House of Representatives
27 October 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2565

PETITIONS

Refugees: Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

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

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

We therefore urge the Honourable Members to:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Monetary Aid for Pakistani Refugees

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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

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 $5m 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.

Trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

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

Petition received.

Trial of Shiekh Mujibur Rahman

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · CORANGAMITE, 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.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least$10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

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 undersignedrespectfully 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.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10m immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing, as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are 8 million people, many of them helpless children, affected.

We have matched our words by deeds with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley, Victoria.

Now we ask The Government to:

Give immediate aid of at least $10m to help relieve the suffering.

Take the necessary diplomatic steps to seek a political solution.

Urge the United Nations to make a more effective effort to intervene on behalf of these stricken people.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr STREET:
LP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least $10m immediately even if this entails reducing 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.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr BROWN:

-I present the following petition:

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

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

increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least $10m immediately even if this entails reducing 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.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr STALEY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least$10m immediately even if this entails reducing 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.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively 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 grant income tax deductions for donations over $2 made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should undeline 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 271 P« cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into Une with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, 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 271 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened wilh inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, il implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Lock-Kimba Pipe Line

Mr WALLIS:

– 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 electors of Grey respectfully sheweth:

That strong resentment exists amongst members of the Kimba district and surrounding areas at the failure of the Federal Government to assist financially with the construction of the LockKimba pipe line in South Australia.

Failure to have the pipe line constructed in the shortest possible time could place many farmers in the area in a position that will make it impossible 10 diversify their activities into more viable areas of rural production. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Federal Government re-examine its decision in order that the completion of the LockKimba pipe line can be expedited and by doing so alleviate the hardships experienced in the area by lack of an available and reticulated water supply. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2569

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is leaving Australia today to visit the United States and Britain for discussions with President Nixon and Mr Heath on matters of mutual concern. Mr McMahon is expected to return to Australia in the middle of November. During his absence I shall be Acting Prime Minister.

page 2569

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT OVERSEAS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to answer this question. Will the Acting Prime Minister enlighten us, as indeed the Prime Minister has failed to enlighten the nation, as to what are the specific purposes of the Prime Minister’s trip to the United States and the United Kingdom other than window dressing for party political purposes? What can the Prime Minister do about Nixonomics and the European Common Market that his Treasurer and indeed the Deputy Prime Minister have failed to do in their recent journeys’? Will the Prime Minister emulate his Foreign Minister by making a naive and nationally damaging election speech in New York? Will he bring back with him a hastily drawn up FI 12 contract? Will he disabuse our minds of the suspicion that the journey is being undertaken so that the Prime Minister may escape the scrutiny of this House for 3 of the relatively few weeks that the House sits.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I think this is a very shabby question and it is not the sort of question that one would expect in this House when the Prime Minister is leaving on what I think is one of the most important prime ministerial trips ever made from this country. This trip is made at a time of great decision making all around the world. I believe it is an honour, firstly, that Australia should have been invited to have its Prime Minister go to Washington for personal and private discussions with the President of the United States prior to the President’s visit to Peking and Moscow. I believe it is essential that the President and our Prime Minister should have the closest possible relations and a warm understanding of their mutual approach to international problems. At a time when the People’s Republic of China has now been accepted into the United Nations there will be much thinking to be done. A time when Britain is about to make a decision on whether she will enter the European Economic Community is certainly a time when our Prime Minister ought to be having discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I would hope that during the time the Prime Minister is overseas he will have the wholehearted support of the Australian people in wishing him well in looking after Australia’s interests both now and in the future.

page 2570

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Was the insistence of Taiwan that there should be no division of the Chinese nation an important factor in the great discrepancy between the for and against votes on the final resolution from Albania? Secondly, would the Minister agree with the suggestion that if this had not been insisted upon by Taiwan, or is not insisted upon in the future, an opportunity would still exist for Taiwan’s membership of the United Nations?

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

– Dealing with the first part of the honourable member’s question, although I have discussed this matter with a very large number of delegates in New York it would be very hard to make a judgement about the influence on the votes of particular members of the United Nations of the fact that the Republic of Taiwan did not feel it was in a position to say -

Mr Whitlam:

– That is its new name, is it?

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

-I mean, the Republic of China. Thank you for correcting me. The Republic of China on Taiwan did not announce whether in the event of one form of motion being carried it would adopt one course or another in remaining in. lt is possible this did have an effect on some of the votes. On the other band it is difficult to say whether it did or not. I would say 2 things in relation to the second part of the question. On the important question motion, which we co-sponsored, and which got priority over the Albanian motion for a vote, it was provided, as honourable members will recall, that any motion which would invovle the expulsion of any member would be an important question requiring a two-thirds majority to pass.

It has been suggested that Australia may in some way have been out of step with other countries in this area: nothing could be further from the truth. Joining with us in voting in favour of the important question motion were Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Cambodia and Japan. I appreciate that Malaysia and Singapore did not join us, but they have a particular problem with their indigenous Chinese population which we fully understand. It would be ridiculous to suggest, after the conversations which I had with the Foreign Ministers of the nations in our area, that Australia was in that respect in any way out of step with other nations in this area. Nevertheless, when the vote was going against that important question motion there was, one could say, a movement of votes during the course of this debate on Monday night in the United Nations to join those who were voting in favour of the Albanian motion. This resulted in a 76 to 35 majority for the Albanian motion, as honourable members are aware. As to whether it is possible, as the honourable member for Angas has suggested, that there will be some future initiative, I am not in a position to express an opinion. But that was the record of events as they occurred on those 2 motions.

page 2570

QUESTION

GUNN RESOURCES AND EXPLORATION INCORPORATED

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. The right honourable gentleman will recall that a week ago the Minister for the Interior promised to seek the advice of the AttorneyGeneral on the flotation in the United States of America of Gunn Resources and Exploration Incorporated, a company which will take over 5 northern Australian pastoral properties and to which Australians will not be able to subscribe. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Cabinet has yet considered the advice of the AttorneyGeneral and, if so, what action the Government has decided to take. Further, is it appropriate for a member of the Reserve Bank Board, which must, as part of its charter, operate in such a manner as to ensure the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia, to be directly involved in selling off Australian land through 1,700 salesmen operating in a manner which would be approved by no stock exchange in Australia? As this float clearly comes under the guidelines for overseas investment laid down in 1963 by the then Treasurer, Mr Harold Holt, and administered by the Reserve Bank, will the right honourable gentleman ensure that the Attorney-General also reports on the position of Sir William Gunn on the Reserve Bank Board sitting in judgment on applications from Gunn Resources and Exploration Incorporated?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I recall that the Minister for the Interior was asked this question last week and that he said he would refer it to the Attorney-General. I do not know what has come out of that reference, but T do know that approval has been given for Australians to purchase these shares Exchange control approval has been given. So anybody wanting to buy these shares, which will be floated in America, may do so. Previously I expressed great disappointment that Australians might be restricted from participating in the float of this company, but this exchange approval will enable interested people to be able to do so. It is somewhat in error to say that large portions of northern Australia are being sold. The properties in the Northern Territory are leasehold properties. Some of the leases have SO years to run and some have shorter terms.

Of the 220 pastoral properties in the Northern Territory 45 have some overseas content in their ownership. What one must recognise is that 74 per cent of them are held by Australians. Of the other 26 per cent some have a foreign content in their ownership. Seventeen per cent of them are owned wholly by overseas people. Of that 17 per cent 10 per cent are held by British interests, 6.3 per cent by American interests and 1.2 per cent by Asian interests. I do not think any of us welcome seeing Australian companies or land being sold to overseas interests. I certainly would not want to see the practice encouraged. I would much rather see Australians holding as much Australian land as possible. If one happens to visit the Northern Territory one will find that the issue is not the emotional one that we hear so much about in southern parts of Australia. Indeed, the people of northern Australia have some experience of what foreign capital has done. Many of the pastoral properties in the Northern Territory are in dire need of capital to develop them fully. Where foreign money has come in it has helped to develop these properties and has given the progress that has been wanting there for many years. The people in the Northern Territory recognise this and appreciate it. Many of the overseas personnel, both British and American, who have come there have become extremely good citizens. Indeed, they have become Australian citizens after a period of time.

page 2571

QUESTION

PORNOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Education and Science seen 2 publications, one named ‘Family Issue of Tharunka’, the journal of the University of New South Wales Students Union, with a printed copy of an alleged letter of congratulations from Professor Myers, the Vice-Chancellor and Principal, and the other a booklet ‘Sex’ with the imprint U.N.S.W. July 1971’? Will the Minister agree that these publications contain the most vile, disgusting and degrading pornographic material one could imagine? Is the Minister aware that they were sold or distributed at the university to young students of both sexes? Is it a fact that the cost of production of these 2 publications amounted to $930 and was paid for by the funds from the Students Union, which is subsidised by this Government? Will the Minister discuss this matter with the State Ministers for Education to see that appropriate action is taken against those responsible and that the discipline of the universities is strengthened to prevent a repetition of such deplorable conduct?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen some part of the journals in question.

Sir John Cramer:

– Here they are. You can have a look at them.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for the offer. I will at an appropriate time discuss the matter with my State colleagues. Putting it in perhaps different words, 1 would certainly agree with the honourable member that much of what is in those journals is unnecessary and I can understand people being very greatly disturbed by their contents. There is no direct Commonwealth subsidy which supports them. They are in part supported by funds from the Students Union and to the extent that there are compulsory fees attached to membership of the Students

Union those fees are paid by the Commonwealth for holders of Commonwealth scholarships and so that is the only area in which there could be said to be any Commonwealth support or Commonwealth link in support of those journals.

I think it needs to be emphasised that the people principally responsible in university areas are the universities themselves and if there is a matter that goes beyond university responsibility or if there is something beyond the control of the universities, then for the State universities it is the State laws which basically apply. For the Australian Capital Territory, of course, it is a matter that is within the Commonwealth’s province; but I think it should be pointed out that students are subject to the same laws as are all other citizens in this area. I would strongly support any action that might be taken by those responsible for the administration of laws relating to obscene publications, if those laws had been infringed, to see whether there was any possibility of a conviction. But the action would not be action taken by the Commonwealth, it would be taken by the States.

page 2572

QUESTION

AID TO EAST PAKISTAN

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it true that Australian aid to East Pakistan has been seriously depleted by substantial freight charges on aid being shipped to that country? Is the Minister aware of the offer by the South Australian Branch of the Seamen’s Union of Australia to man ships without pay to transport relief aid to that country? Is the Government prepared to accept this generous humane offer, and if so, will the Government approach the Australian National Line and other Australian shipping companies to see whether they will make ships available free of charge for that purpose?

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

– Dealing with the first part of the honourable member’s question, I think that this aspect of the payment of freight is getting somewhat out of perspective. Where allocations are made, as Australia and other countries have made them, out of funds allocated to the Food Aid Convention there is a rule that they have to be f.o.b. the country making them. We cannot, as it were, deduct the freight and give a lesser amount. A country gives its aid and it is f.o.b. It could make-

Mr Morrison:

– You are quite wrong.

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

– If the honourable member wants to hear the answer it would be better if he remained silent. It would be possible for any country to make a cash gift in respect of freight in addition. I just say that as far as Food Aid Convention material is concerned, this was an allocation in respect of East Pakistan made by Australia where normally the country concerned would bear the freight. In this case they asked the United Nations to bear the cost of freight and the United Nations took it up. I will later be making a statement on this subject and I do not think I want to develop further that part of the honourable member’s question.

As to the offer of the South Australian branch of the Seamen’s Union to man ships free of charge for the carriage of supplies to the affected area, I understand that such a telegram has been sent to my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise. I think it is a very generous offer and it reflects the humanitarian feeling that is in the Australian people, extending throughout the whole spectrum of political belief, and I welcome it. However, I would just point out that at the present time with the carriage of rice we have been endeavouring, in conjunction with the United Nations, to make the best possible financial arrangements. One ship, the ‘Un.:…. Maru’ has been loaded, and negotiations are in progress to obtain another ship. As honourable members can imagine, we have been looking for ways in which to effect the best possible savings so that the aid goes as far as it can possibly be made to go. In view of this offer we will have a look at the matter to see whether it is possible to accept it. It would, as it were, allow these people to give vent to their idealistic approach to this problem. But it will be a matter for those in authority who have the responsibility for getting the aid to the affected areas to weigh the expenses involved and to give me advice on the matter. But I appreciate the offer, and I will certainly give it close consideration.

page 2572

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in yesterday’s Press, written by the General Manager of the Pastoral Division of Dalgety (Aust.) Ltd, in which he stated, inter alia:

The statement made by Dr Patterson that Dalgety would receive $600,000 under the wool deficiency payments scheme in respect of wool produced on its own properties is so grossly inaccurate that it should be corrected.

He went to say:

Deficiency payments made to the company will be only a fraction of those stated by Dr Patterson.

Finally, will the Minister assure the House that the assistance given to the wool industry will not be subjected to a means test as advocated by the Australian Labor Party, any more than is assistance given to the sugar, wheat and other primary industries?

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

– As the House will know, the scheme which was introduced to provide assistance to the wool industry this year is termed a price support scheme. It is designed in that manner because it is intended to increase the price payable to growers to that which it would reasonably be expected might have been payable in the market place during the current wool selling season. In fact, because of events which have interposed - predominantly the 10 per cent import surcharge imposed by the United States of America, but also uncertainty about currency valuations around the world and some slackness in recovery in the general textile field - the market has not reached the expected point. It is true that as a result of the introduction of the wool price support scheme a higher level of prices will be paid to growers than they would have been able to command without that price support scheme. Certainly the position also has been improved because of the active support of the Australian Wool Commission in the market place.

But the Government’s intention in introducing the scheme was that assistance should be available equally to all wool growers. They are all in difficult circumstances. I think that the letter to which the honourable member’s question referred drew attention to the particular problems of the stud industry. I think that of all the sections of the merino sheep industry in Australia at the moment which are hurt by the decline in wool prices, none is more seriously hurt than are the stud breeders. Dalgetys, amongst other companies, has quite a number of stud properties. These stud properties are the source of the best breeding stock from which the high quality of the Australian merinos has emanated. It is tremendously important that these studs should not go out of commercial operation. I am told that in many instances sales by studs have dropped alarmingly. If we were to follow the suggestion that was promoted by members of the Opposition, the consequence would be that many of these studs would be denied a reasonable share of the wool price support scheme. For those reasons the Government does not intend to change the scheme which it has introduced in the form to which the honourable member addressed himself.

page 2573

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr CALWELL:

– I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question of great national importance.

Mr James:

– Is this question a Dorothy Dixer?

Mr CALWELL:

– No. it is not. I ask the right honourable gentleman the following question: In view of the report of the Commonwealth Statistician that the census held in June last shows that Western Australia is now entitled to an increase in its representation in this House from 9 to 10 will he arrange for the Government to give early consideration (a) to a redistribution of the seats of this House before the next election; (b) to an increase in the number of seats for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory respectively from 1 to 2; and (c) to the passage of the necessary legislation to permit citizens of 18, 19 and 20 years of age to be enrolled as citizens of the Commonwealth before the next election? Secondly, will he arrange for the Minister for the Interior to make a statement, as soon as possible on the effect which the extension of the franchise to 18, 19 and 20 year olds will have on the numbers enrolled in each of the 125 electoral divisions represented in this House?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The right honourable member for Melbourne is correct when he said that the recent census showed an imbalance in Western Australia and that conditions were such as would enable a redistribution to take place there. However it is not normal for there to be a complete redistribution of Federal electorates because of an imbalance in one State. Generally when an imbalance appears in a number of States after a period of years a redistribution is carried out. I should think that there is no likelihood of a redistribution being undertaken before any possible election, the present timing of the election being about the end of next year. To carry out a redistribution is a lengthy process requiring at least 1 8 months notice for a Government to be able to do it satisfactorily. In those circumstances it is most unlikely that the Government would contemplate a redistribution.

page 2574

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Minister for Customs and Excise to the report on indigenous crude oil by Sir Leslie Melville which has been tabled in the Parliament. Is it a fact that the report indicates that the price proposed to be charged for the refining of indigenous crude oil by local refiners is above that which could be considered fair and reasonable? Is the Government concerned that, following this report, the price at present agreed for various grades of petrol could be open to question? Does the Government intend to take any action to ensure that Australians are supplied with petrol at a price fair to both supplier and consumer?

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

– I think it is important to realise the context in which Sir Leslie Melville wrote in his report which I tabled yesterday. It was in consequence of a statement which I made in this House on 7th September to solve one particular problem that was flowing from the Government’s indigenous oil policy which states basically that oil found in Australia will be refined in Australia. Notwithstanding that requirement, there were marketers who were importing petrol with no refinery capacity in Austraia. It had been reported to me by at least one of these marketers who did not have a refinery that such marketers could not conclude a satisfactory refining deal with the present refiners. Under the terms of the policy I am obliged not to give an export licence unless all negotiations are exhausted. In that context, rather than the Government or myself making an arbitrary judgment the Government decided to appoint an arbiter who would fix a fair and reasonable price in those circumstances, bearing in mind the offer already made and the fact that the marketers did not have a refinery. So I believe that in the general context Sir Leslie’s report cannot be seen nakedly as a report on what can be a fair and reasonable price of refining per se but on what is a fair and reasonable price of refining in these rather peculiar circumstances. The report has gone to the people negotiating. I believe it would be quite improper at this stage for me, as the Minister administering the indigenous oil policy, to make any comment on the report, because the purpose of the report was to get the parties together to negotiate. I think that any comment from myself as Minister at this stage could prejudice those negotiations between the 2 parties. But I commend the report to the attention of honourable members and ask them to read it in the light of the circumstances which I have just described.

page 2574

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I desire to address a question to the Treasurer. In his recent discussions overseas on international monetary arrangements did he indicate any firm views as far as Australia was concerned on the following matters: Increases in special drawing rights and their allocation; international capital movements; floating exchange rates, dirty or clean; the price of gold; and the American surcharge on imports? Further, in his discussions with Japanese authorities in particular did he contemplate the making of separate exchange arrangements with that country either generally or for trade separately and with particular attention to wool? Finally, does he agree that there may be some inconsistency in the view of the Department of Primary Industry that wool is undervalued on world markets and the lack of any clear indication on the part of the Treasury as to the future value of Australian currency internationally and again in particular as compared with the yen?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I propose to make a statement to the House, hopefully tomorrow, in relation lo the totality of the discussions I have had and on the international monetary situation. But I will take the opportunity now to answer these specific points, which I will do in shorthand because it is question time and I do not want to take too much time. So far as special drawing rights are concerned, we indicated that we supported an examination through the International Monetary Fund to increase use of them, but we did point out that we do not believe that there should be an abandonment of the present world monetary system with all the benefits it has given over the last quarter of a century until we really know what would be the benefits and how they could be sustained through an SDR or international currency system. As to capital movements, I made it clear wherever I went that any solution to the international monetary problem should be on the basis that it did not restrict the freedom of the international movement of capital especially to the developing countries but also to developed countries.

As to floating of currencies, we expressed the view that we wanted a quick settlement to the international monetary problem because if it were not quickly settled it would be likely to have a depressing effect on world trade, and world trade is the basis of world prosperity. We therefore did not condemn floating, either dirty or clean. These 2 words are used just in a slang way and are quite misleading. As to the price of gold, we made it clear that what we were looking for was a settlement of the problem and that if a settlement of the problem involved an increase in the price of gold we would not object to it; but it was not for us to tell the countries how to solve the problem we could make suggestions but it was for them to find a solution quickly.

Mr Hurford:

– Have we no interests?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We are holders of gold but we are not such big holders of gold that it will be a windfall advantage to us of such dimensions that we would put that interest above a solution to the world problem, which is far more important. We made it clear that the surcharge was in danger of dampening world trade and prosperity and was a trade weapon that we wanted to see eliminated as soon as possible.

As to the other question about whether we made any separate arrangements or indicated to Japan separate arrangements for parities between Australia and Japan, the answer is, no we did not. We emphasised the need for a multilateral solution. I now reiterate that it is in Australia’s interests not to take any long term decisions until a multilateral solution is reached, for if we did we would be taking a decision in the dark that would not be in the interests of the economy or the people of Australia. We will be taking a decision in the interests of the people of Australia when all of the circumstances are known to us. I will extend my remarks on these matters when I make a statement.

page 2575

TAXATION

MrDRURY - My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to a question I addressed to the Treasurer on 28th April last in which I asked whether the Government had considered making an overall review of our whole tax structure for the purpose of simplifying present taxation law, removing anomalies, improving methods of assessment and streamlining administration, particularly as many years have elapsed since the last complete review took place. I now ask the Treasurer: What progress has been made in this direction during the past 6 months?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Some progress has been made, but I must tell the honourable gentleman that not enough progress has been made either to warrant me making any statement about it, or alternatively to satisfy me as to the progress because this is something whichneeds to be looked at closely. The honourable gentleman will be aware that this is a very complex and technical area and I am bound to say that the people who can discharge this function adequately with the qualities and experience needed are not easy to find and they are at present under very considerable strain.

The honourable gentleman will remember that we are going to introduce legislation arising out of the Casuarina case and arising out of the dividend stripping case and what has happened there. Also there have been some quite marked changes in tax legislation in Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom. We have that aspect under examination also. I think that one of the prime objectives that we must have in our minds is to make the tax structure as equitable as possible. That will be a primary objective. As the investigation continues I will keep the honourable gentleman informed and I hope that it will not be too long before I can make a broader indication of what the progress is.

page 2576

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister about the report from the Ministerial Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights which the Prime Minister established in May. Has that Committee recommended that land should be granted to Aborigines only when in the opinion of the Government it will be put to economic use, and then only on a leasehold basis? Is this recommendation at variance with the view of the Commonwealth Council for Aboriginal Affairs and the Office of Aboriginal Affairs that Aboriginals should be granted full title to land in the Northern Territory on the basis of traditional occupancy? I ask: Which approach has the Government decided to take on these conflicting views in the light of the Prime Minister’s undertaking on 23rd April that he would implement a policy ‘ensuring to continuing Aboriginal groups effective access to land for recreational and ceremonial purposes as well as for the development of enterprises’?

Mr Anthony:

– I ask the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts to answer this question.

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

– As the Prime Minister has informed the House, he referred these matters to the Council of Ministers and the Council is still examining it. When the Ministers finish their examination and the Prime Minister has received their report he will make the due announcement to the House.

page 2576

QUESTION

POST OFFICE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. The statement made yesterday by him advising the House of adjustments to his original intention regarding reorganisation of telecommunications is appreciated. 1 now ask: Is any reorganisation of the postal section of his Department contemplated and, if so, can he give any information in regard to it?

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

– When I made my first statement to the House on 16th September indicating the area management concept and principle I did indicate that consideration was being given to something similar in terms of the postal services, separated from the telecommunications area. I have since had a look at this aspect and I have come to the personal conclusion that there would not be the same justification for area management in the postal services area as there is in the telecommunications area. I have therefore indicated to my Department that while it may prepare a report, it must be submitted to me and I will make a decision as to whether it should be submitted to Cabinet before any action is taken in the postal services area.

page 2576

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr ENDERBY:

– My question to the Acting Prime Minister arises out of a question asked a short time ago by the right honourable member for Melbourne which the Acting Prime Minister did not answer in full. Is it a fact that approximately 18 months ago the then Prime Minister made a statement that the Australian Capital Territory was ready for a second seat? Is it also a fact that, at about the same time, but on a different occasion, the then Minister for the Interior made a similar statement? Has the population of the Australian Capital Territory increased by approximately 20.000 since that time? Were the statements made by the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for the Interior correct or incorrect? Will the right honourable gentleman tell the House when the Australian Capital Territory will have a second member in this House?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I am not aware of any comments or statements made by earlier Prime Ministers or the Minister for the Interior in relation to this matter. I would have thought that the honourable member would be satisfied with having one seat, rather than having two. Even though the Canberra population is increasing rapidly, I doubt whether it has yet reached the numbers which would justify a second seat for the A.C.T. particularly in view of the size of some other electorates. No doubt the time will come when more than one seat will be necessary in the Australian Capital Territory but I do not believe that time has yet arrived and 1 do not think that this would be a matter for consideration until we are looking at the question of perhaps a bigger Parliament and more members of the House.

page 2577

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise and is supplementary to a question asked earlier. In his report Sir Leslie Melville touches briefly on the fact that the independent marketers want to sell only in the easy and profitable metropolitan areas and do not intend to carry the cost burden of distributing to country areas. When considering this case will the Minister give particular attention to the point raised by the refiners that the independent marketers should, in justice, be required to accept some penalty for avoiding their responsibilities in this way?

Mr CHIPP:
LP

– I do not know that I understand the honourable gentleman’s question correctly. My understanding of what Sir Leslie said was that the prices set in city and country areas were not in accordance with distribution costs. The honourable member went on to say that there did not seem to be proper accounting methods used when determining prices for bulk sales against other kinds of sales and so on. I think the inference was that the city price was higher than it need be in relation to the country price and that the independent marketers, those who do not have refineries, choose to sell their petrol in that area where the price is higher and distribution costs are lower. In reply to the latter part of the question, now that Sir Leslie Melville, an independent arbiter of impeccable authority and ability, has investigated the industry I would hope that the parties involved - the marketers and the refiners - would be able to come to some arrangement in regard to refining in which case the Government on that issue at least would not necessarily need to intervene. This matter will come to the Government only if the negotiations break down, at which point we would be asked to grant an export licence to independent marketers who will be forced to take up their share of the Bass Strait indigenous crude oil and who are at the present time precluded from exporting because of Government policy.

page 2577

QUESTION

VIETNAM: RETURN OF FORCES

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army. Is it a fact that Western Australian soldiers returning from Vietnam have to pay the difference between the rail and air fare from Sydney to Perth if they want to fly directly home to their families, the amount being about $60? Is it also a fact that it takes at least 3 days by train from Sydney to Perth and that often there is difficulty in getting a booking? Is it also a fact that sergeants and officers of higher rank travel first class while the rank and file travel second class? Is it correct that when inducted into the Army these men travelled by aeroplane from Perth to Melbourne? If so, why cannot arrangements be made to have them flown back to Perth on their return to Australia? Will the Minister arrange for aeroplane travel from Sydney to Perth in future so that Western Australian soldiers will not be disadvantaged, particularly in view of the question asked in this place the other day requesting that these men be brought back home in time for Christmas Day?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member will be aware of the policy behind the movement of Army personnel. I have previously answered questions in this House on the question of travel by train and about those who opt to travel by plane, and also the manner in which this is done. The honourable member will also be aware that I have before me representations by himself and others in relation to this matter. As to the latter part of the question, in regard to the return of personnel of the 4th Battalion in particular who some think may be arriving at Townsville and so will be unable to reach Western Australia by Christmas Day, I have directed my Department to ensure so far as possible that all servicemen in Vietnam who are scheduled to return to Australia before Christmas and who live in other than the eastern States be returned by air and that the difficulty mentioned in both the correspondence and in the latter part of the question asked by the honourable member will not be faced. As to whether this is completely practicable I do not know, but I know, prima facie at this stage, that it is highly likely that the disadvantages referred to by the honourable member will not be experienced by those who are to return to Australia before Christmas Day.

page 2578

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Mr Act ing Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Dr PATTERSON:

-I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) in a question that he asked. He quoted from a newspaper but in part only a letter allegedly written by Dalgety (Aust.) Ltd which claimed that my statement that the firm would receive $600,000 under the wool deficiency payments scheme was incorrect. My point now is that Dalgetys, for which firm the honourable member acts as if he were possibly some kind of agent, has denied that it will receive this amount of money. Although not specifically saying so it implied, from the number of sheep that it referred to, that it would get about$200,000. My figures were based on the total number of sheep owned directly and indirectly by Dalgetys, including the sheep, or the wool from them, owned by thousands of wool growers on which that firm has a first lien or mortgage and in respect of which it is therefore, under the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1971, entitled to the subsidy paid to those producers.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The honourable member has claimed to have been misrepresented and it is the practice of the House to give an honourable member the opportunity to point out where he has been misrepresented. At this stage I feel that the honourable member for Dawson is seeking to make a speech in order to explain the misrepresentation.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I do not wish to make a speech.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The point I am trying to make is that in making his personal explanation the honourable member for Dawson should not develop it into a speech on the subject. He should limit himself strictly to a particular comment.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I refer again to the Dorothy Dix question which was asked by a member of the Country Party. It is here that I was misrepresented in the Parliament. There is only one way to settle this matter. I challenge Dalgety’s to produce to me its books of account showing the Dumber of sheep it owns and the first liens it has on wool sales throughout Australia. If I am in error in what I have said I will have no hesitation in admitting the error, but if Dalgetys does not produce to me its books of account I can only presume that what I said and the data and sources from which I have secured my information are correct.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I do. I was misrepresented by the Minister for External Territories last night. When replying in the debate on the estimates for the Department of External Territories the Minister distorted a remark which I had made. He had this to say and I quote from Hansard:

The honourable member for Chifley made a most extraordinary statement. He said that he went up there- referring to New Guinea - recently for the first time in 8 years and the only change he noticed was a change in the racial problem.

If the Minister had listened more carefully, and I would suggest that he check with Hansard, he would know that what I actually said was this

Having recently visited Papua New Guinea after an absence of 8 years I expected to see great change. However, unfortunately my impression of the greatest change was the dramatic growth in racialism and I left the Territory very concerned. . .

That is quite a different thing. I referred, for example, in my speech, to the Technological Institute, but the Minister thought there was something wrong with my eyesight and I had not seen it. I want to make it quite clear that a change in the racial problem was one of the changes I saw, and it was one of the greatest changes.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes. In the course of a reply to a question the Minister for Primary Industry said that members of the Opposition in a debate on the wool subsidy scheme had opposed assistance to studs.

Mr Armitage:

– Studs?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, to merino studs particularly. In the course of my submission to the House on that occasion I made a specific appeal for the continuation of private merino studs, and this was rejected. To suggest that members of the Opposition - and I was the second speaker on that occasion - had done otherwise is completely wrong and the Minister should apologise.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, many times, and I take a point on this issue. 1 appreciate, Mr Acting Speaker, that you were not abie to be in the chamber during the debate on this matter, but a question was asked this afternoon dealing with an amount of money which is likely to go to Dalgety’s as a result of the measure that was debated in this House. I claim to have been misrepresented on the basis that I raised this matter with the Prime Minister about a week before the introduction of the Bill. 1 will come to my point, Mr Acting Speaker, if you are getting a little anxious. The Prime Minister refused to answer the question. It was then taken up by his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, but he was unable to inform this House whether my allegation was true. Tt is true.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Armitage:

– You are out of order.

Mr FOSTER:

– Who is out of order?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you for telling me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt recognise the Standing Orders of this House.

Mr FOSTER:

– I have done so.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has made his personal explanation and is now seeking to debate the subject matter. He has gone beyond the bounds of a personal explanation.

page 2579

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

Pursuant to section 14 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1933-1966, I present the thirty-eighth report (1971) and supplement of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on applications made by States for financial assistance under section 96 of the Constitution.

page 2579

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962-1966, I present the eighth annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements. The interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 7th September 1971.

page 2579

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

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

– Pursuant to section 11 of the Commonwealth Polic Act 1957-1966, I present the annual report of the Commissioner of Police on the operation of the Commonwealth Police Force and summary of its activities for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2579

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966-1970

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

– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966- 1970, I present the fourth annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2579

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

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

– I move:

The reason for introducing this motion at this time is that a number of Bills under the new process for handling the business of the House have come into the House at an early point of time. A large number of Bills are listed for handling today. While many of the Bills that are listed appear to occupy a fair amount of space on the notice paper, they are in fact Bills which require little debate. The indications are that there will be little debate on a number of the Bills, particularly some of those listed for debate today. We have already had a position in which, by co-operation from the Opposition, which I acknowledge, on one occasion we were able to introduce some new business after 11 o’clock. Also, the week before last we had a problem with appropriation and there was some difficulty in getting on to one measure. I think we made the time by about 2 seconds.

This situation can arise again, particularly in relation to a relatively large number of small measures. In the case of a cognate debate, if the debate is continuing after 11 o’clock and the debate on the first Bill has been concluded, unless this motion is carried it will not be possible to deal with the other cognate Bills at that time. This is the principal reason for the introduction of this motion. I may say that a substantial number of Bills - just a few more than average - is being handled during this sitting. There will be, in addition to the Bills that will be debated during this sitting, a number of Bills introduced to the second reading stage and left on the notice paper, as is becoming customary now, for consideration in the next sitting. But in view of the circumstances I think it far better to be handling the volume of business that we are handling rather than having the complication of a bank-up of business at the end of the sitting: So for the various reasons I have outlined, and acknowledging the co-operation of the Opposition already on 2 occasions, I ask for the support of the House in relation to this motion.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) is one of the most skilled men in public life in defusing an issue or making anything sound flat, but he has not reconciled us to this proposition. In fact, he has given the very reason why the proposition need not be carried. He as acknowledged - we take no great credit for it although it is a fact - that when the cut-off time for introducing new matter was approaching or had just elapsed during this sessional period the Opposition had collaborated in concluding the necessary business. There was no fuss and no waste of time. Ail members quietly and efficiently put the business through. The Minister has put another reason why it might be necessary to suspend the 11 o’clock rule and that is that if we are having a cognate debate on certain Bills and we then need to have separate votes we might have to defer till the following day the votes on any of the Bills which had not gone through before 11 o’clock. There is no reason whatever, in view of the instances that he has given of Opposition collaboration, for him to believe that in those circumstances the Opposition would not agree to the vote being taken on the remaining Bills upon which debate had concluded after 11 o’clock. Bills upon which there are cognate debates practically always are non-controversial Bills or the controversy is on the pilot Bill, the first Bill.

Then the honourable gentleman says that these are the reasons why it is necessary to suspend the 11 o’clock rule. These are not substantial reasons. In fact, the whole conclusion from the instances he gave is that it is not necessary to suspend the 11 o’clock rule. It cannot be too often repeated for the benefit of members of Parliament, members of the Press gallery and members of the public that any debate in the Parliament which starts before 1 1 o’clock can go through till the debate ends. It can go through till the due sitting time of the House the next day. There is no reason whatever why, if a debate is commenced before 11 o’clock on Tuesday night, it cannot go through till 2 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. There is no reason why, if there is a debate commenced before 1 1 o’clock on Wednesday night, it cannot go through till 10 o’clock on Thursday morning. There is no reason why, if a debate has commenced before 11 o’clock on Thursday night, it cannot go through presumably until the following Tuesday afternoon. There is no need whatever to suspend the 11 o’clock rule in order to conclude a debate on any matter on which debate has commenced before 11 p.m.

The only consequence and purpose of suspending the 11 o’clock rule is to permit debate to commence on a fresh matter after 11 p.m. It may be that there are some circumstances in which a government would regard a matter as so important that it had to bring it on after 11 p.m. and get it through before the following day. The Minister has not given any indication of any such matters. There are no such matters on the notice paper. There are no matters on the notice paper, which have been introduced by the Government, on which we could not very comfortably have a debate, with every honourable member who was minded to speak doing so, before the projected rising of the Parliament in the middle of December. We are scheduled to have 5 sitting weeks after this week. There is nothing on the notice paper to suggest that we could not get through all the Government business on the notice paper by that time. As a matter of fact, one would think there is even time, by the middle of December, to have a debate on some of those matters which have been on the notice paper since April last year. I am just trying to find the exact number of the order of the day so that honourable gentlemen can follow the argument readily. It is so far down the notice paper that I had almost overlooked it.

Mr Killen:

– What about the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill?

Mr WHITLAM:

– That was one of them, actually. I do not want it to come up for debate for the first time after 11 o’clock at night. I want all honourable gentlemen on both sides of the House who support the former Prime Minister’s undertaking to the people at the last election to support this Bill. I am indebted to the learned, honourable and gallant gentleman, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I refer to order of the day No 66. It is not on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, but on the sixth page of today’s notice paper. It is the resumption of the second reading debate, from 16th April 1970, on the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970.

Mr Reynolds:

– It has been sunk.

Mr WHITLAM:

– No, it is only in shallow water. It is becalmed; the Government is stranded. I am sure that a majority of honourable members will see that the Bill is not sunk, but is launched on a successful voyage. But even going down as far as that order of the day on the notice paper, there is no reason whatsoever why all the Bills introduced by the McMahon Government and all the Bills introduced by the Gorton Government during the present Parliament should not come up for debate before 11 p.m. Indeed, there is no reason why Bills introduced into this place by a Minister for Foreign Affairs - not the present Minister for Foreign Affairs or the one before, but the one before that - during the present Parliament should not come on for debate before 11 p.m. This is not the only Bill in this category. There are some other related Bills, other continental shelf Bills and electoral Bills. There are even Bills introduced by the Opposition to give votes to 18-year- olds, or to provide electorates of equal population, or to synchronise elections, or to abolish capital punishment for crimes under Federal laws. There is plenty of time in the scheduled 5i sitting weeks of this year for us to debate all these matters before 1 1 p.m. The Minister has not listed or indicated the other Bills which can come up. I have to resist this motion on the arguments that he has put and the facts which we have. The arguments which he has put do not hold water. He has conceded that the Opposition has not been inflexible but rather co-operative in enabling business to be concluded after 11 o’clock or technical matters to be brought up for the first time after 11 o’clock. The notice paper shows that we can get through all the matters put on it by the Government and by the Opposition in the 5i weeks before us.

Mr Chipp:

– How do you know that it is 5i weeks? You are making a categorical statement and I should like to know the basis for it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am going on my experience over some years of how long it takes to debate the sorts of Bills and the number of Bills which are on the notice paper at the moment. I am not putting the argument that we should sit for only another 51 weeks. Nobody in the Labor Party has ever put this, and I do not suppose that anybody in any Party which was in Opposition ever would put the argument that the Parliament should go into recess. Neither I nor any of my colleagues have ever complained about the number of days the Parliament sits. We have complained, as have a great number of Government supporters, too, at the hours at which we sit. I regret that in this case the Leader of the House is over-reacting from the experience of last May. The new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), in panic, determined that the House of Representatives should adjourn. It adjourned on 6th May, much earlier than it ordinarily adjourns. Not infrequently the House sits into June. The Senate, in fact, continued to sit for another fortnight. There was no reason why the House of Representatives should have adjourned at that time, but the11 o’clock rule was suspended, the guillotine was applied and every possible method was used to get the House up and the Government business through.

I do not believe that the 11 o’clock rule is suspended usually so far ahead of the scheduled adjournment. The House is not scheduled to adjourn for another 51/2 weeks. Normally the 11 o’clock rule is not suspended 51/2 weeks before the scheduled adjournment. I believe that this is a more than usually blatant use of the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule. I give tribute in conclusion as 1 did in commencing to the extreme urbanity the very plausible urbanity of the Leader of the House in moving this motion. He has not convinced us.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I know that the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has the responsibility of getting legislation through the House and he has moved this motion today probably with some knowledge that is not at my command. It has been stated that the House may sit until 9th December. Perhaps the Leader of the House has information and wants the House to rise earlier. I do not know, so when the motion is put I will vote for it. However I would suggest to him that, now that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has spoken of the co-operation of the Opposition in getting Bills through the House and has said that his Party will agree to cognate Bills being debated and their debate being concluded after 11 o’clock, the Leader of the House might consider taking some other action. The Leader of the Opposition has given these assurances. This is the kind of thing we have been seeking ever since I have been a member of this Parliament. I have always been against late sittings but I know also that legislation must be passed through the House by a certain time each year. Some honourable member has interjected and mentioned 3 o’clock in the morning. I have always been against such late sittings whether Labor has been in government or the present coalition has been in government. If members of the Opposition will remain quiet for a few moments-

Mr Foster:

– We have not said a word; get on with your speech.

Mr TURNBULL:

– You say too much. I would like to see you moved further away and among Labor Party members at the back of the chamber. Let them put up with you. 1 have been in my seat in this chamber for a long time now and I have heard much abuse and bad language-

Mr Foster:

– Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Mallee has been in this place too long to carry on in this unparliamentary manner. Although he may be a member of your Party, Sir, he should be requested to withdraw his remark because what he says is a damn lie.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) Order! I would suggest that both the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Mallee restrain themselves on this occasion.

Mr Foster:

– He can move if he wants to.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting. It was impossible to hear the honourable member for Mallee and it is impossible to determine, in those circumstances, whether what he said is correct. I suggest that the honourable member for Mallee should debate the subject matter before the House.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Before I continue with what I intended to say, will the Labor Party take up my challenge and shift the honourable member for Sturt and put him among members of the Labor Party at the back of the chamber?

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Whitlam:

– Slightly, yes.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– If the Leader of the Opposition claims that he has been misrepresented he should wait until the honourable member for Mallee has finished his speech before seeking leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

– I thought the honourable member had finished.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– No, the honourable member for Mallee is still speaking.

Mr Whitlam:

– I am sorry. I will wait until he has finished.

Mr TURNBULL:

– 1 shall continue. I was about to say, when I was so rudely interrupted, not by the Leader of the Opposition but by someone sitting much nearer to me. that as the Leader of the Opposition has given some definite assurances the Leader of the House will perhaps withdraw this motion and move it again if he does not get that co-operation which I hope he will get. If he does get the cooperation, which I hope he will get - I have no reason to think, that he will not get it - things will go smoothly and everybody will be happy. At the commencement of my remarks I said that the Leader of the House has the responsibility of getting legislation through the House. I do not know exactly why he has moved this motion but he must have some definite reason. However, if he is not prepared to adopt my suggestion, I am prepared to support him.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to give the assurance which the honourable member for Mallee has sought from me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa- Leader of the Opposition) - I want to assure the Minister that my Party will permit a vote to be taken on any Bills upon which a cognate debate has been commenced before 11 p.m.

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

– Whilst I appreciate the offer of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the problem that has been expressed by the Country Party Whip (Mr Turnbull) the position is that this motion refers to Government business being introduced after 11 o’clock. I mentioned at the outset some of the matters relating to business today and on other occasions during the rest of the sittings. Knowing the number of Bills which will attract little debate, I said I believed that the same situation will arise again. That was one argument that I used. But in mentioning this question of the introduction of Government business after 11 p.m. I instanced the Appropriation Bill, where we ran into a problem.

So the assurance from the Leader of the Opposition, of course, would not cover this situation. It is a question of whether he can give me an assurance that, after I discuss the matter with him or with his Deputy, the Opposition will permit Government business to be introduced after 11 o’clock. I can assure him that I have not the slightest desire to prolong the sittings of the House but to ensure the orderly proceeding of the business of the House. As I indicated, because of the method we have introduced now of bringing in many more Bills earlier in the sittings, this situation has arisen earlier. If the Leader of the Opposition can give me an assurance, which I know he always observes, along the lines of the motion that Government business may be introduced after 1 1 o’clock, I will be very happy to withdraw my motion and accept his assurance.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa - Leader of the Opposition) - by leave - The difficulty in these matters, as I see it, is where honourable members are required to enter upon a debate after 11 o’clock. If the Leader of the House is referring to the situation, for instance, where a Minister makes a second reading speech on a Bill after 11 o’clock and then the debate is being adjourned, I would give him that assurance; but I could not give him an assurance that we would proceed with a debate on a matter for the first time after 11 p.m.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs - Minister for National Development) - by leave - That would not be satisfactory because the motion refers to debates commencing after 11 p.m., and in fact, as I explained, that situation could arise tonight. That is one reason why we wanted to take this step at this stage. It is earlier in the sittings than normally that we have this number of Bills to handle.

Mr Whitlam:

– What have you in mind for tonight?

Mr SWARTZ:

– The Leader of the Opposition has seen the Bills that are on the notice paper, and it is possible that after 11 o’clock we may wish to introduce one or two of those small Bills.

Mr Whitlam:

– A Minister wants to make a second reading speech?

Mr SWARTZ:

– No, I am referring to the continuation of the debate, concluding the debate and the Bills passing through all stages. So the motion envisages the introduction of new Government business, the continuation of a debate and the completion of all stages. I would be prepared to accept an assurance from the Leader of the Opposition and withdraw the motion if he would give the assurance that I seek.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa - Leader of the Opposition) - by leave - The debate has enabled us to be much clearer on both sides as to what the Government has in mind about its business, but I cannot give the assurance that my Party would allow a debate to be commenced and to be concluded on the matters which are on today’s blue sheet showing the provisional programme. I cannot give that assurance because, quite frankly, we do not believe it would be suitable to discuss things such as the Bell Bay railway, the finances of Qantas Airways Ltd, the stevedoring industry, payroll tax and State authorities for the first time after 11 o’clock. Not only are honourable members not in the best condition at that time but nobody will be in the public gallery to listen to us and nobody in the Press will report us, so we would be a closed society. The Parliament should be able to be followed by the public and conducted by men in better condition than they will be after 11 p.m.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 55

NOES: 48

Majority .. .. 7

AYES

NOES

page 2584

STUART AND BARKLY HIGHWAYS, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin Minister for Supply · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on’ Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Three year improvement and maintenance programme Stuart and Barkly Highways, Northern Territory.

The proposed work is the first phase of a comprehensive 10 year programme to upgrade the highways to an acceptable standard of serviceability and safety and includes resealing 455 miles of pavement, strengthening and widening 218 miles and re-aligning 55 miles, and construction of 12 bridges and 9 culverts. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $16m. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the highways to be upgraded and has recommended construction of the works in the reference. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I would like to support this motion and commend the Government on its decision to make provision for a proposed expenditure of Si 6m for work on these vital highways - the Stuart Highway and the Barkly Highway. 1 point out that the works are proposed to be carried out as a result of the previous announcement by the Government of the intention to allow 16 tons per bogie axle of trucks which is 3 tons above the Australian Transport Advisory Council’s proposed limit.

This decision by the Government has assisted greatly the transport of goods in the Northern Territory. The upgrading of these roads will enable the carriage of the more heavily loaded transports and this should essentially aid transport costs in the Northern Territory. While applauding the widening of the roads and the introduction of 12 bridges and 9 culverts I would ask the Government to look further down the Stuart Highway towards Port Augusta and continue its interest by sealing that section of the road also.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I also wish to support the reference. I do not think there can be any doubt that the Barkly and Stuart Highways must be regarded as 2 of the most remarkable highways in Australia. The greater part of the mileage of these highways was constructed during the war by the Civil Construction Corps, if 1 remember rightly.

Mr Kelly:

– Mainly from groups in each State.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. But ! think the CCC supervised the construction.

Mr Kelly:

– It would be interesting to trace the history of these highways.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I agree. I do not know of any one highway in Australia that had a better record of construction in respect of time and standard than these 2 highways. They are a remarkable achievement of Australian engineering and provide evidence of the remarkable dedication of the work force. The 2 highways withstood a tremendous load during the war and this has been the case since the war. As the honourable members for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and Wakefield (Mr Kelly) well know, frequent breakthroughs have been caused by heavy axle loading. There have been occasions when the back wheels of trucks have suddenly gone straight through the bitumen because of soaks, or other causes, which have caused a break down of the structure under the bitumen.

However, taken by and large the 2 highways are really remarkable pieces of engineering. I agree entirely with the honourable member for Wakefield, who is the Chairman of the Public Works Committee, that it would be a good thing if the Committee or some government instrumentality some day could put in writing for the information of posterity the history of these 2 roads because I do not think that there is any single act which has helped to develop the Northern Territory more since the war than these 2 arterial highways which link Darwin with Alice Springs and the railways south, and eastwards, of course, from Tennant Creek to Camooweal and Mount Isa.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2585

BANKS (SHAREHOLDINGS) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 May (vide page 2720), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition supports this Bill because it regards it as a sensible enough move. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his second reading speech described the Bill as follows:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision announced on 1st May 1970 to introduce legislation to ensure that the

Commonwealth had adequate power to control the acquisition of local or overseas interests of large shareholdings in banks incorporated in Australia.

The Treasurer, in the next paragraph, went on to say that ‘banking is a business in which the nation has special interests’. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Banking is a business in which the nation ought to have special interests and it should have great concern about the operations of this field.

I do not want to say very much about the Bill itself except to state that it aims to ensure that no-one, with one or two exceptions, which I think are technical by reason of the Constitution, of some of the savings banks attached to the private trading banks, or that no single shareholding in a bank shall be of more than 10 per cent - that is to be the maximum holding by one interest. During some discussions we had on this matter one evening I was shown by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who was formerly with the Bank of New South Wales, and a colleague, that that bank had a clause in what is described as the Bank of New South Wales deed of settlement.

Mr Irwin:

– What date is that?

Mr CREAN:

– This was brought up to date in 1965. However, it certainly goes back to the foundation of the bank. Clause 22 of the deed of settlement states:

No person shall be allowed to subscribe for or by reason of purchase or otherwise to hold more than one-twenty-fifth-

Which, of course, is 4 per cent - of the whole number of the shares in the capital of the bank which have for the time being been allotted and if any transfer of shares ahall be executed . . .

This limits the holding in that bank, as one of the major private trading banks, to 4 per cent, so, as far as that undertaking is concerned, it will not be affected by this legislation. Nevertheless, there is the danger that in some circumstances the trading banks, or some of them, could fall into the hands of one dominant group of shareholders or they could be subjected to attacks in the form of takeovers and invasions from overseas shareholders. This would not be desirable and I agree with the Government when it says that it will refuse to allow any new foreign bank to operate as such in Australia. I support that principle on behalf of my own party.

What is causing concern at the moment are the operations of what are sometimes described as near banks or fringe institutions, many of which are partners of the trading banks and many of which have quite substantial foreign holdings. 1 have a list of these institutions which was supplied by my colleague, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and I shall mention only a few of them. The Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd is a finance company in which the Bank of New South Wales has a 43 per cent shareholding. The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd has a 42 per cent shareholding in Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd, which is known as CAGA. The National Bank of Australasia has a 60 per cent shareholding in Custom Credit Corporation Ltd. and its profits were reported in this morning’s financial Press as being in the region of $10m. ESANDA Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. Of course, there recently have been rearrangements with the amalgamation of that bank with the English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd. The Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of Adelaide. General Credits Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, which is the group whose constitution was affected by the recent amalgamation of the 2 banks, had a 21.7 per cent shareholding in Industrial Acceptance Corporation Ltd and it is reported that the First National City Bank, New York plans to acquire a total equity of 40 per cent in this company.

It is about some of these near banks or fringe institutions that I should like to say something this afternoon and I shall cite one or two recent references to this matter. At an address delivered to the Australian Institute of Management at the twelfth general management conference held in Canberra on 29th October 1970, Mr B. B. Callaghan, managing director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, made these observations:

But the fact remains that, in the past 20 years, various money markets have arisen in Australia, many of them performing functions that constitute banking in every business sense if not in the sense that the word ‘banking’ appears in the Australian Constitution as so far interpreted.

Mr Callaghan went on to say:

Until recently, we spoke of fringe banking institutions but, nowadays, I think we should forget that term and recognise that each institution dealing in money is, in fact, a part of a money market, for the establishment of other money markets followed the emergence of the finance houses as very profitable money markets. These new markets also are largely beyond the constitutional control of the Australian monetary authorities.

Of course, when Mr Callaghan wrote that in October 1970 we did not have the decision in the Rocla pipes case and it seems that as a result of that case it has been affirmed by the majority of judges in the High Court that what the Australian Labor Party had asserted for a good many years was necessary, but which was always howled down as unconstitutional, was in fact constitutional all the time. The Labor Party suggested at least 10 years ago that hire purchase, consumer credit, fringe banking or whatever you like to call it should be regarded as banking and legislation should be enacted accordingly, and if anybody wanted to challenge it in the High Court, he could do so. The Government should not have refrained from legislating in that field. The recent decision in the Rocla pipes case would suggest that we could legislate in this field.

I proceed to a more recent observation on this matter which was, I think, made at about the time the decision in the Rocla pipes case was given. I quote from the latest annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia which was tabled a day or two after the Budget was delivered. The report states:

Overseas banking and other financial organisations were again active in acquiring equity holdings in existing Australian non-bank financial institutions and in establishing new financial enterprises mainly in conjunction with Australian institutions. At the end of 1970-71, the number of public companies engaged in non-bank financing (excluding insurance companies) in which overseas concerns held substantial equity interests was around 60; a decade ago the corresponding figure was about 10.

The writers of the report go on to state:

At the same time, however, the new non-bank institutions that have been emerging, many linked to overseas banks and other entities of high repute in international finance, have been establishing a place particularly in markets for short term funds. These developments, which are a natural accompaniment to economic expansion, have produced considerable overlapping of the areas of financing occupied by banks and non-banks, and the present pattern raises some important policy issues. In the course of their special relationship with the monetary authorities, benefits are conferred on banks but constraints are also imposed - in part in the interests of monetary policy. To the extent that this singling out of banks affects the pattern of the business they undertake, questions of efficiency in the conduct of the community’s financial intermediation arise and on these grounds there is some case for limiting the degree and manner of treating banks differently from non-banks.

I would suggest that, bearing that observation in mind with what Mr Callaghan has said a year or so ago, this really should be conceived as one shading of markets rather than discreet units operating separately in relation to monetary arrangements. Whatever virtues could be seen in limiting the foreign ownership in banks which, after all, are subjected to controls, quite rigorously in their operations under the Banking Act of 1959-1967, surely it is more necessary that there should be similar limitations placed on these other financial intermediaries.

A week or two ago the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Knight, in delivering the G. L. Wood Memorial Lecture at the Melbourne University, pointed out the growth of assets of financial institutions during the period 1953-1970. He related the total assets of these institutions to the gross national product figure as some sort of an indicator of the vastness of them. In 1953 the assets of the financial institutions, including those of the Reserve Bank, totalled $8,572m and the gross national product was $8, 372m. Roughly speaking one could say that the assets of the financial institutions aggregated something like the value of the total turnover of goods and services in the community in the 12-month period. By 1970 the total assets of financial institutions had risen to $3 5,480m whilst the gross national product for that year was S30,000m. The total assets of the financial institutions had increased fourfold in those 17 years and actually exceeded the gross national product figure by a margin of something like one-sixth. However, there had been considerable shifts in the relativity of the various groups within the total operations.

The position of the assets of the Reserve Bank is, of course, inclined to fluctuate quite significantly from year to year because its operations in the open market sometimes greatly increase or decrease its assets for one particular year. For this reason one cannot necessarily draw a very firm conclusion about the assets of the Reserve Bank for any one year. If we exclude the assets of the Reserve Bank from the total assets of the financial institutions we will find that there has been quite a significant fall in the percentage held by the trading banks and the savings banks. In 1953 their assets were 58 per cent of the total but in 1970 they had fallen to 44 per cent. The trading banks alone had declined from nearly 36 per cent in 1953 to just a shade under 23 per cent in 1970. Where there had been a considerable increase in assets was in the finance companies whose assets were coming up to the same kind of magnitude as those in the banking system. The banking system, as is pointed out in the report of the Reserve Bank, is subject to constraints, as it ought to be, but as far as these other undertakings are concerned there are no definite restraints.

The report of the Reserve Bank points out that there has been quite a shift in the sort of business that the finance houses are engaged in. Originally they were engaged more in consumer credit but now about half of their activity is in providing business finance, which activity was formerly carried on by the banks. As the report of the Reserve Bank states, this raises quite significant matters of policy. I would have liked the Reserve Bank to spell out a little bit more what the significant matters of policy are. The former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), in February of this year, I think, made a statement about the economy of this nation. One of the things he pointed out was what appeared to be the large inflow of foreign capital on a short term basis. He said that much of this sort of capital was going into the construction of buildings other than dwellings. The figures for the gross national product as at 30th June 1971 show this trend quite starkly. They show that the total profit position of all company activity in Australia for the year 1970-71 had actually declined but that the profits of the finance section had increased from $240m to $286m or about 20 per cent in that 12 months period when there was supposed to be monetary restriction on the economy.

As the Chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Sir Roland Wilson, pointed out in the 1971 Annual Report a few weeks after the report of the Reserve Bank, the monetary policy being pursued by the Government internally - I am not arguing whether the policy was right or wrong, but at least it was the sovereign right of the Government to impose it - was to a considerable degree nullified by the flow of foreign capital into this country, which as we know affects the liquidity position of the banking system and in effect was working in the opposite direction to that in which the Government wanted its monetary and fiscal devices to go. The effect is revealed quite starkly in the figures given on national income. In 1971 dwelling construction, in real terms, had actually declined. The provision of infrastructure via public works of all governments in Australia had actually declined. However, there was a substantial increase of about $100m in the construction of buildings other than dwellings. There is no doubt that much of this money that was coming in from overseas found quite a profitable haven in finance for buildings other than dwellings or what I have described on another occasion as skyscrapers rather than schools or hotels rather than hospitals. This is not my idea of a sensible allocation of the resources of this nation. I would suggest that it is time that the Government took action in this field.

I commend to honourable members a series of articles appearing, in 3 July issues of the ‘Australian Financial Review’, written by Mr M. W. Acheson IV, an American, who is assistant to the Managing Director of Ord-B.T. Co. Ltd and deputy representative of the Bankers’ Trust Co. of New York. In those articles Mr Acheson described what he called ‘the foreign bank invasion’. It is interesting to note that, as the Reserve Bank suggests, whereas a decade ago there were 10 of these institutions there are now over 60. I think Mr Acheson implied that the figure is closer to 100. These are, in effect, banks operating, by one or more removes, in Australia. They are not able to operate directly as banks. In many cases they operate either through banks as partners in some of their ventures, by buying into these finance houses, or by operating in the form of merchant banks. It always seems to me rather curious that there is no very substantial definition of a bank. If one goes to the Banking Act, which is supposed to regulate this sort of operation, one will find it hard to obtain a definition at all. In fact, one is referred mainly to a schedule. We get these other enterprises among which are what is called finance companies, which some people describe as near-banks. Then there is another type that is different again, but which still calls itself a bank, namely, the merchant bank. I would agree with Mr Callaghan that at least there are more similarities between them than there are differences. They are all engaged in this kind of borrowing and lending of money, which is the principal activity of banks. Of course, banks exist by borrowing cheap and lending dear, but at least they are subject to a certain amount of regulation.

When one looks at how some of these other undertakings operate one sees that in the long run the excessive charges are wrought upon the ordinary people in the community, either because mortgage money is hard to get at lower rates or because the undertakings are offering higher rates. People who are able to claim their interest payments as tax deductions are certainly in a more favourable position than the home builder, in whose case the loan is regarded as a domestic transaction and not subject to a tax concession of any kind. Certainly the builder of the skyscraper is at some advantage when it comes to borrowing money over the builder of the lowly home.

One of the great difficulties in Australia is that we do not have in this country anything like the legislation that operates in the United States of America, called Consumer Credit Protection Acts. We certainly have some attempts in various States Acts to limit the amount of interest. In most cases the limit they set is that in the old Moneylenders Act of 4 per cent per month flat which, of course, works out at something like 100 per cent or more on an annual appraisal. Some States have a lower limit than that. I would commend to the attention of the House an article that was quoted here a week or so ago by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) titled The Cost of Consumer

Credit’ which appeared in the Western Australian publication, ‘Economic Activity’, volume 15, for July 1971. It says that if people shop around for their credit terms the average family - and it suggests that the average family when its consumer credit financing is taken into account is indebted for something like $700 in the aggregate on which it could pay anything like $140 or 20 per cent in service charges - should be able to get money at about half the price. I would suggest to the Government, which claims to be really concerned about inflation but seems only to see it when wage increases are being sought, that here is a very good place to begin to do something which would affect the average family by $70 a year or near enough to $1.50 a week in excess exploitation by way of credit charges. Because this sort of institution is able to bid high for its money, other people who may have to seek and undertake credit are placed at quite a disadvantage, because either they cannot offer the same kind of rate or they are not in the business to the same extent.

When one looks at the results of the last year - a year of gloom as far as actual physical production is concerned but a very bright year for those who are classified as finance companies, and that includes banks - it will be seen that the banks relatively are not doing so well as some of these other institutions, some of these back door partners as they used to be described. In one case the subsidiary of the Bank of Adelaide returns the bank more profit than does the bank proper. It seems to me that perhaps the banks have not been aggressive enough in seeking competition, and I would commend to the attention of the House a statement that I received the other day, a British Information Service news release dated 13th September 1971 on what ware called the new United Kingdom credit control arrangements in which banks are free to compete against each other as far as interest rates are concerned. The trading bank overdraft rate in Great Britain is substantially less than it is here and banks there have to subscribe to arrangements laid down by the Bank of England. That sort of overall control is applied to these other financial intermediaries as well. I would suggest that 2 things probably are necessary. This kind of activity ought to be brought into the net if, as the Minister claimed in his second reading speech, banking is a business in which the nation has special interests. I think he should acknowledge that he has to widen his sights now as far as the activities of the realm of banking are concerned, that he should apply to the nonbanking type of activity the same restriction on shareholding as he applies to the banks, and that he should consider bringing it within the net of credit control, as has been done with the banking system.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– This Bill actually stems from doubts on the part of the Government as to the scope of powers contained in section 63 of the Banking Act under which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and, therefore, the Government have the opportunity and the undoubted power to control any general disposal by a bank of the whole of its assets or shares or to merge with another bank. For that reason the Government has submitted this measure. By the same token - and it is easy to be wise after the event - had the concrete pipes case decision been promulgated at the time this legislation was introduced it might have taken a different form. Nevertheless the Opposition welcomes the measure so far as it goes. But the Opposition has a very substantial criticism to make because the main purpose of this measure is to ensure that as a matter of broad principle no overseas interests, whether a company or a consortium, can acquire holdings in the shares of any Australian bank beyond 10 per cent except in certain cases with the authority of the Treasurer.

It is worth noting, of course, that with a total investment in Australia of 16 per cent, overseas interests have been able to acquire control, direct or indirect, of 40 per cent of Australian secondary industry. Therefore, the Government has been in this case rightly apprehensive of the consequences of the acquisition of bank shares. Of course, this in turn is a lineal descendant of what we might call Gortonomics where the former Prime Minister decided, in his typical tactic of shooting from the hip, that he would deal with specific situatons, if and when they occurred, in the most pragmatic fashion. Nevertheless he has distinctly Australian protectionist sentiments, and we give him credit for that. It is a long way back in history to the days of King O’Malley when the conservative parties of that day laughed to scorn the suggestion that there could be a national bank, lt is a long way back, too, to the period of the sneers at Fisher’s flimsies when the first Commonwealth banknotes were issued. Of course, a lot of us - particularly those on the Government benches - would prefer to forget the attitude of Sir Robert Gibson at the time of the depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

But today, thanks to the foresight of Labor spokesmen of an earlier generation, the Commonwealth banking group ranks 37th amongst the accepted banks of the world. I think that in itself is no small achievement. It is worth noting that today, as a result of various amalgamations and takeovers, we have operating in Australia a government banking group, 6 local public banks, an English banking group as well as 3 small branches of foreign banks which collectively and exclusively transact deposits or cheque-paying banking and have full control of a lucrative dealings in foreign exchange. In addition we have some 95 banking institutions grouped together under the name of merchant banks, having their respective establishments in Australia and with assets of about $500,000m - 5 times in aggregate the gross national product of this nation for the last 5 years - and having 80 times the local assets of our collective banking system. It is like sleeping alongside an elephant: You never know what will happen when it rolls on you. That is the position today.

The Opposition makes a very valid criticism. Here I quote the words of Dr Coombs, a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. In one of his addresses, which honourable members ought to refer to, entitled ‘Other People’s Money’ - it is available from the Parliamentary Library - he said that there has been a progressive de-control of the aggregate of the money of Australia by the banking system. As a matter of fact, in 1953 70 per cent of the total money flow of Australia was controlled by the banking system. By 1960 it had dropped to 57 per cent and today it is less than 50 per cent. Whilst this Government is busy protecting Australia from an incursion of overseas control, at the same time we find that no longer is the banking system of Australia in control of the aggregate finances of Australia. That is a position to be regretted and one which an incoming Labor government will undoubtedly correct, because finance is government. The abuses which exist today, in terms of interest rates and rackets, stem directly from the quite deliberate failure of the Government to control the para or grey or black market banking system which has developed.

Until World War I our banking system was relatively primitive in its form. Of course, all wars are financed by inflation and it was necessary, because of the creation of extra money at that time, to introduce a system of statutory reserve deposits. That was done in the Chifley era. Let us pay tribute to a man who knew banking and who was prepared to apply Labor principles to banking. I pass on from there to the gradual development of the need for consumer credit and the emergence of entirely new forms of intermediaries and some degree of sophistication in the Australian banking structure. In the early days those intermediaries were the hire purchase companies which financed themselves in a completely different way then from the way they do now. That in its turn was due to the fact that the present conservative Government chose to give directives to the trading banks that they were no longer to discount hire purchase contracts and associated promissory notes as security. The hire purchase companies duly thumbed their collective noses at the Reserve Bank and the Government, and decided that they would raise money directly from investors by virtue of their status as limited companies. This they did, and with such success that we reached the point where the cops had to join the robbers and where every major trading bank in Australia became either wholly or substantially associated with a major hire purchase company.

Today we have reached a situation in which the total deposits in the trading banks are about $4,700m and the total advances by the hire purchase companies are a matter of $3,900m. In a little while hire purchase advances will exceed trading bank deposits. As my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr

Crean) correctly pointed out, in many cases major and formerly proud trading banks are prepared humbly to acknowledge that the major proportion of their profits are coming from their finance company subsidiaries. In the process there has been a distortion not only of the interest rate structure of Australia but also of our national priorities. Whilst I do not deny the right of hire purchase companies to exist and to function I do challenge them on their choice of interest rates and the way in which, unfortunately, in many cases the trading banks are directing to their hire purchase subsidiaries business which ought legitimately to be transacted by them at the regular and orthodox rates of interest.

The Reserve Bank and the Government must control the money structure of Australia. As a government, Labor will see that this happens. The 1950s saw quite a number of other very interesting developments. For example, we had the growth of the building societies. They were discharging functions which in the main ought properly to have been discharged by the trading banks. We have had the growth of the credit unions, the short term money market and the inter-company market, with the borrowing backed in each case by the overdraft limits of the respective companies participating. We have emerging an infantile, rudimentary commercial bill market. An even further development has been that of negotiable certificates of deposit. They are to be welcomed also. Now we have an Australian Resources Development Bank.

Taken as a whole, this legislation, whilst it is good, is like the curate’s egg; it is good in parts. But it still does not face up to the major problem, which is the overriding control of the money supply of Australia. The national Government - the national Parliament - can, must and should at all costs exercise full powers over the national economy. As the economy is becoming progressively distorted we find a remarkable rise even in interest rates for the orthodox overdrafts granted to prime borrowers by the major trading banks. From memory, in 1949 when this Government came to office the general overdraft rate was 4i to 4i per cent. It is 8J per cent today. At a time when Australia needs money and needs it really urgently we are paying too great a price for it. The Labor Party has always advocated the cause of lower interest rates and the creation of the necessary money, backed by the necessary assets, to ensure that national development takes place on a basis of planned priorities.

It is generally accepted in company practice that to acquire 20 per cent of the trading shares of any company is to have effective control of that company. There is a number of reasons for this, of course. At ordinary annual meetings there is a fair amount of diffidence on the part of shareholders to attend but an effectively organised bloc of shareholders can certainly take control. Today we have knocking at the door repeatedly requests by Japan, by the United States and by Britain too for the granting of further banking charters. In this - and we give the Government credit where it is due - the Government shares a common policy with us of restricting the number of charters to those now in operation. But even in this regard it was not until 1942 that the Government of the day introduced legislation by which overseas companies could not commence banking. Many of the companies which are here can scarcely be classed as merchant banks. It is rather difficult at the best to say what is the definition and what are the functions and the status of a merchant bank, but I would suggest that a lot of the present total of exchange reserves that the Government vaunts so proudly in the main consists of funds that have been brought in here for investment. That is very good so far as it goes provided that they are used for investment and provided in turn that there is still a dominant Australian equity participation in those companies. But beyond that there is a very real danger and that danger will continue until there is a change of government and a change of outlook, and this is a consummation that we believe will occur in 1972.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I rise to support the Bill. There were some half truths in what the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said. There is not very much that I can disagree with in what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) said. But perhaps it would be advisable to take a tour over the years just to see why certain things came about. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Government adequate control over banks and to make sure that the present ownership - which is in the main Australian - remains constant and secure. The Government has a special interest in banking because its control of banking is the one method whereby it has monetary control and influence. But the banks have become impotent and are playing a lesser role than they ever played or were intended to play. Evidently the provisions of the Banking Act are not sufficient to prevent a takeover bid or to prevent a bank from being absorbed by devious means, through a straightout sale of its business or by the accumulation of shares. It is most desirable that any one shareholding shall not be more than 10 per cent and in the main this Bill makes provision to protect the ownership of the banks in Australia by ensuring that there will not be any one shareholding in excess of 10 per cent.

By traversing the history of banking perhaps I can show that we are in a difficult position today because of the control over banking which was legislated for under the Banking Act. The banks have been forced into the unfortunate position of conducting the costly business, which produces very little revenue, of carrying millions of dollars in non-earning cash to pay wages each week and the collection of cheques. They have had to accept controls on the rate of interest that they could pay on fixed deposits and on the interest they could charge. Had they not been forced into that position they would not have been left in the unenviable circumstances in which they now find themselves, in that they are being deprived of the ability to earn sufficient profit to meet the expenditure of which I have just spoken. This has all come about because of the Government’s control of banking.

After the War, if my recollection is correct, the banks could pay only 3 or 3i per cent on fixed deposits up to 24 months. Of course, during the period after the war money was required and various organisations advertised higher rates of interest. So the holdings of the banks in fixed deposits gradually went down. But in 1949 the Government had a mandate from the people to protect the then banking system and equally the banks had received a mandate. They should have fought for the right to carry out that mandate. But we found that the Government brought in controls on banking and instead of fighting for their rights the banks took the easy way out and became partners in finance companies to ensure that the profits from that area would be sufficient to pay for the costly side of banking which they were forced to conduct. This is where all our trouble began in regard to banking and this is how the Government has lost the monetary control that it once had. Even Dr Coombs has admited since his retirement that the control of banking was too fierce and too restrictive and that many of the financial difficulties that the Government has run up against were due to these restrictions imposed by the Banking Act which the Government, to our disgrace, brought in.

Let me refer to hire purchase companies, explain to honourable members how hire purchase was first introduced to Australia and indicate what a wonderful boon it was for Australian merchants. It provided a cheap method of getting money. When hire purchase was first introduced a trader sold an article and a hire purchase agreement was entered into. The trader accepted a promissory note for the amount of the indebtedness. Having made his profit on the sale of the article, all that the trader required in the way of interest was the payment of interest of 1 per cent above the bank overdraft rate of interest. His purpose was to trade. He accepted a promissory note which he took to the bank and the bank thereupon allowed kim to overdraw up to 80 per cent of the value of the promissory note. If the bank overdraft rate was 5 per cent, the purchaser of the goods was required to pay only 6 per cent interest for the use of the money. But the point is that now a person buying goods under hire purchase is paying between 14 and 16 per cent interest under a hire purchase agreement.

This is the iniquitous part of the whole scheme of things. Because there is control of banking, because of the interference with the banking system, at the present time a low wage earner is paying up to 14 per cent interest on a refrigerator and the other amenities that he requires which he is buying under hire purchase. Had the banking legislation not been introduced we would not have seen the upsurge of these finance companies which do trade unconscionably. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The main concern of finance companies is to lend money, and provided they have sufficient security to cover the indebtedness they could not care 2 hoots. It is a most unethical way of lending money, and it is unfortunate that Australia is presently in the position where finance companies, as a result of their lending activities, are more in control of the monetary situation than are the ethical banks.

Of course, merchant banks have come in under the lap. It has been maintained by my Party and by leading barristers that in view of previous decisions of the High Court and of the Privy Council we do not have any control over merchant banks. But it would appear from the Rocla pipes case that it is just possible that we will now be able to exercise some control over both hire purchase companies and merchant banks, and it is desirable that we do so. I have never been able to understand the argument that money borrowed at 14 per cent interest has a less inflationary effect than money borrowed at 6 or 7 per cent interest. Economists and people in authority appear to imply that money borrowed from a merchant bank or a finance company at a high rate of interest has a less inflationary effect than money borrowed from trading banks at 7 or 8 per cent interest. People have adopted this stupid attitude towards methods designed to dampen down the economy. If a person desires to commence a business or to enter into a property deal, then if he is sanguine, if his judgment is correct and if he is prepared to back his judgment, there is not the slightest possible chance that an additional 2 or 3 per cent interest will stop him from borrowing money and going on with the deal.

I think I have given a factual and practical demonstration of the effect of controlling banking and of the fact that the upsurge in finance companies should never have occurred. The Government is partly to blame in this matter, and I would have been much prouder of the banks if they had fought for their rights instead of allowing the government of the day to introduce legislation which controlled them and made them become impotent in regard to the monetary situation. Of course, representatives of the finance companies have come along to interview the Government’s economic committee. It appears that they give the Government some undertaking when there is a desire to restrict the lending of money, but knowing them as I do, they are in business for only one purpose, and that is to lend money at a usurious rate of interest. It is to our everlasting discredit that this position has been allowed to continue because unfortunately, until the Rocla pipes case, we had no idea that we could possibly control this type of business.

I should like to see finance companies controlled and the function of lending money revert to the banks, where it rightly belongs. If this were done I think that Australia would be a much happier place. We would not be allowing finance companies to adopt unethical methods in order to accumulate the great wealth which they have over the years. I” support the Bill and congratulate the Government. I look forward to another Bill being introduced so that we can restore to the banks the power and the privilege which they had prior to the Banking Act being introduced by this Government.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make some comments about the Bill itself, but before doing so I should like to make a few remarks concerning the speech just made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin). He deplored high interest rates, and I agree with him. I would remind him, however, that his own leader has suggested that increasing interest rates is one method of countering inflation. I think that this has been one of the greatest errors made in assessing the present economic position.

This Bill was introduced some time ago. The second reading speech did not say very much about what was the defect which we were trying to correct. It indicated that some foreign interests may be anxious to acquire existing Australian banks and that the introduction of this piece of legislation would be one effective way to prevent them from doing so. It appears that this legislation is related to banks incorporated in Australia, yet I am advised that one of the major banks, namely the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, is incorporated in the United Kingdom and, therefore, on the face of it would not be subject to control. Further, I understand that this bank is 90 per cent foreign owned so there would be little chance of doing anything with one of the major banks now operating in Australia. I understand also, not from the Minister’s second reading speech but from making some inquiries, that a Queensland bank was about to be the subject of a take-over. This bank apparently is a co-operative or permanent building and banking company in Brisbane. I am wondering why the Government has been motivated suddenly to do something to protect the bank in question. Could it be related directly to the fact that there may be some relationship between the directors of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and someone with this bank in Queensland? This seems highly likely.

Apparently the only motivation - the only reason - for the Government introducing into the national Parliament a Bill to protect that bank is that there may be some affiliation between the directors of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and that Queensland bank. Of course, there is a parallel for this case because honourable members will recall that the Government was motivated, during the time of the previous Prime Minister, to do something about the Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Company Ltd. Why? Because there was an interlocking directorship between the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Company. So we have the position that the Government perhaps is motivated more by personalities than by the problems of a situation. One wonders whether if there had not been this interlocking directorship between the MLC and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation anything would have been done at all. In other words could, for example, Sir Roland Wilson be the one person who can encourage this sort of legislation, because he is the gentleman who happens to be on all of the boards in question? Perhaps this is not altogether a fair comment because I want to applaud the Government for the extent it is trying to retain Australian control of Australian assets. However when we examine the legislation before us it says merely that a person shall not have an interest in one or more voting shares if the nominal value of that share is not less than 10 per cent of the aggregate of the nominal amounts of all the voting shares of the bank.

The Canadian legislation is particularly appropriate. It is comprehensive regarding shareholders. That legislation would run rings around our banking legislation. Our legislation does not contain the detail of the Canadian legislation which provides clearly that at least three-quarters of the directors of a bank shall be Canadians who shall be ordinarily resident in Canada. The Canadian legislation virtually limits any foreign domination or control to some 20 per cent at the most. Would it not be appropriate for us to make similar provision in our legislation? While there is a limitation of 10 per cent with respect to voting shares there could be many 10 per cents and overall control could be lost to Australia. As I have said, control has been lost in respect of the ANZ Bank. That bank has many foreign interests. It is mixed up in merchant banking - a situation which has been deplored by previous speakers. It sold some of its major interests to the American National Bank and it now has, I think, a wholly owned subsidiary, ESANDA Ltd. 1 should think that as a result of the Rocla pipes case the Government should look urgently at merchant banking because what the Government is trying to achieve is Australian control of Australian assets and such control should apply to merchant banks whose assets are substantial. Their interest rates are high and they have extensive foreign investment within their structure. The Commercial and General Acceptance Limited is related directly to the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited. CAGA has borrowed some $ 10.4m from the Bank of America and representatives of that bank are now on the board of CAGA. According to this morning’s Press the Americans are now participating in Australian uranium through Queensland Mines Limited. Foreign domination is not related only to money but applies also to our assets. Our assets are coming under foreign control because foreign investers have capital which they make available. We have ample capital in Australia and the labour resources to develop our assets ourselves. We do not have to go into pawn or to say that foreign investment is in the interests of Australia. As 1 have mentioned, the Canadians designed their legislation deliberately to prevent American take-over of their financial structure, and the Canadians have been able to prosper. The Japanese, whom we defeated not so long ago and who were virtually on their knees, also have restrictions which protect their assets. With respect to banking, foreign control in Japan is limited to a 15 per cent total. The Australian Government does not seem to be dealing effectively with the situation in this legislation.

While this legislation has some merit in what it is seeking to achieve, it should be redrafted immediately so that in respect of our banking structure, including the merchant banks, it provides that Australia shall do the same as other countries and permit only a 20 per cent foreign investment in it. I repeat that many of the profits made by the merchant banks or hire purchase companies are related to what might be termed the non-essential fringe position. Profits are being made from recently subdivided land. Because land is recently subdivided and might not have a high inherent value people are obliged to go to finance companies to borrow money which bears an interest rate of 13 per cent. The finance companies secure money from the Australian loan market. They compete for Australian loan raisings, so they are borrowing money from the Australian people at 7, 8 or 9 per cent and lending it back to Australians at 13 or 14 per cent on an annual basis. This is where these companies gain their profits.

A considerable sum is channelled into the motor vehicle industry, over which Australia has no control. It has been said quite advisedly that there will be no Australian owned motor industry in the next 100 years because it is now owned by the British and the Americans. This is a serious problem for Australia. It is important that our best brains, engineering and otherwise, should be engaged actively in industries like the motor industry because it has some direct relativity to defence and the type of research involved in defence. The Australian Government virtually encouraged General Motors-Holden’s Pty

Limited to commence operations in Australia and money was made available from the Commonwealth Bank for that purpose. General Motors did not put anything into it. General Motors established here on the basis of advice from the Australian Government and that company has no Australian participation in it. However, there is considerable Australian participation in the profits of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Limited through the merchant banks or other banking structures in Australia. This participation is not through normal trading operations but through back door subsidiaries like the Industrial Acceptance Corporation, ESANDA and CAGA. Banks are involved in these subsidiaries. In many other merchant banking associations, overseas banking structures are involved. The Scottish Bank, which comes to mind, owns 20 per cent of Associated Securities Limited which is making enormous profits. But on what assets is this company lending?

The Japanese have an intelligent appraisal of money. They say: ‘Why do you want to bring money into our country? Prove first that you are interested in the basic industries and, secondly, that your investment is in the interests of the Japanese economy or that it will encourage employment’. These are the type of tests which should be applied to anybody trying to establish an investment position. The American Government is now providing incentives to American companies. Provided those companies increase production in America and not in their overseas concerns they gain a benefit of some 7 per cent. This must mean that if there is foreign control, production in the home country might well decline because of foreign domination. This is a point which has been made in previous speeches in this House concerning the danger of foreign control which does not necessarily encourage the best development of an asset. It could well retard it in favour of the overseas investment. I understand, for example, that we have a French bank involved in some ventures that might well be related to oil exploration in Western Australia. The French bank is the State owned bank. We have the incredible situation of saying that the French Government, through our banking structure, can drill for oil in Western Australia and we will subsidise it under our oil exploration scheme. There would be no other country in the world involved in this sort of nonsense.

The Australian people expect the Australian Government to retain control of our assets and development for the benefit of Australia. From a party point of view, we have differences of opinion on how best that should be done, but we agree that it should be done in the best interests of Australia. This has not happened and I am fearful that this piece’ of amending legislation will only tinker with the situation. It does not say that in the banking structure - I would like to incorporate the merchant banking structure - there shall be 80 per cent Australian control. It should say it. This suggestion that one person may have an interest of less than 10 per cent in a bank does not appear to bridge the wide gap, because if there is more than one person with nearly 10 per cent interest there may be 50 per cent or 60 per cent control by a few people. That is what we want to say. In our own basic industries, as has been elaborated, we have lost control to the extent of about 80 per cent. We should be getting back into those industries. We should be acquiring these assets. This is an opportunity to do it through the banking structure, because with the assets that the banks control, if they are Australian orientated and Australian dominated, the banks would be motivated to get these other assets under Australian control; that is, the banking structure could well be advancing money to the entrepreneurs in mining exploration and other fields to develop Australian industries. If an Australian wanted to establish a motor car industry he should be given top priority and the money could well be advanced through the banking structure. But that does not happen now, nor will it ever happen under the present system. Could we imagine, for example, a director of a bank in which there is some definite foreign interest, such as an American controlling interest, encouraging a rival to General MotorsHolden’s Ltd? It is just not on. It will not happen.

So when we look through this problem of banking and the problem of directorships we see that the interlocking structure is so great that it virtually becomes a very personal problem. That great journal the Sydney Morning Herald’ built its present new edifice through the interlocking structure of the Bank of New South Wales and the Australian Mutual Provident Society. It would have had no opportunity to do so if it were not for this combined directorship. lt is all very well for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ to say how fair that was. It would get that money because of a family relationship through the board of directors and in no other way. It would not follow that any other industry would get the same amount of money from the Bank of New South Wales, because the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ got a special concession. All the policy holders in the AMP would be interested in what happens to their money because it is given out by directors and not necessarily to the general advantage of all the policy holders.

It is important that we now have a look at what is done. I happened to see recently a large advertisement in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. It included the rather interesting statement that Air Lease International Finance was offering 20 million 9 per cent guaranteed bonds and 15 million 84- per cent guaranteed notes. It then recited the banks that are interested in the concern. They are mainly British but include a large number of others, mainly European. Not one Australian bank is mentioned in that advertisement. One wonders what Air Lease International is going to do. I would hazard a guess. It is going to compete effectively with Qantas Airways Limited. Here we are being advised that all these securities have been sold. This announcement appears as a matter of record only. That is the sort of thing that is happening now. That advertisement appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ comparatively recently.

In the whole monetary structure we seem to be out in the cold. We should be right in the middle of Australian development. One would like to see this piece of legislation brought up to date in line with the Canadian position. This would need a much more extensive amendment to the Act than is envisaged in this Bill. One would hope that there could be, we might as well say, another committee of this House to have a look at the banking structure as it is, including the merchant banks, see who are the directors, see what companies they are interested in and whether they are actively interested in the promo tion of all things that are necessary for Australian development. We have now large interests coming into the Pacific from Japan, France and America, and we are holding the minority position. Our banks, if they are involved at all, are involved to the extent of about 25 per cent. They have no greater involvement. So it becomes a real problem for this country in that if there are such massive resources available in the way of sheer money it can weil affect the development in a number of fields, whether it is oil, minerals or finance. It affects every Australian when the money going overseas in the form of profits becomes more than the amount of foreign investment coming in. This must follow surely, because we now find ourselves on the wrong end of the stick in regard to this magic term ‘capital inflow’. If we look at it, capital inflow is never enormous. In fact the present Budget provides for a surplus well above the capital inflow in any year.

It is important that Australia retains its assets and that through the Government if necessary, and certainly through the banking structure, we develop these assets to the advantage of Australia. I think it is important, in view of the decision in the concrete pipes case, that we legislate immediately to control Australian interests in the merchant banking field. They are financial corporations trading within Australia. They are already incorporated. This can be done. Secondly I would like to think that all banks retain Australian interests. The one bank that does not do so at the moment is the Australian and New Zealand Bank. We should have a good look at that, because the more we look at the United Kingdom the more we see that it is no longer interested in. Australia. If we read the recent speech by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom addressing his own party on the advantages to the Government that he is leading of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market we see that Australia does not get one mention. We are not even mentioned in a speech of about 20 pages. There is no interest in us at all.

Let us face up to the facts of where we are heading. We are in a rather interesting situation in the South East Asian complex. We have a large land mass; we have our population mainly on the seaboard; we have problems in all of our industries; our work force is highly skilled if it is properly motivated. Yet when we look at our banking structure we find that in many cases the banks are owned, directly or indirectly, by people who are not Australians. We must protect our interests in this respect. While it is all very well to say that there have been limitations in the past and that we may not have been able to deal with the merchant banking situation, we can deal with it now. I would like to see this Bill taken back and redrafted. I would like to think that whenever a second reading speech is made we are given full information as to what we are aiming at. It should have been said in the second reading speech that we are aiming at a particular bank in Brisbane and it could have been said perhaps in all honesty that the reason we are doing this is that somebody has advised us that something is going to happen. But what about all the other companies that have been taken over because nobody has ever bothered to look at what has happened to their assets? We had a splendid example recently of a so-called defaulting situation where we have a receiver selling the assets of a company, and in every case they are bought by the American interests. It is then excused on the basis that it has to be done because we had a receivership and we had to act to the benefit of the creditors. It is a joke.

Let us face up to it. If the facts are that there is to be no foreign domination, there should be no foreign domination even if the creditors are to lose a little. But let us not put it on the basis that because it is a receivership sale, as happened recently with Mineral Securities of Australia Ltd, this must be tolerated. We have now lost control of uranium and other resources. So the whole situation comes back to this: Redraft the legislation on the Canadian principle. It can be done. The amendment to the Act has to be much more extensive than is envisaged in this Bill. The Bill is innocuous. It is of no real value. It should not be opposed, because it is trying to do something; but it will not achieve a solution.

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

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– As this debate has gone on we have got further and further away from the Bill and its true purposes. To begin with, I would like to say to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) that this Bill as such has nothing whatever to do with foreign interests foreign takeovers or foreign shareholding.

The main objective of this Bill is to prevent any one shareholder acquiring more than 10 per cent of the capital and thus preventing any one group obtaining control. This a very old working principle in the Australian banking system.

The Bank of New South Wales, which is our oldest bank, has had for a very long time in its charter, which is subject I think to the original British legislation, a provision severely curtailing the shares which any one shareholder may acquire or own. The object of this, of course, was to prevent any one shareholder or any one small group obtaining control of a bank. This is done for a very special reason. I refer to the fact that the Banking Act does confer peculiar and special privileges on those who hold banking licences and this carries with it the capacity to create credit and provide cheque facilities. In other words, it does have a very close relationship to the total volume of money extended in Australia. The object of the Bill is to circumscribe this function.

I think that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) said earlier that this Bill had the support of the Australian Labor Party, but, of course, this is a very limited Bill. It does not provide for all the other things which various honourable members have tacked on to it and built into this debate. I would like to refer also to the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) because he seems to think that all finance companies are first cousins to the local pawnbroker and charged interest rates accordingly.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He was a bank manager.

Mr BURY:

– Well, this by 1971 is a very simple view of finance companies and merchant banks which in fact do provide a lot of sophisticated credit facilities. They have found ways and means of financing all kinds of ventures which would not be known in Australia if we had not had some foreign interests coming in and certainly we would not have anything like the sophisticated monetary system that we have now if these companies had not taken root here. I think that this view is a correct one.

I refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) who noted the fact that over recent years the proportion of finance and loans made by the banking system relative to other institutions had steadily declined from about 70 per cent in the early 1950s down to less than 50 per cent at present, lt is true that the first impact of this change was probably to lead to a deterioration in the quality of credit granted. Inexperienced institutions collected money, began lending, made losses and so forth, compared with the long established experience of the banks themselves. But these institutions have contributed a great deal towards bringing the system up to date and ensuring that in fact our financial system kept well abreast of world standards. The honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) worked General Motors into the subject. It is worth noting, particularly after the remarks of the honourable member for Cunningham, that it was Mr Chifley himself who determined the arrangements under which General Motors has operated in this country.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member has been prompted but that does not make any difference.

Mr BURY:

– Well, he made the arrangements and he did so with considerable foresight because we now have a company which contributes more to our foreign exchange receipts every year than it takes out of the country and in fact a large proportion of its top personnel are Australian. The honourable member for KingsfordSmith seemed to have the idea that research and everything else were done by American citizens. I would suggest that if the honourable member were to go to some of the General Motors research institutes, the personnel there would be pleased to show him around. The honourable member could see in fact who is there, what kind of people they are and what nationality they are. To bring General Motors into this debate is like introducing a red herring. Such is irrelevant to this issue which, as I said, has nothing to do really with foreign investment.

This Bill is aimed at limiting a total shareholding in any bank. The reason for this is quite different. Such a move wi!’; prevent takeovers; it will prevent one group from getting together, acquiring the assets of a bank and using them for its financial purposes. This is an important aim in itself. The ownership of a bank by one shareholder is limited. Of course, the possibility of further legislation may now come into view as far as the merchant banking and finance community is concerned, after the Concrete Pipes decision. But this is a subject which has been long under close scrutiny and study by experts in our Reserve Bank and the Treasury. It is a matter which has been the subject of a great deal of expert thought and consideration.

In this connection it is worth mentioning - and I am sure that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has probably seen this already - that Britain has been confronted with very much the same problem - that is the problem of the banks financing a shrinking sector of the community and losing ground continually to other financial institutions. Britain has recently established a highly competitive system to restore full-blooded competition between the banks composing the banking system and has also made new arrangements so that the banks are in direct and continuous competition with all the other finance companies and credit institutions. I would suggest to the honourable member for KingsfordSmith that he would find it fruitful to study these examples, particularly if he has in mind bringing forward any legislative changes because there are many possibilities coming into view in a field which has operated virtually on one system or with one mode with small modifications for 25 years.

Again, far be it from me to throw any doubt on Mr Chifley’s great understanding of the banking system, banks, what went on there, industry generally and how to handle the situation. I wish that this part of his wisdom had been transmitted to some of his successors. However, honourable members opposite may remember that in applying the Labor principles on banking he put himself and his Party out of office and it has stayed there for a very long time.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– No more important piece of legislation than this Bill has come before us recently, not because the legislation itself has any great purport but because of the implications of the banking system for the whole of Australia. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who just resumed his seat, made a very unconvincing defence of foreign investment in, and foreign exploitation of, Australia. He could perhaps have informed himself of the profitability of General Motors-Holden’s Ltd. It is interesting to note that Professor C. P. Kindleberger analysed the profitability of GMH and came up with the fact that that company has earned on its original investment 560 per cent. In fact, there was such a great outcry in the 1950s about the high level of profitability that GMH decided that it had better buy out the Australians who remained, or the small group which was associated with the company. GMH did buy them out. It transformed itself into a private company and now is under no obligation to publish its accounts. I do not know whether the honourable member and the Government as a whole defend that situation but we on this side of the House do not.

It is 34 years since we had a royal commission into banking in our country and I make a plea this afternoon that members on all sides of the Parliament consider the need for a further royal commission into banking. I would hope that if such a royal commission were established one of its members might be the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), who seems to be completely at sea about legislation governing banking and his own responsibility in it. The Prime Minister indicated in this House on 30th September that the Government, for example, had no right to dictate to the Reserve Bank of Australia how it should act. In fact, he said it would be either imprudent or impudent - I was not sure of which from his diction - of the Government to attempt to do so.

Apparently it escaped his attention that, under section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act, the Federal Executive Council may, by order, determine the policy to be adopted by the bank. So, I suggest that this is a good time in the history of the country to examine the whole ramifications of bank ing. As my good friends, the honourable members for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out, while we welcome this Bill, it is a mere token. Something better and more effective should be done.

The honourable member who has just resumed his seat apparently did not listen to his successor as Treasurer when he said that the whole purpose of the Bill ‘was to ensure that the Commonwealth has adequate power to control the acquisition by local or overseas interests of large shareholdings in banks incorporated in Australia’. We are looking at overseas control of banking, but we have an incredible situation in our country; we have a closed shop in banking. It is not possible for somebody to come in and open a bank and charge the normal interest rates prevailing at the time, but it is possible for a foreign interest to come in and buy a hire purchase company and charge anything up to 24 per cent and, in some cases, even 36 per cent. According to the Government, this is perfectly logical and right.

Mr James:

– It is legalised robbery.

Mr GRASSBY:

– As my honourable friend says, as a result of the present policy thousands of Australians are now being charged excessive interest rates. Each week, in fact, Mrs Australia in every town and city in the nation is being misled. She is being given wrong or inadequate information as to what she will be paying in interest. In some instances, salesmen have made their ploy based on effective interest rates of 36.4 per cent. Customers are being bamboozled. It is common knowledge and factual that some goods are being sold at an effective interest rate of 24.4 per cent. One also finds that cars are being peddled, particularly to young people, at an effective interest of 36 per cent. Australia is third in the world in relation to hire purchase debts. In fact, we owe SI 75 a head. In comparison, the British owe $50 a head and most Europeans owe $40 or $50 a head. The interesting thing is that we do not owe this money to companies that are substantially under our own control but we are in hock to overseas interest to this extent. Again, it might be said ‘How did we get to this stage of financial bondage?’ The policy of the Government has led us very clearly to exactly that position.

This Bill purports to exercise some control, but let us see what the Bill does in relation to the major foreign banking house that we already have in this country. Let us examine the scope of the Bill, following along the very good and sound remarks of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, as it relates to the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. The object of this Bill, as stated by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his second reading speech, is to provide a method of exercising control over the possession by local or overseas interests of substantial interests in shares in banks incorporated in Australia. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd is incorporated in England. The Bill does not provide a method whereby the Commonwealth Government can exercise effective control over the ownership of this bank. The fact that the ANZ banking group is incorporated in England constitutes a significant weakness in the coverage of the legislation. In fact, the Bill provides support for the Government’s policy only in respect of banks incorporated in Australia, and not of all existing banks.

Let us have a look at the importance of this group. In May 1971, the ANZ banking group held 19.8 per cent of the total deposits held by all trading banks. This amounted to $1,47 6m. The Australia and New Zealand Savings Bank Ltd held 9.3 per cent or $70 lm of depositors’ balances with all savings banks. On the basis of total deposits held, the ANZ banking group is the third largest trading bank :n Australia. It follows the Bank of New South Wales and the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia. It is evident that the ANZ banking group is one of the most important of the existing banks referred to in the legislation, yet it is beyond the scope of the present Bill for the Government to exercise effective control over the ownership of this bank. Who owns it? The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith posed this question. The facts are that the vast majority of shares in the ANZ banking group are held by residents of the United Kingdom. The proportion held by Australians is less than 10 per cent and a small proportion is probably held in New Zealand. So, there is a situation in which the third largest sector of the banking industry is just not covered by a Bill that has been brought into this Parliament and which purports to do something that in fact it cannot do. I suggest that the Minister representing the Treasurer or the Treasurer himself should address himself to this great inadequacy.

Mr Peacock:

– We already have and 1 will explain that to you later.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I hope that you will. I referred earlier in my remarks to the fact that it is possible for any foreign interest to come into Australia and go into the money business, provided that it does rot go into what is known as the traditional banking business. It has been the policy of the Commonwealth Government since 1945 not to grant overseas interests authority to carry on banking business in Australia, but in other sectors of the capital market, such as finance companies, which I have mentioned, and merchant banking institutions, mentioned by my colleague from Kingsford-Smith, there has been substantial foreign investment and I think the House should take particular note of what has happened in this field.

A very comprehensive analysis of foreign investment in the non-bank sector of the capital market has been made by Mr M. W. Acheson, the deputy representative of the Bankers Trust Company of New York. I name my authority in case honourable members opposite felt that it came from one of our erudite Australian Labor Party committees and, therefore, might be a little biased. His main findings from the survey can be summarised in this way: In the past 2 or 3 years, the flood of foreign banks into Australia has constituted a veritable invasion. Ninety-five foreign banking institutions have started banking in Australia. Twelve have only representative offices, another 27 have representative offices plus an equity participation in one or more local financial institutions and the 83 foreign banks with local investments have a total of 102 investments in 52 separate financial institutions. More than 60 per cent of the merchant banks and other financial institutions in which there are overseas interests have a local equity content equal to or greater than 50 per cent.

The rate of foreign investment in this sector of the capital market perhaps could slow down because they have already picked the plums. But let us be quite clear; the invasion has been strong and definite and it is now an influence which could well be inimical to our own independent economy. The changing structure of the capital market in relation to the increase in assets should be noted. It will be found that the increase in assets of financial institutions between 1960 and 1969 amounted to 121 per cent. When one considers the trading banks, it will be found that their assets have increased by 88 per cent, while instalment finance companies have increased their assets by 155 per cent. The assets of development finance companies have increased tenfold in that period.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Returning to what I was saying before the suspension of the sitting, it is evident that finance companies and merchant banks - development finance companies - have expanded at a faster rate than the capital market as a whole, and in particular the banks. It is likely that more recent statistics will reveal a further substantial expansion in these 2 sectors, especially in the merchant banks. I stressed earlier that there had been a big inflow of money and a rapid expansion of these merchant banks and an increasing importance of foreign banks generally. There has been - and rightly so - further calls from honourable members on this side for direct control of non-bank financial institutions. The comments of Dr Harold Bell, economic adviser to the Australian Mutual Providend Society, are quite pertinent in this regard. He said:

Although Australia has not traditionally been in the international circuit of flows of ‘hot money’, our money and capital markets have become increasingly well known to foreign investors and it seems likely that at least some of the currently heavy influx of overseas funds may be of a shortterm or speculative type. As foreign banking and investment groups establish here so, too, is the element of short-term capital inflow likely to be encouraged.

This is added reason why there is a case for looking again at the definition of banking business and the exercise of some closer oversight of those banking type institutions not at present covered by the banking legislation.

That is a responsible comment by an important economic voice in our community. I repeat the plea that I made before dinner for a further royal commission into all aspects of banking, fringe banking and associated financial institutions. In the 34 years since the last royal commission the entire financial structure has changed. It can be truly said these days that the only people who care about Australia and those who live here are the people themselves. They are speaking more eloquently than ever before and they are asking questions that the Government has a duty to answer. It has been suggested that the control which is necessary over the ANZ banking group - to which I referred earlier - is adequate under another Act. I understand that the Minister will spell out the Government’s position and attitude on this. But this does not and cannot justify a position where there is a closed shop in Australia for one section of money business and a completely open door for all others.

I repeat: What possible justification in sense or community interest can there be in a system which allows a foreign bank to buy up a hire purchase firm and to charge effective interest rates of over 20 per cent while denying the same bank the opportunity to operate at the normal rate of interest? What kind of philosophy is this? What is the justification for it? Why have the Australian people been allowed to go into pawn to moneylenders outside the country at rates which they failed to appreciate in the first instance? It is time that we brought the Australian economy back home to serve the people here. It is time that we followed the example of our Canadian cousins and the recommendations of the Canadian House of Commons Committee on External Affairs which stated that Canadians should control at least 51 per cent of Canadian companies, whether in the financial or in the development sphere.

The inflow of hot money into Australia has brought with it the inflation with which the Government says it is concerned. The Budget figures tell their own story. More than $ 1,000m has been used to build city skyscrapers, city blocks with luxury offices, but only $300m has been used for the construction of new factories. This is a misapplication of resources on a tremendous scale. Part of this misapplication is assisted by the inflow of hot money - beyond the Government’s ken or care. For some years now the message has been clear. Speculative money coming into Australia has distorted the economy and it has been a major factor in our inflation. It has tied us more securely than ever before to the multi-national managements which make the decisions on the maximisation of global profits and not the community good or the national advancement. The royal commission on Canada’s economic prospects, set up in 19S5, pinpointed the essential dilemma. This is what that commission found: . . instalment finance companies’ policies in times of inflationary pressures may be directly opposite to those which the central bank is trying to promote through the operations of the commercial banks.

How much more impossible can the situation become when the companies are controlled outside this nation and are beyond the scope of any existing legislation? This is the position at the present time. France, Britain and Japan control very strictly foreign inflow and foreign speculation in relation to their own economies. At a time when these developed nations and others are probing the ramifications of the multinational corporation and trying to understand them we in Australia, either in this Parliament or outside it, have not paid sufficient attention to this matter. We have not even attempted to understand the ramifications of multi-national corporations. Yet we have a situation where our own standards of living have slipped and where control of the economy has slipped and is slipping further away from us.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has left Australia tonight on a trip overseas. The questions being asked in every part of Australia are: ‘Has he gone to sell another bit of the country? Has he gone to sell another bit of the farm or another bit of the mine?’

Mr Giles:

– What nonsense.

Mr GRASSBY:

– ‘What nonsense’, the honourable member says. I might say that that is the essential question at this time. What has he gone for? Why has he gone? What is he going to sell of our national assets? The whole roll call of our economy illustrates how much has already been eroded. If honourable members opposite think that they will have any significance in an economy totally dictated from outside this nation then they are living in the world of Alice in Wonderland. When they come out of the rabbit burrow in which they now live they will find that it is too late to make any effective contribution at all. This Bill is a token and nothing more. It leaves intact the policy which is selling out our country and our people’s future. It is being done daily. I submit to the Parliament that we should at least follow Canada, even now, and set up a royal commission which will give us the facts before we are placed in a position where we will have to write to London, to New York or to Tokyo to find out what we might be able to do or what we may be able to plan for the future of this nation. The control of money resources is the key to the advancement of this country.

At the beginning of my remarks on this Bill I drew attention to the exploitation of the average man and woman in Australia who buys on hire purchase. If supporters of the Government wish to defend this situation then let it be on their own heads. The effective interest rates which apply are hidden from the purchaser at the time of the purchase. This is not just an abstract matter for the economists or even for parliamentary committees. This is a matter which strikes at the very root of government and the control of the destinies of the nation. I suggest that we have been left behind in our attention to this matter. As we on this side have said, the Government has at least made a token effort in introducing this Bill and as a token we give our support to it. But what we ask for tonight, and what I in particular ask, is that more should be done. We have not even the raw data for future decisions. I appeal to the Government, in its remaining months of office, at least to follow Canada. Let us have the economy brought home as far as is possible. Let us set up a commission to probe the present position and plot the future in the interests of our nation and its future.

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

– In returning to the provisions of this Bill I wish very briefly to discuss 3 particular points. Firstly, there is the matter raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) regarding the constitutional situation which flows from the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Rocla pipes case. I point out that it is, of course, still not certain to what extent this case has clarified the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers to control financial corporations. This aspect of the High Court judgment is under examination.

Mr Hughes:

– I am quite prepared to give you some advice on this.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Your fees are too exorbitant. This aspect of the High Court judgment is under examination by the Government’s legal advisers and the scope of the Commonwealth’s powers should not be assessed at this stage as being allembracing.

Secondly, in regard to matters raised by the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), it is fair to point out that the introduction of this Bill does not signify any change at all in the long-standing policy not to grant overseas interests authority to carry on banking business in Australia or to allow them to acquire interests in existing Australian banks. That policy has been maintained since 1945 without the assistance of the present Bill. Among the methods used in the past in maintaining the policy, moral persuasion has proved quite successful because overseas interests would naturally be very reluctant to disregard the Government’s wishes in matters of this kind. The Act will provide the Government with an additional measure for use in some circumstances but other methods will remain available as before. With regard to the detailed application of the policy, a distinction can be made between overseas investment in Australian bank shares of a portfolio nature and overseas investment with a view to exercising an influence over an Australian bank. The Government has not previously found normal portfolio investment by overseas interests in Australian bank shares a threat to the policy and there is no reason to believe that this situation will necessarily change in the future.

However, if purchases of bank shares - and this was referred to by the honourable member - within the 10 per cent limitation by overseas interests were for purposes going beyond portfolio investment, such as to give overseas interests a voice in the affairs of an Australian bank, the Government’s opposition to such purchases will be the same after the Bill is enacted as it has been in the past. Finally, in regard to a matter raised by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) prior to the dinner adjournment concerning the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, the only major bank to which the Bill will not apply is that bank, which is incorporated in the United Kingdom. However, that bank remains subject to section 63 of the Banking Act which provides that except with the Treasurer’s consent the bank shall not enter into an arrangement for the sale or disposal of its business by amalgamation or otherwise or effect a reconstruction of the bank. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited savings bank subsidiary will be subject to the Bill, since the savings bank is deemed to be incorporated in Australia by recent United Kingdom and Victorian legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2604

WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SOUTHWEST REGION WATER SUPPLIES) AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September (vide page 1008), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This Bill is concerned with one further step forward in the development of the water resources of Australia. It applies specifically to the construction of a pipeline to provide water to the wheat and sheep zones of Western Australia. The original Bill was based on an estimated cost of $21m. This estimate has now been increased to $24m which, under the dollar for dollar formula agreed to previously by the Parliament, would mean that the Commonwealth’s share has increased from $10.5m to $12m. The scheme will provide water directly and indirectly to approximately 3.5 to 4 million acres and in the main the principal beneficiary of this water will be stock used for wool production. However, the water will supply large and small towns in the northern and southern parts of the wheat and sheep zones of Western Australia and will contribute greatly to better living conditions for the people in those areas.

The 2 main dams in this project are the Mundaring Weir in the north and the Wellington Dam in the south. The Mundaring Weir will serve an area from Dalwallinu in the north, including Meckering and Quairading and in the southern part of the area the Wellington Dam will serve Wickepin and extend as far northwest as places such as Kondinin. The interesting observation which one must make is that this scheme is basically to provide water facilities for the wool industry. When one looks at the cost benefit analysis made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics some years ago it is interesting to compare the assumptions made at that time with what happens now. I would like to point out, as I have done many times in the Parliament, the grave dangers in the use of cost-benefit analyses in isolation, that is, by simply analysing a development project by the use of the so-called cost-benefit analysis and drawing conclusions from that result. I have always maintained that this is a highly dangerous practice because the principles underlying cost-benefit analyses are designed to carry out an economic evaluation of alternatives at one point of time, preferably alternatives of like projects, so that a government, if that is the body making the decision, can then make the best economic decision or, if it wants to bring other variables into it, provide a certain amount of money for a number of projects. When we are dealing with one project only and making one cost-benefit analysis we always run the risk of that not being the best project at the time.

I do not intend to go into this very deeply because it is really a technical argument, but I wish to illustrate this point: When this economic analysis was made several years ago, and it was a good analysis, it was based on certain assumptions the most important of which was a wool price of 60c a pound. The whole economic argument flowed from that figure. The costbenefit was calculated and then, of course, the various ratios were ascertained. It was found that with a price of 60c per lb the project was economic. With a reduction of 5 per cent in the price of wool or the price of wheat, the cost-benefit ratio was approximately 1.23 or 1.21, depending on which criterion one took. If there were a reduction of 20 per cent in the price of the commodities, which would mean that there would be a wool price of 48c per lb, the cost-benefit ratio would be less than 1 per cent, approximately 0.8 per cent, which would suggest that the project was uneconomic. One can only draw conclusions if this same evaluation took place today when the wool price is 30c per lb or less, as to whether the project would be economic in this narrow sense. Also, costs have risen significantly since this economic analysis was made. If one were to take those two variables - a wool price of 30c per lb and a significant increase in costs - and work on exactly the same assumptions one would get a different answer. I am simply trying to illustrate the danger in the use of benefit cost analysis on a single project. I will continue to hammer this point in the Parliament: It is an incorrect usage of the benefit cost analysis. The correct usage is an evaluation of alternatives, not of a single project.

One could make an accounting analysis of a single project as a firm wanting to invest a certain amount of money would do to find the rate of return on capital. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is not correct to use a benefit cost analysis in this case. A number of like alternatives should be taken. This is the accepted practice overseas and I believe that it should also be followed in Australia. The Bill is a most important one. It is of extreme importance to Western Australia. It is part of an overall programme of water conservation throughout Australia. There is now developing, particularly in the intensive agricultural districts - for example, in my own State - an attitude of complacency towards the need for progressive water conservation because there has been a good run of seasons. I suppose this is characteristic when one has to impress upon governments the need for urgent action on water conservation.

Most of the sugar areas in Queensland have had the benefit of 3 reasonably good seasons, but the law of probability, based on bitter experience, is that there is another drought around the corner. This applies particularly to those areas which are highly susceptible to drought. The heavy losses which have been experienced for generations in the coastal Burnett areas, for example, will be minimised because we now have a progressive water conservation scheme. Other intensive agriculture areas such as the Burdekin, the Pioneer Valley and the Fitzroy Basin will face further heavy losses unless water conservation projects are implemented by the Federal and State governments. The continued silence of the Government on the matter of a national water conservation programme is disturbing. All of the areas in coastal Queensland which have an urgent need for water conservation really rely on the 2 basic industries of sugar and beef which at the present time are the 2 bright spots in Australia’s future. Let me speak now about water conservation in northern Queensland. Water conservation is essential not only for the primary industries covered by the Bill but also for industrialisation. For example, Townsville is obviously dependent on water for its future growth.

Mr Peacock:

– And the Army.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I admit that. One of the big factors in the development of Townsville has been the Army. The development of the giant coal complex in the Pioneer Valley of the Mackay hinterland will also depend on water conservation. With the development of industrial complexes come industrial processing plants, and all of these industrial processing plants need water. I believe that pressure should be exerted continually on both the Federal and State governments to implement soundly based water conservation projects, particularly in those areas in which there are recurring droughts. History has shown that the lack of water in these areas has resulted in huge economic losses.

We have had many debates on water conservation in this Parliament and honourable members could speak on it tonight at great length. But the point I want to make with respect to this Bill is, first of all, that the Opposition supports it, despite the remarks I have made about the benefit cost analysis in this particular project. If the evaluation had been carried out now instead of, say, 5 years ago and based on the same assumptions as it was based on then - for example, a wool price of 60c per lb - we might not have had this water conservation scheme. According to my friends in the Treasury with whom I have often had great arguments, the chances are that we would not have had the scheme. They would have had too many arguments as to why we should not have it. In my opinion, the project is a good one and time will show that this investment in water in Western Australia is a good investment, as it will show for every other investment in water in Australia.

The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) always has a smile on his face when we talk about water. Obviously, water conservation in country areas is one of his pet hates. He likes water conservation for the cities that are protected by tremendous tariffs, of course, but when it comes to water conservation for the country areas he is always able to put up some argument against it. Luckily there are not many members like the honourable member for Bradfield. The great majority of members of this Parliament support fully the need for water conservation in Australia. Quite certainly as the population of this nation increases at its present rate the key resource will be water. The cities such as Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong, Melbourne and Geelong will certainly be short of water in 15 or 20 years time. They will probably be using desalination techniques. But one thing is certain: For the progressive development of this nation we must have more water conservation.

Mr Acting Speaker, in your area of northern New South Wales and in my own area of coastal Queensland there is perhaps the greatest potential for intensive agriculture and industrialisation. I suppose that one could argue validly now that industrialisation is more important in the short term than agriculture, because of the uncertainties of the market overseas. But certainly in those established areas which are losing great amounts of export income there is a case for water conservation based on sound economic principles for the future, not for the short term. If we follow a progressive policy of water conservation in Australia, as most people and most members of this Parliament would like to see, based again on sound principles, Australia will prosper.

If there is one thing that really annoys me it is the tremendous amount of criticism being levelled at water conservation projects. Let us take the example of the Bundaberg irrigation scheme which is one of the more recent ones. It can be shown in black and white that the cumulative value of the losses alone in the last 20 years, on export-import parity prices - not the subsidised prices - is greater than the capital costs of the headworks of the project, discounted over SO years at the ruling rate of interest. This proposition in new areas such as the Ord River and the Nogoa or Fairbairn Dam is quite different from the proposition of building an irrigation project in an established area. Quite a different set of principles is involved. They are the same principles as the Liberal Party applies when it builds new dams for Sydney or Melbourne. One never hears a word of criticism of them in the Parliament despite the fact that the whole economy of, say, Sydney or Melbourne or the complexes around them might be heavily dependent on tariffs. Of course, it is easy to criticise a subsidy to primary industry but the same people do not criticise tariffs which protect the cities. The analogy here is simple. Regarding water conservation, let us take the Chowilla Dam as an example. Should there not have been a cost benefit analysis of the Chowilla Dam? This would have been most interesting.

To sum up, the Bill is a simple one because it increases the Commonwealth commitment from $10. 5m to $12m on a $1 for $1 basis because of escalating costs in the construction of the pipelines from the Wellington and Mundaring weirs to serve the wheat and sheep areas of Western Australia. This is the whole basis of the Bill. I thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, for allowing me to speak at some length on other aspects of water conservation, but 1 think you will agree that water is something which is extremely dear to most of us. It is something on which we in this Parliament who are interested in it never fail to speak our mind and to ask for a greater and greater acceleration of funds keeping in mind, of course, that expenditure must be based on sound principles. I know some honourable members will take me to task about sound principles, but I will stand by any project that I have been associated with. I challenge anybody in the Parliament to tell me of any water conservation project in Australia, or in the world for that matter, that has been an economic failure. After about 10 years we always hear the same story, that there is not enough water. For those who want to criticise, say, the Ord River let me point out that the Japanese-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the honourable member that although I would not take him to task for sound principles I do take him to task for not directing his remarks to the Bill before the House.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I will just finish that sentence. The Japanese would buy the Ord area tomorrow, and there are some people who would sell it judging by the amount of land in northern Australia that they are selling on foreign stock exchanges. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– The Bill before the House is to amend the Western Australia (South-West Region Water Supplies) Agreement Act 1965. The original Bill was brought into the House to make a certain amount of money available for the continuation of the Comprehensive Water Scheme in Western Australia. This is nothing new to that State and all those who criticised it both inside and outside this House did not, as the. honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said, do their homework. This scheme started 70-odd years ago and has been added to ever since with a tremendous amount of success. If an analysis of the amount of production and pleasure it has already given to the people of Western Australia over that period of 70-odd years was made - that, of course, is not possible - the figures, especially in relation to production, would be staggering. Anybody who analysed the spending of the few million dollars concerned and the utilisation of the water would find that any such scheme would be a tremendous asset to a State in somewhat the same situation. This Bill lifts expenditure in these areas from $ 10.5m to SI 2m.

This is, as I have said, an extension of the original project to take water into these outlying areas. It is of benefit not only to the people themselves but to the financial structure of those areas. It is an insurance scheme against those very dry times which occur in those areas and affect agriculture. Losses in these areas can be tremendous unless we have a safety valve in the form of water supplies to at least some of them and this is what the scheme has been doing. Although the original scheme of C. Y. O’Connor was designed to move water through to the gold fields it was at the same time feeding it through into these vast agricultural areas. It is not therefore a short term project but a very long term project. It has already been going on for a long time. It is increasing in magnitude, and its ability to serve the areas involved will continue for a long time to come. We have had a lot of discussion in this House about what the Commonwealth does or does not do in relation to decentralisation. What better way to start doing these sorts of things in relation to decentralisation than by supplying money such as the Commonwealth is doing under this Bill to take water to service these inland areas of Western Australia.

In fact, the majority of the original population in the gold fields was to be supplied under this scheme. The gold took them there but they could not have lived without water. We must take water to the people and to industries wherever we may find them. This water will move through some very rich and productive areas which in previous years had tremendous difficulties in retaining enough water to see them through two or three years of drought. This is required in some cases because of the lack of run off from the catchment areas and so forth. There are limitations on the depth to which dams may be sunk in this area and there are other limitations on the obtaining of underground water because of the salt content of the water in at least some of the areas in the eastern district. It was because of this that this scheme was first brought into being and it is only through this scheme that we have been able to develop large areas of country and give the farmers security of water supplies.

Stock numbers, of both sheep and cattle, have been built up. Cattle numbers are increasing at a great pace at the moment and despite the situation in which we find wool today it will improve. This is a cycle of the times. We have had it before but to hear some people talk today one would think it was the end of the world so far as wool is concerned. But the very opposite is the case, as I analyse it. We have been through these cycles of high production, high prices and crises in the short history of Australia and in the history of the world but it is well known that wool will return to a reasonable price. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. Certain things have to be done before this will happen. As far as the profitability of these areas is concerned I have no doubt at all that these vast areas can be turned over to the production of other things such as beef. In fact this is being done at the present time. Under this Bill which increases the amount being made available by the Commonwealth, the State has to make, I think, 30 equal consecutive half-yearly repayments commencing 10 years after the date on which the initial payment is made by the Commonwealth.

But the increases in costs at this point illustrate the difficulties being faced. The Government has had to bring in this Bill to assist the State to overcome these increased costs because the amount provided in the original Bill in 1965 has proved to be insufficient. This is unfortunate in many ways because it increases the repayments which the State has to meet. It also increases the cost of supplying water to those people who are operating from the pipelines. The increased cost involved in this water supply scheme is only one of the many increases in costs which are confronting rural industries in Australia today. I hope that this Government, together with the 6 State governments - because I do not believe that any single government can do it - will find an answer to the problems concerning costs which we face in Australia today. I believe that this is a challenge not only for this Government, but also for the 6 State governments and for every industry and every individual in this country. We must sit up and take notice of what in fact is happening in Australia in relation to the cost spiral. This Bill has been introduced in order to overcome the problems concerning costs involved in this Western Australian water supply scheme.

I sincerely hope that the amount of money which the Commonwealth is making available under this Bill will be sufficient to complete this section of the scheme without any additional costs being incurred. However, I should like to add that there is another important project which has not yet been commenced in this area, and that is the Corrigin-York project which I believe this Government, in conjunction with the Western Australian Government, is analysing at the present time. In fact, this is another section of the total scheme which was envisaged many years ago. This is also a very important leg to the total scheme. Because of the situation in rural areas today, I sincerely hope that the Commonwealth or the State will not renege on this particular project which is being analysed at the present time. Surely everybody must realise that this area has tremendous potential for producing foodstuffs for the world. Although we are moving through some rather difficult times in rural areas at the moment, does anyone say that we will not come out of them as we have done previously and move into better times? I firmly believe that the Government should give every consideration not only to the particular scheme which is the subject of the Bill we are debating tonight but also the Corrigin-York project, which the State has put forward for consideration, because, as I said, this in fact is another leg to this important scheme which, over the years, has proved its worth.

Nobody analysing the scheme which provides reticulated water to many areas in Western Australia can find fault with what has happened as far as production is concerned. It has been tremendous. But without the scheme I fear for what might happen in some of the areas because the nature of the soil in these areas is similar to that in the areas which are covered by the Bill we are discussing tonight. There are problems in finding depths, and there are problems in finding underground water because of the salt content. But it is important to remember that meat, wool and also grains in great quantities are being produced in these areas, and this production is increasing year by year. It will be a sorry day for Australia when in fact we are not in a position to continue the agricultural pursuits which we have been following for so many years. I certainly support the Bill before the House tonight. As I have said, I hope that there will be a further extension to the scheme.

It is interesting to record - and I think 1 have done so in this House previously - that the man who first started this scheme was an engineer named C. Y. O’Connor. He was a tremendous engineer. Unfortunately, before water got to Kalgoorlie on the first leg he committed suicide because of the pressure brought to bear by certain people and by the Press. They said that he was completely crazy ever to think that he could achieve a project like reticulating water to this remote area in Western Australia. They said that the scheme would be a complete and dismal failure. He was a tremendous engineer. He did other things as well as engineering this scheme. But pressure was brought to bear by people who were saying to this man: ‘You cannot do it; you are crazy if you try’. He did it, and the scheme has proved successful in the last 70-odd years. It has gone on to better things. We had the problem, which C. Y. O’Connor could see at that time of having water reticulated into Kalgoorlie, and also Coolgardie, for the purpose of getting minerals from the ground. In that case it was gold. Now the Kambalda project has become a reality and that mineral area is being serviced by water as a result of the foresight of C. Y. O’Connor.

But people are saying the same thing today as they said 70-odd years ago. They are saying: ‘You should not do it; it will not be a success’. The sooner we get rid of that thinking the sooner we will realise that before one can start to do anything in this country, as in other countries, one needs water. If one does not reticulate water to these areas, one simply does not get anywhere. If water is turned off in any city in the world there is complete panic in a matter of a few hours. The scheme which is the subject of the Bill before us tonight is a continuation of a thought of a great engineer some 70-odd years ago. The scheme was a success at that time, and I have no doubt that it will be a success in the future.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– The Bill before the House is the Western Australia (South-West Region Water Supplies)

Agreement Bill 1971. When introducing the Bill the Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) said that it was being introduced in order to amend the Western Australia (South-West Region Water Supplies) Agreement Act of 1965. He said it was designed to provide an extra SI. 5m to bridge the gap caused by increased costs since the original Bill was passed through the House. He went on to point out that the Commonwealth is providing the money to the State Government in the form of a loan, repayable over 15 years, on a dollar for dollar basis. When the late Mr Holt introduced the 1965 Bill, he said:

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia for the provision of financial assistance to the State to accelerate extensions to the comprehensive water supply scheme in the south-west of the State. . . . The comprehensive water scheme was originally planned, in 1946, to extend over 12 million acres, but was subsequently modified to 4 million acres. The Commonwealth Government of the day agreed to assist the modified scheme and for this purpose the sum of £Sm was provided on a £1 for £1 basis with the State under the Western Australia Grant (Water Supply) Act 1948- 1957. The modified scheme was completed in 1961-62.

In 1963, the Government of Western Australia sought further financial assistance to accelerate desirable extensions to the scheme, which the State had been financing from its own resources since termination of the Commonwealth assistance. . . . The purpose of the scheme is to provide water for stock and domestic purposes only and not for irrigation.

As the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) has stated, the scheme provides essential water. It takes water from the coastal areas around Perth and. Collie and carries it to the wheat belt where it is needed for land which is dry. The water is used to service homes and sheep watering points. The scheme is moving to its conclusion. The money which the Commonwealth has given to assist the State in bridging finance has been very important and has played an essential part in ensuring that this project comes to a conclusion. Under the present circumstances I believe that this measure ought to be a reminder to us of the need for the Commonwealth to provide money to assist the States with urgent and very essential public works. At the present time the areas being serviced by this water scheme are experiencing grave problems and therefore very careful consideration ought to be given to extending the scheme where it is warranted. But if extensions are not warranted what is warranted is Commonwealth assistance for other public works to keep in employment people who are presently threatened with unemployment, including some of those who will be drawing on this water as farmers. Commonwealth assistance is needed vitally in the south west areas that are served by this water scheme. It is needed also in areas outside the scheme - in the Plantagenet-Albany area, in the Bunbury-Collie area and in the BridgetownManjimup area.

Some little while ago I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) who was in Western Australia whether he would communicate with the Minister for Decentralisation in Western Australia to determine what the Commonwealth could do to assist the Western Australian Government to encourage industry and work in the south west of that State. Co-operation on the same lines as is provided in this Bill is required urgently to alleviate some of the unemployment which is already existing in the area and which is worsening as it is in most of Australia. As I said to the Acting Prime Minister at that time, the Forrest electorate is ideally suited for testing out policies of decentralisation because it will not affect the Country Party vote. It secures only 10 per cent of the vote in the area as it is, so it is one area where we can get down to the serious work of ascertaining what can be done by way of decentralisation without affecting Country Party representation. The people in the area are wise enough to know that even though they are country people their interests are not served by that Party. They give only 27 per cent of their vote to the Liberals, too. In spite of that, the Government should see what can be done to give the State assistance in the same way as is being done in this Bill to undertake further public works. I commend this thought to the Minister and to the House.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I am always anxious to be associated with any Bill providing for water conservation and, although I am a Victorian, I am interested in this water conservation scheme in Western Australia because, after all, we are all Australians. I believe that soundly based -

I underline ‘soundly based’ - water conservation is one of the main priorities at which we should aim. I have said so often that it could be regarded as tedious repetition that my No. 1 priority is defence. It is no good having all the good things we have - a democratic government, a democratic Parliament, good houses, motor cars and all the other things that make for good living - unless they can be protected, so the first priority must be defence. My second priority is primary industry, coupled, in most cases, with water conservation. These are the priorities at which I aim.

I do not want to make a long speech tonight but, as a Victorian, I want to support this scheme in Western Australia. I draw attention to the fact that it provides for pipelining of water. For many years I have been advocating the pipelining of water to rural areas for the simple reason that in my electorate of Mallee, in the north west of Victoria, there are areas in which more than 90 per cent of the water is lost from the water storage to the consumer through evaporation and seepage. This means that in that part of the world pipelining would be equal to duplicating all the water storages. But there is more in it than that. The point is that storages cannot always be filled. A dozen storages might be built but it might not be possible to fill them so we must make the best use that we can of the water that we conserve. Although I have not visited and inspected this Western Australian scheme, I believe that it is vital to Western Australia. From figures recently released I understand that Western Australia’s population is growing as fast as or faster than any of the other States on a percentage basis and provision must be made for the future. This Bill is in the bests interests of Western Australia and also in the best interests of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2611

PAY-ROLL TAX (STATE TAXATION OF COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30th September (vide page 1736), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– In some respects I suppose this Bill might be described as a technical measure arising out of the fact that some weeks ago this Parliament legislated to transfer from the Commonwealth to the States the responsibility for collecting the tax known as payroll tax. I think, in a strict constitutional sense, there would be some difficulty in levying that tax, as a State tax, upon Commonwealth instrumentalities, but apparently the Commonwealth Government is doing what it regards as the decent thing for once and is voluntarily making liable for a tax that constitutionally could not be collected a set of bodies which is listed in a document called the ‘Attachment’. This list includes such bodies as the Australian Canned Fruits Board, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and the Australian Tobacco Board, to mention only a few. Apparently since that list was first circulated there have been a number of second thoughts about it because I received a letter dated 8th October from the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) in his capacity as Minister assisting the Treasurer in which he indicated that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) had asked him to forward to me an amended copy of that list. The amendments concern primarily the Commonwealth Banking Corporation which is divided into 3 divisions - the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia. These have been listed separately and the letter from the Minister for the Army explains this situation by stating:

It was drawn to the Minister’s attention by Treasury officials that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its 3 member banks are staffed by officers of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Service. For the purposes of Commonwealth payroll tax the corporation is, therefore, the registered employer. However, the Corporation has no income of its own- lt is rather astonishing that that great body has no income of its own - and its total expenses, including taxes, are met by the 3 member banks. Although the inclusion of the 3 member banks in sub-list (i) represents the de facto position, the amendment proposed is more correct.

The inclusion of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation in sublist (ii) of the list appearing in Hansard follows clarification of the Organisation’s registration under Commonwealth pay-roll legislation.

That is signed for the Minister.

Mr Peacock:

– You were- grateful to get it, though?

Mr CREAN:

– Very grateful to get it but a little disturbed or bemused, I suppose, by what is meant by this passage in the Minister’s second reading speech:

The Bill does not itself make the authorities to which it applies liable to pay State pay-roll tax. It merely removes the barrier to payment of State payroll tax that exists in the constituting legislation of a number of Commonwealth authorities.

The Minister might be able to clarify for me in basic English what that is supposed to mean. But 1 think it only underlines what we suggested when these measures were introduced, that it is a rigmarole or a paraphernalia, that basically this tax would have been much more easily collected at the Federal level by the Commonwealth and whatever administrative arrangements were needed to be made about reimbursing could have been made better in that way. However the Commonwealth chose to regard this as a growth tax, which the States were anxious to put their hands upon, and they have already increased it by 40 per cent from 2 per cent to 3± per cent. As I have said, the Commonwealth as a gracious act is bringing its own instrumentalities into the State net. Those organisations which previously had been taxed when the tax was a Commonwealth tax are now being voluntarily taxed by the State in which they operate. As 1 say, it is a highly technical matter. We offer no objection to the Bill, but I merely want to point out the rather confusing situation that it seems to raise.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), this Bill is really a technical Bill. It follows on from the fact that the Commonwealth Government acceded to ‘*ie States’ request for a growth tax. Again as has been pointed out, the payroll tax would not have been applicable to some 14 Commonwealth bodies. This Bill will now allow these authorities to pay State payroll tax. The Bill does not make them liable to pay but it removes the barrier that would prevent them from paying under their constitution. In the attachment to the second reading speech of ‘.he Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) there were listed the 3 constituent banks incorporated under the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Counting these as 3 banks there are 14 bodies which will now be able to pay State payroll tax.

A point perhaps worth making is that in handing over the payroll tax the Commonwealth has done so with a full measure of co-operation, and this Bill simply gives authority to allow these bodies to pay the tax and thereby demonstrates the sincerity of purpose in handing over the payroll tax to the States. The question of payroll tax and its merits does not come into the Bill. It is merely a Bill which allows the States to collect the amount of money they will be able to collect by allowing these bodies to pay the payroll tax which the States can apply to them but which in the present circumstances they would not be allowed to pay. I think that the Commonwealth Government in making this available to the States has shown a willingness to assist the States by allowing them a growth tax. It will help them in their financial problems. While often the Commonwealth Government is criticised, I think this is a very good example of the willingness of the Commonwealth Government to co-operate with the States, and this Bill we are debating here now indicates that the Commonwealth is prepared to honour in full its undertaking to the States by enabling these Commonwealth authorities to pay State payroll tax. The Commonwealth is quite agreeable that they should pay so that the States will pet the full benefit of the payroll tax which has been transferred to them by the Commonwealth.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I rise to support the Bill, which allows the States to collect payroll tax from certain Commonwealth authorities. It shows the willingness of the Commonwealth to assist the States in regard to this matter. I am of the opinion that it does not go sufficiently far enough in regard to assisting the States, and I feel that the only real way to assist the States, if we are honest, sincere and genuine in this respect, is to allow the States to partake of income tax. But this Bill does alleviate the situation to a point. I have much pleasure in supporting it, and I commend the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) for bringing it before the House.

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

– in reply - In response to a matter raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) I merely want to say, in elucidation of the sentence contained in my second reading speech, that this Bill did not seek to make authorities liable to pay State payroll tax. But within the constituting legislation of a number of these Commonwealth authorities there was a bar or a barrier to their payment of payroll tax. Hence this legislation removed that bar or barrier.

Mr Crean:

– What was that barrier?

Mr PEACOCK:

– It could be expressed in different forms but, as a consequence, it did not permit States to impose payroll tax on these Commonwealth authorities. By the passage of this legislation the States will be able to impose payroll tax on these authorities. I think that is sufficient explanation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2613

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (TASMANIA) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 October (vide page 2294), on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Bill before the House at the moment is a Bill to ratify an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania to lend to that State a sum of $4,250,000 of which $2,500,000 will be by way of a repayable loan at the normal long term bond rate, which I believe at the moment is 7 per cent, and of which $ 1.75m will be by way of a nonrepayable grant. The object of this bill is to permit the State to build a new railway line from Launceston to Bell Bay. It is a railway which, in my opinion, is long overdue. It should have been built many years ago to assist the development of the northeastern section of Tasmania and the establishment and growth of industries in a State that has problems. Being an island it has transport problems that are not associated with the mainland. It is regrettable that this agreement has taken so long to negotiate.

While the Opposition supports the measure, it believes that the Government should have been prepared to make the money available at a much earlier date than is proposed. One of the sound features of this Bill is the provision that the Tasmanian railways will be required to repay the loan within a period of 30 years by way of 60 equal repayments. This is an arrangement which should be introduced in respect of all the railway systems throughout the Commonwealth because many of them still owe money on rolling stock or lines that are no longer in use or perhaps in existence. The systems still owe money on tracks that have become redundant because services are no longer required or are uneconomical to run. In many cases railway departments have removed the lines and dispensed with the systems altogether. Rolling-stock has become antiquated and has been disposed of. The result is that these items no longer produce revenue to be used to repay loans that were raised originally to build the tracks and purchase rolling-stock. Railway systems as a whole throughout Australia find themselves in the ludicrous position of not having a source of revenue in these antiquated assets or even non-existent items. The result is that today the systems are heavily burdened with debt.

I have said on a number of occasions in the House that it is time the Commonwealth did something to assist the States to liquidate their outstanding indebtedness. As I said a moment ago, the pleasing feature of this legislation is that the State of Tasmania will be required to repay the loan within a certain period. I hope that the proposed line will be sufficiently profitable to enable the loan to be repaid in the manner laid down in the agreement. This arrangement will put the Tasmanian railway system on a much better basis economically to operate efficiently in the interests of the State. If one examines the indebtedness of the Tasmanian railway system, one finds that the figure increased from $6,794,000 in 1950 to $20,848,000 at 30th June 1970, which is the latest date for which figures are available. The interest payments which this small railway system in a small State has had to make - and it is interest payments that are crippling the railway systems of Australia today - increased from $268,000 a year in 1950 to $1,185,000 in 1970.

I hope that the Commonwealth will be able to devise ways and means whereby it will be able to assist not only the Tasmanian system but also the railways systems as a whole. Let us take as an example New South Wales. In 1970 interest payments by that State in respect of the railways’ indebtedness amounted to $35m and it is expected that they will be about $40m next year. No railway system, no matter how profitable or how efficient it is, can carry this sort of burden and continue to function. I am glad that the Commonwealth has imposed these conditions of repayment - harsh though they may appear to be - but in reality, I believe, this arrangement is in the interests of the Tasmanian railway system as a whole. The Opposition supports the measure and gives it a speedy passage.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

has pointed out, does not oppose the Bill which provides $4.25m for the construction of a rail link between Launceston and Bell Bay in northern Tasmania. This link has been repeatedly advocated by the Australian Labor Party; it was promised as part of Labor’s election policy at the 1963 and 1966 elections by the former Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) made it plain during the 1969 election campaign that a federal Labor government would provide funds for the rail link.

Provision for this money for the Bell Bay link has been forced on a reluctant Government by the rapid development of the woodchip industry in this part of Tasmania. All other arguments over the years had failed to convince the Government of the economic value of the link as part of the transport system of northern Tasmania. The viability of the link was never in doubt to .those who looked closely at the link in cost-benefit terms. The provision of this 23 miles of rail between the existing State system north of Launceston and Bell Bay has become a matter of urgency with the first woodchip shipments scheduled for next August.

It is more than a year since the request for this assistance was made by the Premier of Tasmania, so the Government has not rushed blindly into the Bell Bay project. However, there is reason for gratitude in the recognition of the merits of this rail link. There is less reason for gratitude in the terms imposed in the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania. Initially the Commonwealth was to provide 85 per cent of the establishment cost of the line, then estimated at $3.5m. This would have amounted to $2.97m, leaving the Tasmanian State Government to find the remaining $530,000. The total cost is not stated in the second reading speech of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt), who was at the time the acting Minister.

On a ratio of 85 to 15, the total cost based on the Commonwealth contribution would be $5m with the State providing $750,000. This indicates a substantial increase in the cost of the Bell Bay link, an increase which has not been explained either by the Minister or the Tasmanian Premier. Obviously, any further increases in construction costs will have to be met by the State Government, allowing for the limited time available for construction. After the Commonwealth pledge of assistance was announced ry Mr Bethune in April, he said that Tasmania did not expect at that stage to get the rail link assistance as a straight grant. It is just as well Mr Bethune did not build up any high hopes about any lack of strings to the Commonwealth assistance. By any standard the terms of the finance provided by the Commonwealth are far from generous.

The Commonwealth is to provide up to $4.25m towards the cost of the link, ft will make $2.5m available by way of loan repayable over 30 years and carrying interest at the long term bond rate, currently 7 per cent. The remaining $ 1.75m will be provided as a non-repayable grant. This makes the relative shares 50 per cent loan, 35 per cent non-repayable grant, and 15 per cent from the State Government. This split-up compares most unfavourably with Commonwealth assistance provided for other railway works in the past 20 years. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard details of Commonwealth assistance for railways since 1949.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The table is as follows) -

Mr BARNARD:

– The table shows this Tasmanian railway agreement provides most unfavourable terms; only the Western Australian Railway Agreement of 1961 is in any way comparable to the agreement for Commonwealth asistance to build the Bell Bay link. The railway standardisation agreements are an example; here assistance was made available on a relative basis of 30 per cent by loan and 70 per cent by grant. Furthermore, the loan period in each case was 50 years. The interest rate for the South Australian agreement was the cost to the Commonwealth of raising the money. In the case of New South Wales and Victoria, the interest rate was 5 per cent.

Even allowing for changes in the monetary climate and Government monetary policy, the application of an effective rate of 7 per cent for the Bell Bay link seems unjust. For improvements between Parkes and Broken Hill under the standardisation programme a maximum of SI Om was provided to New South Wales as a grant without any strings whatsoever. In the 20 years since 1951-52 the Commonwealth has made a total of $248. 8m available to the States for railway projects. Tasmania’s share of this has been $4.25m - about 1.7 per cent. The State’s share of grants given for railways is even less; it works out at 1.4 per cent. In view of the many millions the Commonwealth has provided for railway projects and the very slender share absorbed by Tasmania, there is a strong case for making this money for the Bell Bay link available on more reasonable terms. The railway agreement explicitly confines Commonwealth assistance to the rail link, a new railway bridge, marshalling lines and some upgrading of existing lines. There is no mention of Commonwealth assistance for provision of rolling stock for the line. This is surprising because Mr Bethune has always made it clear that his request for assistance included rolling stock. According to Press reports the Prime Minister had said that the Commonwealth would consider assistance for rolling stock in addition to its 85 per cent contribution to the capital cost of the line. A figure of $ 11.4m was mentioned for locomotives, rail trucks and other equipment.

There is a precedent for Commonwealth provision of equipment of this sort in the Railway Equipment Agreement of 1961 which gave South Australia the finance to buy 12 locomotives and 100 iron ore wagons. This assistance was given under the following terms: A 70 per cent grant 30 per cent loan over 50 years at the prevailing long term bond rate. Significantly, the assistance for this rolling stock was provided on much better terms than the assistance given to Tasmania for the capital works of building the rail link. If the Commonwealth is to provide assistance for the rolling stock as indicated by the Prime Minister, some reference should have been made to it in the second reading speech of the Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport. Beyond Bell Bay the upgrading of the Tasmanian railway system is a matter of increasing urgency and an area where Commonwealth assistance will be needed. The future economic growth and health of Tasmania is in large measure dependent on improving existing transport systems, both sea and rail. This is put quite plainly in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade which investigated shipping freight rates on the Tasmanian trade. The Committee recommended that the Commonwealth consider giving capital assistance by way of grant to the Tasmanian Government for revitalising the railway system.

The Tasmanian Government Railways has a major role as part of an integrated service for moving goods to and from Tasmania. The Bell Bay link is an important part of this integrated system and Commonwealth assistance has at last assured construction of this railway. But the Commonwealth has given no hint of what further assistance it will give to provide suitable rolling stock and to upgrade the Tasmanian Government Railways system. There is a very strong case for provision of Commonwealth grants to do these important jobs, bearing in mind the neglect of Tasmanian railways in a period when every other State has secured a considerable measure of assistance from the Commonwealth for railways projects.

It is quite obvious - I am sure that all honourable members will concede this - from the figures which I have given to the

House tonight that there is a case for further Commonwealth assistance to Tasmania in line with the request which was made to this Government by the Tasmanian Premier for further financial assistance to upgrade the railway system in that State. The original request for assistance to provide the Bell Bay link not only sought financial assistance to provide the rail link itself but was also based on the proposition that the rail link would not be feasible unless provision was made for rolling stock and for upgrading other lines which would provide a feeder system for the Bell Bay link. All of these matters have been ignored. The Tasmanian Government has received a very small amount in comparison to the amount which it requested when this matter was put before this Government almost 12 months ago. If one compares this amount and the terms under which the loan has been provided with the amount that has been provided by the Commonwealth to assist other States in their standardisation programmes, it can be seen at once that the Government has not been generous in its treatment of the Tasmanian Government in relation to this rail link.

However, I conclude on the note on which I began - that while the Government has obviously driven a very hard bargain so far as Tasmania is concerned, it has at least recognised the importance of the rail link. The link will now be a possibility and will be undertaken under the terms and conditions laid down by the Commonwealth Government. This will provide a useful railway link in the northern part of the State, particularly in view of the increased industrial activity in this area as a result of the wood chip industry. However, once again I draw the Minister’s attention to the request and recommendations of the Senate Committee - a responsible committee of this Parliament - which was set up and which recommended to the Government that there is a special case in relation to the State of Tasmania for special grants to upgrade the railway system to improve its transport system. This is necessary in a State which depends entirely upon the railway system and shipping services from the mainland States. I believe that while the Government is entitled to some credit for having made this money available, it is also-

Mr Nixon:

– That is very generous of you.

Mr BARNARD:

– Yes, I did not hesitate to say that the Government was entitled to some credit in this respect. I do not want to appear completely critical on all of these matters. As I said when I first began to speak, at least the Government recognises that this would be a viable link and that it would provide a very useful service and be an addition to the railway system of Tasmania. However, I believe that the Government deserves some criticism on the other matters I have stressed which relate to the basis of the loan. It could have been more generous in all the circumstances.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– 1 briefly want to support my two colleagues in what they have said about this piece of legislation. It could be said that we have waited many years for the chance of having a railway link from Launceston to Bell Bay, a distance of 23 miles. I thank the Government for finally coming to the party with the present Premier of Tasmania. However, I agree with the criticism made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) that it is a very hard bargain. I want to refer to the interest rate that Tasmania is being charged on the amount of $2im. I believe that the current bond rate is 7 per cent. To charge 7 per cent interest on a loan for developmental purposes is, to me, outrageous. I wonder whether we will ever wake up to the fact that high interest rates are killing development, killing the farmers and the business community. Interest rates represent one of the worst enemies of this nation.

Here we have this Government, which has every power to decide whether to charge interest or not, or whether to charge a certain interest rate, imposing an interest rate of 7 per cent on this $2*m. Over 30 years Tasmania will pay approximately $6m in interest to the Commonwealth for this loan of $21m. To me this makes Shylock one of the world’s greatest gentlemen. Indeed it makes Ned Kelly a thorough gentleman in a dress suit with a bow tie and tails. He was an amateur compared with this Government which charges outrageous interest rates for development loans, for water schemes and for railway lines.

I am not beating around the bush when I criticise the Government for making this outrageous interest charge. The interest rate has been so vicious throughout the history of railway construction in New South Wales that the New South Wales Railways Department still has not paid off the earliest capital raisings. New South Wales has paid millions of dollars in interest but it still has not paid off the original capital cost. To me it is criminal in this modern society for a modern Government to impose this vicious interest rate, so that money becomes the master instead of the servant. As the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) said, Tasmania is at present paying $1,180,000 interest each year for railway loans. In addition to that amount of money Tasmania will now have to pay interest on the loan provided in this Bill. New South Wales is at present paying $3Sm a year in interest charges. Who is benefiting from these interest charges? In this case the Commonwealth will be the beneficiary.

The honourable member for Bass pointed out that the Commonwealth has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on rail standardisation and in doing so it has used some of the Tasmanian taxpayers’ money but Tasmania is now to receive only S4m, of which only $1.5m is a straight-out grant. This is all that Tasmania will receive for all the money which it has poured into the coffers of this Government by way of taxation over the years. When the late Eddie Ward was Minister for Shipping and Transport in the Chifley Government I asked him a question in this House when he first started planning for rail standardisation. I asked him this question: ‘As Tasmania will not benefit from the standardisation programme for Australia will this Government make some compensation to Tasmania at some future date?’ I was assured that a Labor Government would find some way of compensating Tasmania. After all these years there has come a chance to compensate Tasmania for missing out. The straight-out grant on this occasion should be $3. 5m and the loan should be $500,000. But Shylock- the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) - is sitting at the table with all his confreres behind him. They want to stick it into Tasmania. They are thinking: ‘We will make them pay for this railway.’ Tasmania certainly will pay for it; for 30 years it will pay for it - about $6m in interest alone.

The construction of this rail link will benefit Tasmania greatly because Bell Bay is one of the finest ports in the world. It was discovered in 1948 when the Chifley Government established the aluminium industry at Bell Bay, on the eastern bank of the Tamar River in the north of Tasmania. Bell Bay has developed into a fantastic port with tremendous shipping facilities. It is situated in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Bass. There is a great industrial complex at Bell Bay. The aluminium works of Comalco Ltd now produce approximately 70,000 tons of alumina each year. It started off by producing 14,000 tons when the Commonwealth Government established this industry in 1948 as a CommonwealthState enterprise. Those figures indicate the sort of development that has taken place in this industry. Bell Bay is the only major port in the world which has not got a rail head. Transport to and from Bell Bay has been by road. The previous State government in Tasmania spent $lm in the construction of a new road from Launceston to Bell Bay to transport cargo to and from that port. The construction of this rail link will ease the pressure on the present road system. This railway line, as the honourable member for Bass said, will transport each year 3 million tons of wood chip raw material to the 2 great wood chip industry works near Bell Bay. The Northern Woodchip Company and Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd are each at present constructing a huge wood chip plant in the north of Tasmania. This rail link will be of tremendous advantage to Tasmania’s economy. But what a price the taxpayers will have to pay. They will have to pay $6m in interest charges over 30 years. I blame the Government for imposing this Shylock interest charge on this loan.

Mr Cohen:

– You do not like Shylock, do you?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I do not and I never have. However, we on this side appreciate the Commonwealth State co-operation in regard to this matter. The Tasmanian Government has already let a contract lor the preparation of the route which will include the construction of 6 bridges and the clearing of the proposed track. According to the present Minister for Transport in Tasmania the laying of the line could perhaps be carried out by the Tasmanian Government Railways instead of sub-letting this work to some overseas or mainland company. I hope that this part of the project will go to Tasmania because it would be a great boon to the key people of Tasmania to lay the rails on the track prepared by the company whose tender has already been accepted for the project.

I might add in conclusion that the cost of this track is now several hundred thousand dollars more than it was originally estimated. I suppose that delay in the implementation of this scheme has caused the increase in costs. This railway link will be a great boon to Tasmania. The project will require 80,000 railway sleepers. These sleepers are being treated at Longford, which is in my electorate, with special chemicals to preserve their life for 60 years. The preservation of this timber provides a tremendous amount of work for the Hickson’s Timber Impregnation Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd at Longford. This is an illustration of what can happen when money is spent on development in a State. It helps to give new life to lagging industries. It helps to give a new strength to our economy. This project will employ approximately ISO men who are at present unemployed, and this will of course be of great benefit to the economy of the State.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– I will not detain the House very long. I would like to make a contribution to this debate because I attended a meeting at Ulverstone on Monday night. I support the Bill before the House. I am very pleased that the Bell Bay rail link is now to be constructed. This rail link will, as my 2 colleagues from Tasmania have said, be of tremendous benefit to the wood chip industry in Tasmania. It will in addition, as the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) said, provide opportunities for employment which will ease the unemployment situation. The rail link will also provide for much needed impetus to the processing works for the impregnation of timber at Longford in the honourable member’s electorate. I ask the Minister for Shipping and

Transport (Mr Nixon) whether he will carefully bear in mind the impact of this decision by the Government to build the Bell Bay railway link on the recommendations in the Pak-Poy report that has just been released in Tasmania. I sincerely hope that the Tasmanian Government after considering the Pak-Poy report will throw it out holus-bolus. There is quite a lot of good in the report, and some of the recommendations are all right, but there is a lot of feeling in Tasmania among economists and others that the recommendations are based on wrong information and, so, many of the findings are incorrect.

The whole report seeks to justify the upgrading of the railway service in Tasmania and, because of the provision of Commonwealth money for the Bell Bay link, the report contained a recommendation that Bell Bay be the one port for Tasmania. This is completely contrary to the 4-port system in which the Minister for Shipping and Transport has a special interest because the Australian National Line has over the years not only supported but also built its line of ships to service the 4- port concept which has operated so successfully in the island State of Tasmania. If the Government is at all influenced by the Pak-Poy report based upon the concept of the link to the present Tasmanian railway service taking all non-bulk cargo from all over Tasmania simply to get longer rail haulage and so make the railways pay - and this is definitely the thinking of the people who produced the Pak-Poy report - woe betide all attempts at decentralisation and the attempts of the Australian National Line over the years to develop the ports of Hobart, Devonport and Burnie. It will not only destroy the concept of decentralisation as we know it but also add an impossible burden on industries that have grown up around the 4-port concept in Tasmania.

For example, paper from Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd at Burnie and Wesley Vale will have to be conveyed by rail over this link to Bell Bay, according to the recommendations in this report. This will add an extra $6 a ton to the freight charge for this product. We know, of course, the difficulties being experienced by this industry at the present time. It has retrenched from 250 to 300 employees. It looks as though Pak-Poy and Associates completely based its report on the fact that the Commonwealth Government has provided the funds and the State Government intends to carry out the rail link to Bell Bay, and in trying to build up the financial returns of the railways it has come out so strongly in favour of the oneport concept. I add this word of warning and ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he would look into this question, because I fail to see how all the Australian National Line shipping services at present serving Tasmania can be concentrated upon the port at Bell Bay simply because it has this rail link provided by Commonwealth money. I repeat that it will sound the death knell for many of the small industries that have grown up in the port areas. I might add for the Minister’s information that there was quite a large public meeting at Ulverstone with representatives of municipal councils from Smithton to Latrobe and from the marine ports along the north-western coast. Out of it has been established a committee to deal directly on this matter and report to the Minister for Shipping and Transport in Canberra. I appeal to the Government to make sure, irrespective of the benefits that this money will provide for Bell Bay and the wood chip industry in northern Tasmania - and I support it very wholeheartedly - to take cognisance of the fact that the Australian National Line knows more about the benefits of the 4-port concept than Pak-Poy, which has based its report wholly and solely on the fact that the Commonwealth is building this rail link. It has tried to justify the sending of all goods through this link in order to make the Tasmanian railways pay. If this happens many industries will go out of existence.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– The first speaker on the Opposition side in this debate was the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) who spoke in general terms about railway problems in Australia. I would just like to make one or two comments on this before turning to the more local matters raised by other speakers. There is no question at all but that the railway systems of Australia as a whole face tremendous problems. This is known and understood by everybody in this Parliament. It has been debated at different times and various causes of and solutions to the problems have been put forward. The Commonwealth Government is fully aware of the problems of the State railway systems. It has in fact advanced a great deal of money to railway systems over the years, as was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), under the railway standardisation programme in particular. Some $240m has gone into the railway systems. The simple fact is that for the period of years that the railways have been getting themselves into difficulty some of the responsibility has to be sheeted home directly to the States. The States chose to run the railways as business undertakings, and if they do not set a high enough priority for their railway systems over a long period of time, of course their railway system will run down and inevitably end up in trouble.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council, of which I am chairman, has set up a special committee to study the problems of the railway systems of Australia. That is one positive step the Government has taken to try to overcome this long term problem faced by various States in their railway programmes. The ATAC sub-committee will have the use of the Bureau of Transport Economics, a part of my Department, and I am looking forward to seeing the results of the studies it presently has under way.

The Government has also set up the Transport Industry Advisory Council, a body which will make recommendations to me about not only railway problems but also the transport problems of Australia in general. The Transport Industry Advisory Council consists of representatives of the different modes of transport - railways, shipping lines and road operators. It has the users represented on it as well as the trade union movement. I hope it will produce for me some recommendations to assist the people involved in the field as well as the users of railways and the people in the railway unions by producing a separate and distinct study from the sort of studies that the Commonwealth and State departments under ATAC are undertaking. I hope that in the long haul we will get some possible solutions to the general problems now faced by the State railways. The honourable member spoke with faint praise in many respects. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition commenced his remarks by saying that this Bill was forced on a reluctant government and that the terms imposed are far from generous. He used one or two other terms of that nature. He was followed by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) who described me as a Shylock sitting at the table. I do not take umbrage at the honourable member’s description of me. I have been called many things at many times.

The facts are that there is a difference between the terms that we offered for the standardisation programme and the terms that have been offered for this particular programme. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to pick out of the 2 papers he submitted for inclusion in Hansard the one programme that is in comparable terms with the Tasmanian programme. That is the Western Australian Railway Agreement. It is comparable because it is similar in the respect that the Western Australian programme and the Bell Bay programme are both developmental programmes that assist a particular State as distinct from a standardisation programme, which was given different terms because it was considered to be of national benefit. Different terms were struck for the 2 different types of programme. In all of the studies that have been undertaken the Bell Bay railway programme is seen to be a viable programme. The Commissioner for Railways in Tasmania would have welcomed the ability to finance it himself without Commonwealth intrusion, recognising its viability. But the State of Tasmania was unable to finance the commencement of this programme and so the Commonwealth has been generous in coming in to assist Tasmania to get the programme off the ground.

There is no doubt at all, as the honourable member for Wilmot said, that this will be of immense benefit to Tasmania and particularly to the northern part of Tasmania. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised the question of the problems facing the Tasmanian railway system. The Tasmanian Government is part of the ATAC sub-committee and is making its contribution to the work of that sub-committee. If anything comes of it I hope that it benefits along with the other State railway systems. As far as the Pak Poy report is concerned, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said-

Mr Barnard:

– I did not mention it. I would not have mentioned it in the way that my colleague did. We would have had some differences on it.

Mr NIXON:

– I made a note that the honourable member for Bass mentioned the Pak Poy report.

Mr Barnard:

– - lt was the honourable member for Braddon.

Mr NIXON:

– I beg your pardon. The Pak Poy report was commissioned by the Tasmanian Government, and the Premier was kind enough to send me a complimentary copy for my perusal and for the perusal of my Department. There has been no discussion on the Pak Poy report between the Commonwealth and the State governments. There have been no requests from the Tasmanian Government for any action relating in any shape or form to the Pak Poy report. I think that a lot of water would have to flow under the bridge before any of the problems that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) sees emerging in fact come to light. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the possibility of further Commonwealth assistance in the provision of rolling stock. We have informed the Tasmanian Government of the assistance that we are prepared to grant at this moment. I think there has been an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Premier in which the Premier has raised the possibility of further Commonwealth assistance as the programme develops. This will be studied as the programme does develop. If it is found necessary or desirable the Commonwealth will no doubt consider further financial assistance. I thank honourable members for their contributions although, as I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I had hoped that they would be far more generous to the Commonwealth. Without the assistance that we have given to Tasmania in this programme there would have been no way in which the programme could have commenced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to he moved forthwith.

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

page 2621

QUESTION

EMERGENCY RELIEF AID

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I rise to make a further statement on the question of emergency relief aid. Honourable members are aware of the problem of refugees from East Pakistan, which has now assumed such enormous proportions. From the beginning of this problem the Government has kept closely in touch with the situation and has been in contact with local authorities and United Nations authorities. The Government’s intitial contribution was promptly made. The position continued to deteriorate. On 8th June following an announcement of additional aid by the Prime Minister, the then Minister for Foreign Affars, Mr Bury, referring to this additional grant, said that in these emerging and rapidly changing conditions it was important to keep the priority needs of the refugees constantly under review.

The Government has carried on this close review of the situation and has responded to the deteriorating situation by grants which now total $3m. Unfortunately the political situation which has produced this great humanitarian problem has so far eluded solution. The position now is that there are some 9 million refugees in need in India and a great deal of suffering and distress also in East Pakistan. The Government, in pursuance of its constant review and assessment of the situation and having in mind what it believes to be an international obligation of this country in this unfortunate situation, has now decided to make a grant of additional aid amounting to $2.5m, of which $500,000 will be a direct cash grant to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The remaining $2m will be allocated in a flexible way to the provision of urgently needed items. We will be consulting with the local and United Nations authorities before deciding on the specific ways in which this amount will be spent.

It is not just a matter of agreeing to provide funds. It is equally important to ensure that these funds are employed in bringing relief effectively to refugees who are most in need. Our High Commissioner in India, Mr Shaw, has been keeping in close touch with the Indian authorities and has been making regular on-the-spot investigations. Having now decided to make a further substantial grant of aid we will be following the matter up through him. We are proposing to have Mr Shaw return shortly to Australia to report to us on this matter and to receive briefing as part of our continuing review. The Government’s record in providing aid to the urea has been a good one. We sought to control our aid in a way which has ensured that it reached the area promptly, that it was in a form which matched the needs and that it efficiently reached those for whom it was intended by delivering it as required at Calcutta and upcountry airports. Indeed, we received commendation from the Indian authorities, which came forward in a message from which I quoted in the House on 18th August. I think this bears repeating.

I said:

Although relatively small in magnitude- this, of course, relates to the early effort in response to the problem in its early stages -

Australia’s timely refugee relief has been greatly appreciated by the Government of India and by the Government of the States directly concerned. This gratitude has been expressed on numerous occasions by Indian Ministers and senior officials, both privately and publicly. Apart from the humanitarian aspect of the relief aid our contribution has had a very valuable impact on IndoAustralian relations generally, out of all proportion to its magnitude. We were correct in our early decision to deal directly with the Indian Government, to consult with it about what was wanted and where it was wanted. Each air lift of our relief supplies was well-planned and executed. Thereby we avoided the delays and frustrations suffered by other governments and agencies. Moreover Indian Government officials had the feeling that we are working with them and not supervising or directing them and we have been overwhelmed with thanks.’

This was a rather lengthy message and I shall skip some of it but it also states:

The plastic polyfabric material supplied by Australia was particularly successful. We have inspected camps largely constructed from it In Tripura, Assam and West Bengal. It has saved many lives and international agencies and other donor governments are now providing similar material. And as for our medical supplies, they have been well-selected and packaged and are being put to good use.’

We have continued this policy and as lately as 24th October we have received a further warm commendation from the Indian authorities. In a message received on 24th October from Mr Shaw the following passage occurs:

During official talks last week Foreign Secretary T. N. Kaul and Secretary of Economic Affairs I. G. Patel both thanked Australia for its prompt and effective refugee assistance which they described as .-.–’.- ,

This amount of $2. 5m which I have just announced is additional to the existing aid estimates for 1971-72. The Australian Government is not diverting aid from any other area or country in providing this assistance which will bring the total of the Government’s emergency relief to the area of S5.5m since last May. The private contributions of citizens and organisations have to be brought into account in order to obtain a full picture of the total Australian effort. I would like to pay a tribute to the generous spirit with which Australians have responded to the appeals. On the figures available to me as at 24th September an amount approaching $2m in cash and kind had been sent to India.

The question of providing relief for the refugees has been recognised as an international one. The Government acknowledges its obligation to make a significant contribution to the international effort. The major economic powers and the major donors of aid to India, particularly the United States and Britain, are making the largest contribution to the international relief effort. However, the Australian Government’s record in providing aid for the refugees has been a good one. Australia’s performance since May in responding to this situation places us in fourth position amongst donor countries, when our aid is assessed as is normally done, as a percentage of gross national product. I believe it is a concern of all Australians that in aid matters it is performance that counts, not promises. It has been a disappointment to Australia that for the past four calendar years from 1967 to 1970 the total volume of official development assistance from all countries who are members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has remained static. This has become known as the problem of aid fatigue’ in the major donor countries. But Australia’s aid has not remained static. During the same period our aid has in fact increased. I believe Australia can be proud of its aid record.

In the situation which faces the world on the Indian sub-continent, relief aid can deal only with a symptom of a deeper trouble. This is not the occasion to deal with the deeper problems which are causing this human suffering. Honourable members are aware of the situation and I referred on 18th August in this House to some of the initiatives being taken by the Government wi an attempt to influence constructive moves towards a solution. The hope of the Australian Government is that in the face of this tragic situation enmities will be set aside and strenuous efforts will be made by those in authority to bring about an early solution. We shall certainly continue our own efforts towards this end. In the meantime, the need for aid relief will continue and the Government will maintain its constant review of the situation. I present the following paper:

Emergency Relief Aid - Ministerial Statement, 27th October 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

Any additional aid being given by the Commonwealth Government in this situation is most welcome and therefore we welcome the $2.Sm which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has indicated tonight will be an additional gift. The question is this: Can it be said that the Australian effort is commensurate with the country’s standing and resources? We must draw a comparison with a country of comparable standards of living and perhaps greater responsibilities - the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has given £Stg37m which is almost exactly $A80m.

The United Kingdom has 4 times our population and on the same basis of giving, the Australian contribution would have been $20m. We are now reaching $5.5m. This is a crisis of human factors, as the Minister rightly reminds us, but Australian assistance in the previous crisis in Pakistan - the crisis which was caused by the tidal wave disaster - was tardy and ungenerous. If we tend to flinch from giving aid in this crisis because we think it may be a continuing development - if there is a continuing situation in East Pakistan that will produce more refugees - still we have to look back with disappointment at the Australian reaction to the disaster which was not man made and which was not continuing in East Pakistan.

The inability of the West Pakistan authorities to assist and the indifference of the outside world undoubtedly played a part in East Pakistan’s dissatisfaction with remaining in the Pakistan federation. No doubt it was a factor in producing the immense vote for Mujibur Rahman and finally producing the crisis between East and West Pakistan which lies at the root of the present situation. We are afraid that manifestations of outside indifference may have further disastrous political consequences in the Indian sub-continent. The world did not react with the greatest of sympathy to the tidal wave disaster - certainly we did not in this country. As we have said before - it bears saying again - if the reaction of the outside world to the situation of the refugees is one of indifference, then there will be greater pressure on the Government or elements within the political authorities in India and perhaps in Pakistan to try to solve the refugee problem at the root, and voices are expressing the old illusion that you are going to be able to solve this problem by a war. I do not want to labour that point any further than to say that a responsible attitude by the outside world is a facor which will make for peace in the Indian sub-continent, and I stress again the importance of peace in the Indian sub-continent.

India is a country which matters far more to us than some of the countries that we have said were of major strategic interest to us. No-one can dominate Asia who does not first of all dispose of India. Lying behind this situation is the fear that Pakistan may become China’s instrument for disposing of India. I think that as time goes on the likelihood of this decreases, but we should remember that there is a potential world war situation in the Indian sub-continent. Those are weighty considerations why our action should be generous and not tardy. Of course, the Indian authorities will express thanks for any aid that is given at all, but can anyone seriously believe that if the aid had been four or five times as great they would not have appreciated it four or five times more than the aid that has been given? While the Minister has said again and again that all the aid we are giving has been effectively deployed, it must be remembered that the smaller the aid one gives the more certainly one can assure that it is effectively deployed. If one is giving very small medical aid, then a very small medical team can see that this gets into a situation of crisis among the refugees.

But there is no doubt that one of India’s greatest needs in food imports or in any other respect is for foreign exchange to help her in coping with her problems. Foreign exchange means a claim on the production of the outside world. If Australia’s gift increased India’s resources in foreign exchange, the burden of this unexpected development would be lifted from the budget of India. The Indian Government had immense developmental plans. Many of these have had to go down the drain because of spending on the refugee problem. I think I have said previously that the total cost at a point of time about a month ago of this refugee problem was 120 million crores of rupees - a crore being 10 million rupee* - and at that stage the outside contribution amounted to 8.2 million crores, or one-fifteenth of the cost. Five-year plans and developmental projects of the Indian Government have had to be set aside in facing this unexpected incursion of refugees into an extremely sensitive area of the Indian sub-continent.

Bengal has been politically volatile. Several times the constitution of Bengal has been suspended with President’s rule, into this Bengal situation have now come desperate people. Not so far from this part of Bengal is a narrow neck of land known as Naxalbari which joins India to the northeast frontier areas, and in that Naxalbari area has been one of the most vicious guerilla movements, one of the most powerful anarchist movements in the world, the Naxalite movement, and any sort of chaos is grist to its mill. The Naxalite movement has spread over parts of India, but it is particularly characteristic of the north-east, and it has had some power in Calcutta and Bengal.

The Australian Labor Party has been making some public comments on this matter. It came out into public last July at the Launceston conference of the Labor Party. Widespread concern has been expressed in the Labor movement about Australia’s unreadiness for any of these humanitarian crises which have developed in the world. The decision was made that as part of Australia’s defence forces we should own a substantial hospital ship. Any who saw in Indonesia some years ago the American hospital ship, which was .”>art of America’s naval force, moving into a situation in Djakarta, bring in a magnificently equipped floating hospital with an excellent staff, could see how effective that form of aid was. We believe that there are many situations in the southern hemisphere where, if Australia had had a hospital ship, it could have moved in and given great assistance. There is no doubt that if a hospital ship had moved into Calcutta it would have added to the facilities to treat wounded people, sick people and people who are suffering as a consequence of their displacement in the political crisis that developed in East Pakistan.

Not long ago Yahya Khan appeared on television, and he had the grace to say he believed that the Pakistan Government had made a mistake in excluding reporters from the outside world to see the situation. If this indicated that he was now willing for people to see the situation, it was a sign of real grace that I would be happy to see the outside world follow up. He also believes that the people who fled have fled in an unjustified panic. I believe that we should be following this up. If he is right in saying that the panic was unjustified, then there should be no objection to allowing the outside world to see the situation. Presumably if people have moved from their homes, not all of them have crossed the border, and there must be some problems concerning relief and resettlement in

East Pakistan. There are still the consequences of the tidal wave. I would be glad to see the Australian Government actively concerned in this situation and looking for some way of providing aid in East Pakistan as well, with the assistance directed to people who are displaced or who are refugees in the fighting.

It is a matter for concern that there are reports of mobilisation of both India and Pakistan. Both of those countries are friends of ours. They both retain membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. They both have certain historical associations with a former empire in the same way as we have. It would be of immense advantage to the world if the position in the Indian sub-continent were so settled that what was once the Indian empire - India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon - could form some sort of a common market. Those wishes are for the future. If our approach to this matter is that we take every step that we can to support a sane settlement, to bring in the view of the outside world, the searchlight of world public opinion, and to show that we are prepared to pay a price ourselves, I believe that we will be able to play a part in bringing peace to the sub-continent and also meeting the needs of the refugees. We welcome this additional grant by the Commonwealth Government. We hope that this is not the final act of the Commonwealth Government. We have no doubt that Australian public opinion is prepared for generosity in this matter. Correspondence that we have received, conversations back in our own constituencies and petitions which have been read in this House are all manifestations of this concern.

In moving this amendment the Opposition does not think that $ 12.75m, if that is what $1 a head of the Australian population would total, should be a final statement on this issue. We believe that it would be an act which would be an earnest of Australia’s intention to act effectively. I have seen this Parliament make an impact on situations. I remember that the Chifley Government once granted £25m in relief and then £20m to the same place. There have been quite generous grants in other areas. When Sir Paul Hasluck was Minister for Foreign Affairs grants were made in connection with the Bihar famine. I have spoken of that already, and I do not intend to speak of it again. In moving this amendment the Opposition is not trying to score points off the government. It genuinely believes that this refugee question should provoke greater generosity than has been exhibited hitherto and accordingly I commend the amendment which I outlined at the beginning of my remarks.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Lucock

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– At the outset I should like to correct an error of fact made by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). The United Kingdom refugee aid is $US37m, not pounds sterling. This alters his calculations by a factor of 2.4. Nevertheless tonight we are dealing, as both the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) and the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid) have said, with one of the greatest human catastrophes in history. The number of refugees and the level of support they require almost baffle the imagination. I do not see how we can hope to support refugees at a cost of less than $100 per head each year. We have to provide not only supplies but also the means of transport and distribution. With 10 million refugees this means a commitment by the world of $ 1,000m a year. I do not know for how long the world would be prepared to provide aid on this scale, but I fear that it would not be very long. The need is thus almost limitless and how much Australia provides depends ultimately on how much the people of Australia are prepared to sacrifice for this humanitarian cause. I am sure that all honourable members have been bombarded, as I have been, with letters, telegrams and forms all appealing for increased aid for these refugees. This is a magnificent sign of the commitment of Australians to the service of others, and I hope it will continue.

As I have said, the need for aid is a continuing one and I welcome the earlier undertaking by the Minister that the Government will keep this need constantly in mind. What we have done so far is very welcome. It has been appropriate aid. It has been prompt aid. All of it is going to the refugees for whom it is intended. But I think we should also mobilise directly the sympathy of the Australian community. Private aid to the Pakistani refugees has already amounted to something like $2m. I urge the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to consider making private donations a legitimate income tax deduction, for this would increase greatly the flow of private aid. The Government, too, should also offer its facilities to see that the flow of private aid reaches the refugees for whom it is intended. The administrative conditions in the Indian State of West Bengal are such that much of the private aid given by other countries has not reached its destination. Even before the refugees arrived, the State Government of West Bengal, which was a Comunist government, has been suspended for a time by the Central Government because of disputes over administration and law and order. After the refugees began to arrive, presidential rule from Delhi was again invoked. I believe that the administrative task of caring for these 10 million or so refugees is far beyond the Indian Government and it is regrettable that it has refused offers by the United Nations, the Red Cross and other interested bodies to assist with the administration. I understand its motives because it involves some sacrifice of pride and sovereignty but, nevertheless, in the interests of the refugees I think that the Indian Government should be prepared to make these sacrificts

No matter how effective our humanitarian aid to these refugees is, it does not get to the root of the problem. We must not let these refugees become institutionalised like the Arab refugees in the Gaza strip or in Jordan. The only future for them is to get back to their farms and villages in East Pakistan. For this to be achieved a degree of cooperation will be required between India and Pakistan which has never been achieved in the 23 turbulent years of their history since their independence. The world must attempt to achieve this co-operation for without it the refugees have no future.

What must be done to make it possible for the refugees to return? First, Pakistan will have to offer some reasonable degree of autonomy to East Pakistan and control the operations of the Pakistan Army and, more particularly, their teenage auxiliaries to create an atmosphere of stability and confidence in East Pakistan, ft must guarantee also the return of land belonging to refugees which has been expropriated. I think it may also have to offer to have United Nations observers, with its army and support forces, to convince the world and the refugees that this is its policy.

This refugee disaster was provoked by the Pakistan Government and Army and they must take the major steps in doing what they can to repair the situation.

But it is not Pakistan alone which must take action; India, too, has much to answer for. At present, refugees are still coming out from East Pakistan at the rate of more than 100,000 a week, many of them fleeing because of the operations of the Indian supported liberation army. If India is sincere in its desire to minimise the refugee problem and to get the refugees back to their homeland quickly, the Indian Government must withdraw all support from the liberation guerrilla army and discourage its activities so far as this lies within the Government’s power. I believe also that the Indians should accept, as the Pakistanis have done, the offer to have United Nations observer teams along the border between India and East Pakistan. This would facilitate the orderly return of the refugees who wish to go back to their villages. It would also reduce the threat of a direct conflict between the Indian and Pakistan armies. There are fewer than 100,000 Pakistan troops in East Pakistan and, embroiled as they are in counter guerilla operations, they present no conceivable threat to India. I believe that the moves of the Indian Army to the borders of East Pakistan and India’s refusal to have a United Nations observer team on the borders are designed to force the Pakistan Army to move its forces to the border area and thus reduce its effectiveness in anti-guerrilla operations. This is, I consider, a discreditable activity by the Indians and one they should cease forthwith.

This is a very confused situation and it is hard to get the truth from conflicting and irreconcilable claims. I have given what I believe is a true picture and one that reflects little credit on either India or Pakistan who have allowed their mutual hatred to override their compassion for the 10 million refugees. I do not know whether it will be possible for anyone to induce Pakistan and India to co-operate, but we should continue to do all we can both directly and through the United Nations to achieve whatever is possible, for our overriding aim must be to achieve conditions so that these refugees can go home. In the meantime, of course, the humanitarian problem remains. I applaud the announcement the Minister has made tonight and hope that over future months it will be followed by further similar announcements. I urge him also to consider seriously the possibility of encouraging private aid in the way I have suggested.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government has provided less than half the amount of aid which has been sought by the Opposition which speaks for the Australian people in terms of the petitions with which the Parliament has been inundated week after week. I believe that Australians are shocked by the contrast between the Government’s reckless spending for many dubious causes and this casual disregard for the misery and degradation which is besetting the people of East Pakistan. This crisis is the most likely catalyst for a world war facing world humanity in our time, and it needs more than some cursory and casual consideration of the aid factor. It needs a genuine involvement in all the matters which contribute to the problem.

So we are to make available some $5. 5m. I suppose for people who cam $60 a week that sounds like a lot of money, but I want to remind the Parliament that we are talking about $5. 5m in 1971 when we have in the current Budget which is still under consideration in this Parliament a surplus of no less than $630m which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and others proudly have said is an unusually high Budget surplus. It seems to me on that basis we may have been able to squeeze out a little more. We are allocating $5.5m at a time when our overseas reserves stand at $2,974m again said to be at the bonanza level, an unprecedented level. We are spending it, indeed, at a time when we are pouring money into such reckless objectives as the acquisition of 24 Fill aircraft which are to cost us some $230m or $240m, and after all we are spending it in a period when we have been spending approximately $100m per annum since 1955 on the destruction of the Asian people who live in Vietnam - $100m every year for some 15 years. Yet when it comes to the opportunity to show the Asian people and the world that we as a country in the Asian region really care about the welfare of Asians, we can squeeze out but $5. 5m, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) takes the trouble to indicate his enthusiasm and finds some eulogistic letter from somebody overseas to read to the Parliament.

We are speaking in times when this Government was prepared to say: ‘We will underwrite at any cost the expenses associated with the Springbok tour of Australia to uphold apartheid’. Here was a chance to redress that disgraceful situation, and once again, in my view, the Government has let Australia down. People have been relatively generous, and I pay tribute io the organisations which have worked to raise the $2m referred to - Austcare, Freedom from Hunger and the churches. How wonderful it was yesterday to see members of the churches out together - people of all denominations, the Church of England bishops, the Catholic bishops, so many people anxious to do the right thing. I should mention the contribution of people such as my colleague, the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), who took the trouble to go to India at his own expense as a medico and render treatment to these people in their hour of need. I know of others from this Parliament who went there to do likewise.

Just over a month ago I had the privilege of going not into the service to which I have referred but to an international conference on Bangla Desh conducted at New Delhi. This was a conference called by a consortium of Ghandian organisations, including the Ghandi Peace Foundation, and it was held to focus world opinion on the situation in East Pakistan, to help stir the conscience of the world. I suppose that is why I sought to speak in this debate tonight. The conference was designed to bring pressure on Islamabad to reverse its oppressive and its inhuman policies. We have heard reference to this by the honourable member for Isaacs tonight. He has denigrated those people who have shown enthusiasm for supporting the liberation forces in East Pakistan. When all is said and done, who would stir in any situation if he failed to be disillusioned by the fact that the Awami League in East Pakistan, which received such an overwhelming imprimatur from the people of that country to the extent of winning 167 out of 169 seats, was denied government. I think even members of the Country Party would concede that the Awami league is entitled to rule in that situation, having won 167 out of the 169 seats. Nearly 99 per cent of the seats were won in East Bengal and about 80 per cent of the popular votes cast over the entire country.

Sheik Rahman, who led the Awami League, had the support and the backing of the people, and General Yahya Khan indicated his willingness at one stage to accept the verdict of the people and indeed entered into negotiations with the leader of the Awami League. At this stage he referred to him as future Prime Minister, and it seemed as though there was to be a solution of this problem. But while the negotiations were taking place in a manner which was almost synonymous with what took place at Pearl Harbour when the negotiations were taking place in Washington, the army from West Pakistan struck out of the night and roared into the towns of East Pakistan and razed them to the ground. As you walk through the refugee camps, as I had the opportunity to do a month ago, you talk to but a few of the people - there are 10 million of them there - and you say: ‘Why did you come and how far did you come?’ They say: ‘I have walked 200 miles, 300 miles’. You ask: Why did you leave your home?’ They say: Because the troops arrived and set fire to our houses, and as we ran out they machine gunned us’. You ask: ‘How many did you lose in your family?’ The first casualty to whom I talked said: T lost my wife and 7 children’. So 10 million rushed into India, and India is bearing the great burden today of that onslaught of refugees, the onslaught of suffering humanity of proportions which are unprecedented in the history of the world. And we can raise but &5im.

Australians will hang their heads in shame. After all we are thinking only of the refugees at this point of time. It is true, as the honourable member has said, that it is not just sufficient to give aid to refugees. How many more millions are we going to give? How long will we keep this up? The real answer, of course, is of a political nature. So far this Government has not concerned itself with this aspect. Australia has to ask itself whether it has responded adequately to this great human tragedy involving as it does the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands, millions of people being driven from their homes and even from their country, and involving famine, hunger, disease and deprivation in all its forms. Australia has made this contribution which has been of a practical nature but once again far too little and far too late.

There are figures to indicate what countries have given. They were made available by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in answer, to a question on 15th September 1971. It is interesting to note that countries referred to already in this debate have given more than what was attributed to them, because England, the United States, Canada and several other countries have not only given to the refugee appeal but they have also given aid to East Pakistan on a very large scale. The Minister will remember that in the answer he gave the figures were listed in 2 columns, one indicating relief for East Pakistan refugees as at August 1971 and the other indicating relief for East Pakistan as at August 1971. Canada gave $US3.4m to refugees and in addition gave $US6.9m to East Pakistan. This is the volume of aid which Australia is not giving. The United Kingdom gave $7. 8m to the refugees but it also gave S7.2m to East Pakistan. There are many other instances of the generosity of other countries contrasted with that of Australia.

All aid is just basic sustenance. It is not sufficient to put a country back on the rails again. We have a tendency and a psychology in this country - and the Government certainly has it - to deal with effects rather than with causes. In a way the Government would rather run the soup kitchen than stop the depression or knit socks for the soldiers instead of preventing the war. I believe we have to get right down to the basic issues of this situation. So many people are speaking in noble terms. The International Parliamentary Union did this recently and made a great statement. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, to which I was a delegate, did not actually carry resolutions, because it is not its custom to do so, but expressed great sympathy. The Socialist Internationale, 470 Indian members of Parliament, hundreds of British Labour members of Parliament and groups from all over the world are saying wonderful, idealistic things but at this point of time not one government in the world has taken an initiative in the proper and appropriate place, which is the United Nations. As a member of the United Nations we should not be prepared to stand by and see another member of that body so recklessly abandoning all the principles which are sacrosanct and sacred, and that is of course that a party with a philosophy which obtains an overwhelming vote from the peoples should be entitled to govern. When a party gets 167 seats out of 168 seats that is undoubtedly the situation.

I would like to come back to the aid aspect. Let me make the point that up till now $157m has been promised by the countries of the world but of that amount only $20m has actually been made available for the relief of the refugee problem. I have with me authentic tables of figures which the Minister for Foreign Affairs is welcome to check if he has the inclination to do so. The great disaster began in March of this year - more than 6 months ago - yet only $20m has been forwarded. Do honourable members know that India is remitting $3m every day for the relief of the refugees in its own country? Yet the Minister for Foreign Affairs talks proudly of the Australian Government’s gesture of giving a total of $5.5m. The cost to India of sustaining the refugees is no less than $20m a week. How long can this effort be sustained? Indeed, for how long can Australia and the other countries which have made contributions sustain the contributions of limited proportions which have already come to hand? Clearly we have to start dealing with the fundamental issues. We have to get the matter into the United Nations. We have to get the people back into their own country so that the wheels of industry can start to turn again and so that the peasants can get back to tilling the fields and working the ploughs. But not one word has been said about this aspect up to this point of time.

Finally I want to warn that there is a danger that the contributions which we are making might be expended in the wrong direction. A statement was made recently to this effect in the Bangla Desh news sheet. The statement was made by the group which has been operating since the Bangla Desh regime declared its independence. There is no doubt that some of the contributions being made by various countries is being spirited away and expended through West Pakistan as a means and as a technique of bringing those people into a subjective and sycophantic situation, a compliant situation, with an oppressive regime which fundamentally is responsible for the East Pakistanis’ basic problem. This matter needs to be talked about at some length. But I urge the Minister to reconsider the allocation that has been made. It is clearly insufficient in terms of the problem on hand. In addition it is time that the Australian Government grasped the nettle, went to the United Nations and indicated that it is concerned with basic democratic principles and concerned with the need to give the people of East Pakistan the opportunity to govern themselves.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), who spoke very sincerely as have all speakers in this discussion so far, mentioned-

Mr Cohen:

– Now it is your turn.

Mr CALDER:

– Is the honourable member going to speak on this?

Mr Cohen:

– No.

Mr CALDER:

– The honourable member for Hughes mentioned that of the Si 20m that has been promised by countries around the world only $20m has virtually been delivered. Of this amount Australia has produced $3m and a further $2.5m was announced tonight. Australia is putting the aid on the line and delivering it where it is needed. As I have said, prior to the additional aid announced in the ministerial statement delivered tonight by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) we had given $3m in the form of rice and cash to the United Nations appeal as well as other urgently needed items which had been requested. How much of this material reached the target? We have been assured that Australian Government aid does reach its destination.

But what of the large amount of aid from other countries and possibly even from private individuals? This is what concerns me. Although I have not been fortunate enough to have been to India as have some honourable members in this place I have been told from a very reliable source that much of this outside aid is misdirected. I have been informed that it is misappropriated, that people are making a profit from it, that it has been delayed and that it can be seen on wharves and even on airfields. On some occasions some forms of aid have even been held up at customs. The Minister said tonight that our prompt and effective assistance has been described by the Indian Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of Economic Affairs as exemplary. So at least what we are doing is being appreciated by someone.

Mr Cohen:

– What would you expect them to say?

Mr CALDER:

– I am just repeating what was said by the people to whom we are giving aid. The honourable member is just making some political nonsense out of this matter.

By what method is our government aid vectored on to the target at which it is aimed? Surely if the system we are using is functioning so well, as has been suggested, we could play a greater part and help to organise other people to transport their aid by applying our system to their problems. After all, there is no point in raising millions of dollars and sending hundreds of tons of rice or other goods to India unless this assistance is put into the area where it is needed and unless it can be protected from pilfering or from people who would sell it to their own advantage. Therefore, I support the Minister in what he said tonight. I believe that we were correct in our early decision to deal directly with the Indian Government and to ask where that Government wanted the aid and what type of aid was wanted. Our airlift supplies were well planned and executed. At least we are getting our goods to where they are supposed to be going. I strongly commend those charitable organisations and individuals who, according to the Minister’s statement, are estimated to have raised $2m privately or in groups.

Mr Cope:

– According to the Minister for Primary Industry some only did it for publicity.

Mr CALDER:

– I am talking about the people who raised $2m, not the people who lie down outside this Parliament and probably subscribe nothing at all. While on the subject of individual contributions, 1 do not detract from the people from certain classes of the community who have already given so readily. If all Australians over the age of 18 years had subscribed $2 each to a fund to help the refugees, where would we have been? We would have had Si 6m in the kitty and this would have spread the whole call for aid over a vast area of Australia and there would not have been any hardship in any direction. This would have demonstrated the complete sincerity of the whole Australian society. The public could have contributed $2 a head without any difficulty whatsoever. We must be sincere in this matter and very often I wonder whether some of the people who are howling about this matter are sincere. As I said, these people who lie down in the streets and fast probably would have done more good if they had gone out and worked and put some money into the fund themselves. I commend the Government on its further grant of $500,000 direct cash grant to the United Nations and $2m to be allotted in a flexible way which will provide urgently needed items when and where they are sought.

The point I make is that we are endeavouring to send to the people who need them the things that they require instead of just sending them goods holus bolus and letting them lie around the place to rot or be pilfered. I do hope that our delivery rate on which we have been complimented remains at its present high level. The Government has promised to keep the matter of aid for Pakistani refugees under review. Most Opposition speakers tonight assumed that $5.5m will be the end of our contribution. The Minister tonight said that this matter would be kept under review and that is what the

Government will do. Surely there must be a long term policy on this matter. Monetary aid or aid in kind is what is so necessary now and which obviously will be necessary for a long time to come but surely the international community must look at the whole problem. I commend the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) for saying that this is what must be done. lt is on the conscience not only of the Australian community but also of the whole community of nations to try to work this problem out and to get together and to do something about it.

What are they doing to try to solve this incomprehensible happening? The numbers involved are appalling. It is beyond belief to talk of 10 million people in one area being completely destitute. This problem has reached enormous proportions. Australia has been told that it is fourth on the list of donors in relation to its gross national product. We are reaching a goal with our aid and we are making determined efforts to see that this situation is maintained. We have recognised the need for aid. Relief will continue and the Government will maintain a constant review of the situation. The Minister made this clear in his statement tonight. However, we must work towards convincing India and Pakistan of the urgent need to reconcile the situation. As I said, this is a problem for the whole world. This is not a time for aid fatigue and certainly Australia is not showing aid fatigue. The Government has promised to keep the aid situation open, to continue to review the urgency of this situation and to continue to ensure that it reaches the goal which it has set. It is of great importance to see that our efforts are not white-anted away and are not pilfered or misappropriated. We in this country must play a part in endeavouring to lead the world community to finding some way of solving this problem. At the moment, we are showing a practical way with our aid and the delivery of that aid.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I think that the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) about demonstrators - that is, those people who wanted to demonstrate their concern for the war victims in a practical way - were, to say the least, rather unworthy. I should like also to refer to one specific remark that the honourable member made. I think he said that the sending of relief was well planned and well executed. I do not think that the Director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would agree with that comment in view of the great hold-up which occurred with the delivery of cholera vaccine, which took a week longer than it should have to get to West Bengal. While this vaccine was sitting in Melbourne, 1 understand there were 6 Hercules aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Richmond and I do not see why those aircraft could not have been utilised. So, I do not think that this situation really squares with the statement by the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the sending of relief was well planned and well executed.

The Opposition, of course, is glad that the aid has been increased to $5.5m but I certainly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) because I believe that the amount of aid that is now being given could be greatly increased. The Opposition believes that the aid that has been given is quite inadequate in terms of what Australians can afford to give. Certainly, it is pitifully inadequate in terms of what is needed, firstly, to keep the refugees alive and, secondly, to avoid the complete collapse of the Indian economy. The Australian Government probably says: ‘Well we are the custodians of the public purse - of the taxpayers’ money - and we have to watch it carefully’, but I believe that the Australian people would support a much more generous donation of aid and a continuing aid programme to the war victims. I think we have seen this manifested by the people who have taken part in the fasting, in the letter writing campaign and, only today, with the public gesture by the Seamen’s Union in South Australia. This is something of which the Government could well take note. I am firmly convinced in my own mind that the Australian people would support an aid programme of something like $10m or, if we are giving $1 per capita, of $12.5m.

I should like to say more about this figure of $10m or $ 12.5m because it is important that we do not regard it as having a special significance in its own right. There is nothing particularly magical about it and I hope that if and when the Government eventually does allow its aid to be lifted to the figure of $10m or $ 12.5m, all those people who have been supporting the campaign for greater aid will not say: ‘Well, that is enough. The Government has now discharged its obligations’. We should not get it into our minds that all we need to do is to give $ 12.5m because there is no doubt that a great deal more must be done. This is only the start. Aid must be completely ongoing until all the refugees have been repatriated and rehabilitated. At the moment we are only really at the start of the problem. An enormous amount remains to be done. I think this can be seen by what is being done through the efforts of the Indian Government to try to re-locate the war victims. I think something like 50,000 a week have been moved largely by the efforts of the Soviet Union which has put in large passenger aircraft to help transport some of the war victims to the central States of India. But in spite of these efforts they are falling further behind because although they manage to re-locate a certain number in one week the same number are coming over the border in one day. As has been mentioned by previous speakers in this debate the amount , of aid that is required is very much greater that what has been pledged and the amount that has actually been received is relatively small - only about $20m.

I have with me some figures which were given to a United States Senate subcommittee convened to investigate the problems connected with refugees and escapees. These figures show that the total economic cost to India to support the current 6 million refugees for 6 months would range from about $500m to around $820m. This was when the number was only 6 million. If we extrapolate that to the present figure of 9 million - that is the figure which the Indian Government has given and I see it is the figure which the Australian Government accepts - the cost would be about S750m to perhaps a high estimate of $1230m to sustain the refugees for 6 months. This is only a start. This shows just the enormous amount that remains to be done. I do not really see why the Australian Government should not be making its own inquiries independently. Should we not be doing what the United States Senate sub-committee has done and try to determine what the needs are, precisely what the Indian Government wants and how much it does cost to sustain this enormous number of refugees for 6 months, one year or for however long they will be maintained? I think we ought to get more first-hand knowledge as to what is needed.

The other point about this figure of $10m or $12.5m, whatever you like, is that it is not just a question of providing more aid because the problems that are imposed by the influx of refugees are not entirely economic. There are political and social problems just as much as there are economic problems. A problem that has been caused by the influx of refugees is that a refugee who is already getting a daily supply of rations can virtually go out and offer his services as a labourer for very much less than the going price. The resultant downward pressure on wages has caused and I am sure will continue to cause a great deal of friction between the refugees and the people of West Bengal. Similarly there will be inflationary pressure which will cause similar social friction in the area. Another great problem - and this is related to my point that it is not purely a matter of providing funds - is that even before the refugees arrived in West Bengal that area was tremendously overcrowded, very largely due to the large number of refugees that had come from East Pakistan since partition in 1947. Between 1947 and the beginning of this year 5,500,000 refugees had come to West Bengal. The population was 44 million. Of this number about 2 million were unemployed. I would say that that would be an extremely high percentage of the work force because a large number of that 44 million were children because as is well known these families have large numbers of children.

There is also the problem of land hunger. Most of the unsettled land up to the time of partition had been settled by an active programme of the Indian Government to try to settle post-partition refugees. So there is practically no land left to give to these refugees. As has been mentioned by previous speakers in this debate there are enormous political problems in this area, problems not of the same order as we have here. Our problems are nothing compared to those in West Bengal where political violence is just the order of the day every day. These are the great problems facing West Bengal and they were present even before the refugees started to come over the border. These problems have been exacerbated by this sudden influx of 9 million refugees. Ultimately it will not just be a question solely of providing more aid, although this is very important, but a political solution must be found. In my view there is only one solution and that is the refugees must go back.

In what circumstances will they go back? People talk about political settlements. I think that if there is some sort of deal made perhaps between the Awami League and the Government in Islamabad I do not think it would be sufficient to make all the refugees go back. I do not think they will go back until the military withdraws. I do not think the military will withdraw until there is complete independence. That is my own view. It is a conclusion I have reluctantly come to but I think it is an inescapable one. I am not saying that the Australian Government should intervene and necessarily recognise the Government of Bangla Desh, but I do not think we should put anything in the way of complete independence eventually coming to the people of East Pakistan or East Bengal. However, I think there are positive things that we can do. We have to try to achieve a political solution but this will not be an end to the problem because there are enormous problems in East Pakistan. Even if we can get the refugees or most of the refugees back into East Pakistan there will still be tremendous problems in resettling them and helping all the war victims, including those people who never went across the border into India in the first place.

But there are other things that we can do and I have in mind something at the diplomatic level. I think we should try to influence our American allies. We have been rather unquestioning allies of the United States in recent years and I think it is about time that we used our good offices to try to influence them to take a more rational course that would be not only in our interests but would be in India’s interest and in the interest of the United States. I sometimes despair to think how blind the United States is in its own policies towards India at the moment. It is rather appropriate that I have with me a letter which I received today from a friend of mine in Delhi. I will briefly quote from that letter. It reads:

We failed to understand the sermons of restraint by the big powers, particularly the Nixon administration, who are supplying the arms to the military junta in West Pakistan and aiding the refugees also, though Indian public opinion bore a strong resentment against such a double cross policy. Still, we hail and appreciate the role played by Senator Kennedy and other senators and congressmen.

I think this is something we should do. We ought to be able to use our good offices to try to persuade the Americans to change course. I believe the Americans are making the same mistake as they did with Vietnam. They are prepared to disregard the interests of particular countries in the interests of some abstraction which they refer to as global strategy’. I think that if they looked at the human problems first and this vague notion of global strategy last it would be very much better for the US, for us and certainly for everybody in this area.

I think also that the Australian Government should stop pussyfooting about its attitude towards the trial of Sheik Mujibur Rahman in Islamabad. As has been mentioned, I think quite appropriately by those who presented petitions, I do not think it is enough for the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to call upon the Government of Pakistan to exercise magnanimity and compassion. I think it could do a lot more and say: ‘There is no doubt about it. We regard Sheik Mujibur Rahman as the rightfully elected Prime Minister of all Pakistan and certainly of East Pakistan, and the Awami League as the rightfully elected government.’ There is so much more we could do. I would like to see Australia carry out a peace offensive in this area. Why do we have to be so much concerned with the actual Indian Ocean? When we are talking about the Soviet Union Navy sailing its ships up and down the Indian Ocean we get terribly excited. Surely the important thing is the countries on the periphery of the Indian Ocean.

I think that we could be far more constructive in helping those countries and in helping our own interests - in our own security. In our own security we could be carrying out a peace offensive to help these countries. I think this would do a lot more good for Australia than all this sabre rattling about building an $80m naval base at Cockburn Sound or purchasing destroyers at $70m or $80m. It is just absurd.

Mr Barnes:

– You just want to scrap our defences.

Dr GUN:

– My suggestion would be a much better form of defence. All I can say is this: The money would be much better spent and our interests would be much better served for the future. Honourable members should forget some of their old dogmas. If the Government does not send a delegation I would like to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) go over and have a look at this situation himself. The heads of voluntary organisations have done this. Major-General Cullen, the head of Austcare and in charge of voluntary help to India, went and had a look. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in charge of this Government’s foreign aid. Why does not he go over and take a look? I think it should be required viewing. If he had a look I am sure he would have much more decided views about what we need to do in our own interests.

We need to do it not only for humanitarian reasons but also because of the war that, could occur between the 2 powers if something is not done. It is an extremely dangerous situation when we have Russia on one side and China on the other. It is something we cannot discount. While we have the problem of increasing frustration and the increasing inability of the Indian Government to overcome this tremendous problem, there is a great danger that out of frustration they might resort to war. This is something we do not want to happen and it is something we must do all in our power to avoid in the interests of humanity. Also it is something we should do as an affluent country and in our own interests. Finally I would like to see an end to all this secrecy about the so-called diplomatic activity in which the Government is engaging in order to keep peace between the 2 sides. I would like to know what this diplomatic activity is. What is going on? We have no evidence that the Government is doing anything. There has not been any positive evidence of any benefit coming from what it has done. I do not like to criticise Ministers personally but I think the effort of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs has been quite insipid and pretty putrid.

Mr REID:
Holt

– I am pleased that this ministerial statement has enabled foreign aid to be debated as I believe the general public is vitally concerned with what is happening in Bengal. This is indicated by the large amount of mail, telegrams and petitions that I and, I know, other honourable members have been receiving. I think it is important that the general public should show its concern by contacting the elected members of Parliament. The catastrophe in Bengal is the greatest catastrophe this century and 1 saw plenty of evidence of this on my recent visit to quite a number of refugee camps in West Bengal. Whilst India is doing a wonderful job in coping with the refugee problem and has most of her civil servants working around the clock, there is, of course, a limit to what she can do. Unfortunately to add to the situation Bengal is experiencing the worst monsoon postwar and to the uninitiated many of the refugee camps present a panorama of suffering and death. There is no doubt about that. The plight of the refugees in many of these camps is indescribable, lt is far worse than any picture or story one has seen or read and unless the refugees are quickly dispersed to better camp sites, preferably back to East Pakistan, there will be mortality on an unprecedented scale. There is already mortality on a large scale.

I believe we are failing in our duty by not going to the assistance of these people in a more sacrificial way. For these reasons the Government’s additional allocation of $2.5m is disappointing. It still only represents less than 0.5 per cent of the total amount of $ 1,200m that is needed each year to provide for the refugees. The United States of America has recently announced an additional contribution of $125m in cash. I must emphasise that cash is urgently needed because it enables the Indian Government to buy food items in India. It can be immediately used and no transport costs are involved. Britain has also provided an additional $17m and Sweden, a country approximately half our size, has provided Si Om in cash and has already promised further large cash contributions. This is the type of aid that India and Pakistan need. They need it in cash and it is disappointing that of this additional $2.5m only $500,000 is in cash. It obviously will take some considerable time before the balance of $2m is utilised. They urgently need this additional cash now to provide for the refugees and I would like the Minister to give further consideration to sending portion of this additional $2m in cash.

One of the factors which influences government thinking on overseas aid is, of course, that we are providing 1 per cent of our gross national product. As the Minister said in his statement, we are fourth on the list of donor countries. But why be fourth? Why not be first, second or third? This magical percentage of 1 per cent was never intended to be the beginning and end to overseas aid. It was only intended to be a percentage which foreign governments might aim for in normal times. I hasten to say that these are not normal times. As we know, and as so many honourable members have said, Bengal is being ravaged by the greatest catastrophe this century. There is no doubt about that. Some 20 million people are involved and there will be mortality on an unprecedented scale unless hundreds of millions of dollars are quickly provided. Australia must accept far greater responsibility because of the dimensions of the Bengal catastrophe and our assistance must be commensurate with the scale of the catastrophe. It must be determined on that basis. Our assistance must be provided on need and any further contribution should be over and above anything we have ever done in the past because aid on a huge scale is needed if we are to come to grips with the problem there. The Bengal disaster is an emergency on an unprecedented scale.

These are not normal times and we must act on humanitarian grounds. We cannot look at it from a cold statistical point of view and say that we are providing 1 per cent or even 10 per cent of our gross national product. This provides little comfort for the millions of refugees who have not even the bare necessities required for survival. An emergency situation of this magnitude where millions of human beings face famine and ultimate death can only be tackled on one basis, and that is on need determined on humanitarian grounds. Precedents have been set in the past. We have to go back only to the years 1965 to 1967, the years of the Bihar famine. The Australian Government at that time came to the assistance of India and the survivors of the Bihar famine in a most sacrificial way. For instance, it granted large consignments of food aid. In March 1965 it provided $7.8m worth of food aid. Eleven months later, in February 1966, another $8m worth of emergency food aid was provided. This was predominantly wheat but it also included skim milk powder and other food items. The very next year, in 1967, we provided an additional $9m of emergency food aid. That amounted to $25m worth of emergency food aid in under 3 years.

Because the Australian Government and other governments quickly came to the assistance of the victims of the Bihar famine in a sacrificial way a large scale famine was averted. I must go further and say that the Bihar famine was not on the scale of the present catastrophe in West Bengal. We have heard other honourable members speak about the grave situation there - about the great need for providing for the refugees. We must always remember the millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, who are worse off than the refugees in many cases because they are not even getting relief supplies. This catastrophe is far greater than the Bihar famine for which we provided $25m. Again, we provided $US60m to assist Indonesia to recover from the rebellion of 1965. That $US60m was spread over 3 years. Again I stress that the catastrophe in Indonesia was nowhere near the scale of the Bihar famine.

I cannot understand the Government’s piecemeal approach to this great tragedy in West Bengal and East Pakistan. Had the Government seized the initiative and provided a substantial grant, as was the case during the Bihar famine, there would have been little public outcry as there is today We have experienced some 3,000 people in Canberra, including members of Parliament, holding a lunch hour fast outside Parliament House to bring prominence to bear on this great catastrophe in Bengal. I believe that the Government still has a lot to learn in the field of foreign aid as it is a complete newcomer compared with the voluntary agencies which have been working in these countries for 30 or 40 years and even longer.

I feel that the Government should take more notice of the representations of the voluntary agencies and seek a much closer liaison with them. For the past 3 months the voluntary agencies have been requesting the Government to increase its aid contribution to $10ra. However, it has been all to no avail. Yet apparently at the request of the United Nations just recently we have quickly responded with an additional $2.Sm. This indicates what little influence the voluntary agencies have had on Government thinking. To me this is a piecemeal approach to a great human problem. I intend to speak out strongly on these issues as I believe the Government to be out of touch with the grave situation in Bengal. On humanitarian grounds I cannot accept an additional $2.Sm as a sacrificial contribution to the greatest catastrophe this century. Therefore, I am left with no alternative but to support the amendment.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to support the amendment, which is couched in similar terms to a motion which I attempted to move in this House on two occasions over the last 3 weeks. On both of those occasions the Government used its numbers to prevent debate taking place and an expression of opinion being made by the members of this House. I hope that on this occasion the Government will allow the amendment to be put to a vote so that honourable members may express their opinions in the same way as the Australian people have already expressed their opinion on the level of aid which is being made available by the Australian Government for the East Pakistan refugees. I think that firstly we should dispense with any suggestion that Australia cannot afford to increase the level of aid. I do not think that any responsible member of this Parliament would say that the Australian Government could not afford to double or treble the present level of aid.

Expressed in the terms of the amendment, which suggests that the level of aid should be not less than $1 per head for each Australian, the level of Australian aid at the moment, including the increase announced tonight, is 44c per head of the Australian population, which is most likely less than is spent each day on cigarettes in this country. The situation of the refugees in India is tragic. It is a situation which is beyond the imagination of any person in this Parliament. I doubt whether even those who have been there can at this stage really envisage the tragedy which they have actually seen. Nine million people and more in a state of almost total hopelessness have been inflicted on an area which is probably the poorest area in the world. An earlier speaker suggested that there was a lack of administrative capacity in the State Government of West Bengal. I suggest that if any group of administrators or any group taken out of any Parliament in the world were given the job of administering West Bengal without the 9 million refugees it would show a complete and total lack of administrative capacity when faced with the problems that exist in that area.

It is smug to suggest that a lack of administrative ability is a reason why Australia should restrict to the present level the aid which we are prepared to provide. The Australian Government’s record in this is pitiful. No other description can be given to it. A previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, explaining why vaccine had not been sent, said that we had to wait to find out what type of virus was involved so that we could send the right type of vaccine. The fact that there is only one type of cholera vaccine manufactured in Australia at the moment was overlooked. The amendment, if complied with, would mean that the Australian people would be providing approximately 1 per cent of the annual requirement of aid to maintain alive the refugees in India. I do not think with the affluence of the Australian nation and the level of wealth which we enjoy that it would be too much to expect that we could accept responsibility for onehundredth of the cost of maintaining these refugees. On present indications the Indian Government, whilst it has a total income greater than that of Australia, has a far greater problem within its own nation and it is being required to accept something like 85 per cent of the cost.

This debate is about whether we as members of this Parliament have the level of conscience that has been exhibited quite clearly by the people outside this Parliament. I do not believe that we can accept the present level of aid. Every member of this House has received, I hope, many hundreds of letters from people asking that aid be increased. I would like to quote an extract from one letter I have received and I think it is probably synonymous with most of the letters which other honourable members have received. It reads:

I am writing to you to ask you to let it be known that many Australians feel that the gift already given by the Government of Australia is paltry indeed when the plight of Pakistan refugees is so desperate. Please do whatever you can to convince the Parliament that a much larger gift should be sent immediately.

I believe that the letter expresses the opinions of most Australians and that it is not necessary to convince the Parliament. I think that every member, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, believes that the present level and the projected level of aid is not great enough, but by some means the Government - I do not know whether the Treasury has anything to do with it but I would hope that even it could not be as mean as that - has arrived at a situation where in response to considerable pressure from public opinion, from the Press and, T believe, from its own supporters it has felt compelled to increase the level of Australian aid by a token amount which is totally unsatisfactory.

The amendment expresses what should be the opinion of the Parliament. Because of the archaic manner in which the Standing Orders of the Parliament are couched it is not possible to move an amendment actually to increase the amount of money which can be expended. It is still the royal prerogative to spend the Treasury’s money. Apparently members of Parliament cannot be trusted with that responsibility but I believe that members of Parliament have a responsibility to give effect to the wishes stated in the hundreds of letters that every member of this House is receiving and, I hope, that some members at least are reading. The people who have written the letters hope that we will make a realistic contribution towards relief of the tragic suffering which a political situation has created and thrown upon so many people. I would hate to think, as I fear one must, this decision was made in the belief that these are, after all very poor people and are used to this type of thing. I should hate to think that we have become blase about the sufferings of other people. Yet that is the decision that one must reach. If a similar situation existed in one of the States of Australia and Australian people were involved, no government would be game to offer aid of 44c a head.

The Australian aid represents sufficient funds to maintain the refugees for about 4 hours. I think Australia’s contribution should be remembered in those terms. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) reflected, I think quite improprerly and inappropriately, on the people who are fasting outside the Parliament in order to draw attention to the plight of those people in West Bengal who need aid. I think it would be well for Government supporters who are smugly satisfied with what is going on, or else are not prepared to accept their responsibility, to go and look at one of the gentlemen concerned, and having looked at him, imagine what he would look like if he fasted for another 100 days because that is the condition of many of the people in West Bengal. It is a condition which will be permanent for the rest of their very short lives. It is a condition which we, without great hardship to ourselves or the Australian taxpayers, could relieve to some extent.

An increase to the level expressed in the amendment, of $1 for each head of the Australian population, would mean, if it was taken from additional taxation, that every Australian would have to pay 1.1c a week extra in taxation. That would provide the difference between what is being offered tonight and what is expressed in the amendment. It is not a tremendous amount of money, nor is it an amount that anyone could suggest the Australian Treasury cannot afford. Whether we can afford it is hot even the question. The question is whether we as a Parliament are prepared to express the opinion that this amount of money should be given. I have felt extremely disillusioned with the parliamentary system when a matter of this urgency and magnitude could not be brought on for debate in this House prior to II o’clock at night. It has been brought on when we are off the air. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) amazed me when on a previous occasion I tried to have this matter raised. He said that it could be debated within the normal Standing Orders of the House by placing it on the notice paper. Every member of this House knows that a private member’s resolution cannot be debated in this House in the normal course of events. It is just not on. One puts things on the notice paper but unless the Government agrees to debate them that is where they stay. This is an occasion when we should have a vote unless the Government lacks the intestinal fortitude to allow its supporters to vote on the matter and when an expression of opinion of this Parliament should be forthcoming on this matter which is one of conscience for every member of this House.

The amount of aid which is offered tonight is a disgrace to the Australian nation. It places every member of this House in the position where he should either show his shame or indicate, if he is not going to support the amendment, that he is not prepared to accept the opinions of those he represents. We are not guarding the Treasury’s money because the amount involved is not great. We are saying whether or not we believe that the level of Australian aid should be more realistic. If and when we are allowed to vote on this amendment the members of this House should express the opinion that they are dissatisfied with the decision of the Cabinet. They should ask the Cabinet, or those who exercise the royal prerogative, to spend a little more of the money of the Treasury in a more humanitarian manner than is being done at the moment. I ask every member of this House to support the amendment and I will look with interest at those who are not prepared to support their constituents.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker - Mr P. Lucock)

AYES: 46

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2638

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Economy - The Parliament - Voting Age - Coal Industry

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Acting Speaker, during the course of the last few hours we have witnessed the departure of our Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on a little jaunt overseas. No doubt he is floating around in mid-air tonight, and he has left behind him an economy in a similar situation. During the course of the last week, because of the announced unemployment figures, I directed a telegram to the right honourable absent gentleman - absent in thought and absent in mind - concerning the intolerable situation that his Government has brought about in this country. I remind him that since his short time as Prime Minister the number of people on the dole in Australia has increased by SO per cent. Of course, he never had the courtesy to answer the telegram that I directed to him. Mr Acting Speaker, I wish that at some time you would tune in to these honourable members on my left who are interjecting - and I understand that you have some association with the particular Party which they represent - and pull them into gear. They should not be so cheeky. After all, in 1969 they received less than 8 per cent of the total votes cast across the Commonwealth. They have a hell of a lot to say in here, when such a small percentage of people voted for them.

However, the Prime Minister is absent from this chamber tonight, and he has left behind him a most deplorable situation in this country. From what one hears when moving around one’s own electorate and beyond at this point of time, I do not think that there has been less confidence in the community generally than there is at the present time. Of course, the Prime Minister, as a result of action taken by his Government since it has been in office and indeed by the Cabinet before the one which we now see sitting on the front bench, has increased interest rates to a figure that has placed an intolerable burden on the average wage and salary earner and on the average young person in the community, and probably has placed the acquisition of their own homes far beyond the reach of these people.

Recently we heard the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), the injured right wing of the Liberal Party - he is not in the chamber at the moment, or at least I cannot see him - criticising a recent wage decision made in favour of some section of the building industry. He immediately flew off into print and said - he also stated it on television - that increased costs will flow to home owners as a result of the wage increase. Of course, he has forgotten completely that far greater increases have been inflicted on this particular sector of the building industry - on cottage and home building - through the imposition, by his Government, of increased interest rates in March of last year and again in the budgetary proposals this year.

The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has been overseas in connection with the Australian economy. He has been back in Australia for a week now. He came back to Australia, put his foot up on the nearest bar he could find and said that the economy was not crook. He said that everything else was crook but not the economy and that we should talk about instilling confidence in the economy by saying that it was not crook. The Parliament has been sitting since yesterday afternoon but the Treasurer has not uttered one word concerning what he intends to do about the economy. Honourable members should be concerned with the intolerable situation that exists at present. The unemployment figure will exceed 100,000 by this Christmas. The situation is more intolerable when one realises that a far greater number of people are involved, despite the clap-trap we heard in this chamber yesterday about seasonal figures. If the figures concerning wage and salary earners were related to the fact that the great percentage of them are married, it would be realised that 300,000 to 400,000 men, women and children will be on the dole within the new few months, yet the Government refuses to do anything about it.

AH manner of measures are introduced into this chamber. If a rural industry is in trouble - I do not say this critically - members opposite rush to its aid. No Government supporter, certainly not the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is now lounging back in his seat and wearing a pale pink tie, has suggested increasing the amount of weekly payment to those men, women and children who will be out of work and idle as a result of the Government’s inattention, inactivity and almost stupidity. Has the Government given any consideration to the high rates of interest that these people must pay on their mortagages? Certainly not! The Government should show the same consideration for these people as it shows tor other sections of the community. The Minister for Social Services has held his protfolio for some considerable time. He gains some free publicity in the Press by paying lip service to some proposals. He has suggested that there should be a national superannuation scheme. He has made some criticism of his Government from time to time and of its attitude to his own Department. If he has the courage of his convictions why does he not move in this House to correct the ills of which he accuses his Government? He is not sincere or he would do this. He has no sincerity in this regard. He is, of course, following the line that his colleagues have followed for so many years in respect of almost every aspect of policy that I have ever mentioned. They pay sufficient lip service to such proposals as to con sufficient people to return them to office.

This fetches me to the question of assistance to the wool industry. This afternoon I had something to say on this topic and when I sought leave to make a personal explanation I thought that you, Mr Acting Speaker, were a bit rough on me in that you never let me get really off the ground. During the course of the debate on the legislation to provide assistance to the wool industry Opposition members wanted to know whether specific provision was made whereby the wool growers would benefit from that legislation without any tags attached. This afternoon a question was asked by an honourable member who is, unfortunately, not present at the moment.

Mr Giles:

– You drive them all out.

Mr FOSTER:

– I shall not take umbrage at that interjection. The honourable member is present, but 1 did not see him. He asked a question that members of the Opposition have asked, but not one member of the Government has had the guts or courage to get up and say that we have been wrong in what we have suggested. If we were wrong, members opposite should tell us so. Why do members opposite not refute the statements that appeared this morning in a Western Australian newspaper in a letter from a Mr Pedlow of Claremont who headed it ‘Government “hypocrisy” on wool aid’? Honourable members opposite have read it; they have been trooping into the Library today to see it. There has not been one Government supporter who has not gone to one of the Library staff and taken more than one copy of this letter to the editor.

Mr Daly:

– That is right.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thanks, Fred.

Mr Giles:

– Wait for the echo.

Mr FOSTER:

– The honourable member for Angas would not know what he is talking about. In a television debate the other night in Adelaide he referred to an Indonesian sitting outside the front of this House fasting. The honourable member did not know and did not concern himself to find out that the person to whom he was referring is an Australian citizen. He did not have the courtesy and decency to say so, if he did know it. What I wanted to say was that this letter to the editor is almost word for word with what appeared in the Hansard record of what was said on this side of the House.

I turn now to the proposed payment by the Government of $600,000 to Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd. Let me wind up this note. You, Mr Acting Speaker, along with many Government supporters, have stood in this House and passed legislation from time to time. You have sent security police into trade union offices, thieving the trade union office books and looking at them. If honourable members want positive proof of what was said on this side of the House in regard to the number of sheep which Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd run and the cop which the company is going to get from the taxpayers I suggest that they obtain that company’s books and present them to the House. They might then have some chance of convincing us that what we say is wrong. So far as my colleagues and I are concerned, until that is done honourable members opposite have passed a measure merely to benefit Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd, British Tobacco Co (Aust.) Ltd and all the barons across the length and breadth of this country who have been exploiting wool growers. We cannot place reliance on the suggestion of honourable members opposite that growers can benefit without going through the burghers and barons, unless they are prepared to stand up and be counted on the issue. Thank you for listening.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I would like to put some sanity into the debate tonight. We have just heard the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) complain and criticise the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) for going overseas. If the Prime Minister did not go overseas to meet world leaders the honourable member for Sturt would complain that the Prime Minister just sits in the Parliament or stays at home when he should be around the world seeing world leaders to see what he can do for Australia.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. I did not go crook because the Prime Minister went overseas. I went crook because he left so many things undone before he went.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– -Orderl There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The Prime Minister has gone overseas to do what he can for Australia. From what has been said today it is my opinion that the Prime Minister should have the goodwill of all Australians for the success of his mission. We should not have the criticism which we have heard tonight, which does not mean a thing. Furthermore, we have just had a debate regarding aid for Pakistan. During that debate it was stated that Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, but almost immediately the honourable member for Sturt gets up and says how bad things are in this country; how this country itself is practically starving. 1 think this is altogether wrong. I do not think I would be contravening the Standing Orders if I answered something the honourable member for Sturt said about a certain man.

Mr Foster:

– You speak to the Acting Speaker, not to me.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am not speaking to you. Something was said about a certain man fasting outside the front of the House. It appears to me that this man is going about it in the wrong way. If I were running a campaign of that kind I Would have a table out there. I would have any amount of food and wine on the table and some well dressed men sitting at the table. I would display a notice stating: ‘We have plenty of money and food in this country; what about those who have not?’. That would show the contrast between our various positions. The honourable member for Sturt has said that a challenge has been issued to honourable members on the Government side regarding wool, etc. 1 put out a challenge here today to honourable members on the Opposition side. I challenged them to take the honourable member for Sturt over to the other side of the chamber, put him among Labor members and put up with him. I also asked some time ago - I have been very patient; honourable members know that - why should I be the one who has to occupy (his hot seat. It was said to me by a very loyal member and a friend of mine in the Labor Party: ‘Why don’t you get ear muffs?’ After all, it is very hard to put up with what I have to put up with all the time. Although the honourable member was called to order today, there are these undertones. There was reference to ‘a lot of clots’ on this side. Our members are being insulted all the time. Of course I must be lenient with the honourable member for Sturt because he is only a new boy in this House. Ever since I came here 25 i years ago I have endeavoured to do two things.

Mr Daly:

– You have been here too long.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Yes, too long for members of the Labor Party. I know that. I realise it is too long for them because I can answer the questions. If it were not for honourable members who have been here for years and years, the honourable member for Sturt would get away with all sorts of things. But I know what happened when Labor was in office. When Labor was in office and since we have been in office I have always said that I fight in this House for policies, but never do I enter into personalities unless I am annoyed to the extent that I have been by the honourable member for Sturt, and then I do so only for self-preservation. I like to hear the debate that is going on. I try to hear the debate that is going on. I listen very carefully but it is beyond anybody’s power to hear the debate when this racket is going on all the time here. It is a bit of a joke; I will admit that. I am not going to be hurried. I have been here long enough to accept all the interjections when I get up to make a speech. I just go on quietly and when the din dies down I proceed. 1 rose tonight mainly because of the remarks about the Prime Minister going overseas. Through you, Sir, I want to put something to the honourable member for Sturt very definitely. Most members of the Opposition are saying: ‘The Government is in its last term. It will be defeated’. I have been listening to this for 22 years. I have heard it said: ‘The Government will be defeated. It is no good’. As soon as an election was over and the present Government was back on the Treasury benches someone on the Opposition side would say: If we only had the chance of an election now we would defeat the Government’. Do the honourable member for Sturt and other members - I do not say all members - of the Opposition, think that all Australians are foolish? Do they not realise that we have had a lot of elections in 22 years and that in this democratic country the people have had every opportunity for putting the present Government off the Treasury benches and that the Labor Party has had every opportunity to occupy the Treasury benches? Why did this not take place? This is the question that members of the Opposition must put to themselves.

Mr Armitage:

– Who got most of the votes?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Someone asks who got most of the votes. Under the Constitution of this country we do not work in that way.

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member is speaking about the majority of votes, but he was elected on the minority vote last time. He did not get SO per cent of the votes.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keogh:

– It was a good point though.

Mr TURNBULL:

– It was a very poor point for the simple reason that I had a Liberal opponent.

Mr Armitage:

– Oh!

Mr Daly:

– Now we are getting it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr TURNBULL:

– Had his votes been counted with my votes I would have had my normal majority of 10,000 or 12,000 votes. That is the fact. Members of the Opposition cannot put up a case by using only half the facts. Let me put this to the House very definitely-

Mr Cope:

– Did you get a ‘subnormal’ vote?

Dr Gun:

– Do bushels of wheat get a vote?

Mr TURNBULL:

– All this sort of talk goes on. I am not concerned with these interjections. Opposition members are trying to be smart but their behaviour does not add any dignity to the Parliament. I am here to say to honourable members opposite and especially to the honourable member for Sturt that they would do a lot better if they kept off personalities and stuck to policies. After all, this is what this Parliament is for. This behaviour happens sometimes on this side of the House, too. I am not going to say that those on this side of the House do not do it. When I conclude someone will rise and try to make some play of what I have been saying. Honourable members opposite can do that if they like. Those who have been here for the number of years that I have been a member know that I have never dealt in personalities or criticised anybody personally. Under no consideration have I done that. If we all adopted this principle, this Parliament would be a better place. It would be a better place to represent the people of Australia. It would be a better place to bring forward legislation to build the nation.

Thursday, 28 October 1971

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Forrest.

Mr Daly:

– You started well, Al.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The hour is late. I would suggest that honourable members give some attention to the Standing Orders so that business might proceed without too many interruptions. I call the honourable member for Forrest.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

- Mr Acting Speaker, as you will know 18 to 20-year-old persons in Western Australia have the right to vote and they exercised that right at the last State election. You will . know also that the former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), said that the Federal Government would introduce the right to vote for 18 to 20-year-olds at the federal level. You will know also that section 41 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides:

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Now 1 am sure that you would have expected that, under that provision of the Constitution, 18 to 20-year-olds in Western Australia would be entitled to vote at a Federal election and that 18 to 20-year- olds in New South Wales, South Australia and other States, when legislation was introduced to provide to those people the right to vote in elections in those States, would similarly be entitled to vote at a Federal election.

Because of that provision and because in Western Australia the right of this age group to vote had been exercised in a State election, I wrote to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) on 29th June. I asked him what instructions had been issued by his Department to chief electoral officers in each of the States in which the voting age had been lowered to facilitate the enrolment of those newly eligible to vote? I asked, further, what procedures would be adopted in the event of an election if no instructions had been issued. I asked, finally, what advice should be given to inquiring 18 to 20-year-olds in Western Australia who had the right to vote for the more numerous House in that State and whether the Federal Government was intending to extend the right to vote to all 18 to 20-year-olds across Australia, as was promised by the right honourable member for Higgins.

The Minister for the Interior sent this reply to me:

I refer again to your letter dated 29 June 1971 seeking my advice on various electoral matters relating to the lowering of the franchise age.

The answers to the queries raised by you are as follows:

and (d) Although legislation has been passed in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia lowering the enrolment and voting age to 18 years for State elections, the new legislation is operative only in Western Australia.

The Federal Government has not yet considered the question of lowering the franchise age for Federal elections and no instructions relating to this matter have been issued to the chief Electoral Officer or the Commonwealth Electoral Officers.

Changes in procedures will not be determined until the franchise age is changed.

Persons in the 18-20 year old age group who seek advice about enrolment and voting entitlement for Federal elections might be informed that the government has not yet considered the question of lowing the franchise age.

As that provision is in the Constitution I contacted the Minister’s Department again to find out what it intended to do about this matter because I believe that the provision was clearly there for these people to vote at Federal elections since they had the right to vote at State elections. I was told that the Government had decided that this was not so. The reason was the word adult’ in the provision that no adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall be prevented from voting at Federal elections. 1 believe that the Department is going outside the intention of the Constitution. Perhaps under Commonwealth law the Department’s interpretation is legally correct; but, as I said, I believe it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

During question time I asked the Minister for the Interior the following question:

I address my question to the Minister for the Interior. Following upon my correspondence with him-

I was careful to mention that so that he would know that this was something on which he had given me a decision and also because he has a facility for remembering correspondence from members on the Country Party benches - regarding the rights of 18 to 20-year-old persons to vote in Federal elections under section 41 of the Constitution, what is the reason for the Government’s refusal . . .

I had been told that it had refused - to allow 18 to 20-year-old persons to vote in Federal elections in States where they have the right to vote for their State parliaments? Is this refusal a further indication of the Liberal-Country Party desires to avoid decisions of the people wherever possible, as with gerrymandered electorates and preferential voting?

The Minister’s answer was as follows:

This is a matter of Government policy and it has not yet been resolved.

The Minister had given me a decision; so this was not a matter of Government policy. I discussed the matter with him afterwards and he asked me to place a question on the notice paper. My question was placed on the notice paper on 10th September, which is 6 weeks ago. I think the question is simple enough but I have not received a reply to it. My question is as follows:

  1. What is the reason for the Government’s decision to withhold the right to vote from persons 18 to 20 years old when they have the right to vote in State elections in certain States.
  2. Will the situation be any different when the Adulthood Bills in respect of 18 year old persons are enacted in the various States.

This is what is intended in Western Australia. I believe that that is a simple enough question and one which should not have taken 6 weeks to answer, just as I believe that the question I directed to the Minister at question time was simple enough and certainly was not a matter of policy because it was a matter on which the Government had made a decision. I asked what the reasons were because the Government’s attitude appeared to me to be in conflict with the spirit of section 41 of the Constitution.

I am of the opinion that this is a further indication of the Liberal-Country Party desire to restrict the franchise wherever possible. We know that it was not very long ago thai there were property qualifications for the franchise in Western Australia. We know that this qualification still exists in the election of upper houses in the Parliaments of South Australia and Tasmania. Also, we know that these Parties have resisted every extension of the franchise. I believe that the refusal of the Government to give 18 year olds a vote is a further indication of the Liberal-Country Party’s desire to restrict the franchise at the federal level. 1 think the reasons for this must be that the Liberal-Country Party saw that the first election in which 18 to 20 year olds voted resulted in a Labor government being returned in Western Australia and it has associated those 2 facts. I believe that it is not quite as simple as that.

When the former Liberal-Country Party Government of Western Australia removed the property franchise in that State it still resisted an expression of the will of the people by the way in which it drew up boundaries and by the operation of preferential voting. We have a situation as reflected in the figures from the last Legislative Council elections in Western Australia. In those elections in the metropolitan area the Labor Party received 149,094 votes for which it received 2 seats; the Liberal Party received 78,701 votes for which it received 3 seats. In the agriculture, mining and pastoral areas the Labor Party with 63,698 votes received 1 seat, the Liberal Party with 43,868 votes received 5 seats and the Country Party with 25,035 votes received 2 seats. This was achieved by the way in which boundaries are drawn, by the combinations of seats that return Labor members into one Upper House seat and in other areas of combining 2 anti-Labor seats with one Labor Assembly seat to make up a Council area. I believe that we live under one of the most manipulated electoral systems in the world. As I have said before, it smacks of guided democracy. We are still suffering from the decisions made at the turn of the century. We have never been able to get majorities in the Upper House so as to be able to alter electoral legislation and accordingly we have never been able to obtain equitable boundaries. I believe that the decision made by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) with regard to 18 to 20-year olds in Western Australia, where they have the right to vote and where they ought to have it under section 41 of the Constitution, in refusing to introduce legislation to operate throughout the Commonwealth is a clear indication of the desire of this Government to restrict the franchise as far as possible.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) displayed a superb lack of knowledge of the history of his own Party, otherwise he would be clearly aware that probably the greatest manipulation in the political history of this country was in the State of Queensland during the regime of the Australian Labor Party. If that claim were to be challenged at all, it would be by the 30 years during which the Labor Party held office in New South Wales, when there was complete and absolute manipulation.

Mr Cope:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable gentleman is reflecting gravely upon Senator Gair, who was responsible for the situation in Queensland.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point taken.

Mr KATTER:

– I would like to speak on that subject on another occasion. The matter to which I want to draw some attention this morning is the situation which exists in the mining communities in the area which I represent. When I had the privilege to be chairman of the Mount Isa Shire Council it was a very small town. There were other small communities such as Blackwater, which was a whistle stop. It is now a proud town and Mount Isa is a very proud city. There has been a distinct change over the years. Once we had a drifting and unsettled population. It was almost the type of community to which people came from other areas merely to receive a pay cheque, build up a bank account and move off again. This is not the situation now. These are permanent communities. I feel that the people of these communities should enjoy the fruits of the tremendous wealth they are producing for this country and, unfortunately, for other countries.

The Federal Government should give very serious consideration to the establishment of scholarships for the sons and daughters of the workers of those communities. I know that such scholarships are provided in Queensland. I know that the companies in certain areas provide bursaries. But there is a great danger in the mining industry at the present time that with assured development there will inevitably be a lack of technical assistance. Perhaps there will not be a lack so much of geologists. I will have something to say about them on another occasion. But there will be a lack of even the people who are required to have a certain technical standard. I feel that if this matter was closely examined in these various communities - not only in my own electorate, but throughout Australia - it might be found that many people are involved.

I have in mind particularly the com.nunity at Blair Athol where we see a handful of miners who have been whittled down slowly but surely to just a small group of families. I feel that if opportunities had been offered to the sons and daughters of those people we would have had a more stable community. After all, which group of people in the world work under conditions more hazardous than those experienced by coal miners? Even in these days with great advances in safety measures, amenities and other methods whereby life has been made a little easier for these people, there is inevitably a danger in working underground, particularly with coal. Who would be more equipped and who would have the background to be trained more adequately to take on the higher positions than the sons and daughters of these second and third generation coalminers? 1 urge the Government to examine this question closely to ascertain where this shortage of technically trained people will occur in the future. I have been assured by people in the industry that this could reach a crisis point. Who would be more entitled to fill those positions than the sons and daughters of the toilers - the ordinary, average miners in these communities? I intend to go into this matter far more closely and I shall perhaps present something more constructive to the House on another occasion.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

It is my understanding-

Motion (by Mr Wentworth) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.22 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2646

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Container Shipping (Question No. 4025)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What percentage of Australia’s trade is carried on each route served by container ships.
  2. What percentage of Australia’s trade on those routes is now carried by container ships.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport, I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to this question.

The percentage of the inward and outward movement’ of cargo of Australia’s liner trade and Australia’s total trade (all vessels) for 1969-70, in terms of tons weight or tons measure (unit of 40 cubic feet), for each major trade area served by cellular container vessels is given in the following table:

Cargo is recorded in terms of tons weight or tons measure depending on the basis on which freight is charged. A single standard unit of weight is not yet available. Almost all container cargo is carried by liner services.

  1. Statistics of cargo carried in containers on cellular container vessels are not compiled separately. Statistics of all cargo carried in containers, irrespective of the type of vessel used are currently being developed but are not yet available for publication.

Canberra and Australian Capital Territory: Development of Tuggeranong (Question No. 4042)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. What area of land has been acquired by the Government for the development of the satellite city of Tuggeranong over the last 5 years.
  2. What was the value of this land on each occasion on which it was valued between 1950 and either the date it was acquired or now.
  3. Is it a fact that the Government is at present negotiating with the landowners over the price of the land still to be acquired.
  4. When was the attention of the Government first drawn to the fact that land would have to be acquired to develop Tuggeranong.
  5. Is it a fact that the price being asked by, the landowners is higher than the price the Commonwealth is prepared to pay because certain landowners have plans to subdivide and develop the land themselves for urban and semiurban purposes.
  6. When was the attention of the Government first drawn to these plans for private development.
  7. What price per acre is being asked by the landowners concerned.
  8. What reasons have been advanced by the landowners to support the prices being asked.
  9. Does a part of the price being asked cover the loss of the right to subdivide and develop privately; if so, what amount does this part of the price represent.
  10. Why was the land not acquired when its value was less than it is now and leased back to the occupiers until such time as the Government was ready to proceed with the development of Tuggeranong.
  11. Will the increased price that now has to be paid for the land be reflected in the reserve prices that will apply to land in Tuggeranong.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. About 22,353 acres.
  2. In 1957 and 1967, values were determined for the purposes of the Rates Ordinance only, to be $113,900 and $471,900 respectively. It would be quite misleading to compare these formal determinations with the amount which may be paid to former owners for compensation as a result of the recent acquisition.
  3. There is no land still to be acquired.
  4. The National Capital Development Commission advised in 1967 that it was contemplating development of this area.
  5. Agreement has been reached with most of the former landholders, negotiations are proceeding with others. In one case the owner indicated that he had plans to subdivide for urban development.
  7. , (8) and (9) These are subject of current negotiations.
  8. The decision to acquire these lands was taken in 1970 following consideration by the Government of recommendations by the Joint Committee on the A.C.T. in 1968. The Committee’s report was tabled in Parliament on 13th March 1968.
  9. The cost of acquisition will be taken into account.

Shipping (Question No. 4077)

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

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. In view of the Government’s stated intention of gaining a window on overseas shipping activities by very considerable investment in new vessels and the forthcoming introduction of another Australian National Line vessel in the Australia North America trade, can he provide a comparison of the results of the cellular container vessel which the Australian National Line has now operated for a substantial timein the European trade and the rollon rolloff vessel in the Japan trade in respect of the average (a) time in port in Australia, (b) cost per ton of loading and unloading in Australia, (c) tonnage carried, import and export, (d) gross revenue earned per voyage, import and export and (e) net revenue earned per voyage, import and export.
  2. Can he indicate from the information available to date which type of vessel is now considered more suitable for Australia’s overseas trading needs; if not, when does he expect the Government’s heavy expenditure will provide the promised window.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport, I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) The average time spent in port in Australia per voyage by the two A.N.L. ships during the period September 1969 to June 1971 are: 26,420 Ton Cellular Container ship (9 voyages calling at three Australian ports per voyage) - 337 hours 14,082 Ton Rollon Rolloff ship (21 voyages calling at three Australian ports per voyage) - 105 hours.

    1. (d) and (e) In the operation of its overseas cellular container and rollon rolloff ships, the Australian National Line is working with a consortium of private shipping companies in the European and Japanese trades respectively. The disclosure of the financial details sought on cost per ton of loading and unloading in Australia, gross revenue earned per voyage, import and export, and net revenue earned per voyage, import and export, would be regarded as a breach of commercial confidence. In those circumstances I am not prepared to supply this information.
    2. The average tonnage carried by these two ships during the period stated in the answer to part (a) is:
  1. The two vessels were specifically designed for the particular trades which they now serve.

Available information indicates that both vessels are fulfilling the roles for which they were intended.

Oil (Question No. 4146)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Will increases in the price of Middle East crude oil mean Increases in the cost of producing oil from Esso-BHP’s leases in Bass Strait.
  2. Has his attention ben drawn to a statement at the Annual General Meeting of The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd on 8th September, 1971 by the Chairman, Sir Ian McLennan, calling for an increase in the price of Australian crude oil as a consequence of increases in the price of overseas crude oil.
  3. Has his attention also been drawn to a statement in The Australian Financial Review of 26th March 1970 in which a leading expert on the Australian oil industry, Dr Alex Hunter, claimed that Esso-BHP will make over 100 per cent aftertax profits from its Bass Strait leases.
  4. Will he insist that Esso-BHP demonstrate increases in costs as the basis of any increase in the price it obtains for its crude oil.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Increased prices of Middle East crude will not have any direct effect on the cost of production of oil from Bass Strait.
  2. Sir Ian McLennan stated in his speech that BHP has not sought to vary the arrangement by which the Commonwealth Government fixed the price of Australian crude oil until 1975. However, he went on to state his view that the case for a revision of the price prior to 1975 deserved very careful attention as a means of stimulating exploration for petroleum in this country.
  3. Yes. The late Dr Hunter did publish such an estimate which be stated was ‘over a 10 year period’.
  4. The then Prime Minister announced on 10th October 1968 the basis on which the price of Australian crude oil would be determined for the 5 years following 17th September 1970; and no decision has been made to depart from the policy so announced.

If and when the Government should review the price, all appropriate factors would be taken into consideration.

Australian Capital Territory Police (Question No. 4174)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Which of the documents referred to in his answer to my, question No. 3871 (Hansard, 7th September 1971, page 890) contain the relevant police instructions, directions or advice that constables should follow in relation to an accused person during the time that that person is in custody after having been arrested and before he is released on bail.
  2. Have any of the documents containing these instructions, directions or advice been altered or revised in any way since 1st January 1970.
  3. If so, what alterations or revisions have been made.
  4. Has Instruction No. 16 in the Police General Orders and Instruction Manual been amended or altered in any way since 1st January 1970.
  5. What are the full terms and text of the present police instructions or advice regarding fingerprinting of persons in custody.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The A.C.T. Police General Orders and Instructions manual.
  2. and (3) Yes. Further instructions have been issued about: procedures when a defendant is bailed and where surety bail is accepted. procedures relating to the taking of fingerprints and photographs. the taking of recognizances. procedures concerning the examination by legally qualified medical practitioners of persons arrested and charged for an offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
  3. There is no General Order No. 16. The number will be used for a future addition to the manual.
  4. As stated in answer to Question No. 3871 (Hansard, 7th September 1971, page 890) the manual is an internal working document issued only, to serving members of the police force. If the honourable member requires the information in relation to an incident involving a member of the A.C.T. Police Force in the execution of his duty, the Commissioner of Police will provide full information about an order or instruction.

Convention on the Political Rights of Women (Question No. 4175)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Why did the Commonwealth wait until 12th June 1969 to supply the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations with the information which, in reply to its request of 18th July 1968, the States gave it in July and August 1968 on the implementation of the principles of the 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women (Hansard, 3 May 1971, page 2418).
  2. On what other dates (a) has the Commonwealth sought from the States, (b) have the States given the Commonwealth and (c) has the Commonwealth given the SecretaryGeneral the information which the Economic and Social Council on 12th July 1963 invited governments to supply on the convention every two years.
  3. Will he table, in the House or the Library, copies of the successive information supplied to the SecretaryGeneral.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The information provided by governments in response to the SecretaryGeneral’s 1968 inquiry was published by the United Nations in two reports, namely document A/7197 dated 14th November 1968 and A/7635 dated 15th December 1969. The Australian information was not submitted in time for its inclusion in the 1968 report but its submission in June 1969 ensured that it would be included along with the reports of a number of other countries in the 1969 report.
  2. While I cannot give specific dates of all this correspondence between the Commonwealth and States I can state that inquiries were made of the States in April 1964 (and replies received through April,June of that year), in July 1968 (and replies received through July,August) and in July 1970 (and replies received through July, October).

The information supplied to the Secretary General and the dates on which it was provided are contained in document, E/C N6/470/Add 2 of 15th February 1967, document A/7635 of 15th December 1969 and document A/8132/Add 1 of 17th December 1970.

  1. The information supplied to the Secretary General by Australia and other Governments is available in the United Nations documents which are referred to in my answers to questions (1) and (2). These documents are available in the Parliamentary Library.

Weights and Measures (Question No. 4183)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia a member of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
  2. If so, (a) when did it join, (b) what has it contributed and (c) has it been a member of the International Conference.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Australia is a member of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

  2. (a) Australia joined the Bureau in 1947.

    1. Contributions since 1961-62 are given below:
  1. Australia has been represented in the Conference of Weights and Measures since the 10th Conference held in 1955. The 14th Conference will be held later this year and Australia will again be represented.

South Australia Police Force (Question No. 3418)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Which of the recommendations of Mr Justice Bright on the South Australian Police Force are considered relevant to the Commonwealth Police Force.

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

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

Mr Justice Bright enquired into matters connected with a moratorium demonstration in the streets of Adelaide. The control of such demonstrations is essentially a matter for a State Police Force or, in a Territory, for the Police Force of the Territory.

Bigamous Relationships: Legal Assistance (Question No. 3919)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Does the Australian Government provide any form of legal assistance to Australian citizens who have unknowingly entered into bigamous relationships with persons who were married prior to coming to Australia.
  2. If so, what is the form of this legal assistance.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth Government does not provide legal assistance in these cases.

Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory: Criminal Code (Question No. 3968)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is a code of criminal laws for the Australian Capital Territory being prepared by the Attorney General’s Department.
  2. If so, does the proposed code effect substantial changes to many of the existing criminal laws of the Territory.
  3. Are many of the changes related to matters of punishment and other serious controversial questions such as the kind of behaviour which should or should not be regarded as criminal.
  4. Will he give an assurance that the code when it is introduced will be introduced by Bill and not by Ordinance and that there will be ample time allowed forit to be considered before being debated.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes. (2)-(4) The code deals with substantial matters of principle. The AttorneyGeneral said in the Senate on 25th August 1971 that legislation will be introduced by means of a Bill for an Act of the Parliament.

Public Service: Education Fees (Question No. 3980)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

For how many of its employees did the Commonwealth pay fees in 1970 at (a) universities, (b) colleges of advanced education, (c) teachers’ colleges (d) technical colleges, and (e) other educational institutions.

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

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. 3,167
  2. 1,792
  3. 54
  4. 3,900
  5. 1,320

It should be noted that these statistics only refer to staff employed under the Public Service Act. Figures are not available for other staff employed by the Commonwealth.

Child Minding Centres (Question No. 4076)

Mr Webb:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is it the intention of the Government to fulfil the promise of the former Prime Minister regarding the establishment of child minding centres for working mothers.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

As the honourable member is aware, the economic situation has altered since the child care proposal was announced. Because of the Government’s appreciation of the importance of restraining inflationary pressures currently evident in the community, it adopted a deliberate policy of curtailing Commonwealth expenditure and in the light of that policy, the decision was taken to defer the proposal.

In the meantime the issues relating to child care will continue to be examined by the Government in preparation for the time when the matter is further considered.

Administrative Law Reform (Question No. 4119)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister represent ing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there is great need for the reform of the administrative law.
  2. Is it also a fact that the AttorneyGeneral commissioned a committee consisting of Mr Justice Kerr, Mr Justice Mason, the Solicitor General (Mr Ellicott) and Professor Whitmore of the Australian National University, known as the Commonwealth Administrative Law Review Committee, to report on administrative law reforms.
  3. If so, when was the report completed and forwarded to the AttorneyGeneral.
  4. Will the AttorneyGeneral table the report, publish it or otherwise make it available for inspection.
Mr H N Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1H4) An Administrative Review Committee was set up by the then Attorney-General, Mr Nigel Bowen, Q.C., on 29th October 1968 to consider matters relating to the review of administrative decisions, and to report its conclusions to the Government. The Committee, constituted as mentioned in the question, sent me its Report on 25th August 1971. The Report was tabled on 14th October 1971.

Commonwealth Public Service (Question No. 4156)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. In what year did the Commonwealth first begin paying child endowment to Commonwealth Public Servants.
  2. What was the amount paid in respect of each child.
  3. What percentage of the then basic wage did that payment represent and what is it today.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. In 1920 a scheme was introduced for the payment of an allowance to married officers employed under the Public Service Act with dependent children.
  2. The relevant regulation provided for the payment of an allowance at the following rate: - to each married officer who has children under the age of fourteen years dependent upon him and who is in receipt of salary at a rate not exceeding £500 per annum- the sum of £13 per annum in respect of each such child so dependent:

Provided that the sum payable under this paragraph in respect of each child shall be reduced by £1 for every £16 by which the rate of salary exceeds £300 per annum.’

  1. In 1920 the allowance of £13 per annum for each dependent child under fourteen years of age represented 6.3% of the 1920 Federal basic wage. There is now no basic wage applicable to the Commonwealth Service.

Commonwealth Cars (Question No. 4194)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. What has been the average mileage obtained from (a) tyres and (b) batteries purchased for Commonwealth cars each year since 1949.
  2. What has been the average cost of (a) tyres and (b) batteries purchased for Commonwealth cars each year since 1949.
  3. If this information is not available for each year since 1949, would he provide it for those years for which it is available.
  4. If the information is not available for any of the years, would he ensure that in future approproae records are kept to provide these measures of motoring costs per mile.
Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question, in so far as vehicles operated by the Department of Supply are concerned, is as follows:

  1. Statistics are not compiled of the average mileages obtained from tyres or batteries purchased for Commonwealth cars.
  2. Statistics are not compiled of the average cost of tyres or batteries purchased for Commonwealth cars. Average costs per mile of tyres and tubes for Commonwealth cars for the last three years are as follows:
  1. See answers (1) and (2).
  2. It is considered that the statistics now compiled provide sufficient measure of motoring costs per mile, bearing in mind the cost which would be involved in compiling additional statistics.

Railways: Port Augusta to Whyalla (Question No. 4413)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will the track laying on the new Commonwealth Railways line from Port Augusta to Whyalla be carried out by experienced Commonwealth Railways track laying staff or by private contract.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Public tenders are to be called for’ tracklaying on the Port Augusta/Whyalla railway. It is understood Commonwealth Railways will be submitting a tender. The successful contractor will be chosen on his merits.

Homes Savings Grants (Question No. 4217)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for giants under the Homes Savings Grant Act were received in the years ending 30th June 1965, 1967, 1969, 1970 and 1971.
  2. How many applications were granted in each year.
  3. What percentage of the rejections in each year were due to (a) late lodgment of application, (b) excessive cost of home and (c) unacceptable method of saving.
  4. How many appeals against rejection were lodged in each year.
  5. What percentage of the appeals in each of the categories in part (3) of the question were upheld.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) The numbers of applications for Home Savings Grants received and approved in each of the years ended 30th June 1965, 1967, 1969. 1970 and 1971 were:
  1. The percentages of the total number of rejections due to each of the reasons mentioned, were:
  1. The number ofappeals to the Secretary under section 11 of the Homes Savings Grant Act against the rejection of applications for the reasons mentioned in part (3) of the question in the years ended 30th June 1969, 1970 and 1971 are shown below. Statistics relating to those appeals were not maintained prior to 1968.
  1. The percentage of appeals in each of the categories in part (3) of the question that were upheld were:

Alice Springs: Underground Water Supply (Question No. 4405)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What mineral concentrations have been found in the proposed underground water supply for Alice Springs.
  2. What assays will be made of variations in these concentrations attributable to the cement lining of the proposed pipeline.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. The mineral content of underground water from bores in current use ranges from 300 to 400 milligrams of total dissolved solids per litre.

A typical detailed analysis is as follows:

  1. No significant change in water quality is expected as a result of the use of a cementlined pipeline. Only occasional chemical analyses of samples will be made.

Papua New Guinea: Education (Question No. 4343)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Can he obtain from the Ministerial Member for Education in the House of Assembly the number of children in Papua New Guinea in:

sixth (final) class of primary school and

first form of secondary school for each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Education in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Education has provided the following information:

Papua New Guinea: Shipping (Question No. 4241)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What vessels were added to the Register of Shipping for Papua New Guinea during the year 1970-71.
  2. What was the (a) type, (b) gross tonnage and (c) country, of origin in each case.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to 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.

It is also advised that Port Moresby registration was issued by the Registrar of British Ships to the following vessels during the calendar year 1970.

Papua New Guinea: Taxation (Question No. 4245)

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) resident and (b) non resident companies in Papua New Guinea have taxable incomes in excess of $100,000.
  2. Which of these companies hold freehold land in the Territory, where is the land located, and what is the area of each holding.
  3. Who are the Directors of each of the companies.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for the Treasury in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for the Treasury has provided the following information:

The latest available income statistics published by the Bureau of Statistics for the year ended 30th. June 1969 show that 73 companies derived taxable incomes in excess of $100,000 in that year. Of these 63 (86 per cent) are classified as residents of Papua New Guinea while 10 are classified as non-residents.

and (3) The information to answer these questions is not available because the identification of the names of the Companies would involve the disclosure of confidential tax data.

Health Education (Question No. 2807)

Dr Klugman:

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

What is his Department doing to discourage (a) smoking and (b) the drinking of alcohol by school children attending schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory-

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

In the Australian Capital Territory schools are operated under the New South Wales Department of Education curriculum, and are staffed by New South Wales teachers. The topics mentioned in your question are included in the health education section of the curriculum. My Department provides educational material for use in schools on smoking and alcohol in the form of pamphlets, books and films.

In the Northern Territory, a health education specialist has recently taken up duty with my Department. Under his guidance, a complete and expanded programme of health education is currently being developed. This programme will include the topics of smoking and alcohol.

Industrial Information Bulletin (Question No. 4420)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

When will the August 1971 issue of the Industrial Information Bulletin be available for distribution.

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

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

Present indications are that the August 1971 issue will be available for distribution in December 1971.

Immigration: Transport Payments (Question No. 3698)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

What payments have been made by the Department of Immigration to (a) Qantas; (b) other airlines and (c) shipping companies for the transport of migrants to Australia in each of the last five years.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Assisted passage migrants accepted under bilateral schemes or arrangements with countries of emigration travel to Australia on transport provided by the Commonwealth or by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM). Assisted migrants approved under the unilaterally administered Special Passage Assistance Programme (SPAP) can either travel on Government arranged transport or make their own travel arrangements.
  2. Payments made for migrants travelling on transport arranged by the Commonwealth:
  1. Payments made by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration on behalf of the Commonwealth Government for the transport of assisted migrants:

Payments by ICEM to airlines for assisted passage movements to Australia are not recorded separately. Therefore, the above figures have been calculated by dissecting the total cost of air transport to Australia in proportion to the number of persons who travelled as assisted and unassisted migrants.

  1. No figures are available to show the amounts paid to various airlines and shipping companies by migrants who arranged their own travel to Australia under the Special Passage Assistance Programme.

Deportations (Question No. 4305)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Crimes Act provides that naturalised Australian citizens are liable to deportation despite long-term residence.
  2. If so, is there any reason why this provision should not be withdrawn if it discriminates against those citizens not born in Australia.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I would draw the attention of the honourable member to parts (1) and (2) of the answer given by the AttorneyGeneral to question No. 1791 (Hansard of 30th October 1970, page 3158) which read as follows:

In 1926 the Crimes Act was amended to provide in section 30l that the AttorneyGeneral may by order under his hand direct any person to be deported from the Commonwealth who was not born in Australia and who is convicted of an offence under sections 30c or 30j or 30q of the Act. Subsequent amendments of the Act have not affected the powers granted under this section.

These provisions appear never to have been used and consideration will be given to amending the Crimes Act in this respect when the Act is next under review.

Immigrants: State Figures (Question No. 4306)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is a record kept of the number of migrants who settle in the various States of Australia.
  2. If so, how many migrants have settled in each State since the commencement of the immigration programme.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Only since 1963 has a record been kept of the States and Territories of intended residence of settlers arriving in Australia. There is no guarantee that the intention to reside in any State, as indicated by each settler on an incoming passenger card, was actually, realised.
  2. During the period January 1963 to June 1971, 1,272,551 settlers arrived in Australia. Their distribution by States and Territories of intended residence was as follows:

Immigrants from NonEnglish Speaking Countries (Question No. 4309)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many migrants from nonEnglish speaking countries have arrived in Australia in the last 12 months.
  2. What is the (a) country of origin and (b) percentage of these migrants who would have a working knowledge of the English language.
  3. How many were (a) adults and (b) children.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (3) During the financial year 1970-71, 87,449 of the 170,011 settlers who arrived in Australia last resided in countries other than the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Malta, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.

Of the 87,449 settlers from nonEnglish speaking countries in 1970-71, 34,498 were under twenty years of age, and 52,951 were twenty years of age or over.

  1. No record is kept of the number of migrants entering Australia who have a working knowledge of the English language. A knowledge of English is not a prerequisite for entry, though intending migrants who wish to follow their normal occupation in which a knowledge of English is essential would generally be expected to have some fluency, in the language. For those migrants who do not know English, language classes are available at the pre-embarkation stage, on board ship, and in a variety of ways after arrival in Australia.

Department of Immigration: Offices in Canberra (Question No. 4310)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice:

  1. What are the locations of premises occupied by his Department in the Australian Capita] Territory.
  2. What sections of the Department function at each of these locations.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Office accommodation occupied by the Department of Immigration in the Australian Capital Territory is as follows:

    1. Unit 5, Barton;
    2. Former International Training Centre and Annexe, Barton;
    3. First floor, Commerce House, Barton;
    4. Portion of ground floor, Melbourne Buildings, 22 West Row, City;
    5. First three floors, Northbourne House, Turner.

  2. The Branches and/or Sections accommodated in each of these buildings are as follows:

World Drug Problem (Question No. 4075)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mrs R. W. Askin, wife of the Premier of New South Wales, when opening a Liberal Women’s public affairs seminar on 25th August 1971, that the world drug problem was a Communist plot.
  2. If so, does the Government share this view.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

I have not seen the transcript of the statement attributed to Mrs Askin.

Education: Commonwealth Technical Scholarships (Question No. 4319)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Educa tion and Science, upon notice:

How many students at each technical high school in the Electoral Division of Kingston have (a) sat for and (b) been awarded Commonwealth technical scholarships in each year since the technical scholarships scheme was introduced.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However, if the honourable member cares to provide me with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then I will see what details are available for those schools. In South Australia Commonwealth Technical Scholarships are open to students enrolled in the fourth form of secondary schooling at technical high and other secondary schools as well. They are also open to other students who are qualified to enter or have already enrolled in approved technical courses.

Education: Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships (Question No. 4320)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Educa tion and Science, upon notice:

What (a) number and (b) percentage of students have (i) sat for and (ii) been awarded Commonwealth secondary scholarships, in each school in the Electoral Division of Kingston, in each year since the scholarship scheme was introduced.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However, if the honourable member cares to provide me with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then I will see what details are available for those schools. What information is available will relate only to the number of applicants and of scholarship winners since statistics of enrolments at particular schools are not kept by my Department.

Sydney Airport Development Advisory Committee (Question No. 4471)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. When was the Advisory Committee on developments at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport established.
  2. How many times has it met.
  3. Which organisations are represented on the Committee.
  4. Are any popularly elected representatives included on the Committee.
  5. What are the Terms of Reference of the Committee.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. September 1970.
  2. Nine.
  3. TAA, AAA, EWA, Qantas, Australian Air Freight Forwarders Association, the Oil Companies, the Association of Commercial Flying Organisations, the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia, the State Planning Authority, the Departments of Health, Customs. Immigration, Works and Civil Aviation.
  4. No, it is a technical committee.
  5. To review the master plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, bearing in mind known and expected requirements for the movement of aircraft, passengers, mails and freight and the expected availability of a second Sydney primary airport.

Butter and Vegetable Oil Spreads (Question No. 4294)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Prim ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has research work been carried out in Australia on the combination of butterfat and vegetable oil to produce a new type spread.
  2. Has the Australian Dairy Produce Board been actively investigating this possibility; if so, have successful combinations been found either at home or abroad.
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to continue to support butterfat production used for a combined spread.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Some research is being carried out in Australia to test possible consumer reaction to spreads made from combinations of butter and vegetable oils.
  2. The work is being carried out under the dairy research programme administered by the Australian Dairy Produce Board. No conclusive results are yet available. The Board advises that a product named Bregott which combines butter oil and vegetable oils is being sold in Sweden.
  3. The Government’s policy on bounty on butter production is reflected in the provisions of the Dairying Industry Act 1962-1970. Under this Act bounty is payable on the production of butter and defined butterfat products. The bounty is payable on the production of the product and not the use to which it is put.

Naval Defence Act: Determinations (Question No. 4476)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many determinations have been made under section 42a of the Naval Defence Act during (a) 1968, (b) 1969, (c) 1970 and (d) 1971, to date.
  2. Have any arrangements been made to make these determinations available to employees and associations of employees during any and each of the years since 1968; if not, why not.
  3. If determinations have not been made available will arrangements be made as soon as possible to make them available.
Dr Mackay:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Determinations have been made under section 42a of the Naval Defence Act 1910-1971 as follows:

    1. 1968-16
    2. 1969-31
    3. 1970-37
    4. 1971-37 (to date).
  2. Details of the effect of determinations have been made available to employees and associations of employees as appropriate, but there has been no regular distribution of copies of the determinations to employees and associations in the years specified. The determinations have been distributed to Departmental personnel authorities in each State Administration. These are available to give information to, and answers from, employees and associations of employees. The determinations in themselves are not suitable for wide distribution to employees as much of the drafting is by reference to other legislation and also they are not in a form which facilitates incorporation of amendments in any distributed copies. To date staff shortages have prevented the completion and issue of a loose-leaf set of conditions which would avoid these difficulties.
  3. A consolidated determination for salaried staff is in the final stages of drafting and when this has been made it will be put in a loose-leaf form suitable for reference by employees and issued to associations concerned. Similar action will be taken at a later date for determinations covering wages staff.

Papua New Guinea: Use of Military Forces in Times of Domestic Violence (Question No. 3628)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

  1. What were the terms of the order of 19th July, 1970. calling out those members of the Defence Force serving in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea for the protection of the Territory against domestic violence?
  2. What changes were made in those terms after the Cabinet discussions in September, 1970? (Hansard. 16th March, 1971, pages 889 and 896).
  3. Did Cabinet make any further changes in those terms at its meeting on 12tn March, 1971; if so, what changes were made?
  4. Has Cabinet considered the order at any later meeting; if so, what decision was made?
  5. Has the status of the revocation order been raised with the Prime Minister since it was raised with him on 16th March, 1971; if so, with what result? 6. (a) has a decision yet been made whether the position in the Territory under the Defence Act and Australian Military Regulations and Orders should be on all fours with the position in the States (Hansard, page 889); (b) if so, what decision was made; (c) if not, when is it expected that a decision will be made?
  6. Has the matter been raised with the Administrator’s Executive Council; if so, with what result7
Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1-5. See the answer given by the Prime Minister in reply to Question No. 2364 (Hansard, 15th September, 1971, pages 1395 and 1396). 6-7. Since my predecessor’s statement in the House of Representatives on 16th March, consideration has continued of the procedures for the employment of elements of the Defence Force in aid of the civil power in Papua New Guinea, should this become necessary. The Administrator and the Executive Council will be consulted.

South East Asia: Reduction of Forces (Question No. 3640)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. When is each unit in (a) Vietnam and (b) Singapore due to complete its tour of duty?
  2. What reduction has the United States (a) made in numbers of her forces in Vietnam in the last 12 months and (b) announced that she will make in the next 12 months?
  3. What reduction has Britain (a) made in the numbers of her forces in Malaysia-Singapore in the last 12 months and (b) announced that she will make in the next 12 months.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1. (a) Vietnam -

  1. Navy - HMAS ‘Brisbane’ - arrived in Brisbane on 11th October 1971.
  2. Army - 3rd Battalion RAR - returned to Australia on 16th October. 4th Battalion RAR- December 1971.

  3. Air Force - No. 9 Squadron - December 1971. No. 35 Squadron - early 1972.

    1. Singapore -
    2. Navy - HMAS ‘Parramatta’ - arrived in Fremantle 6th October 1971. HMAS ‘Derwent’ - mid December 1971.
  4. Army - 6th Battalion RAR - December 1973. 108 Field Battery- December 1971.
  5. Air Force - RAAF Support Unit Tengah - Personnel in the unit complete tours of 2 to 2i years.

RAAF Advisory Flight attached to Singapore Armed Forces - This unit is training personnel of the Singapore Armed Forces in the use of the Bloodhound missile. It is expected to complete its task in about 2 years.

  1. United States Withdrawals from South Vietnam - President Nixon announced on 7th April 1971 that a total of 265,000 men would have been withdrawn from Vietnam by 1st May 1971, and that a further 100,000 were to be withdrawn between 1st May and 1st December 1971.
  2. British Force Reductions in Malaysia and Singapore - Britain has announced that her forces in the Mediterranean, Middle and Far East were reduced by a total of some 3,600 during 1970 and that in the financial year 1971-72 the strength of her Army Combat Forces in the Far East, including Hong Kong, would be some 5,900 less than in the previous year. The reductions in Navy and Air strengths have not been announced.

Aboriginal Children: Health (Question No. 4223)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. ’ Did the Queensland Institute of Medical Research establish that there was a protein-calorie* malnutrition syndrome among Aboriginal children; if so, when was this matter first reported.
  2. Has this evidence been confirmed by previous and subsequent reports of research work amongst Aboriginal groups in other parts of Australia; if so, can he give details and indicate the dates of the reports.
  3. What are the general findings in the report of the Institute in relation to general health and mortality rates among Aborigines.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Yes - in that growth retardation was established and rate of growth as an index of proteincalorie malnutrition is accepted practice. June 1969.
  2. YesAustralian Paediatric Journal, June 1969, pp. 71-88

American Journal of Child Nutrition, June 1969, pp. 716-724

Medical Journal of Australia, 21st February 1970, pp. 349-356

  1. The Institute’s 1971 Annual Report says that the results of a survey in March-May 1971 of all children on the Mitchell River and Edward River communities on Cape York Peninsula indicate a high rate of mortality and morbidity among Aboriginal children in those two communities.

Housing: Ministerial Meetings (Question No. 4260)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Housing Ministers since he postponed the meeting arranged for March 1971.
  2. What has been the outcome of each meeting.
  3. Will he answer this question before he introduces legislation consequent on the expiry of the Housing Agreement on 30th June 1971.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The meeting arranged for March . 1971 was a regular annual meeting of State Housing Ministers to which my predecessor had been invited by them and at which CommonwealthState Housing arrangements were to have been discussed. When, because of changesin the Ministry, it proved impracticable to present Commonwealth proposals at that time the State Ministers decided to postpone the meeting.

There have been two meetings of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers since March at Canberra on 27th August 1971 and at Sydney on 17th September 1971.

  1. and (3) The first meeting was adjourned to enable further consideration to be given to the Commonwealth’s proposals, and the final outcome was announced in a joint press statement after the September meeting in the following terms.

The State Housing Ministers today announced they had agreed to accept Commonwealth proposals for housing grants in respect to their activities over the next 5 years, subject to a number of variations in details agreed between them. It was also agreed that, in future, housing for servicemen should be dealt with under a separate agreement by which construction would continue to be carried out by the States, with the Commonwealth to meet the full costs. The main principles of the proposals were agreed to, and detailed documents are to be submitted to the States in due course’.

International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment (Question No. 4407)

DrEveringham asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

What action has been taken by the Government to implement the resolution of the International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment that governments should begin international negotiations on pollution control, research and environmental aspects of treaties and foreign aid.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

The report of the International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment held in Bonn in June 1971 has been brought to the attention of the Government and also to the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Human Environment. Many of the issues raised in the report will be discussed at the Stockholm Conference or are being discussed in the Intergovernmental Working Groups on Soils, Marine Pollution. Conservation and Monitoring. Australia is represented on these Working Groups. Regard will be paid to the report of the International Parliamentary Conference in the preparation of Australia’s brief for the Stockholm meeting.

Tariff Board: Uncompleted Public Hearings (Question No. 3929)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

On what dates and matters has he or his predecessor made references to the Tariff Board on which the Board has not yet completed public hearings.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The table below lists references, by subject and date, to the Tariff Board, on which public hearings were not complete, as at 11th October, 1971. Included in the table and identified by the term (D&S), are references made by the Minister for Customs and Excise under the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act.

Tariff Board: Completed Hearings (Question No. 3930)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

On what dates and matters has the Tariff Board completed public .hearings on references on which it has not yet reported.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The table below lists matters under reference to the Tariff Board on which the Board had, as at 11th October 1971, completed public hearings, but has not yet forwarded a report. References by the Minister for Customs and Excise under the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act are included and identified by the term (D & S).

Tariff Boards: Reports to be Tabled (Question No. 3931)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

On what dates and matters has the Tariff Board signed reports which have not yet been tabled.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The table below lists reports which as at 11th October 1971, had been signed by the Tariff Board and received either by myself as Minister for Trade and Industry or, being reports on references under the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, by the Minister for Customs and Excise. The latter are identified in the table by the term (D. & S.).

The table does not, however, include any report which may have been signed by the Board but not received by the appropriate Minister as at 11th October 1971.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711027_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant