the handling operations of that wool. Right, has the Minister got that point? We can lift the bales by forklift to the wharf area. We do not have a dozen men handling the load and stacking it. In fact, one man can handle the load of wool which is banded together and which can be put into any size lots that one wants.

In Brisbane, I might mention, for the benefit of a bloke that comes from Queensland, there has been a shipment in one single lift of some 370 bales. This was achieved in one hit. What restriction is there to the loading of wool in a concept such as this? There are 2 restrictions.

Mr Katter:

– The wharfies.

Mr FOSTER:

– No. Only 4 men are employed on the job. I am trying . to get that through the head of the honourable member. I ask him not to pull his hand out of his ear for goodness sake.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! Interjections are out of order.

Mr FOSTER:

– There are only 2 restrictions that limit the loading of wool by this method. The first is the capacity of the gear that is lifting the load. One can use a great jumbo crane which can lift up to 200 or 300 tons. The second restriction is the size of the hatchway through which the wool passes into the vessel. For the benefit of the honourable member for Kennedy I explain that this is called the aperture. These are the only 2 restrictions. That is the only determining

Mr Katter:

– I know as much about the wharf as the honourable member.

Mr FOSTER:

– You were on the wharf once. You were a member of the Communist Party on the wharf once. The honourable member does not deny it, what is more. But the fact is that these are the only 2 limiting factors.

What benefit has flowed to the grower from this increased mechanisation? Where we used to have some 30 men loading wool in single bale lots which were put into a vessel 6 at a time the number of men required to handle the job now is perhaps down to as low as 4. Imagine the wage cost of employing 30 men, and look at the tremendous saving that is now being achieved. Look at it from the point of view that whereas almost 400 ships handled the run between the United Kingdom-Continental ports and Australia the number will be reduced to 70 in a matter of months. Look at the reduction in the number of turnrounds; look at the saving in costs. In addition, these ships do not carry the same number of crew as they used to carry. I have said it before, and I do not know how many times I have to say it again, but you fellows sit over there, you go quiet, you listen but do nothing about it. Honourable members opposite do not embark upon any form of inquiry and allow this shocking neglect to go on. The grower ought to be up on his feet and punching hell out of honourable members opposite to force them to do something on his behalf.

The super bale has come into being. Why is it that someone who says he supports the industry and the battlers, the workers and the producers does not demand from the super bale a greater return to the grower? What is wrong with this? Is it because of the fact that honourable members opposite only hoodwink the grower and take for granted this man who has been their backstop and consider him as part and parcel of their own properties? However, they have regard for the broker and the big or giant middle man, the parasite on those in the industry, as being more important.

I end on the note that honourable members opposite are guilty. They have betrayed this industry; they have betrayed it for 20-odd years. It is time they had sufficient courage to do something on the growers’ behalf instead of lousily bringing in measures like this that purport to do something for them when in fact honourable members opposite are selling them down the drain and coming to the-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– The Bill before the House implements the Government’s decision to provide some assistance at least for the wool industry. But before I go on with that I might say that I am sorry to see the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) going out of the chamber because I want to make some comment on what he said. The honourable member said - and I cannot be worried if he is not here - that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) should take copies of his speech around his electorate. I think that the honourable member for Kennedy would be very wise to take the edition of Hansard which contains his speech around his electorate because it will win him votes. He should take not only his own speech but also the speech of the honourable member for Sturt because I believe that that speech would probably win him more votes than his own, however many it might bring him.

The honourable member for Sturt said that people would have to beg cap in hand for assistance. This is just exactly what the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson requires wool growers to do. The amendment reads, in part:

  1. the one-year emergency grant moneys available under the Bill should be directed only to those bona fide wool producers, big or small, who are genuinely in need of emergency finance.
Mr Collard:

– What is wrong with it?

Mr CORBETT:

– I will tell the honourable member what is wrong with it in just a moment. A farmer has to give proof that he is in need before he will get anything out of this. What I want to say to the Opposition generally, and in particular the honourable member for Dawson and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), is that if this principle is to be applied to the stabilisation of primary industry surely it must be applied across the board. Surely it must be applied to the sugar industry. Is the honourable member for Dawson prepared to get up and be counted on that one? Is the honourable member for Riverina prepared to get up and be counted as agreeing that this same principle should be applied to the wheat industry. If they are agreeable then they will be reasonable in their approach; if they are not, then they are just hammering the wool grower, the people that they are purporting to support, because one cannot make fish of one and flesh of the other in a national Parliament. If this is the line that the Opposition wants to take, and if a member of the Labor Party asks me what is wrong with the amendment, as one did, 1 say that we have to apply assistance across the board or not apply it at all if honourable members opposite are to show any honesty in their approach to primary industry.

That is the point I want to make particularly with regard to the amendment that the Opposition is supporting tonight. Furthermore, if there is any need - and I do not think there would be - to add something to that, let me say that history has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that we cannot effectively subsidise a primary industry unless we subsidise it across the board. The sugar industry and the wheat industry are evidence and conclusive proof of the effectiveness of that. Who wants to go back from that? I repeat: If the Opposition wants to do that, if the honourable members for Dawson and Riverina want to have that principle applied, just let them say so. I would be very pleased to be able to convey that to the people and in fact, by this amendment, they have a job not to be able to refute what I have said in this respect

I would like to turn to the interim annual report of the Australian Wool Commission to the Parliament. In referring to the work of the Australian Wool Commission the report states:

There is no doubt that had this stand not been taken, wool prices would have fallen lo levels significantly, below those actually experienced during the latter half of the season.

Exactly how much further they would have fallen is of course impossible to say. While some estimates have suggested greater amounts, members of the wool trade have estimated the probable market fall at 4c to 5c per lb more than was actually experienced.

A great deal of credit is due to the Government and to the Commission for their effective handling of the Australian wool situation throughout this very difficult period. The report goes on to say:

Perhaps even more important for the future was the evidence, that this period provided, of the need in such circumstances for the Commission to act in a resolute, responsible manner and in 1/ns with clearly proclaimed policies, if it is to secure and retain the confidence of the world wool trade.

I hope that the Commission and the Government will have the courage to follow this through and prove to the manufacturing industries that this is a base upon which they can rely. I would like to point out in connection with the work of the Commission that it is of great value not only lo the producers but also to the wool buyers and the wool trade. The Commission set out to provide a stable wool market and it has been under very severe test during the period in which it has been in operation. The Commission has bought wool which failed to reach the price put on it and in this way the Commission has made a better spread of the offerings throughout the season. All these steps are necessary to enable the growers to get the best price for their wool.

I want now to refer to the value to Australia of the Australian Wool Commission. Although its value is not often readily accepted it is a fact that the operations of the Commission result in the utilisation of a very great deal of inland Australia which could not otherwise be effectively utilised but for the existence of the wool industry. The wool .industry is the basic industry for many towns scattered throughout the great inland areas of Australia. But for the wool industry we would not have the degree of decentralisation which at present exists.

Every day we see evidence of the need for decentralisation of industry. The costs of providing homes and essential services for people living in overpopulated capital cities are much greater than in the smaller towns. Without a viable wool industry many country towns will not be able to survive and therefore I suggest that this Bill has value far beyond its value to the wool industry itself.

I wonder whether we really understand the value of decentralisation in this country. If we did understand it we would be prepared to pay the price that we are now being called on to pay for the stabilisation of the wool industry. And this does not take into account the great performance achieved by the Wool Commission in the provision of export income for this country. Australia’s balance of payments position is sound at the moment but it depends far too much for my liking on the inflow of capital. No-one can predict accurately the future and who can say that in the future there may not be a substantial restriction in capital inflow into Australia. If that happens the value of the export income earned by the wool industry will be much more fully appreciated than it. is now. Can anyone say that the wool industry will not be much more needed in the future than it has been in the past? Despite the problems which face the wool industry today Australia is fortunate to have such an industry earning the amount of export income that this industry earns.

Let me turn to the cost to the community of assisting the wool industry. This is something that has been thrown up a few times in the course of this debate. In this regard I would commend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) for the speech he made in this debate. He should be commended for his courage in opposing the amendment moved by his own Party. His stand is evidence of the worth of the case put up by the Government on this occasion. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro said that our secondary industry is protected without a means test, and this is true. I direct my remarks to those who question the cost of protecting the wool industry. I am not opposed to reasonable protection for secondary industry. I know only too well that it is essential to have that industry in this country. It is essential to have it because we need population and that population makes a very good home market for our primary produce. While I do not suggest that the protection given to secondary industry is detrimental to Australia I point out that the cost involved is very great. I know the method of giving that protection is different from that employed in stabilisation schemes. If I recall correctly it was the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) who said that it is a type of tax that the producer of the goods never wants to see paid, and this is true. But the fact remains that if the good’s could be brought into Australia without tariff barriers the lower prices would benefit the community at large. The cost of protecting secondary industry is very high compared with that of helping primary industry, because even though protection for secondary industry is given in an indirect way, I would like to stress this point and say that we should not concentrate all the time on the cost involved in the protection of a most essential primary industry.

What we want in this country is a balanced economy. We should not forget the part that the wool industry is playing in providing that balanced economy. Earlier I referred to the impossible task of forecasting the future. A suggestion was made that there should be an investigation into the future prospects of our wool industry. I have no objection to this. 1 believe it would serve a very useful purpose. However, I believe that such an investigation would still not guarantee future trends in the wool industry. I, like many other people, have heard of the possibility of a great shortage of power in the future. This would lead to a reduction in materials available for the manufacture of synthetic fibres. As we look ahead, as members of this Parliament should look ahead, we should be looking to the time when wool may be in much shorter supply than it is now.

In . regard to the cost of the Commission’s activities I do hope that the people of Australia will give a fair trial to the improved Australian selling methods that are being suggested. One of the reasons that synthetic fibres have had such a success in world markets has been that they have been sold by sample and are uniform in quality. The buyer knows that he can get a certain amount of synthetic fibre of a uniform quality. This is the direction in which the wool industry is moving. 1 would certainly agree that the industry is probably moving much more slowly than we would like to see but quite plainly in the near future wool will be sold by sample. By that method wool will be able to compete as it has never been able to do in the past with synthetic fibres. By objective measurement of our wool we will be able to sell by sample. The recent sale of wool by Economic Woof Producers Ltd is a good indication of the success that can be expected to be obtained with improved methods of wool selling. I offer my sincere congratulations to EWP for its energy and enterprise in trying to make a success of the marketing of wool.

Another problem in the wool industry is the human problem. It is not only a matter of providing finance for the wool industry. In the second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said - and this has already been referred to - that the gross return from wool has declined from $839m to $574m, but it has been estimated that approximately 1 million people are wholly or partly dependent upon the wool industry for their living. Surely if it is worthwhile protecting secondary industry in terms of the employment which it provides then I suggest with all sincerity that it is well worth providing at least this amount to the wool industry to enable the 1 million people involved to be retained in employment. This affects not only, the producer but also the businessmen in country towns who also have suffered severely. They have played a very real part in providing financial assistance to the wool growers of this country.

This scheme will help this very deserving section of wool growers. One of the problems that have been confronting wool growers because of the recession in the industry has been the very great difficulty in obtaining finance. The provision of this assistance, in the way of direct finance, will be of double benefit. It will provide wool growers with this assistance which they have not been able to get through the ordinary commercial channels but which I believe is reasonably due to them. As I say, it will be of double benefit. As 1 have mentioned, it will assist business people in country towns.

I have been speaking about the industry itself, but in the time remaining to me I want to refer to what I believe is possibly the most important question in the whole consideration of the wool industry: What about the future? What action will be required when the present deficiency payment scheme expires in July 1972? That is the important question. If legislation has to be placed on the statute books by that date the industry will have to give urgent consideration to the line of action which it believes should be taken. 1 believe that the question of acquisition is something that requires consideration. Despite what the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has said, I am prepared to say that I have favoured acquisition over a long period of time. I have said that in public on very many occasions, and I still believe that this is the objective at which we should be aiming. But at the same time I hops that the policy of this Government will always be to consider the direction in which the industry wants to go. I would like to see more definite expressions of opinion from the wool industry about the direction in which it wants the Government to move. I know it has been said in the course of this debate that this is what the industry wants. I am sure that if the industry clearly indicates to the Government what it wants, the Government will give very serious consideration to the approach.

The other comment I want to make is that it has been stressed that this scheme is to be introduced on a 12-months basis and that in 12 months probably we could make up our minds as to where we are going and what we arc going to do. I hope that the money which has already been put into the Australian wool industry will not be wasted, lt is essential that following on this scheme another measure will be introduced to enable the wool industry to carry on, because I have pointed out the tremendous national advantages which the wool industry possesses for this country. I have been pleased to hear comments made by those who have expressed their confidence in the viability of wool industry, and I believe in that contention. I believe, too, that the wool industry can and will remain, for a very long time, one of the most - or perhaps the most - important primary industries in Australia. The need to maintain it is there. I believe I have demonstrated that the cost of maintaining it is well within the capacity of this Australian nation and that it is sound business to do so not only for those engaged in the industry but also for the nation as a whole. I sincerely hope that we will be able to go on from this step to other steps which will ensure the future of our wool industry.

We want - and I stress it - a balanced economy. We want to have our primary industry working in conjunction with our secondary industry in order to achieve the balanced development of this nation. This can be done in a country like Australia only if we have a balance between primary Industry and secondary industry. Until now the wool industry has asked very little of the Australian people, but it has contributed quite largely to secondary industry. I believe it is high time that the policy of this Government and of this nation was designed to achieve a balance between primary and secondary industry, even if the cost is much greater than that envisaged in this Bill.

Debate interrupted.

page 2428

TELEVISION PROGRAMME THIS DAY TONIGHT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the Minister for Primary Industry, I am taking the first opportunity to make an explanation which involves myself. It is with regret that 1 have to make the statement that I am about to make particularly when it concerns a senior member of Parliament. This evening, 14th October, on a television session known as ‘This Day Tonight’ the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) alleged that I had shown certain material to a person who called on me yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition alleged:

Now, a chap who called on the Speaker yesterday was told- shown - a cutting from the Launceston Press reports on my views on abortion.

It was alleged that these reports were to be used for certain purposes. This statement is absolutely incorrect. It is a very sad situation when such a person as the Leader of the Opposition would issue over a national television programme untruths of this nature.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, 1 accept your assurance that this did not happen. You were good enough to ring me 5 minutes ago to tell me that you were going to raise this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, at 20 minutes to 10.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Right. Last night at about this time a person known to you, to me and to many other persons in the House was in my office, and most of my staff were gathered there. I have not spoken to him; he has just been got on the telephone by one of my staff. He recounted that in a visit to your office, and I think there were others there also, you had shown what I referred to on television tonight. There were, I would think, half a dozen persons around when he said it. He is a man experienced in politics and in party politics. I had never in my experience had any reason to doubt anything he told me. In view of your assurance, I must accept the fact that he gave a wrong account to me and the members of my staff in my office 24 hours ago.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Why didn’t you check first?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Who said that?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WHITLAM:

– Somebody said it was my duty to check. Sir, the fact is that I had no reason whatever to doubt - and I do not think any honourable members opposite would have doubted - what this gentlemen said, because he is much better known to honourable members opposite than he is to honourable members on this side of the House. But what I said was relevant to the subject of the interview tonight. I thought it was accurate. As I say, I accept your assurance and I regret therefore that I said something about you which I accept was not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you. I do not want to prolong the matter but I want to say that I have no cuttings whatsoever in my possession, nor have I ever had, in relation to any comment that has been made about the Launceston Conference.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Sir, I have just been handed a note from a member of my staff who has contacted this gentleman. The note says: ‘He heard you on television and confirms what you said’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am terribly sorry, but I think in all fairness the gentleman ought to-be named.

Mr Irwin:

– What is now the position in regard to this?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question cannot be debated.

Mr Swartz:

– Mr Speaker, could you indicate the present position?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I did not think it would take this long to get the information. Perhaps we can proceed in the meantime with the business of the House.

page 2429

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

– I will respond to the Bill. I might add that I find it somewhat incredible that I should not speak on that other matter. This legislation relating to the wool industry has been debated fairly exhaustively during the day. lt is legislation which is of tremendous importance to everyone in the Australian community. An amendment has been moved by the Opposition and the Government rejects it. It is an amendment covering 2 principal matters, the first being that there should be a means test provision included in the Bill, designed to exclude no-one knows now many of those who are wool growers in the Australian community. I have mentioned on several occasions in the House that there are several very valid reasons why no means test has been included in this legislation.

The first of these is that there are obvious difficulties in setting down criteria which are sufficiently exact to achieve what is intended. Genuine wool growers, who in many instances have spent years of their lives, as in some cases have their forebears, tilling the soil and working the properties, are because of either investments outside their farms or investments in cattle or agriculture excluded from receiving benefits if we apply a means test. This was the case in respect of the $30m wool emergency scheme introduced last year. On several occasions I have pointed out to the House that because of the nature of the criteria some whom we believed to be in genuine need were excluded from eligibility simply because of the inclusion of a means test. The second reason is that there is, as honourable members will know, a responsibility for the funds received under the wool price support scheme to be included in a wool grower’s income tax return. These funds will be assessed on the same basis as other wool income and consequently the large wool grower will be penalised and the smaller wool grower will be advantaged. Therefore, there is a distinct difference between those in receipt of little income and those in receipt of considerable income as far as the wool price support scheme is concerned.

The third reason is that the whole purpose of the Bill is to try to approximate wool incomes from prices which were assessed not so very long ago by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as being likely in the early 1970s to attain about 40c a lb, plus or minus 10 per cent. The 36c was not a figure drawn out of the air. It was a figure which related specifically to the most recent statement by the BAE that it was not in a position to revise its earlier long term assessment of wool prices but that the trend would be towards the lower end of its assessment and not the higher end. For that reason I believe that the 36c price was one which could well be attained by the wool market during this selling season. Were it not for the 10 per cent import surcharge, the restraints generally and the uncertainty in international currency exchange, wool prices might well have been at that level today. So the 36c per lb is a price which relates to a figure which, it was assessed, might well have been the price paid at auction for wool this season and it was on that basis that that figure was included in the Bill. If we look at it in that light 1 believe it would not be just for us to exclude any category of wool grower, as sought in the first part of the Opposition’s amendment.

The second part of the amendment relates to 2 propositions. The first is the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip. Obviously there will be changes necessary in the marketing of the Australian wool clip. We are conscious that there are diseconomies under the system which existed for so long. Indeed, the BAE has produced several studies of the present system of selling wool. A good deal has been said in the course of this debate about the advantages that could be gained if core testing and sale by sample were universally applied and if tests satisfactory to both vendor and buyer could be established. I believe that when that happens this part of the amendment may well be a practical alternative to present selling methods. I do not believe it is a practical alternative at the present time. There are other things apart from the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority that we must look at. I certainly think it is one of the alternatives which could well provide some very substantial help to the industry in the future and I would not exclude it, but at this stage one has to look beyond the single statutory marketing authority and work out how we will achieve a better price for the product and how we will be able to display it, promote it, research it, sell it and finance it. This resolution does not contain any of those answers which are to my mind as essential as any change per se in the marketing arrangements themselves.

The other part of the Opposition’s amendment seeks to implement a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme. There are 2 parts of the Government’s wool selling process at the moment The first embodies this legislation and the second seeks support for the operations of the Australian Wool Commission. The Australian Wool Commission is a commercial organisation working under the auction system and maintaining a firm reserve price and is at this stage helping to ensure that woolgrowers are getting a better price for their product than would otherwise be the case. Of course, that price1 is then sup plemented by the wool price support scheme and the legislation we are now discussing. The long term future of wool relates more to the price paid in the market place and for that reason the operations of the Wool Commission must be seen as quite vital. Were it not for the Wool Commission I believe that the whole future of the industry would be in much more jeopardy.

Reconstruction and rehabilitation come on top of the Wool Commission and the price support scheme and are, of course, essential. The Government has introduced a very substantial measure of help in the scheme that has already been under consideration in this House. The $40m allocated this year represents a substantial part of the originally intended 4-year $100m scheme. I believe that it is possible that changes in the scheme may be necessary but I do believe that it is not true at this stage that there is any reason why any of the States should feel that they have not adequate funds to administer the scheme. For example, in New South Wales the position is that in the last financial year that State received $4m. This financial year it received $ 11.5m of the $12m it sought. In addition some $2.5m of the pre-war funds were available to it. So the New South Wales Government has available some $18m to be advanced for rural reconstruction. I understand that up to the end of December $8.1m of these funds has been spent. Taking the respective allocations up the end of October, I understand that some $ 11.6m of the $18m had been allocated. In other words, out of the funds available for New South Wales there was still over $6m which had not been spent. It is true that originally the scheme was intended, over the 4 years, to provide $100m - approximately 50 per cent for farm build-up and 50 per cent for rural reconstruction. But surely in the implementation of a scheme the administering authorities have a capacity to determine the need on the cases which are before them.

On that basis I do not believe that at the moment the scheme in New South Wales is foundering because of a shortage of finance. If all the States sent to us their reports on the operation of the scheme an early review and discussion could be worth while. I understand that only last week one

State brought down its legislation to introduce the scheme. There are and have been very real delays in the implementation of rural reconstruction in many States. For this reason I believe that the legislation that is before this House does give to all growers a very real measure of assistance for the current wool selling season. Supplemented by the Government’s support for the Australian Wool Commission and the finance contributed to rural reconstruction, I believe the total package gives the wool grower the ability this year to look ahead and work out where he and his industry are going.

Speeches have been made in this House today and tonight which indicate the general concern for the future of the industry. I think it is an industry which must look very seriously at its present and prospective problems. The solutions that are provided this year may not be the best way of helping the industry indefinitely in the future, but they have bought 12 months for the industry. That 12 months grace is the purpose behind the 36c wool price support scheme. For that reason I commend the Bill in its present form to the Parliament.

Debate interrupted.

page 2431

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMME: THIS DAY TONIGHT

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– May I have leave to refer to the matter that you raised earlier?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

– The member of my staff who had made the call to the gentleman to whom I referred has telephoned him again and he has agreed that I should mention his name. He is Mr Malcolm Mackerras.

Mr SPEAKER:

– All I want to say about this matter is that I have not seen Mr Malcolm Mackerras for some 10 days. I think that the House then can use its own judgment.

page 2431

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message received from the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I think the easiest way to deal with the Bill in Committee is to take it as a whole rather than clause by clause. When I first looked at this Bill I had intended to move a series of amendments but I find that these would have been superfluous in terms of the amendment moved to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I take this opportunity to congratulate the draftsmen and the officers of the Department of Primary Industry concerned with the drafting of the Bill. It is one of the most difficult Bills to come before this Parliament for a long time as regards interpretation of clauses and there seems little doubt that it must have caused the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and others some problems in drafting because of the tremendous complexities in the Bill with respect to registration, the rate of deficiency payments and the peculiar definitions involved. I compliment those officers who are responsible for it.

I have no doubt that when the Bill becomes law there will be problems because of its complexity, particularly with regard to deficiency payments, excluded wools and the Schedules in relation to private selling arrangements. But taken by and large the Bill is an excellent piece of drafting. The first clause about which I seek clarification is clause 4 which is the definition clause. The definition of producer reads in part: . . the person who owns the wool immediately after it is shorn;

I can only assume that this means that any person who has a security, equity, lien, mortgage or whatever it might be on the wool is in fact, under the definition, the legal producer of the wool. In other words, if a company has a first lien on wool sales, under this definition that company is the producer. This is also set out in clause 9. I dealt with this point at some length during the debate on the second reading and said that in fact in a large number of cases the producer would not see any of the subsidy. It will in fact, go straight to those companies to which the producer owes money.

I have a question relating to PAP wool and the wool referred to in sub-clauses 6 (3.) and 6 (4.). How does this clause work in relation to inferior wools? Who actually will take the responsibility for the appraisal and identification of inferior wools and the responsibility for selling them? In relation to clause 6(3.), what is to stop a private buyer from recirculating the wool? The deficiency payment is paid on the sale but under the private system what safeguards has the Commonwealth to stop wool which is the subject of private transactions from being illegally resold, in other words, from circulating all the time, still reciving a subsidy? How do we stop this? It seems to be that clause 6 (S.) will be difficult to administer because some of the butchers I know are pretty good Ned Kellys. I would like to know how the Department will police some of these butcher friends that I have in north western Queensland and to prove that they have held sheep for less than 3 months. If they have held them for more than 3 months they are entitled to the subsidy and I think we will find that all of the people who buy sheep for slaughter, particularly around Cloncurry and other places will have had those sheep for 3 months.

Clause 9 relates to the producer of wool, the point on which I first questioned the Minister. Under the definition the producer of the wool is in fact the person who owns the wool and the owner of the wool can be a person who has a mortgage or a first lien on the wool sold. These are the important points that I wish to raise. 1 have many more but I do not want to take up the time of the Committee; I think I can get most of the answers from the Department. I thank the Minister for the assistance that his officers have given me. The only other point that I have relates to clause 7 which deals with excluded inferior wools. I find this clause a little diifficult to understand. I think that the Government would have had a much better Bill if it had included all wools. I think the Minister has defeated the purpose of the original objective. Originally it was intended to take out the burry wools and surely the objective was to reduce the production of these inferior wools. Without doubt some type of pressure has been put on the Minister or the Government and these burry wools are now included. I can see little point in including these other wools - the crutchings, the bellies, .the pieces and so forth - because they all will be produced anyhow. I do not see what the Minister is really achieving except a hell of a headache for himself and his Department in trying to administer this scheme. In my opinion he would have done far better if he had included the lot.

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

– Because so many questions have been asked I think I might follow the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and try to reply to the question he has raised initially. First of all he asked about the definition of producer in clause 4. What the honourable member said is not quite correct. Under the definition of producer in clause 4 I am told that the holder of a lien over wool or a mortgage over sheep is not the producer. Certainly that had not been the intention. In fact the farmer is the producer within the intention of the definition in clause 4. However it is also true that under some State laws relating to mortgages and liens the mortgagee or holder of the lien owns the wool immediately after it is shorn and so would come within the words of paragraph (a) of the definition of producer.

However by the words following paragraph (c) of that definition the person having the equity of redemption is deemed to be the owner of wool or sheep, and this is the farmer who is given the lien. Although it has been said that the holder of a lien or a mortgage is not the producer, under clause 9 of the Bill he may well have a right, so that the effect of what the honourable gentleman said is correct, but the way in which he said it is applied is technically incorrect. Clause 9 provides for the person who holds the lien the right to take payment in accordance with whatever obligation there might be under the lien. But the definition in clause 4 specifically relates to the producer, and it is npt intended that that definition should refer other than to the farmer himself.

The second question that was asked was in relation to clause 6 and excluded wools. The position with these excluded wools is set down in clause 7, sub-clauses (1.) and (3.), of the Bill. The Australian Wool Com mission will be appraising the types of wool that are within each price averaging plan pool, whether it is three or four, and the exclusions will be made in accordance with the types that are scheduled in the attachment to the Bill. The next question that was asked was in relation to clause 6 (3.) which provides that where a deficiency payment has become payable in respect of any wool by reason of any act or transaction a further deficiency payment is not payable in respect of the same wool by reason of a subsequent act or transaction. The honourable member for Dawson wondered to what extent there would be a capacity for the Government to stop wool cycling and so attracting more than one payment. The provisions of the Bill in this respect are in clause 16 (13.), which places an obligation on the Commission to determine that a deficiency payment should be eligible only when there is delivered to the Commission a claim for the payment in a form approved by the Secretary, containing such relevant information and calculations, and accompanied by such relevant documents, as are required by the form and verified by declaration, as required by the form. Clause 16 in general sets out the requirement that certain registered persons shall be responsible for administering the scheme, and then under clause 30 there are certain penalties involved for those who attempt to manipulate the scheme to their own advantage. Clause 16 is really the operative provision of the Bill, and it is through the operation of these registered persons and the Commission that it is believed there will be sufficient safeguards to ensure that wool is not recycled.

Similarly I believe there are difficulties associated with persons who, whilst engaged in the business of butchering, also hold land and perhaps might grow wool on their own behalf. It was for this reason that the specification is included that the only wool owned by a butcher which should be eligible for the deficiency payment is that which is held for a period of not less than 3 months immediately preceding the day on which the shearing of the wool was commenced. The intention is that there should be for those who are butchers and wool growers deficiency payments only when there is for the wool growing side of their business an entitlement which would apply to any other wool grower. Again the protections are covered within clauses 16 and 30.

I deal next with the questions asked relative to the excluded wools in clause 7. If honourable members care to compare the first Schedule of the Bill with the originally tabled list they will see that there have been some changes. The honourable member for Dawson has mentioned the exclusion of some carbonising fleece wools. In fact they are the principal exclusions. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the changes have not been as a result of pressures on me but have been made because there was seen to be a quite distinct prejudice of certain wool growing areas which are in essence more dependent on wool growing than are perhaps other areas which may be better placed in the original list, so it was felt that there should be some adjustment in the list.

Certainly both the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Wool Growers Council representatives have seen me and spoken to me on this matter, but specifically the changes were made after consultation with the industry but not exactly in accordance with the ideas that industry put to me. The position is that it is felt that in present marketing circumstances there would appear to be some surplus of wool and that in these circumstances it is difficult to deny the validity of all wool growers sharing in a responsibility to keep off the market some types of wool. They may well opt to send those wools to the sale, but in doing so, as I think I mentioned in my second reading speech, they may well find that the costs of handling in fact deny them any ultimate payment. For that reason I believe that all wool growers should take serious count when they consider whether or not excluded wools should be offered under present marketing circumstances. It was intended that there should be an effect on all wool growers, and for that reason the changes were made. If the carbonising fleeces had been retained in these exclusions it would have meant that very large areas of Australia almost entirely dependent on wool growing would have been very substantially denied any assistance under this scheme. It being a one-year scheme, and the scheme itself being intended to try to facilitate rather than hinder adjustments within the industry, it was felt that there was an entitlement which wool growers should not be denied.

The final question related to clause 9 of the Bill. I tried to explain briefly in reference to the first question raised by the honourable member for Dawson that clause 9 of the Bill is the operative provision. It means that if a person has a charge on wool that person is entitled to receive the proceeds as if the payment were the proceeds of wool itself. The reason for this is that it is believed by the Government that it is essential to keep the whole normal financing of the rural industry going and if we were to pull out the security which traditionally has been the base on which the whole of the wool industry has operated it would be difficult for those people who traditionally finance the industry to continue to do so. There is obviously a major problem in ensuring adequate finances for the wool industry, and indeed all pastoral and rural industries at the moment. It was felt that to deny those who hold liens the normal entitlements they would have from wool proceeds could not be sustained.

I think this is further substantiated if I again refer to the fact that this payment is not an ordinary subsidy. It is not a subsidy in the sense of lc or 2c per lb. It is a subsidy that is intended to be related to a price which, at the time it was originally conceived, might have been expected to be paid in the market place, and because it is related to what was expected to be a reasonable market price it could well have been that prices paid at auction this year might have been above the 36c per lb, if we think of it in the old non-metric terms. If that happened, of course those funds, those proceeds of wool, would have gone to the person who held the charge or held the lien. For all those reasons it was felt that the proceeds of the wool price support should go as the proceeds of wool itself.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I desire to put to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) 2 queries which have already been raised in the countryside. They relate to the formula and to possible delays in payments. In the first instance, as the Minister pointed out in answer to queries posed by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), this is an emergency grant and is therefore different from long-term stabilisation schemes. The Minister said that this is an emergency grant for only one year and I take the point that he has made and will consider it in that light. Part III of the Bill contains the formula whereby the deficiency payments will be made. As I have understood this in discussion with my colleagues and with those who have examined the formula, it will mean, in effect, that the lower the actual return from auction or priate sale, the less that will be received by way of deficiency payment.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, in fact, there was another approach or a series of approaches tried in this regard or whether this was determined to be the best way to proceed, as a matter of policy. I see that the Minister is puzzled. I shall try to make myself clear. The formula which is now proposed - I am posing this as a question - appears to mean that the less a person receives either at auction or by private sale, the more he will receive for deficiency payments. The more that a person actually receives at either auction or private sale, the more he will receive for deficiency payments under this legislation. At this stage, I am asking whether this was a matter of policy.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, it was.

Mr GRASSBY:

– It was a matter of policy?

Mr Sinclair:

– It was decided as a percentage payment which attracts more for the more that is received.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Did the Minister try any other approaches?

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Perhaps the Minister can be given an opportunity later to outline some of those approaches, because the question that arises is: Why adopt this formula? If it is designed as an emergency scheme for one year only to meet the need where it is greatest, it does not seem to do that. The best and fairest thing for me to do is to ask the Minister: ‘What did you try and why were the other formulas rejected?’ I pose this as a question to give the Minister an opportunity to answer queries which have been asked already.

My second query to the Minister is: What is the anticpated delay in the wool grower receiving the deficiency payment? Obviously, there will be 2 time factors. There will be a time factor related to wool sold at auction or through a wool broker and there will be a time factor related to private sales. I should like the Minister to indicate what the time factor is likely to be in both cases because I think that all honourable members have recognised that there is an urgency about getting money to the wool growers. This question has been raised and I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Committee some guidance in relation to the application and operation of the formula.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I raise the question of the continued viability of the organisation, the Economic Wool Producers Ltd. I am seeking an assurance from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) about the particular selling methods which this remarkable organisation is instituting. I was glad to hear you, Mr Corbett, refer to this organisation so glowingly in your speech. I think that there is a new yeast working in the industry and I pay tribute to the leadership given by the EWP which is proving that the new methods about which we nave been so anxious and so vocal are indeed possible. The position seems to be that the Economic Wool Producers are now selling by sealed bid or by tender. It is difficult for the layman to understand why prices received by this method are not regarded as similar to prices bid at auctions. I understand that there are difficulties in the tender price being recognised as equivalent to an auction price and that this is due to a legal limitation under the Wool Commission Act. I believe that this was an administrative decision which was made by the Wool Commission in conformity with the Wool Commission Act. However, it does seem that the EWP will suffer an advantage because the tender price will not be regarded as being equivalent to the auction price as received in the ordinary broker’s sale.

I want 2 particular reassurances from the Minister. The first is that if the wool is valued by the Commission under the EWP tender selling system, will he assure me that it will be valued as presented? This is much more important than most people realise as I am certain that one of the biggest cost savings will come because we will be able to do away with much of the classing that we used to think desirable. Core testing is an objective measurement and there is a very real expectation that a well bred clip can be treated in an unclassed form. I want an assurance from the Minister that. When the wool is sold under the tender system, it will be valued by the Wool Commission valuers as presented. It would be quite unjust under this new system of selling if the wool were valued as a bulk class lot as would be done if it had not been effectively core tested. The Minister is well aware of my anxiety on this matter. All I want is an assurance from him that the Wool Commission valuation, which unfortunately will be necessary under the tender system of selling, will be done on the wool as presented and the wool will not be valued as a bulk class lot as is done under the usual method of presentation without core testing.

The second reassurance I want from the Minister is that if the EWP do go to auction, and this may be forced upon them - I know that they would be sorry, as I think we would all be, to return to selling wool in this way - they will be regarded as being on all fours with the auction system as conducted by wool brokers. These 2 points are important technically to an organisation which is, I repeat, showing the way by the adoption of methods which show possibilities and the real hope that wool growers can cut some of the selling costs that have bedevilled them in the past. Will the Minister, when replying to the various queries he has received, give me an assurance on these 2 points.

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

– I have received questions on 2 areas and perhaps I should refer to them in a reverse order. Firstly, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) raised 2 particular matters which concern him. I know that he sees the Economic Wool Producers Ltd as a very valued tool in changing marketing techniques as, indeed, do a number of honourable members, including myself. I think that the EWP, as I understand it, is following a type of marketing which largely has been set by assessments made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. So EWP is in fact following techniques which, from the point of view of that Government instrumentality, have distinct advantages.

There are 2 areas in respect of which I have been asked to give assurances. The first is that, when EWP wools are sold by tender and they are appraised for the purpose of attracting the deficiency payment,’ they should be appraised as presented. Let me explain what the intention is with respect to wools sold by tender. The Bill does not specifically refer to any one agency selling by that method. Clause 10(l.)(c) states:

The sale by tender of wool through the agency of a registered seller by tender.

It will be necessary for EWP or any other person to become such a registered seller. The wool will be appraised then as at the value that it would have made at auction on a particular day. It is my understanding that it will be valued as presented but the appraisers may well not know the value of the wools or the price offered at tender. So there will be some distinction between the price bid at tender and the price valued by the Commission’s appraisers. The Commission’s appraisers will be evaluating the wool as presented in its bulk class lots but on the values which they assess the wool in that bulk class would have made at auction on that day. So there will be a judgment that will need to be made on how much wool of particular types presumably are in the particular lot. It would be a judgment which would be similar to that made by those who are submitting tenders.

Mr Kelly:

– But they would be taking allowance of the core test. They would be fully aware of the core test.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Normally, as I understand it, the value is made on the core test and on the sample rather than on the physical appraisal of the lot. In terms of the second undertaking, that at auction the EWP should be treated as a registered broker, providing EWP sells in the same way as a broker it will be possible for the Commission to treat EWP as a registered broker. I am happy to give the honourable member the assurance that he seeks.

The position with EWP wools is that they are being treated in a distinctly different way from wools that are sold privately. Wools sold privately will attract a price support at the on-farm value. Wools that are sold at tender or for use as manufactured wool will attract that support. Perhaps I might refer to clause 10 (1.) instead of reading out the specific types of wool. Wool in the category denned by that clause will be appraised by the Commission as at the value that those wools would have received at auction. So, EWP wool will be paid as at auction value and not as at an on-farm value. This will be to the advantage of those who sell their wool through the EWP system. They will enjoy in addition some advantages in handling charges.

The second group of questions has been presented by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). He asked initially whether or not other forms of price support were considered. Obviously when the Government is considering ways in which the industry is to be helped, it will give consideration to a range of different methods. A number of alternate forms including flat rate subsidy and flat rate incentive were presented. Each one of these unfortunately, or fortunately, did not have the flexibility that ‘this scheme enjoys. The percentage is designed distinctly to give producers of better class wool a better incentive. It follows in the same degree that the exclusions are largely those wools that attract still the lowest prices. As far as time is concerned, I trust that, as soon as the legislation is passed, and certainly within the next 2 weeks, payments to growers should commence. There has been some delay while we have been waiting on the completion of the electronic data processing changes which are being made within the wool brokers offices to enable the whole scheme to be implemented at the time that payments are made to wool growers. I understand that this work is nearly completed. As soon as the legislation comes into effect we should be in a position to proceed.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I refer to clause 33 which reads in part: (1.) An authorized person may, with the con sent of the occupier of any premises, enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized person under this section. (2.) Where an authorized person has reason to believe that there are on any premises books documents or papers relating to sales of wool cm other matters relevant to the operation or administration of this Act, the authorized per son may make application to a Justice of the Peace for a warrant authorizing the authorized person to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized person under this section. (3.) If, on an application under the last preceding sub-section, the Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath -

  1. that there is a reasonable ground to believe that there are on the premises to which the application relates any books, documents or papers relating to sales of wool or other matters relevant to the operation or administration of this Act; and
  2. that the issue of the warrant is reasonably required for the purposes of this Act, the Justice of the Peace may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized person, with such assistance as he thinks necessary, to enter the premises, during such hours of the day or night as the warrant specifies or, if the warrant so specifies, at any time, if necessary by force, for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized person under this section.

I draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to the fact that under clause 33 a warrant can be issued to an approved person by a justice of the peace. What we have to realise is that we are dealing with most reputable international companies. Under this clause an authorised person could be a clerk or an accountant. He could go to a justice of the peace who would issue him with a warrant and then he could go to the office of a reputable international company, either in the day or at night, and proceed to take details of its transactions. I think that this procedure is undemocratic and unAustralian and, further, will hunt buyers away from Australia. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment. I move:

Omit ‘Justice of the Peace’ (wherever occurring); insert ‘Judge in Chambers of a Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.

This is a very serious matter. These people are buyers of our wool. On a warrant being signed by a justice of the peace - not a magistrate - an authorised person will have the right to enter the company’s premises during the day or at night and take details from its records. This is unAustralian and undemocratic and will only serve to hunt buyers away from Australia.

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

– This amendment would introduce a quite radical change to all systems of inspection, from the Crimes Act on. In many Acts there is no requirement that any person shall issue a warrant for inspection. But it is felt that in a Bill of this character and, indeed, in many other primary industry support Bills, it is necessary that a warrant to enter should be issued. For that reason the words ‘Justice of the Peace’ have been inserted. I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), if for no other reason than that it would be the first legislation of this character where there was a requirement that a person other than a Justice of the Peace should issue such a warrant.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2438

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 13 October (vide page 2313).

Second Schedule.

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Proposed expenditure, $30,460,000.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– My Deputy Chairman, in speaking to the estimates for the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, which cover, of course, matters relating to Aboriginal affairs, tourism and the arts. I would like to spend some time discussing that part of those estimates which relate to Aboriginal affairs. I would like to direct my remarks in particular to the estimates for the Northern Territory. I believe that the vote overall for Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia amounts to some $40m of which the estimate for the Northern Territory is $ 14.6m or thereabouts. In 1970-71, $3. 7m was appropriated of which all but $200,000 was used. But the estimated amount for the financial year under consideration has increased vastly to $8.4m under division 368, sub-division 3, items 01 to 07 which are mainly concerned with financing Aboriginals on settlements and missions and the general expenses of administering Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory. This amount does not include expenditure for capital works or assistance by way of specific benefits.

This considerable amount of money has been allocated and it will assist the many projects which are being carried out on behalf of and with Aboriginals all over Australia. As I have said, my remarks refer mainly to the Northern Territory and to those Aboriginals who participate in, and in some cases run, their own enterprises. In many cases a considerable amount of money is involved in these operations. I refer to such enterprises as the cattle station at Bamyili, the cattle station at Haasts Bluff and the various other enterprises which are not quite of such capital value. The cattle station at Haasts Bluff runs about 6,000 head of cattle which, on the going rate, would be worth about $750,000 and improvements to the station would further increase their value. I do not know the number of stock at Bamyili. But these cattle stations are being operated for and with the Aboriginal people. Many other enterprises such as the brick making concern at Yirrkala receive assistance from the Government. At the other end of the Northern Territory a bus service operated by Gus Williams runs down the Finke to Palm Valley. These 2 places could not be further apart.

There is a very conscious feeling over the whole of the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia that we should get Aboriginal people involved in enterprises such as these and that we should assist them financially. This is what the Government is aiming to do. This is obvious when we look at the estimates that are contained in this year’s Budget. To illustrate my point I will refer to a cattle station at Haasts Bluff which is run by a European who is an expert cattle man. I might say that he is one of few who happen to be working with the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. On this station there are about 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle. This man runs the station as a business enterprise and he is making a profit. He is very satisfied with the team work which has developed on this station. There are other enterprises I could mention but I refer to this one because I recently visited it. It is about 180 miles from my home.

The point that strikes me is that the Government is prepared to spend a vast amount of money, willingly and without hesitation, in the development of the Northern Territory but what the Aboriginal people need is leadership. This station is a first class cattle station situated in very good country but without this person to run it the locals though they work well with him, would be at a loss in any attempt to run it as a successful financial operation. The situation is that this is a very dry time in this part of central Australia. The man runs this place with the help of the Aboriginals who own it and will benefit from its successful operation. The man in charge will not benefit. He just works there and is due to retire shortly unfortunately. The Aboriginals need assistance and they need understanding in the same way as it is needed in any other enterprise when it is in trouble. The Government should be looking towards the training of men and women, particularly men, to lead the Aboriginal people. It is all very well to vote an amount of money for them, but they need leadership.

The Aboriginal people need to become involved in viable enterprises. This is essential for development of their character and to bring themselves on. This is their way of life and they want to do this. But they need people with a tremendous dedication to lead them. This station is situated 180 miles from Alice Springs. The temperature today was probably about 105 degrees; there has been no rain; the dust would be blowing; the cattle are dying; there is no water available; there is no transport with which to ship the cattle, and so on. This is the normal situation in the outback areas. The Aboriginal people need men of character, determination and ability to lead them. This is the plea that 1 am making in the few minutes I have available to me in this debate. I commend the Government for its expenditure in the Territory for the advancement of Aboriginals but I believe the Government should establish some sort of training course to find leaders for these people. I know that it is hard to find these people. I have done this myself, so I know how hard it is. They must have tremendous determination and be able to see the light at the end of the pipe and not many people can see it.

Dr Jenkins:

– Resign and take it on.

Mr CALDER:

– I do not think I could take it on again but I thank the honourable member for his suggestion. My point is that the Government is backing, with a lot of money, all these enterprises running through the top end of Arnhem Land from Yirrkala and we have to have practical men who will go there and help the Aboriginals. I do not say that we should run their lives and give them no chance to take on these jobs.

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– 1 want to speak about a very important matter relating to the environment but first I want to register my disappointment and dismay at the reply given by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to a question asked of him a couple of weeks ago by my colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). The Prime Minister was asked about the views expressed by Professor Ehrlich on the television programme ‘Monday Conference’. The Prime Minister admitted that he had not taken very much note of what Professor Ehrlich had said and that he was not very impressed by that which he had noted. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will look at the matter suggested by the honourable member for Adelaide to see whether, in their opinion, there is any substance in what Professor Ehrlich said and whether the Government should take action to try to prevent population problems affecting Australia and other countries.

I was a bit saddened last night when we were discussing this matter when my colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) raised this problem. I think a lot of honourable members on the Government side regarded it as one great big yawn. One Country Party member said: ‘You fellows are all prophets of doom’. It rather surprised me to hear this and I think a lot of Government supporters have their priorities completely out of order. They spend a tremendous amount of time worrying about such things as the presence of the Soviet navy in the Indian Ocean - we heard about this matter at question time this morning - of the tremendous threat it represents to Australia. As a result the Government plans to spend at least $80m on a naval base at Cockburn Sound and a lot more to try to arm ourselves against the Soviet navy. In my view the danger to Australia and the rest of the world from ecological disaster is about 10 times as great as the danger from the Soviet navy. I believe we ought to put our defence priorities on a more reasonable level. The risk from ecological problems is probably much greater and that is the direction in which we should be spending more of our money.

I want particularly to draw the attention of the Government and the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) to a unique area called Hallett Cove in my electorate in South Australia. In case honourable members are not familiar with Hallett Cove, it is an area on the coast near metropolitan Adelaide which is of unique geological interest. For that reason there is a strong desire on the part of many people in Adelaide - I think I can safely say the majority of concerned people in Adelaide - that it be preserved as an area of scientific interest. It is also an area of considerable anthropological interest containing remnants of Aboriginal tribal sites, and there is botanical interest there as well. It is also a quite unique beauty spot except for certain derelict shacks which, fortunately, are to be demolished very shortly. In relation to this area I would like to quote from a document prepared by the South Australian Science Teachers Association. It states:

Hallett Cove is unique. There ‘ would be no other site in South Australia, and few in the world, where so many geological features are evident in such a compact area.

Geological phenomena happen on a large scale Hallett Cove is a microcosm of a large variety of geomorphological and geological phenomena. Because of its Permian glacial deposits the region has world-wide significance. It is the best preserved Permian glacial deposit in Australia and should be kept as a well protected unit to enable intercontinental correlation. It is one key in the development of theories of the Earth’s changes as a whole and not just in a specific locality, state or continent.

This area of Hallett Cove is now under threat from housing development. Unfortunately, most of the land, except that immediately in the area of scientific development, is owned by a couple of development companies, and the development that is intended there and certain proposed foreshore development is considerably threatening the area. Some 51 acres of the area have been proclaimed by the South Australian Government as an area of scientific interest, and it is expected that the South Austraiian Government will purchase that area. It is also suggested that the Government might purchase an area around this as a buffer zone. However, the South Australian Science Teachers Association and many other people who support it have recommended that the whole area in question should be preserved. It is the feeling of the Association that if only this area of 51 acres is preserved, its unique features will soon disappear. So the Association has recommended that a larger area should be preserved in its natural state, and it recommends the following boundaries for the area: The western boundary, the present shoreline; the northern boundary, the northern boundary already marked off by the Hallett Cove model estate; the eastern boundary, the Port Stanvac railway line; and the southern boundary, the existing road known as Grand Central Drive and a line extended from the end of this road to the shoreline.

The South Australian Government is examining the question of purchasing not only this area of scientific interest but also the buffer zone around it. However, it is felt that there could be a danger in this; that even this area would not be sufficient to preserve the area as a unit. I am suggesting that the Commonwealth Government could give assistance to help to purchase the whole of the area in order to preserve it for posterity and also for the present generation, particularly the school children who visit the area in their thousands every year. The land in question can be preserved only if the Government purchases it. The cost of purchasing the land is pretty high; it could well be as high as $lm. I am hoping that it will not be as high as that, and I would hate to see that amount pass into the hands of a land development company, but this possibly could happen. If it does, I believe that it may be out of the financial ability of the South Australian Government to pay for it. I should like to see the Commonwealth assist, if it can, to try to help purchase this land. I would suggest that perhaps if the South Australian Government purchased the 51 acres and the buffer zone around it, the Commonwealth might assist in purchasing the remaining areas which extend to the boundaries which I have mentioned.

I would like to emphasise most strongly that it is important that this area be preserved as a unit. The South Australian Science Teachers Association stated:

It is most important that students see the points of interest at the Cove in their natural setings. It is quite impossible to get any ‘feeling’ for such a place if it has been built upon by so-called developers’ . . .

A teacher would rind it impossible to convey adequately any ‘feeling’ for the Aboriginal camp sites of that area as it has now been developed. This same state of affairs will eventuate at Hallett Cove unless the cove, with our proposed buffer zone, is reserved immediately.

I should like to see this area preserved by the Government as a whole unit. It could be regarded, in a sense, as a science laboratory, because it is an open air science laboratory. Its cost, I might say, is only about two or three times the cost of building conventional science laboratories which are paid for partly by the Commonwealth Government. I ask the Government to have a look at this matter. It was pointed out by the Prime Minister yesterday when he was replying to a question from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) that, in addition to using powers of persuasion, the Commonwealth could act on environmental matters by advancing certain funds.

I see that in the Estimates this year wishing has been advanced for this sort of thing. I think that in this regard there is really a tremendous amount of good that the Commonwealth could do. This area is a national asset. I think that the Australian people would not be unwilling to help to pay some of the cost of preserving it for all of the people of Australia. I ask the Government to have a good look at this problem. Perhaps, as it is an educational problem, the Minister might like to confer with his colleague, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to see whether a recommendation could be made to the Government to help the South Australian Government to purchase this asset for the people of Australia.

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

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– What 1 have to say tonight might be regarded as a little controversial in some quarters. But I have a little feeling in regard to the environment. It comes from a study made over the last few years. Within those years I have realised that the people of the world have become increasingly conscious of the environment in which they live and are attempting to ensure that it is a healthy environment for themselves and future generations. Within the last 20 to 25 years the progress in industry and communications and the increase in the number of city dwellers have created a situation in which man has to take a quick, serious look at the environmental problems which he has created and is still creating and which have certainly been to bis own detriment.

To me, the term ‘environment’ covers many things which affect our daily lives. They include air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution and food pollution to name just a few - all of which have developed into a major health hazard. For instance, the very air we breath is becoming polluted by the gases and fumes from industry and vehicles in closely settled areas to such an extent that it must be injurious to the health of our population. The extensive use of detergents and pesticides also plays no small part in assisting to create this health hazard. Science teaches us that abundant foliage is necessary to maintain the oxygen content of the air we breath. Yet we have systematically destroyed acres and acres of this growth in order to replace it with dwellings and buildings to increase the size of our cities. Had we been aware of the danger we faced by polluting our environment, this could have been avoided. But 1 feel that it is still not too late. Fortunately, we in Australia are in the position of being able to learn from the mistakes made by other countries and we still have time to plan our living environment accordingly.

Recently 1 read that authorities in the city of Kokyo in Japan have decreed that school children will spend a week of their school year studying away from the city in order that they may experience the breathing of clean, pure air. This, to me, is a shocking state of affairs and one to which I hope our children will never be subjected. We are in the fortunate position that, if we start our planning immediately, this situation may never need to arise in Australia. It will take a tremendous amount of planning, foresight and money.

But, to my mind, it must be undertaken as soon as possible if we are to provide the solution to this major problem which, let us face it, will take years to implement.

This has been a controversial matter at many meetings I have attended; but I still stick to my idea, which is this: Major centres should be established outside cities, instead of increasing the populations of our cities, with the green belts being allowed to remain in and around these centres. Within the districts areas should be set aside for industry and planned in such a manner that there is no atmospheric pollution. This is not impossible; it is something which can be done. Methods for the destruction of waste in these towns or centres, call them what you wish, would have to be devised in order to avoid contamination of water and food supplies. Again, it is not a hard task to overcome this problem. I would rather see half a dozen major centres with a healthy environment free from pollution than one major city complete with every known hazard to the health of the population.

It may be argued that economics dictate the growth of a city. It may be argued that instead of the establishment of a number of towns we have to put all the development into the one centre for economic reasons. But when one sees the evidence of the dangers that are created by pollution in a closely settled city which has been allowed to grow haphazardly - and this is what has happened in every major city in Australia - with no thought at all having been given to the environment, this argument becomes so much rubbish. These problems can be overcome. Engineering technology today with regard to rapid communications between seaport and major centres could do much to overcome the objection on economic grounds. I will not tolerate the argument that we must have a closely settled area close to a seaport because of economics. We have centres in northern Queensland 50 or 70 miles from a major seaport which are still progressing in their contribution to the Australian economy, and the same can be the case in the major cities in the south as well. We are extremely fortunate in that the areas in which we have established these centres still contain plenty of room for expansion.

I believe also that the establishment of national parks and reserves close to these centres for the preservation of our native flora and fauna and for the use of the people is a necessity. There must be some place where people can go to gel out of the concrete jungle and breathe a little of the pure clean air that is our heritage. We are lucky in that we have the greatest collection of unique flora and fauna in the world, and this should be preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of our own people and visitors. Yet it would appear in many instances that we are determined to destroy this also. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the House who are members of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation, which deals with the preservation and conservation of wildlife, have seen this happening. We appear to be determined to destroy our unique flora and fauna to build cities and dwellings. We destroy the flora and force the fauna out of the area. This should not happen. We should be able to enjoy them because they belong to us.

We have the personnel capable of planning such centres and we have the personnel capable of establishing what is needed in them. As I said before we have the areas in which this development can take place; we now have a Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts; the Minister for the Environment (Mr Howson) is currently the Minister at the table. 1 do not see why investigations and feasibility studies for the establishment of these centres along the lines I have suggested, instead of allowing the major cities to become choked, should not be instituted immediately. Let us face the fact that it would be a long, hard and arduous task, but there is no doubt that it must be done in order to preserve our environment and to prevent these centres being allowed to grow in a haphazard fashion. In this way sensible and economic planning can be undertaken so that the best possible results for the preservation and maintenance of the environment can be achieved. We are in the fortunate position that this can be done. We can learn lessons from the mistakes made by other countries. We are still able to do this, if we grasp the nettle and have the guts to do this. It may take a lot of money. This I do not mind. What is money if it means the preservation of our environment for ourselves and for future generations? It can be done. I notice that the Queensland Government has issued instructions to industries to make arrangements to avoid pollution of rivers, streams and land by waste matter.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I have no doubt that the speech made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) will look very well in the Townsville ‘Daily Bulletin’, but what does it mean? What on earth does he mean? He spoke in a revolutionary and ardent way about the protection of the country against the destruction of the environment, but he supports a government which will hand over any of the more desirable spots in Australia to anybody who has a bulldozer and a cheque book. We have listened to this kind of thing week after week.

Mr Bonnett:

– That is absolute rubbish.

Mr BRYANT:

– The honourable member has never done anything effective in this Parliament about such instances. He is simply using the Parliament as a talking shop so that he can be reported in his local paper. The same statement applies in respect of nearly every other social issue that faces this country. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) was telling us about the Aboriginal situation. The Aboriginal situation in Australia is a disgrace to all of us. The honourable member for Herbert said: ‘What is money?’ One would think that it was something that the astronauts had to bring back with moon rocks, judging by the way in which it is used for social enterprises by this Government. Nearly 4i years ago the people of Australia said emphatically that the constitutional authority for the advancement of the Aboriginal people should lie squarely on this Parliament. What has happened about that? It is true that for some time there has been a Minister controlling Aboriginal affairs. There has been a change of Ministers. I regard both as sympathetic men, but sympathy is not enough. Action is needed. The action that is needed is of the kind that, when the Minister wants to do something in this Parliament or in the Party room, will ensure that he is supported by people such as the honourable member for Herbert. What happened to break the heart - what there is of it - of the former Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, the present Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth)? Obviously the conservativism of his Party room, the dead weight of the Country Party plus the State rights principle broke his heart. We have to surrender the State rights principle. The responsibility lies squarely on the Commonwealth.

For many years I have been campaigning for something to be done administratively or in a ministerial fashion, such as is done with repatriation. Speaking in terms of time, I suppose the most experienced part of our social service system is the Department of Repatriation. Its experience is not only in length of time but in the universality of its coverage. . I believe that we will not get anywhere until the Commonwealth does something like this as far as the Aborigines are concerned. I know that honourable members opposite and many people in the community say that that would be creating another great Commonwealth department. The Commonwealth Department of Repatriation is not exactly like that. There are some things that it does directly. It runs its own hospitals in many parts of Australia. In other parts of Australia it uses local resources. Its soldier children education scheme uses the State education systems to carry out the responsibility that it has. The Department has training systems and so on. So I believe that nothing effective will be done for the Aboriginal people en masse until we accept that responsibility, and we have to accept it.

If there is a fundamental feature of Australian life it is that any Australian is entitled to all the good things and benefits that flow from being Australian, as indeed there are many, much as at times we regret there are not more. The Queensland State Government has no solution to the problem. It would not matter much what kind of government it was. I represent an industrial area of Melbourne. The people of Victoria have very few Aborigines as part of their national responsibility, but the actual financial and social responsibility lies as squarely upon the people of Coburg, whom I represent, as it does upon the people of Cloncurry whom the honourable member for Kennedy misrepresents.

Therefore I believe the Government must accept this responsibility. It has to be equalised in this way. One of the disappointing features is that the Commonwealth Government will not answer questions. There is one question from the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) that has been on the notice paper since 30th October last year. Some of the questions are simple enough. One would think they would be simple enough even for honourable members opposite to be able to work out. Let me give some examples: What sums were provided in the Budgets? How many houses were constructed? How many Aborigines and Islanders live in substandard dwellings? We know that that information is difficult to acquire, but we cannot do anything until we get it.

I am one of those who believe that housing is one of the fundamental solutions to the problem of Aborigines who live on the edges of most Australian towns and cities. The Government ought to be carrying out one of the suggestions made by the Opposition 7 or 8 years ago for the specific purpose of the people at Yirrkala, that there should be a standing committee of this Parliament to keep the situation under review. The recommendation was a rather specialised one. It was never implemented even though the Minister who eventually became responsible, the present Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) sighed the report. There is something wrong with our parliamentary system when we have no faith in the members of Parliament at all and when their resources, their intellectual capacity and their right to move around the country freely are not exploited to the full.

The honourable member for Herbert, much as I regret his inaction in some ways, is a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation to which he referred. I am sure that evidence adduced before the Committee has produced a rolling strike in the community’s consciousness. But that is what we have to do. During the year I visited 2 places in Queensland which still depress me. The first one was Palm Island. Palm Island is a delightful spot. It has 15,000 acres. It has mountains, beaches and jungle. It has everything except the wit and the will on the part of the Government authorities to make it the kind of paradise it ought to be. It is isolated from the rest of the community by the lack of transport. What has been done with Dunk Island, Hayman Island and the rest of them? They have been turned into island paradises. But what do we do with Palm Island? We have isolated a community there and have done little enough for it. I do not know whether the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) has visited the place but he ought to take his conscience there and have a look.

Dr Mackay:

– I certainly have.

Mr BRYANT:

– The Minister for the Navy says that he has, but he has been as silent as the grave about it in this place. As to the honourable member for Herbert, I think that Palm Island is in his electorate. Fancy having that representing you. The first sight of Palm Island is depressing. I do not care what anyone says; it is not good enough for Australians. The Government has supplied the Islanders with a better than average school and with perhaps better than average equipment, but I am confident that the intellectual endeavour and drive that ought to be behind, the education of people such as these is missing because the teachers have not received adequate training. I know from a glance at the place that the nutrition of the children seems to be inadequate. I know by looking at the place that the planning is inadequate. I know just from a simple knowledge of the facts that the civil rights of the people are not exactly non-existent but pretty close to it.

Can we not do something for a community such as that? Can the honourable member for Herbert who represents the place not use some of the vigour that he demonstrated verbally here tonight to try to engender some action from the Government? The Premier of Queensland, that notable, militant social democrat, felt that Opposition members were being very remiss and irresponsible when we went up there and talked about it. But I have been doing it for years. It takes a long while to get through to honourable members opposite. They are the greatest bunch of slow learners this side of the black stump. Then I visited another area of north Queensland out Cloncurry way, which I understand is the home of the honourable member for Kennedy. Honourable members may be surprised to know that he seems to be held in high regard in that town. But the facts are that there is a depressing Aboriginal reserve there. As far as I can recall the honourable member has never referred to it in this House.

Some factors we should not tolerate any longer. The Queensland Act must not be allowed to continue. Money is being taken from thousands of people in Queensland and paid into trust funds. They have to plead to get it back. I ask the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), who is at the table, to take the bit between his teeth in these matters and challenge the State authorities on them. I am quite convinced that he will have the full support of this Parliament. Some honourable members opposite hold tender attitudes towards State rights, but a responsibility lies with us. I am quite confident that nothing will happen until this Parliament accepts the challenge. Action is necessary to raise the morale of the Aboriginal people. In the field of health, for instance, as I understand it, the highest infant mortality rate in the world is found amongst Aborigines in some areas of the Northern Territory, and the number of Aborigines attending university is extremely low.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Progress reported.

page 2445

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until

Tuesday, 26th October at 2.30 p.m.

page 2445

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr ERWIN:
Ballaarat

– I present the Twelfth Report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 2445

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendments -

National Health Bill 1971.

Apple and Pear Stabilisation Bill 1971.

Apple and Pear Stabilisation (Export Duty Collection) Bill 1971.

Apple and Pear Organisation Bill 1971.

Without requests -

Apple and Pear Stabilisation (Export Duty) Bill 1971.

page 2445

ADJOURNMENT

Sinking of Ketch ‘One and AH’ - Television Programme This Day Tonight’ - Death of National Serviceman - Education: Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I wish to raise a matter to which I referred at question time during this week, namely, the sinking of the ketch One and All’. Firstly I would like to draw the attention of the Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Hunt) to the fact that on 16th November 1970 I wrote to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) about a problem that existed in the Sydney office of the Search and Rescue Section of the Department of Shipping and Transport. A dispute arose there between the Department and the surveyors as to the meaning of search and rescue operations. The surveyors will not take calls at their homes in respect of such operations.

In the event of a vessel being reported missing, as was the case with the ‘One and AH’, the first call is taken in Newcastle by a departmental surveyor there. He has then to transfer it to the regional controller in Sydney who has then to make arrangements to get a man to the office in Sydney. From that point operations commence. Twelve months ago I complained about the lack of facilities that were provided. I am informed that these facilities have now been brought up to a reasonable standard, but the dispute that has been outstanding for over 12 months is still in existence and I hope that the Department will take immediate steps to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. It is a serious matter and one which should not be allowed to drag on for 12 months.

As I said earlier, I want to refer to the sinking of the ketch ‘One and All’. What concerns me and what concerns experienced people in the marine industry is this: What was this ketch doing at Middleton Reef? What justification was there for it to be there? Was the vessel registered?

What was its condition? It is pretty obvious from replies which I received from the Acting Minister, and which the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) also received from the Acting Minister, and from a reply to a question which was asked in the Queensland Parliament on Tuesday of this week that this ketch was not in a seaworthy condition. I do not have time to go through the whole of the question that was asked in Brisbane but the condition of the vessel is pretty obvious from statements that were made there by the Minister for Conservation when he said that in the surveyor’s opinion the vessel had the following defects:

  1. Extensive rot in the framing of the bull which became exposed by the removal of some hull planking;
  2. Positive indication of decay in the hull planking;
  3. Iron work, including chain plates and their fastenings were in a badly corroded condition. (Chain plates anchor the rigging in position.)

It was considered by the surveyor that the vessel had come to the end of its useful life. This is just some indication of the state of that ketch before it left Brisbane harbour. What concerns people is that vessels of this type are being allowed to operate on the coast where no-one seems to have any real control over them and it is time that they were brought under some form of control. To get back to the reasons why this ketch was at Middleton Reef, I understand now that navigational beams and lights have been erected on the wrecked British freighter there, the ‘Runic’. The industry wants to know why and I think that only a full marine inquiry can disclose this. Are they seismic beacons that have been erected. These, I believe, are usually maintained by the Department of Shipping and Transport. Apparently the Department knows something about them but no-one in the industry really knows just what it is all about. There have been suggestions bandied around that the position of the ‘Runic’ would be an excellent place to exchange drugs. There are suggestions in the industry that it has been a phoney adventure and, all told, there is some explanation due to the public.

From statements made in the Queensland Parliament it is pretty obvious that the ketch ‘One and All’ was indulging in trade. It allegedly left Brisbane harbour with 40 tons of cargo on board. Why? If it had cargo and if it was trading then it is required to be registered under the Navigation Act. If this is the case the owner is required to come up with some explanation as to why it did not have a certificate of registration to operate as a trading vessel under the Navigation Act. What is the position as far as the crew is concerned? It had a crew of 7 - 6 men and a young woman of 21 years of age or thereabouts. Only 2 of the crew were experienced, apparently one man who held a mate’s certificate and another who had some years experience at sea as an able seaman. That is the sum total of the experience of the crew on board. This is not satisfactory. Some 3 years ago when debating an amendment to the Navigation Act I drew the attention of the Government to the exemption at that time of pleasure craft from its provisions. I expressed an opinion about them at that stage. At page 1751 of Hansard of 29th May 1968 I said:

Exception (l.)(d) is concerned with “pleasure yachts not engaged in trade’. I refer the Minister in particular to the ‘New Endeavour’,, which operates off the Australian coastline. People are not paid to work on it; they pay the owners to work on this 200 ton gross sailing ship. People pay for the fun of working before the mast, but in shipping circles this vessel is not considered to be seaworthy.

The ‘One and AH’ ais into the selfsame category. It is obvious that it was not seaworthy when it put to sea with 7 people on board. The Government will have to do something positive about tightening up the regulations covering ships of the type of the ‘One and AH’ and the ‘New Endeavour’ which operate around the coast of Australia. That brings me back to the question of the ‘One and AH’. I think the maritime industry is entitled to an explanation on the points I have raised tonight.

J hoped that the Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport would have been in the chamber tonight. I gave him notice that I would speak on his subject. 1 hope that the Acting Minister will give the House some very positive information as to what has happened already in the preliminary discussions which I understand were held with the owner of the ‘One and All” in Sydney this week. I think the Parliament is entitled to be told what has happened to date. I believe that there is already any amount of evidence to justify the holding of a full inquiry to determine, firstly, the condition of the ship before it left Brisbane; secondly, what it was doing at Middleton Reef; and, thirdly, what is the reason for navigational beacons and lights having been erected on the wreck of the MV ‘Runic’. I think the Parliament is entitled to have some facts on those matters. Most important of all the maritime industry is entitled to those facts. I call on the Acting Minister to give a clear indication at this stage on whether an inquiry will be held at an early date.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to support the request by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). In doing so I am not necessarily supporting the suspicions he has expressed. I support him just on the principle that a marine inquiry should be held. I did place question No. 4488 on the notice paper today in which I asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) whether, in view of the information which had come to his hand about the One and All’, a full scale marine inquiry would be set up and also why the ‘One and All’ travelled to the Middleton Reef. I might say that the reason 1 became quite suspicious as to previous decisions in regard to the ‘One and AH’ was that in Adelaide, before the ship even went to Queensland, the Commonwealth Government had made a pronouncement on this vessel, as I mentioned in the House yesterday. Last weekend when I was travelling on an aeroplane to Sydney I happened to sit next to an ex-public servant who, unfortunately, had forgotten his vows and, thinking that I was just another person, started telling me everything he knew about the history of the ‘One and Ali’ and his department’s dealings with that ship some months ago. But I have risen only briefly to support the honourable member for Newcastle in his call for a marine inquiry and to underline the fact that in reality he is supporting the request I have made in my question.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Speaker, tonight in the House you said: ‘It is a very sad situation when such a person as the Leader of the Opposition would issue over a national television programme untruths of this nature’. The facts I am about to disclose indicate that you, Sir, have done me a very serious injustice. I accepted your statement that the statement I made about you was not true as a matter of fact. But the story I told was true, as I told it. Tonight Mr Mackerras has issued a statement to the Press in which he says:

What Mr Whitlarn said on television was substantially true. The only substantial inaccuracy was that he said I had spoken to Sir William Aston 10 days ago and not Wednesday, as Mr Whitlam had indicated. Ten days ago I had a long chat about the prospects in the next election with Sir William Aston. We discussed the possible factors which could influence the way people would vole. He pulled out from a wallet a piece of paper and said: ‘This is Whitlam’s view on abortion’, or words to that effect. He then quoted an extract from Whitlam’s speech at the Federal ALP Conference in June. Sir William then said. I think the Labor Party will lose votes as a result of this and I think the fact that these are Whitlam’s views should be made known.’

In his statement Mr Mackerras then confirmed that he had given me this account yesterday.

Now, Sir, it is not necessary for me to judge between your veracity and Mr Mackerras’s veracity, but what I said on television tonight was that a certain person - now known to be Mr Mackerras - had told me certain things. Therefore I was speaking the truth and the whole truth, whether what Mr Mackerras told me ever happened or not. Therefore, Sir, I require you to apologise for the statement that I had issued untruths over national television.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have the quote from the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on ‘This Day Tonight’. In summing up you mentioned to the person who was interviewing you the issue of abortion. You then went on to say:

Now a chap who called on the Speaker yesterday -

I will deal with it as we go through - . . was told -

I want to repeat that Mr Mackerras did not call on me yesterday. The only time that Mr Mackerras has called on me was when he had a book for sale that he had written - I think after the election before last - and he called on me endeavouring to sell me one. That is the only time he has called on me. You said yesterday the chap who called on me was - . . shown a cutting from the Launceston Press reports on my views on abortion.

That is not true. Your statement further went on and said that this was going to be used during the election campaign, which is a statement of fact by you. I come back to my original statement and I say that the statement is absolutely incorrect, that Mr Mackerras did not call on me yesterday.

Mr Whitlam:

– I accept that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That Mr Mackerras was not shown any cutting from me yesterday.

Mr Whitlam:

– But, Sir, you do not dispute that he told me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Now I know who told you, but you based your comment in relation to this on pure gossip without even mentioning it to me or bothering to check with me, and you made this statement on national television. As far as I am concerned, the statement that I made in that regard stands for the simple reason that the facts that I have said are the facts in relation to the matter. I did not know who told you, and the fact is that you involved me and went on further in your statement in this matter to involve the candidate against me in an election campaign. If you read the statement you can take it in two or three ways as to whether I am going to vote for abortion or whether I am not going to vote for abortion. You said:

The Labor candidate, Joe Riordan, would vote against my relaxation of the abortion laws.

Whether that is true or not I do not know.

Mr Whitlam:

– That is what Mr Mackerras told me,

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not responsible for the statements that Mr Mackerras makes. What I am saying is that the statement in relation to what happened in my office, as you say he called on me yesterday, was untrue.

Mr Whitlam:

– It was the Whip.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Nor did he call on the Whip’s office yesterday.

Mr Foster:

– Not yesterday, 10 days ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is the fact that I am disputing. Ten days ago I saw Mr Mackerras.

Mr Foster:

– -Ah

Mr SPEAKER:

-I admitted this in my previous statement. 1 said that I had seen Mr Mackerras 10 days ago.

Mr Whitlam:

– In the Whip’s office.

Mr SPEAKER:

-In the Whip’s officethat is correct - with some other members who were there. We spoke regarding electoral prospects; true. We spoke not only on abortion but on all sorts of things in relation to electoral prospects. I can see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think all members speak in relation to those things. Therefore, 1 have nothing for which to apologise.

Mr Whitlam:

– Do you, Sir, dispute that Mr Mackerras told me of a conversation that he had had with you, not yesterday but 10 days ago?

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 do not know whether Mr Mackerras told you or not. In fairness, I want to say that the position I was concerned about was the statement of fact that someone had called on me, I had shown him clippings and the clippings were to be used for a particular purpose. That is not true.

Mr Kennedy:

– You are disputing the 10 days.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, it is a quibble over 1 day or 10 days.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I admit I did this, but this was said on national television. I say quite frankly that I would have discussed with Mr Mackerras, as 1 do with anyone else, any subjects in relation to this Parliament or my work. I am entitled to do so once I leave this chair.

Mr Whitlam:

– I do not dispute that, Sir. What I am disputing is your right to use an unparliamentary term ‘untruth’ about me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is not unparliamentary.

Mr Whitlam:

– I used on television some of the conversation which Mr Mackerras had with me yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Which were not facts.

Mr Whitlam:

– I do not know that. I am not judging whether your statements, Mr Speaker, about this conversation are accurate or whether Mr Mackerras’s statements about it are accurate. All I resent is that you should say that it was an untruth on my part to state that Mr Mackerras had had a conversaion with me and had told me the substance of a conversation with you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The fact is that as it came over the air tonight Mr Mackerras was not in this. I did not know anything about Mr Mackerras, nor did I know who told you, until such time as I had made this statement in relation to it, and I based it solely on the television recording that was made on ‘This Day Tonight’.

Friday, 15 October 1971

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I rise tonight to refer to a subject which has concerned me now for 12 months and which must cause one to question the efficiency of the Department of the Army. It concerns a national serviceman who was accidentally killed in Victoria.

Mr Peacock:

– He was an apprentice.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am sorry. It concerns an apprentice who was accidentally killed in Victoria. For 12 months the parents of this boy have been trying to get an inquest into his death but they have not yet succeeded. On 10th September 1970, apprentice Colin Jackson of Mount Charlton, near Mackay, was performing an assisted front somersault with a forward roll as part of a progressive series of gymnastic exercises. A qualified physical training instructor was positioned and was supervising the training of this boy. Unfortunately for the boy, during the physical training exercises something happened and he had a serious fall. He was subsequently transferred to the Austin Hospital in Heidelberg where he was admitted with spinal injuries. He died in the hospital at 12.20 p.m. on 23rd September 1970 as a result of his injuries.

During the period that he was hospitalised his mother and father travelled south to visit him. They were looked after by the Army and they have no complaint in that respect. The boy’s body was sent to Mackay in North Queensland. I understand that were were problems in getting his body to Mackay in time for the funeral because of a strike in Sydney, but through the good offices of the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) and particularly with the assistance of his private secretary and the courtesy of Trans-Australia Airlines who broke a few rules, the problems were overcome. The parents were satisfied. I had told them, and the Minister had informed me in writing, that there would be a coroner’s inquest and that the parents would be advised when this was to take place. Naturally one believes that an inquest will take place fairly quickly after a death. Mr and Mrs Jackson approached me several times during the next few months and inquired when the inquest would be held. They also asked me whether they could be represented at the inquest. The Minister for the Army again advised me that no date had yet been fixed and said that it was a matter entirely for the parents as to whether they would be represented at the inquest. That advice was given on 28th January 1971, approximately 10 months ago.

After waiting for about 6 months, the parents started to get extremely agitated, as one would expect. I sent a telegram to the Minister for the Army pointing out that the parents of the deceased were most concerned at the long delay. I received a telegram in reply from the Minister saying that inquiries had been made of the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Melbourne concerning the date of an inquest into the death of apprentice Colin Jackson but it had advised that a date could not yet be given and when a date had been set for the inquest, be would notify me. That was on- 4th August. After more inquiries, I was then informed by the Minister that the delay was not the fault of the Department of the Army. Apparently the reason for the delay was that the coroner’s court in Melbourne bad not received a report of the death from the Mornington police. It would seem, therefore, that the blame now rests with the Victoria Police. The Minister said that, according to the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Melbourne, the coroner’s office was very concerned about the delay and had requested that the report be forwarded as soon as possible. However, it is now October and after repeated requests - almost every week - I am no further advanced and neither are the parents. In summary, despite repeated requests by the parents of the soldier, the Army still has not seen fit to arrange an inquest. Worse still, I cannot accept the reasons given by the Minister for this delay. I could accept them for some months perhaps but not for a period of 12 months.

Perhaps this delay of 12 months is the fault of the Victorian police. I do not know to this day whether the Mornington police have made a report, but there is something very wrong when a person can be accidentally killed and 12 months later the Victorian police still have not furnished a report. This is particularly so if the person concerned happens to be somebody who comes under the province of the Department of the Army. Incredible as it may seem, neither the Army nor the police has been able to secure a report on this accident which can be acted upon by the coroner. During all this time, the parents have had to experience heartbreaking distress while the authorities have adopted what must be called a very callous disregard for all the pleas for an official inquest. The boy cannot be brought back to life. He is dead. But we must have some feelings for the parents. Surely after 12 months one would expect that in all decency the whole matter would be finalised.

I did not want to raise this matter in the Parliament, but 1 am under pressure from the parents and other relatives. I did warn the Minister’s office that if I did not get a suitable reply I would have no alternative than to raise it in the Parliament, and this is what I have had to do. I do not think it is good enough to put the blame on the Victorian police on the one hand or to put up with this as an excuse on the other hand for 12 months. From the point of view of the Commonwealth it is simply not good enough treatment of anybody who happens to be in the Army. I believe that if the Government, the Minister or the Department of the Army really had cared and had gone into this matter carefully and sincerely some action might have been taken. I say this to the Minister: If this is not cleared up quickly I will get the permission of my Party to take some drastic action in this Parliament in relation to this case.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– I make no comment on the threat made at the end of the speech of the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Frankly, I am more interested in trying to reach a conclusion to the matter. The honourable member is aware that it is neither my responsibility nor that of my Department to fix the dates of inquests. It is entirely and utterly misleading to make a statement branding my Department as being at fault in this matter, then to point to other factors and to come back to the point and say that we are the ones who should be determining the date of the inquest. This is not within our power. The honourable member knows it is not within our power.

Dr Patterson:

– He was in the Army, was he not?

Mr PEACOCK:

– It is not within our power to fix the date of a coronial inquiry or inquest. The honourable member also knows that I have been liaising with the respective departments in Victoria in an endeavour to have a date fixed for the inquest. I share the same feeling with the honourable member that it gives one no pleasure to have to go into the details of this matter. I do not want to go into the earlier details. What information could be conveyed was conveyed both to the honourable member and to the parents’ solicitors and to other parties interested in the matter. I will be pleased to see the matter dealt with because I can imagine the relief that it will bring to the family when there is some finality.

The Director of Legal Services in my Department is examining the matter again as a matter of urgency. I trust that the negotiations that I am trying to finalise with the State department and the negotiations that are proceeding merely on the basis of asking that this matter please be expedited will soon come to an end. I cannot direct that they be finalised. It is not within my power to do so. I trust that we will be able to ensure that the matter is brought to finality, not because of any threats that have been made but because I can well understand the feelings of the parents and, indeed, the concern that the honourable member feels. It is not the threat that motivates me but rather the sympathy that I feel for the parents. For this reason I hope to have the matter finalised.

Dr Patterson:

– Why have the police not made a report?

Mr PEACOCK:

– I am not answerable to the police.

Dr Patterson:

– The Minister must have asked them.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes. I have asked. But I am not prepared to go into that matter in any further detail, nor do I have to. But, as the honourable member is aware, I have asked the police and I have been informed that the matter can shortly be dealt with. I trust that the person who advised my staff of that opinion is giving an accurate assessment of the matter, but I cannot direct finality; I can only hope for it and encourage it.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I wish to speak briefly tonight about the need for an overhaul of the Commonwealth secondary scholarship system and the replacement of this means of granting scholarships with a new method. At present, the Commonwealth secondary scholarships’ scheme is based upon a competitive examination. Scholarships are granted to that minority which attains the highest marks in these examinations. In some cases achievement at school is taken into account also. But the principal factor in the operation of this scheme is a competitive examination. I believe that this method should be replaced entirely and that in its place a means test should be introduced so that money is given to Australian students according to their needs and according to their parents’ means.

I say that for one simple reason. For 7 years the operations of this scheme have shown that the scheme discriminates massively against the children of low income families whether they be in the inner suburban areas or in country areas. In addition, it discriminates massively against migrant children. On the other hand, it is a perfect means of promoting and advancing those children who already are fortunate because of family circumstances. In many cases students who have received scholarships simply do not need them. It is interesting to relate that last month, in the ‘Australian’, a report appeared of a survey of parents whose children had been granted scholarships. Only 4 per cent of those parents said that they needed the assistance provided by those scholarships; 96 per cent saw no need for or were not moved very much by the whole system.

I would state, firstly, why we should have a means test. The way in which this system has operated has been massively expensive because of red tape, paper work and bureaucracy. Between 1964 and 1971 the amount of money paid out under the Commonwealth scholarship scheme was

S41.4m. In the last financial year - that is, 1970-71 - the value of benefits paid out in actual scholarships together with examination costs totalled $6,791,000. Scholarships were worth S6,387,000 while examination costs were $404,000. Looking at the figures over 7 years we see that the administration of this examination system has cost approximately $2.5m. I believe that this is an extraordinarily expensive way of selecting people who arc to receive the richest bounty in this community while reminding the remaining ninetenths of those in this category that, in the eyes of this Government, they are failures. That is what the system does.

How many students sit for this examination? Last year, of the total of 181,000 students in the third last year of study, 90,000 sat for the examination. At the present moment the Commonwealth Government is massively examining one in every two intermediate students in Australia. Last year only 10,000 scholarships were allotted so 80,000 students had to lose. Yet under the scholarship examination system all students have to be tested. Last year the examinations cost $404,000. It is clear that the cost of this system for each successful student was $40.40. Not only is the Government giving out scholarships worth between $250 and $400 but also it is wasting $40.40 in choosing the best students and screening out those who do not meet the Government’s standards.

This is a massively costly system. It is over-bureaucratic. The paperwork involved is something terrific. This system can no longer be justified on grounds of economy let alone social justice. Four test papers are set, each of 2 hours. As 90,000 students are involved in the examinations 360,000 papers have to be marked. The 4 test papers consist of, firstly, written expression; secondly, comprehension and interpretation (sciences); thirdly, quantitative thinking, which means mathematics; and, fourthly, comprehension and interpretation in humanities. The papers have to be sent from the office of the Australian Council for Educational Research to the various State Departments of Education. They are then sent to the schools. The examinations have to be conducted and the papers returned for marking. One section of the papers has to be manually marked twice.

This means that 90,000 papers have to be marked twice. Three of the papers can be marked by machine. But the important matter to stress is that 360,000 papers have to be marked at a cost of about $400,000. That is a lot of money which could be used profitably on children of families of low incomes. I think that this is a strong ground why the present scheme of competitive examinations should be abolished.

I support the question which was asked by the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) this morning. The honourable member suggested a cost benefit analysis of the present Commonwealth scholarship scheme. If by that he meant the adoption of a means test rather than a competitive examination then I am all for that suggestion. On the basis of social justice this examination scheme simply can no longer be justified. It affects so few people. It is one of the main reasons why we have so many Government and Catholic school students dropping out and such a large number of other private school students going on. For example last year in Australia only about 25 per cent of Government school students continued on to their final secondary years. Those are the students who enrolled 5 years earlier. Only 32 per cent of the Roman Catholic students went on to their final years. By comparison 81 per cent of the other private school students went on to the final year. This situation shows the fantastic inequalities within the 3 school systems.

In Victoria the non-Roman Catholic private school student has 4 times the chance of a Government school student of going on to the final year of secondary education. He has 3 times the chance of a Roman Catholic student of going on.

If we look at the Commonwealth scholarship scheme we see the same sort of stark inequality. In Victoria the nonRoman Catholic school student has 5 times the chance of a Government school student of winning a Commonwealth scholarship. He has more than twice the chance of a Roman Catholic school student. In 1970 in Victoria only 3.4 per cent of all Government school students in the 4th form won a scholarship. Only 8 per cent of all Catholic school students in Victoria doing intermediate year won a scholarship. By comparison 17 per cent of all nonRoman Catholic school students won a scholarship. That shows a fantastic inequality. This is the scheme that is supposed to be aimed at increasing equality of opportunity.

Many other things could be said about this. The evils of the system, its entrenched inequality and the social inequalities that it perpetuates are well known to honourable members. But I would stress that the proportion of scholarships being won by government school students and Catholic school students has decreased in the 7 years that the scheme has been operating. Even more amazing is the fact that although the number of intermediate students at government schools is increasing actually they are winning fewer scholarships today in Victoria. Therefore we have 2 inequalities. Firstly the proportion of scholarships being won by government school students is dropping and the actual number–

Dr Mackay:

– What is wrong with the teaching?

Mr KENNEDY:

– What is wrong with the teaching? If the Minister is willing to debate this I will be only too glad to take him up on it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KENNEDY:

– You are in charge of the education system in Australia so you accept the blame for it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.26 a.m. (Friday)

page 2453

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Papua New Guinea: Maritime Transport Needs (Question No. 4176)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

When (a) did he receive and (b) will he table the report by Mr Warwick Hood on the maritime transportation needs of Papua New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. and (b) This matter is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Transport in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Transport, has provided the following information. All field investigations have been completed and a draft report has been in the hands of the Administration since the 17th August 1971. The decision whether or not to table the final report will be made by the Administrator’s Executive Council. Maritime transportation needs are also currently under review by the Commission of Enquiry into Coastal Shipping and the Commission’s final report should be ready for the Administrator by the end of October. Once again the decision about tabling the report in the House of Assembly will be made by the Administrator’s Executive Council.

Papua New Guinea: Political Refugees from West Irian (Question No. 4248)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What assistance does the Administration of Papua and New Guinea give to political refugees from West Irian to absorb them into the economy.
  2. Will be arrange for English language lessons to be made available to these new arrivals.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. When a person arrives in Papua New Guinea with a prima facie case for permissive residence (see answer to question 3318 Hansard 20 August 1971 p. 474) he is provided wilh rations and the basic necessities of life while his case is under consideration.

If granted permissive residence the Administrator of Papua New Guinea usually arranges settlement away from the border and adequate provision is made for housing, welfare and employment. When immediate employment is not available permissive residents are transferred to Manus holding centre where houses of reasonable standard are available. Each house is fully equipped with basic necessities and permissive residents are fully maintained whilst awaiting placement in employment in Papua or New Guinea. Permissive residents and their families are also free to utilise the same welfare benefits that are available to other Papua New Guinea residents. Administration officers are also ready to assist with any problems that may arise. The Administration endeavours to place permissive residents in useful employment which takes best advantage of their background training and abilities and where they can effectively contribute to the economic growth of Papua New Guinea.

  1. Separate English lessons specifically for permissive residents are not at present arranged. However, at the Manus centre West Irianese permissive residents attend adult literacy classes. Some 20 adults primarily West Irianese are enrolled in these classes. Where children of permissive residents attend schools they would benefit from the same facilities available to local children to learn English. Any specific approaches will, I feel sure, receive the sympathetic and careful consideration of the Administration in the context of the facilities available.

International Labour Organisation Conventions Nos 64 and 83: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 4254)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Since the law and practice in Papua New Guinea conform with the provisions of International Labour Organisation Conventions No. 64 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939 and No. 83- Labour Standards (NonMetropolitan Territories), 1947 (Hansard, 18th August 1970, page 114), why has Australia not yet ratified the conventions and applied them to New Guinea and Papua.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

As regards Convention No. 64 which has application to Australia itself as well as to its nonmetropolitan territories, ratification depends primarily on the situation within Australia which does not enable the Convention to be ratified for the reasons set out in the ‘Review of Australian Law and Practice Relating to Conventions Adopted by the International Labour Conference’ published by my Department in October 1969 (see page 63).

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

Journalists’ Award (Question No. 4288)

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. As the detailed nature of the Journalists’ (Metropolitan Daily Newspapers) Award, 1971, precludes its incorporation in Hansard (Hansard, 16th September 1971, page 1507), will he indicate (a) the salaries, (b) the hours of duty and provisions for overtime and (c) the allowances for (i) transport and (ii) clothing and dress contained in the award for each grade of journalist, male and female.
  2. Do any journalists receive entertainment allowances; if so, who are they and what is their entitlement in each case.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. (a) The Journalists (Metropolitan Daily Newspapers) Award, 1971 prescribes the following minimum salaries for both male and female journalists covered by the award:
  1. (b) Generally the award prescribes that the ordinary weekly hours of duty for day workers is to be 40 and the ordinary hours of duty for night workers is to be 38.

In detail, the award prescribes hours of employment as follows:

  1. ‘Day work’ for the purpose of this part means work other than night work as defined in sub-clause (e) hereof.
  2. The ordinary weekly hours of duty on day work shall be 40 provided that, in the fortnights in which Christmas Day and Good Friday occur, the ordinary hours of duty shall be 72 and the number of working days shall be reduced by one.
  3. A member normally engaged on day work who is regularly required once or twice a week to work a shift extending beyond midnight shall after 5 hours continuous duty on that shift, be granted a supper period of not less than 30 minutes.
  4. All classified members and cadets on day work shall be given two clear days off duty in each week. Provided that, in the fortnights in which Christmas Day and Good Friday occur, five clear days off duty shall be given. Any day or days not so given shall be given off in the succeeding week in addition to the days off for that week; or be paid for in accordance with sub-clause (i) of clause 31.
  5. ‘Night work’ for the purpose of this part, means employment the greater part of which is after 8.00 p.m. A member so employed on three or more nights in any week, or a member beginning duty at 4.00 p.m. or later on three or more days in any week, shall be regarded as a night worker for that week.
  6. Subject to sub-clause (g) hereof, the ordinary weekly hours of duty for night workers shall be 38. On a Sunday newspaper published in association with a daily evening paper, the ordinary weekly hours of duty shall be 40.
  7. In the fortnights in which Christmas Day and Good Friday occur, the ordinary hours of duty on night work shall be 68 and the number of working days shall be reduced by one.
  8. A night worker shall be given two clear nights off duty in each week. Provided that, in the fortnights in which Christmas Day and Good Friday occur, five clear nights off duty shall be given. Any night or nights not so given off in the next succeeding week in addition to the nights off duty for that week, shall be paid for in accordance with sub-clause (i) of clause 31. A night worker shall be notified at least the day before of any night or consecutive nights he is to be off duty.
  9. A member employed on night work shall be allowed a supper period of at least 20 minutes after not more than 5 hours continuous duty.

  10. For the purpose of this clause a clear day or a clear night off duty shall mean a period of 24 consecutive hours. The following conditions shall apply:

    1. when a member is given one clear day or one clear night off duty that clear day or clear night shall commence at the expiration of 11 hours from the time the member actually ceased duty.
    2. when a member is given two or more consecutive clear days or clear nights off duty these consecutive days or nights shall commence at the expiration of 8 hours from the time a member actually ceased duty.

The award sets out the following provisions concerning overtime:

  1. Any amount paid to a member in excess of the minimum rate to which he is entitled shall not be regarded as a set-off against overtime worked. The hourly rate for overtime purposes shall be calculated by dividing the number of ordinary weekly hours of employment into the minimum rate for the member’s grade.
  2. All overtime payments due to a member shall be made within 18 days of the end of the week oi fortnight, as the case may be, in which the overtime was worked.

  3. ‘Daily overtime’ represents all time worked after the expiration of 11 hours from entering upon duty in any day and shall be computed as follows:

    1. The first hour may be allowed off duty in the current or next succeeding week in accordance with sub-clauses (f) and (g) hereof. If not allowed off, it shall be paid for at the rate of time and a half.
    2. Any overtime beyond one hour and up to 3 hours shall be paid for at the rate of time and a half; and thereafter at the rate of double time.

  4. ‘.Insufficient break’ represents all lime worked before the expiration of 11 hours from the completion of the duty on one day and the resumption of duty - except during distant engagements - and shall be computed as follows:

    1. If the break is less than 8 hours, overtime shall be paid at the rate of double time for ail work done before the expiration of 1 1 hours break.
    2. If the break is 8 hours or more, overtime shall be paid at the rate of time and a half for all work done before the expiration of the 1 1 hours break.
    3. If a member is called upon to resume duty within 11 hours of completion of a distant engagement, overtime shall be paid at the rate of time and a half for all work done before the expiration of the 1 1 hours break.
    4. Time worked during any period of insufficient break shall not be included in the calculation of weekly hours.
  5. ‘Weekly overtime’ represents all time worked in excess of 40 hours for day workers and 38 hours for night workers, or the reduced total hours occasioned by time given ofl in lieu of overtime but excludes time already paid for or adjusted under sub-clauses (c) and (d) hereof.

Weekly overtime shall be adjusted as follows:

  1. The first 8 hours may be allowed off duty in the next succeeding week in accordance with sub-clause (f) and (g) hereof. Any of this time not allowed off shall be paid for at the rate of time and a half.
  2. Any overtime beyond 8 hours shall be paid for at the rate of double time.

  3. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, any weekly overtime worked during a distant engagement may be allowed off in full.

    1. Except as provided hi sub-clause (e) (iii) hereof, the maximum number of hours which may be allowed off duty for overtime for any week shall be 10 made up by a total of 8 in excess of the prescribed weekly hours and 2 for work in excess of 11 hours in any days in the preceding week.
    2. Time Off
  4. When overtime liquidated by giving time off amounts to 4 hours or less, it shall be given off in one block of 4 hours, except as permitted in subclause (0 hereof in respect of daily overtime.
  5. When such overtime exceeds 4 hours and is less than 8 hours it shall be given off in not more than 2 units each of 4 hours.
  6. When such overtime is 8 hours or more, it shall be given off in not more than 2 units, one of which shall be 8 hours and the other not less than 4 hours.

  7. When a member is to be given 4 hours or more off duty for overtime worked, he shall be notified before he finishes work on the preceding day.

    1. Any time allowed off duty in lieu of overtime shall correspondingly reduce for that week the hours of 40 in the case of day work and 38 in the case of night work. Alt time worked in excess of the reduced total hours for that week shall be reckoned as overtime and dealt with in accordance with sub-clause (e) hereof.
    2. When a member is not given his weekly or fortnightly, as the case may be, days or nights off duty as provided in clause 28 of this award, he shall be paid at the rate of double time for all work done on any such day or days with a minimum payment for 4 hours. This provision also applied to the additional day or night off duty in the fortnights in which Christmas Day and Good Friday occur. When such time is paid for, it shall not be included in the weekly or fortnightly hours, as the case may be.

    1. All work done in excess of the fortnightly hours of duty prescribed for the period in which Christmas Day or Good Friday occurs shall be paid for at the rate of double time.

    2. Special overtime

  8. When a night worker is required to work after 5 a.m. he shall be paid overtime at double rates for all time worked in excess of 7 hours from the time of entering upon duty.
  9. When a night worker is required to begin before 4 p.m. he shall be r;aid overtime rates for all time worked in excess of 9 hours from the lune of entering upon duty.
  10. When a day worker is required to begin duty before 6 a.m. on three or more days in a week, daily overtime shall begin after the expiration of 9 hours from the time of entering upon duty.

  11. Time worked and paid for under this sub-clause shall not be included in the claculation of weekly hours.

    1. In no circumstances shall overtime involved in any of the foregoing sub-clauses be paid for more than once.

    1. Notwithstanding anything hereinafter contained, any overtime accrued during a distant engagement may be allowed off in full.

    2. (c) (i) and (ii) Under the Award journalists erc to be paid reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

Female journalists regularly engaged on work requiring attendance in evening dress or in special dress are to be paid a minimum dress allowance of $100 a year.

Female and male journalists are to be reasonably compensated for damage to clothing and personal effects arising out of and in the course of their employment.

  1. There is no provision in the award specifically prescribing an entertainment allowance but as mentioned in answer to (1) (c) the award requires that reasonable out of pocket expenses be paid.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 32: Application in Australian States (Question No. 4335)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Which States, apart from New South Wales, have not yet agreed to ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 32- Protection against Accidents (Dockers) (Revised), 1932 (Hansard, 2nd June 1970, page 27S7 and 29th September 1971).

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Apart from New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have not yet agreed formally to the ratification of this Convention. Matters raised by South Australia and Tasmania are being examined in consultation with them and the Department of Shipping and Transport.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Inapplicability to Papua New Guinea (Question No. 4336)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Which International Labour Organisation Conventions (a) have been declared or (b) are considered inapplicable to Papua New Guinea.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

As was stated in answer to question No. 2353 asked by the honourable member (Hansard H. of R., 9th March 1971, page 750), under the I.L.O. Constitution the question of the application of I.L.O. Conventions to non-metropolitan territories arises only in relation to Conventions ratified by the member State, for example, in the case of the Territories of Papua New Guinea and Norfolk Island, in respect of Conventions ratified by Australia.

The following Conventions ratified by Australia have been declared inapplicable to Papua New Guinea:

No. 9- Placing of Seamen, 1920

No. 15 - Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) 1921

No. 16 - Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) 1921

No. 22 - Seamen’s Articles of Agreement, 1926

No. 26 - Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery, 1928

No. 57 - Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936.

A review is currently being made of declarations relating to Conventions ratified by Australia.

Industrial Disputes (Question No. 3958)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What percentage of the man days lost through strikes concerned employees covered by Federal awards in each of the last 10 years.
  2. What percentage of this percentage related to (a) wage disputes, (b) managerial policy, (c) union membership, (d) victimisation and (e) other matters.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that particulars obtained in his collection of statistics of industrial disputes do not contain the degree of detail which would enable the requested dissections to be made.

China: Nationalist Commando Raids (Question No. 4331)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many commando raids have been launched from Nationalist Chinese held territory against the Chinese mainland since January 1969.
  2. Are such raids authorised by authorities of the United States of America.
  3. What is the Australian Government’s attitude on the legality of such raids.
  4. Has the Government protested to the authorities in Taipei about their military operations against the Chinese mainland.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. to (4) The answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question is in the negative. Answers to the other parts would call for statements either of policy, or of legal opinion which I do not propose to make, particularly since they would involve discussion of the mutual relations of 2 friendly foreign governments.

World Territories (Question No. 3471)

Mr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. b he able to say whether several territories In most continents including the States of Minnesota and the Canadian capital have symbolically declared themselves world territory, some flying the United Nations Sag alongside the national flag, some donating a specified percentage of revenues to United Nations agencies, some issuing world citizenship identity cards to citizens who request them proclaiming their right and intention to vote for the legislative arm of a world disarmament and development authority, and some adopting a twin region on a similar lattitude or longitude for cultural exchanges when both are similarly mondialised.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to a local press sponsored poll after World War II in the Gosford-Wyong district in which an absolute majority of citizens declared that they, favoured world jurisdiction to take responsibility for international security.
  3. What diplomatic and other steps has the Government taken to promote international awareness, discussion and acceptance of the principle of the democratic rule of law at supranational level.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. 1 am not able to confirm the taking of action overseas along the lines suggested by the honourable member.
  2. I do not have readily available any record of such a poll.
  3. Australia has been a consistent advocate of the importance of maintaining the rule of law in international relations. In this connection. Australia has played an active part in a number of international organisations and conferences concerned with the development of international law.

China: Australian Representation at National Day Reception (Question No. 4342)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Who has represented Australia at China’s National Day reception at the Chinese Embassy in Canberra in each year from 1965 to 1970 inclusive.
  2. Who has been chosen to represent Australia in 1971.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. and (2) The guest list for National Day receptions in Canberra is the prerogative of the Embassy concerned. The Department of Foreign Affairs does not choose individuals to represent

Australia; its function is limited to providing tha most senior Minister or official who has accepted an Invitation with advice on protocol arrangements for proposing the toast.

United Nations (Question No. 4347)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

  1. Has his “attention ‘been drawn to the Report of the President’s Commission for the 25th Anniversay of the United Nations (the Lodge Report, Stock No. 4000-0261, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
  2. If so, does it recommend steps towards a stronger United Nations especially as to its peacekeeping capabilities.
  3. Will he move for discussion of the issues raised in the report by (a) the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, (b) the Parliament and (c) the public.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes. ‘” :
  2. Yes.
  3. The Honourable Member ls referred to the answers given to his questions Nos 4140 of 29th September and 3422 of 19th August 1971, on the Government’s attitude to discussion on the functioning of the United Nations system.

Public Hospitals: Bed Subsidy (Question No. 2279)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. When was the 80 cents Commonwealth daily bed subsidy for public hospitals first introduced.
  2. How many public hospital patient bed days were remunerated at the 80 cents Commonwealth daily bed subsidy in each State and Territory and the Commonwealth for the latest year for which figures are available.
  3. What was the total amount paid out.
  4. What was the average per patient bed day cost for public hospitals in Australia (a) for that year and (b) when the 80 cents Commonwealth subsidy was first introduced.
  5. Can he give similar details In relation to the payment of the (a) $2 a day Commonwealth bed subsidy and (b) $5 a day Commonwealth bed subsidy for pensioners.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. 1970-71 : $1,107,000.
  2. and (5) (Average cost per patient bed day only) - The most comparable figures available for the period for which Information has been requested regarding the average cost per patientday in each State and Territory are those derived from the Commonwealth Year Books relating to public hospitals and nursing homes. The latest year for which figures are available from the Commonwealth Year Book is 1967-68. The table below shows average cost per occupied bed day in public hospitals and nursing homes for 1948, the year in which the 80 cents daily Commonwealth hospital benefit was first introduced; 1958, the year in which the $2 per day Commonwealth hospital benefit for insured patients was introduced; 1967, the year in which the rate of Commonwealth hospital benefit for pensioner patients was increased to $5 per day; and for 1968, the latest year for which figures are available.
  1. (a) (i) The $2 per day Commonwealth Hospital benefit for insured patients was introduced in 1958.
  2. During 1970-71, Commonwealth Hospital benefits were paid in respect of insured patients for the following numbers of patient/days:

Notes- The numbers of patient/days in respect of which Commonwealth hospital benefits are paid to insured patients are not dissected between public hospitals and other approved hospitals, respectively. The above figures therefore relate to all approved hospitals, rather than to public hospitals only.

For the majority of patient/days shown above, Commonwealth benefits were paid at the usual rates of $2 per day for insured patients. However, because of such factors as the application of waiting periods after joining a hospital benefits organisation, some insured patients whose hospitalisation is included in the above figures received Commonwealth benefits at the uninsured rate of 80 cents per day.

  1. During 1970-71, payments of Commonwealth hospital benefits in respect of insured patients (usually at the rate of $2 per day) totalled $22,319,000 (approximately).
  2. (b) (i) The current Commonwealth hospital benefit rate of $5 per day for pensioner patients in public hospitals was introduced in 1967.
  3. During 1970-71, Commonwealth hospital benefits for pensioner patients in public hospitals were paid in respect of the following numbers of patient/days:
  1. During 1970-71, payment of Commonwealth hospital benefits in respect of pensioner patients (usually at the rate of $5 per day) totalled $23,555,000.

Specialist Medical Practitioners: Registration (Question No. 2784)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Which States have enacted laws for the registration of specialist medical practitioners, and on what date did each do so.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Pest Strips (Question No. 2857)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report in the New Scientist, 29th October 1970, page 206, on the dangers of Shell’s Vapona Strips, containing the cholinesterase inhibitor, Dichlorvos.
  2. Can the Minister say whether there are any other reports on the mutagenic effects of this substance.
  3. Is the Minister able to say whether the United States Department of Agriculture has declared that Dichlorvos vaporising strips should not be used in kitchens, restaurants, or where food is prepared or served, or in nurseries or rooms where infants, ill or aged persons are confined.
  4. If so, does the Government agree that steps should be taken to stop the sale of this product.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The possibility of mutagenicity referred to in this report originates from purely chemical experiments carried out in laboratories, using large quantities of dichlorvos.

The conditions under which experiments such as these are carried out would not be encountered in the every-day use of dichlorvos, and no mutagenic effects of this substance have been demonstrated in either animals or man.

No other reports suggesting mutagenic effects of dichlorvos could be located by my Department.

  1. The United States Department of Agriculture had required that pest strips containing dichlorvos should have the following warning included in the labelling: ‘Do not use in Kitchens, restaurants or areas where food is prepared or served. Do not use in nurseries or rooms where infants, ill or aged persons are confined’. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is now responsible for labelling requirements of this nature and this Agency requires the addition of debilitated’ in the second sentence of the warning statement quoted.
  2. The control of pesticides, including dichlorvos comes within the responsibility of the individual States and of the Commonwealth for those Territories within its administration. The National Health and Medical Research Council, which is an advisory body to the States and Commonwealth, has recommended that pest strips containing 20 per cent or less dichlorvos should have the following warning included in the labelling:

page 2459

WARNING

page 2459

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN IF SWALLOWED SEEK MEDICAL ADVICE AVOID CONTACT WITH FOOD DO NOT USE IN FOOD PREPARATION OR FOOD STORAGE AREAS DO NOT USE IN NURSERIES AND SICK ROOMS WHERE PEOPLE MAY BE CONTINUOUSLY EXPOSED

This recommendation has no legal standing unless it is incorporated into relevant legislation. There was no recommendation that dichlorvos in the form referred to should be banned.

There is a continuing review of pesticides including dichlorvos by expert committees of Council.

Social Services: Nursing Home Benefit (Question No. 3249)

Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Has a proposal been placed before the Government to extend the existing $2 per day nursing home benefit to approved organisations providing hostel accommodation for the aged.
  2. If so, has the proposal been accepted.
  3. If not, why not.
Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As the honourable member will be aware, the Prime Minister recently announced the Government’s intention to increase the rate of Nursing Home Benefits by $1.50 per day.

Assistance towards the cost of providing hostel accommodation for the aged is provided under Part III of the Aged Persons Homes Act, in the form of a Personal Care Subsidy of $5 per week paid in respect of residents aged 80 years and over.

No proposal is before the Government to bring the rate of Personal Care Subsidy up to the level of Nursing Home Benefits.

Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 3457)

Mr Hayden:

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

Will the Minister consider allowing a drug prescribed by a dental practitioner, in accordance with his rights under State legislation, to be provided as a pharmaceutical benefit; if not, why not.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has recently heard evidence from representatives of the Australian Dental Association in relation to this matter. The Government will consider this Committee’s recommendations when they are made in due course.

Medical Health Insurance: Payments (Question No. 3461)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What has been the (a) amount and (b) percentage of total funds paid by (i) the Commonwealth, (ii) the medical benefit funds and (iii) patients as medical costs to (A) specialists and (B) general practitioners in (I) each of the States and (II) the Commonwealth in each year during which medical health insurance has operated.
  2. Of those amounts paid to specialists what proportion has been paid to pathologists in (a) private practice and (b) public service.
  3. For the period for which data is available can he indicate the proportion of the amounts paid to pathologists in private practice which went to computerised services such as Preventi care.
  4. Can he further indicate the rate of growth of these services as inciated by current trends.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The information requested by the honourable member has not been recorded by the registered medical benefits organisations or my Department and accordingly is not available.

However, surveys were undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining most common fees in the last few years. From October 1970, the larger medical benefits organisations have co-operated with the Department in a continuing survey of the level of observance of most common fees and the benefits paid.

The information recorded in these surveys was used earlier this year in preparing estimates of the numbers and cost of services for general practitioner surgery consultations and home visits, and other’ services for discussions with the Australian Medical Association in connection with their proposal to increase fees from 1st July 1971. It was not possible to distinguish the ‘other’ services between those performed by specialists and general practitioners.

It is proposed that as the computer processing of medical benefits claims is extended, statistics and information such as that requested may become available in future.

Health: Commonwealth and State Standing Committee (Question No. 3588)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What steps have been taken, as recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs in its reports of 25th September 1969 and 2nd June 1970, (a) to establish a standing committee of permanent heads of Commonwealth and State Health Departments, (b) to develop plans for the Commonwealth, the States and appropriate organisations and groups to participate in a co-ordinated national scheme for the collection and dissemination of uniform statistics relating to health economics and for general health economic research and (c) to achieve collaboration between the Commonwealth and the States in the sharing of knowledge relevant to the construction and servicing of hospitals.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (c) Following the 1970 Conference of Australian Health Ministers a Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council was established comprising 2 representatives from each State and the Commonwealth, these representatives being Permanent Heads and Senior Officers of Health departments. Four sub-committees have been established to report to the Council periodically in the following fields:

    1. Research into the administration of Hospital and Allied Services.
    2. Uniform costing in Hospital and Allied Services.
    3. The possible application of computers in Health and Hospital fields.
    4. To advise on the planning of and equipment for hospitals.

The terms of reference of the Council are such as to enable it to report to the Ministers on such other items in the field of Hospital and Allied Services as the Council may consider important and on such other matters as the Ministers may refer to the Council for its examination and opinion.

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

A Central Statistical Unit, headed by officers seconded from the Bureau of Census and Statistics, has been established in my Department. A principal role of this unit is to work in close cooperation with the Bureau of Census and Statistics to develop and maintain national systems of collection and dissemination of uniform statistics specifically related to the functions of the Department of Health.

Three sub-committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council namely the Hospital Statistics (Standing) Sub-Committee and the Disease Classification Sub-Committee, which report to the Medical Statistics (Standing) Committee, and the Mental Health Records SubCommittee, which reports to the Mental Health (Standing) Committee, are engaged in the investigation of the collection and interpretation of uniform statistics in the fields of hospital morbidity, the presenation of hospital records, the classification of diseases and the recording of mental illness.

Dental Care for School Children (Question No. 3589)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What steps have been taken, as recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs in its reports of 25th September 1969 and 2nd June 1970, to co-operate with the Slates (a) in developing schemes for the provision of dental care to pre-school and school children and (b) in extending schemes for the fluoridation of water supplies.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The provision of school dental services and the fluoridation of water supplies within States are regarded as the responsibility of the various State Governments. A school dental service operates in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. As regards fluoridation, the Australian Capital Territory water supply was fluoridated in 1964 and the Alice Springs water supply on 1st June this year. It is expected that the Darwin water supply will be fluoridated by early next year.

Hospital Benefits Organisations: Charges and Benefits (Question No. 3675)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What is the weekly family contribution charged by the major hospital benefits organisation in each State.
  2. What action has been taken on the Nimmo Committee’s recommendation that the hospital insurance scheme be rationalised by confining benefit tables to three benefits each equal to one of the three levels of hospital fees in force in each of the States, namely for standard, intermediate and private wards.

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

  1. The weekly family contribution rates charged by the major hospital benefits organisation in each State as a 1st September 1971 are as follows:
  1. Except for the State of Queensland, where hospital charges are currently under review, tables have been introduced which provide benefits exactly matching the charges, including extras, currently made by public hospitals in each State. In South Australia and Tasmania an additional table has been introduced to provide benefits towards charges by private hospitals. All old benefit tables have been closed to new members and will be discontinued after contributors have had sufficient time to determine their new insurance requirements.

Hospital Charges (Question No. 3676)

Mr Whitlam:

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

On what dates and to what rates have changes been made since a former Minister’s answer on 7th April 1970 (Hansard, page 799) in the daily charges imposed in (a) standard wards, (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards of hospitals in each State and Territory.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The following changes have been made to the daily charges imposed in (a) standard wards, (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards since April 1970:

Medical Treatment: Fares from Northern Territory (Question No. 3736)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth meets the cost in excess of $40 of return air fares involved in transporting residents of the Northern Territory to southern States where urgent medical or specialist treatment, not available in the Territory, is required by the resident.
  2. If so, does the Commonwealth make a specific grant to Western Australia for a similar purpose to meet the circumstances of the north and north-west of that State which are so very similar to the Nothern Territory.
  3. If not, will the Minister give early and favourable consideration to so doing.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes, except that residents who are in necessitous circumstances may have the full cost of their return air fares paid. (See answer to Question 3737)
  2. No.
  3. The responsibility for the provision of medical facilities within a Slate is a matter for the Government of that State.

Medical Treatment: Fares from Northern Territory (Question No. 3737)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Is it a fact that residents of the Northern Territory who are in necessitous circumstances have the cost of their return air fares met by the Commonwealth if they are obliged to fly to Adelaide for special medical treatment not available in the Territory.
  2. If so, does the Commonwealth make a specific grant to Western Australia for the same purpose in relation to residents of the north and north-west of that State who are in similar circumstances to those referred to in the Northern Territory.
  3. If not, will the Minister give early and favourable consideration to so doing; if not, why not.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The responsibility for the provision of medical facilities within a State is a matter for the Government of that State.

Medical Insurance Contribution Rates (Question No. 3761)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. What is the current range of medical insurance contribution rates charged in each State.
  2. Are the rates charged in New South Wales much higher than in other States; if so, why.
  3. Has the Commonwealth made any investigation as to whether these higher charges are justified.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The current range of medical insurance contribution rates charged in each State is:
  1. and (3) In introducing the new Health Benefits Plan, the Government set higher benefits in some States to offset the higher doctors’ fees in those States. This was in pursuance of its policy that the benefit return to contributors throughout Australia should represent a high portion of doctors’ fees. To achieve this, organisations are required to base their benefit tables on the level of common fees applicable to the State where they were registered to operate a medical fund. In N.S.W., the common fees are generally higher than those obtaining in other States, and benefits and consequently contribution rates have also been higher.

Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 3824)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. How many items available to non-pensioners under the National Health Act are valued at less than the proposed $1 charge.
  2. Will the Minister supply a list of these items to enable patients to obtain them without prescription or on prescriptions not written under the Act.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. At the present time, approximately 229 ready-prepared pharmaceutical benefit items are valued at SI or less. It is not possible to specify any number for extemporaneously-prepared benefits, due to the varied nature of such benefits which doctors are able to prescribe.
  2. It would be meaningless to patients to publish a list of the items concerned because of the number involved and because of varying Stale requirements concerning drugs available without prescription.

National Health Scheme: Paramedical Services (Question No. 3830)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. Did the Minister’s predecessor, in a statement to Parliament on 4th March 1971 indicate that examination was being made of arrangements for the provision of ancillary benefits under the National Health Scheme, including paramedical services.
  2. If so, what form has this examination taken.
  3. What professional organisations providing paramedical services have been consulted.
  4. When is it expected that the examination will be concluded.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) A working party has been established within my Department to consider the inclusion of paramedical services within the National Health Scheme. The working party has met on several occasions when representations from a number of professional bodies, such as physiotherapists, have been carefully considered. The honourable member will appreciate that the issues involved are of a complex nature but notwithstanding (his, some progress has been made towards finalisation of the review.
  3. At this stage 1 am unable to indicate when the review will be completed.

Australian Capital Territory: Registration of Physiotherapists (Question No. 3832)

Mr Enderby:

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

  1. Was a draft ordinance prepared in 1959 providing for the registration of physiotherapists in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. If so, was this draft ordinance revised in 1962. (3 Has the Minister received representations from physiotherapists in the Australian Capital Territory, the late Mr J. R. Fraser and myself requesting that an ordinance be introduced.
  3. What are the reasons for the delay and when will an ordinance be enacted.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) Yes.
  2. The drafts require considerable change to produce satisfactory legislation and resources for this work cannot be diverted at present from other legislative work of higher priority. I am unable to say when legislation on the subject will be promulgated but I can assure the honourable member that the work will be put in train as soon as circumstances permit.

Health Insurance (Question No. 3972)

Mr Kennedy:

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

When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 2550 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 17th February 1971.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The answer to Question No. 2550 was published in Hansard on 16th September 1971.

Smoking and Health (Question No. 4082)

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

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the June Newsletter of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

If so, does it quote estimates indicating that 11 in every 40 deaths in Britain due to smoking are estimated to occur between the ages of 35 and 65 years.

Can the Minister say whether this mortality and the associated morbidity represent an economic loss comparable to the revenue earned by taxes on tobacco products.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The newsletter quotes an estimate made by the Royal College of Physicians that there is an annual death toll in Great Britain of 27,500 men and women, aged 35-65, from the ‘burning of tobacco’, which figure is considerably less than the overall figure given by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Sir George Godber, of 100,000 deaths annually. This latter figure includes all young smokers and those over 65 whose life has been shortened by smoking.
  3. It would not be feasible for me to calculate from the College’s estimate of deaths, the economic loss associated with mortality and morbidity due to smoking in Great Britain.

Alcoholism (Question No. 4085)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to articles on alcohol in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ of 5th June 1971.
  2. Will the Minister investigate the advisability of making alcoholism and its complications notifiable diseases and, in particular, alcoholism in conjunction with injuries, liver disease, peptic ulcer, gastritis, neuropathies, hypertension and chronic bronchitis.
  3. Will the Minister supplement the antismoking campaign with public education in the degrees of over-use of alcohol and its effects.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth is guided in these matters by the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which to date has made no recommendation that alcoholism and its complications should be included in the list of notifiable diseases.
  3. Public education in regard to smoking hazards and abuse of alcohol in areas other than the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory is the responsibility of State Governments. In the Territories under its control, the Commonwealth has instituted health education programmes in schools using methods aimed at developing an awareness of the public health aspects of cigarette smoking and the use of alcohol. These health education programmes have recently been intensified in the Australian Capital Territory to promote co-operation and education of parents and school teachers. In addition a series of seminars has been introduced, involving Health Services personnel in all areas having contact with the public, on drug abuse in the community - smoking and over indulgence in alcohol being two facets of this subject.

Baby Foods: Use of Mono-sodium Glutamate (Question No. 4115)

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

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

  1. Has the National Health and Medical Research Council’s recommendations on the use of mono-sodium glutenate in baby foods been written into the legislation or regulations of any, of the States or Territories of Australia.
  2. When was this recommendation first made.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No. Legislation is not necessary at present as baby food manufacturers have agreed not to add mono-sodium glutamate to their baby foods.
  2. November 1969.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 4124)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. What was the number of approved (a) public and (b) private nursing homes in each State in each of the last 8 years.
  2. How many beds were provided in each case.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Fire-Fighting Equipment (Question No. 4177)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Did the Commonwealth Fire Board in 1965 develop an adaptor forjoiningfire hose couplings used in the Territories and the 4 Eastern States.
  2. At what stage between his answers to me on 19th September 1968 (Hansard, page 1357) and to the honourable member for Boothby on 19th August 1971 (Hansard, page 396) was the decision made, for financial reasons, to defer the implementation of this adaptor.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Yes, however, this adaptor is unsatisfactory for the threaded forms of couplings used in South

Australia, and Launceston, Tasmania. Also it is not suitable for connecting to the British Instantaneous Coupling, which is not a threaded coupling. The British Instantaneous Coupling is used in Western Australia and is also fitted to mobile appliances used by the Department of Civil Aviation and the Services Departments throughout Australia and by the Northern Territory Fire Brigade.

  1. In view of the non-uniformity of couplings in use throughout Australia and with the knowledge of the difficulties of obtaining finance for standardisation of such equipment, the Commonwealth Fire Board did not continue to press their proposals to achieve standardisation throughout the Country by the use of this adaptor.

The matter of financial assistance was not raised by the Commonwealth Fire Board during the period 19th September 1968 to 19th August 1971.

Poultry Industry Levy (Question No. 4282)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Why did the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia recommend that hens kept for commercial purposes in the Northern Territory should be exempt from the levy imposed under the Poultry Industry Levy Act.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

When making the recommendation for exemption from the hen levy of hens in the Northern Territory the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia (C.E.M.A.) gave no reasons for its recommendation. However, the C.E.M.A. was aware that the Australian Agricultural Council (A.A.C.) had accepted that the Northern Territory should be exempted from the levy. The principal reasons why the A.A.C. considered exemption should be provided for the Territory were that the cost of administering the collection of the levy in the Territory would be greater than the amount of levy collected, that the Territory produced very few eggs and in fact was a substantial importer from the States and that in the interests of the overall development of the Territory no steps should be taken which could result in discouraging the possible development of an industry needed by the Territory. Constitutionally, it is possible to exempt hens kept in a Territory whereas it is not possible to exempt hens kept in a State or part of a State.

Child Welfare (Question No. 4338)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of Ministers concerned with child welfare since March 1970 (Hansard, 13th October 1970, page 2082, 9th March 1971, page 750 and 29th September 1971 page 1698).
  2. What has been the outcome of each meeting.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. The State Ministers concerned with Child Welfare held their Second Annual Conference in Hobart from 15th to 18th March 1971.
  2. See my answer to Question No. 2971, paragraph 2 (Hansard, 17th August 1971, page 169).

Pine Gap Facility: Injured Workers’ Compensation (Question No. 4315)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

  1. It is a fact that from time to time employees at the Commonwealth establishment at Pine Gap have received injuries that have arisen out of or in the course of their employment.
  2. If so, have these injuries given rise to claims for workers’ compensation and delays occurred because insurance companies which have to consider these claims have had difficulty in obtaining permission for their claims assessors to enter Pine Gap.
  3. What procedures have to be followed before an insurance company claims assessor is permitted to enter Pine Gap.
  4. What is the average period of time that elapses between receipt of a request by an insurance claims assessor to enter Pine Gap and his being given permission to enter.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Employees have occasionally been injured during their employment at Pine Gap.
  2. These injuries have given rise to workers’ compensation claims which have been raised and processed. There has been only one occasion when an insurance assessor wished to conduct his interviews on site, in March of this year. On that occasion, witnesses were interviewed by arrangement at the Pine Gap check point. The injured worker was at that time in hospital. A company representative took the insurance assessor to the hospital to interview the injured man and offered to show him in the Facility’s town office an item of furniture identical to the one which was claimed to be a factor in the injury. This offer was declined as being neither important nor necessary.
  3. If an insurance company claims assessor wishes to conduct inquiries at the Facility, he should ask the local management of the firm concerned to obtain permission for the visit. Arrangements will then be made by the Australian Defence Representative for the assessor to have the necessary access to interview witnesses and to make relevant inspections.
  4. As there has been only the one case which is referred to above, an ‘average period of time’ would not be particularly meaningful. In normal circumstances, it can be expected that a visit would take place in about an hour after the request was made. If the equipment were in certain parts of the research building to which access could not readily be permitted, it would take a little longer to make the necessary arrangements.

Nuclear Power (Question No. 3575)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether (a) official United States Atomic Energy Commission estimates for 1,000

MW (e) Light Water Reactors constructed in North America during the period 1969- 197 5 would he approximately $US246m, including 7i per cent escalation, interest during construction and very high labour charges, (b) a recent report by the Reactor Assessment Panel of the Edison Electric Institute gives an estimated capital cost of a twin unit Light Water Reactor power station of 2300 MW commissioned in 197S of approximately SUS220 per KW, including all client’s charges and escalation and (c) similar costs obtain iii Europe for Light Water Power Reactors.

  1. Is it a fact that the 500 MW power reactor which was considered for Jervis Bay was estimated to cost approximately $US230m including all client’s charges and escalation.

    1. If so, does this represent a capital cost of approximately SUS460 per KW.
    2. Would this capital cost be considered acceptable to. the Government in the light of experience by responsible overseas authorities in the nuclear field.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1. (a) and (b) The figures quoted by the honourable member for the cost of light water reactor plants erected in the USA as estimated by the USAEC are as published. They nevertheless need considerable qualification and in any case are now out of date. Great care must be exercised in applying common ‘ground rules’ in comparing such costs. For example in contrast with the estimates quoted by the honourable member, it has been reported that Jersey Central Power and Light’s 1140 MW Forked River nuclear power station originally scheduled for 1976 operation will cost $345/kW - but we do not know on what ‘ground rules’ this was calculated.

The more important ‘ground rules’ are:

Timing

Both the USAEC and the Edison Electric Institute estimates were made in respect of plants on which construction might be started in 1969 and completed in 1975. The USAEC added that if construction were to be commenced a year later an additional cost of $20 million would be involved. Even so at the time of providing these estimates the sudden and unexpectedly large increase in prices of nuclear power stations which have since occurred could nut have been foreseen. In this connection I would remind the honourable member that the tenders for the Jervis Bay Project were submitted on the understanding that actual construction would not commence until late 1971 or early 1972.

Fuel Charge

The American estimates did not include the initial fuel charge.

Site Costs and Owner’s Costs

The USAEC estimates are based on somewhat ideal hypothetical sites. In practice very few sites having such ideal qualities are available and substantial additional costs are normally incurred. External costs necessarily incurred by the owner in the form of providing road or water access, power, water., housing and amenities are also excluded by USAEC.

Size

The cost per kilowatt for nuclear power stations decreases with size at much greater rate than is the case with conventional stations. Thus it is invalid to compare costs per kilowatt of 500 megawatt and 1,000 megawatt units or in the case of the Edison Electric estimate with 2 units of 1,150 megawatts which would share the common costs relating to siting, cooling water, etc.

There is a further consideration which perhaps should not be considered under the heading of ground rules’. It is that tenders for construction of nuclear power stations in industrially developed countries which have already had experience in constructing nuclear stations (e.g. North America, Europe and Japan) are likely to be lower than for construction in a country where no nuclei r industrial expertise has been developed. In the latter case tenderers are likely to make larger loadings for contingencies.

  1. Numerous figures have been published recently for European nuclear plants but without a statement of what has been included, those are quite meaningless. I have been given to understand that the cost of European stations would be about the same as those in the USA - possibly a little lower - if estimated under the same ‘ground rules’. 2, 3 and 4. As no tender has been accepted, I do not propose to release any information on the prices tendered. Had a final choice been made the Government would in the normal course of events have made available the cost figures for the chosen system. I would nevertheless hope that from what has been said above the honourable member realises that simple comparisons of what might have been the cost per KW for the Jervis Bay project and unqualified out of da’s cost estimates based on American experience can be quite misleading.

Search Subsidies (Question No. 4170)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

What are the estimated (a) gross returns and (b) profits, not excluding sums spent on promotion and lobbying, for each company which has received search subsidies in each of the past 10 years, and what were the total subsidies (i) paid and (ii) committed in each case.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member on gross returns and profits is not available in a reasonably accessible form. Information on petroleum search subsidies paid or committed over the last 10 years is provided in the attachment.

Oil Exploration Incentive Scheme (Question No. 4261)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Will he confirm, as reported in the Financial Review of 2 1st September 1971, that the review of the oil exploration incentive scheme (Hansard, 9th September 1971, page 997) will be made by an interdepartmental committee comprising the Treasury, the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

It is not the usual practice to disclose the composition of interdepartmental committees and consequently I am unable to provide the information sought in the honourable member’s question.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711014_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant